{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_73959/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_73959","id":"gutenberg_73959","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73959","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jansenists -- France -- Early works to 1800","Jesuits -- Early works to 1800","Port-Royal des Champs (Abbey) -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"THE\n\n PROVINCIAL LETTERS\n\n OF\n\n BLAISE PASCAL.\n\n\n\n\n A NEW TRANSLATION\n\n WITH HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES,\n\n BY\n\n THE REV. THOMAS M\u2018CRIE.\n\n EDINBURGH.\n\n\n\n\n If my letters are condemned at Rome, that which I condemn in\n them is condemned in heaven.\u2014PASCAL.\n\n\n\n\n NEW YORK:\n ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS\n No. 530 BROADWAY.\n\n ------------------\n\n 1856.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n PAGE\n\n PREFACE, vii\n\n\n HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION, ix\n\n\n LETTER I.\n\n Disputes in the Sorbonne, and the invention of proximate power\u2014a\n term employed by the Jesuits to procure the censure of M.\n Arnauld, 63\n\n\n LETTER II.\n\n Of sufficient grace, which turns out to be not\n sufficient\u2014Concert between the Jesuits and the Dominicans\u2014A\n parable, 76\n\n\n Reply of \u201cthe Provincial\u201d to the first two Letters, 88\n\n\n LETTER III.\n\n Injustice, absurdity, and nullity of the censure on M. Arnauld\u2014A\n personal heresy, 90\n\n\n LETTER IV.\n\n Actual grace and sins of ignorance\u2014Father Bauny\u2019s Summary of\n sins, 100\n\n\n LETTER V.\n\n Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new system of morals\u2014Two\n sorts of casuists among them\u2014A great many lax and some severe\n ones\u2014Reason of this difference\u2014Explanation of the doctrine of\n probabilism\u2014A multitude of modern and unknown authors\n substituted in the place of the holy fathers\u2014Escobar, 116\n\n\n LETTER VI.\n\n Various artifices of the Jesuits to elude the authority of the\n gospel, of councils, and of the popes\u2014Some consequences\n resulting from their doctrine of probability\u2014Their relaxations\n in favor of beneficiaries, of priests, of monks, and of\n domestics\u2014Story of John d\u2019Alba, 135\n\n\n LETTER VII.\n\n Method of directing the intention adopted by the\n casuists\u2014Permission to kill in defence of honor and property,\n extended even to priests and monks\u2014Curious question raised as\n to whether Jesuits may be allowed to kill Jansenists, 152\n\n\n LETTER VIII.\n\n Corrupt maxims of the casuists relating to judges\u2014Usurers\u2014The\n Contract Mohatra\u2014Bankrupts\u2014Restitution\u2014Divers ridiculous\n notions of these same casuists, 170\n\n\n LETTER IX.\n\n False worship of the Virgin introduced by the Jesuits\u2014Devotion\n made easy\u2014Their maxims on ambition, envy, gluttony,\n equivocation, mental reservations, female dress, gaming, and\n hearing mass, 188\n\n\n LETTER X.\n\n Palliatives applied by the Jesuits to the sacrament of penance,\n in their maxims regarding confession, satisfaction,\n absolution, proximate occasions of sin, and love to God, 206\n\n\n LETTER XI.\n\n The Letters vindicated from the charge of profaneness\u2014Ridicule a\n fair weapon, when employed against absurd opinions\u2014Rules to be\n observed in the use of this weapon\u2014Charitableness and\n discretion of the Provincial Letters\u2014Specimens of genuine\n profaneness in the writings of Jesuits, 225\n\n\n LETTER XII.\n\n The quirks and chicaneries of the Jesuits on the subjects of\n alms-giving and simony, 243\n\n\n LETTER XIII.\n\n Fidelity of Pascal\u2019s quotations\u2014Speculative murder\u2014Killing for\n slander\u2014Fear of the consequences\u2014The policy of Jesuitism, 260\n\n\n LETTER XIV.\n\n On murder\u2014The Scriptures on murder\u2014Lessius, Molina, and Layman\n on murder\u2014Christian and Jesuitical legislation contrasted, 277\n\n\n LETTER XV.\n\n On calumny\u2014M. Puys and Father Alby\u2014An odd heresy\u2014Barefaced\n denials\u2014Flat contradictions and vague insinuations employed by\n the Jesuits\u2014The Capuchin\u2019s _Mentiris impudentissime_, 295\n\n\n LETTER XVI.\n\n Calumnies against Port-Royal\u2014Port-Royalists no heretics\u2014M. de\n St. Cyran and M. Arnauld vindicated\u2014Slanders against the nuns\n of Port-Royal\u2014Miracle of the holy thorn\u2014No impunity for\n slanderers\u2014Excuse for a long letter, 314\n\n\n LETTER XVII.\n\n The author of the Letters vindicated from the charge of\n heresy\u2014The five propositions\u2014The popes fallible in matters of\n fact\u2014Persecution of the Jansenists\u2014The grand object of the\n Jesuits, 341\n\n\n LETTER XVIII.\n\n The sense of Jansenius not the sense of Calvin\u2014Resistibility of\n grace\u2014Jansenius no heretic\u2014The popes may be\n surprised\u2014Testimony of the senses\u2014Condemnation of\n Galileo\u2014Conclusion, 366\n\n\n LETTER XIX.\n\n Fragment of a nineteenth Provincial Letter, addressed to P\u00e8re\n Annat, 391\n\n\n\n\n THE TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\nThe following translation of the Provincial Letters was undertaken\nseveral years ago, in compliance with the suggestion of a revered\nparent, chiefly as a literary recreation in a retired country charge,\nand, after being finished, was laid aside. It is now published at the\nrequest of friends, who considered such a work as peculiarly seasonable,\nand more likely to be acceptable at the present crisis, when general\nattention has been again directed to the popish controversy, and when\nsuch strenuous exertions are being made by the Jesuits to regain\ninfluence in our country.\n\nNone are strangers to the fame of the Provincials, and few literary\npersons would choose to confess themselves altogether ignorant of a work\nwhich has acquired a world-wide reputation. Yet there is reason to\nsuspect that few books of the same acknowledged merit have had a more\nlimited circle of _bona fide_ English readers. This may be ascribed, in\na great measure, to the want of a good English translation. Two\ntranslations of the Provincials have already appeared in our language.\nThe first was contemporary with the Letters themselves, and was printed\nat London in 1657, under the title of \u201c_Les Provinciales_; or, The\nMysterie of Jesuitism, discovered in certain Letters, written upon\noccasion of the present differences at Sorbonne, between the Jansenists\nand the Molinists, from January 1656 to March 1657, S. N. Displaying the\ncorrupt Maximes and Politicks of that Society. Faithfully rendered into\nEnglish. _Sicut Serpentes._\u201d Of the translation under this unpromising\ntitle, it may only be remarked, that it is probably one of the worst\nspecimens of \u201crendering into English\u201d to be met with, even during that\nage when little attention was paid to the art of translation. Under its\nuncouth phraseology, not only are the wit and spirit of the original\ncompletely shrouded, but the meaning is so disguised that the work is\nalmost as unintelligible as it is uninteresting.\n\nAnother translation of the Letters\u2014of which I was not aware till I had\ncompleted mine\u2014was published in London in 1816. On discovering that a\nnew attempt had been made to put the English public in possession of the\nProvincials, and that it had failed to excite any general interest, I\nwas induced to lay aside all thoughts of publishing my version; but,\nafter examining the modern translation, I became convinced that its\nfailure might be ascribed to other causes than want of taste among us\nfor the beauties and excellences of Pascal. This translation, though\nwritten in good English, bears evident marks of haste, and of want of\nacquaintance with the religious controversies of the time; in\nconsequence of which, the sense and spirit of the original have been\neither entirely lost, or so imperfectly developed, as to render its\nperusal exceedingly tantalizing and unsatisfactory.\n\nIt remains for the public to judge how far the present version may have\nsucceeded in giving a more readable and faithful transcript of the\nProvincial Letters. No pains, at least, have been spared to enhance its\ninterest and insure its fidelity. Among the numerous French editions of\nthe Letters, the basis of the following translation is that of\nAmsterdam, published in four volumes 12mo, 1767; with the notes of\nNicole, and his prefatory History of the Provincials, which were\ntranslated from the Latin into French by Mademoiselle de Joncourt. With\nthis and other French editions I have compared Nicole\u2019s Latin\ntranslation, which appeared in 1658, and received the sanction of\nPascal.\n\nThe voluminous notes of Nicole, however interesting they may have been\nat the time, and to the parties involved in the Jansenist controversy,\nare not, in general, of such a kind as to invite attention now; nor\nwould a full translation even of his historical details, turning as they\ndo chiefly on local and temporary disputes, be likely to reward the\npatience of the reader. So far as they were fitted to throw light on the\noriginal text, I have availed myself of these, along with other sources\nof information, in the marginal notes. Some of these annotations, as\nmight be expected from a Protestant editor, are intended to correct\nerror, or to guard against misconception.\n\nTo the full understanding of the Provincials, however, some idea of the\ncontroversies which occasioned their publication seems almost\nindispensable. This I have attempted to furnish in the Historical\nIntroduction; which will also be found to contain some interesting\nfacts, hitherto uncollected, and borrowed from a variety of authorities\nnot generally accessible, illustrating the history of the Letters, and\nthe parties concerned in them, with a vindication of Pascal from the\ncharges which this work has provoked from so many quarters against him.\n\n\n\n\n HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION\n\n TO\n\n THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS.\n\n BY THE TRANSLATOR.\n\nThe Church of Rome, notwithstanding her pretensions to infallibility,\nhas been fully as prolific in theological controversy and intestine\ndiscord as any of the Reformed Churches. She has contrived, indeed, with\nsingular policy, to preserve, amidst all her variations, the semblance\nof unity. Protestantism, like the primitive Church, suffered its\ndissentients to fly off into hostile or independent communions. The\nPapacy, on the contrary, has managed to retain hers within the outward\npale of her fellowship, by the institution of various religious orders,\nwhich have served as safety-valves for exuberant zeal, and which, though\noften hostile to each other, have remained attached to the mother\nChurch, and even proved her most efficient supporters. Still, at\ndifferent times, storms have arisen within the Romish Church, which\ncould be quelled neither by the infallibility of popes nor the authority\nof councils. It is doubtful if religious controversy ever raged with so\nmuch violence in the Reformed Church, as it did between the Thomists and\nthe Scotists, the Dominicans and Franciscans, the Jesuits and the\nJansenists, of the Church of Rome.\n\nUninviting as they may now appear, the disputes about grace, in which\nthe last mentioned parties were involved, gave occasion to the\nProvincial Letters. The origin of these disputes must be traced as far\nback as the days of Augustine and the Pelagian controversy of the fifth\ncentury. The motto of Pelagius was free-will; that of Augustine was\nefficacious grace. The former held that, notwithstanding the fall, the\nhuman will was perfectly free to choose at any time between good and\nevil; the latter, that in consequence of the fall, the will is in a\nstate of moral bondage, from which it can only be freed by divine grace.\nWith the British monk, election is suspended on the decision of man\u2019s\nwill; human nature is still as pure as it came originally from the hands\nof the Creator: Christ died equally for all men; and, as the result of\nhis death, a general grace is granted to all mankind, which any may\ncomply with, but which all may finally forfeit. With the African bishop,\nelection is absolute\u2014we are predestinated, not from foreseen holiness,\nbut that we might be holy;[1] all men are lying under the guilt or penal\nobligation of the first sin, and in a state of spiritual helplessness\nand corruption; the sacrifice of Christ was, in point of destination,\noffered for the elect, though, in point of exhibition, it is offered to\nall; and the saints obtain the gift of perseverance in holiness to the\nend.[2]\n\nPelagius, whose real name was Morgan, and who is supposed to have been a\nWelshman, belonged to that numerous class of thinkers, who, from their\npeculiar idiosyncrasy, are apt to start at the sovereignty of divine\ngrace, developed in the plan of redemption, as if it struck at once at\nthe equity of God and the responsibility of man. He is said to have\nbetrayed his heretical leanings, for the first time, by publicly\nexpressing his disapprobation of a sentiment of Augustine, which he\nheard quoted by a bishop \u201c_Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis_\u2014Give, Lord,\nwhat thou biddest, and bid what thou wilt.\u201d It would be easy to show\nthat, in recoiling from the odious picture of the orthodox doctrine,\ndrawn by his own fancy, he fell into the very consequences which he was\nso eager to avoid. The deity of Pelagius being subjected to the\nchangeable will of the creature, all things were left to the direction\nof blind chance or unthinking destiny; while man, being represented as\ncreated with concupiscence, to account for his aberrations from\nrectitude\u2014in other words, with a constitution in which the seeds of evil\nwere implanted\u2014the authorship of sin was ascribed, directly and\nprimarily, to the Creator.[3]\n\nAugustine was a powerful but unsteady writer, and has expressed himself\nso inconsistently as to have divided the opinions of the Latin Church,\nwhere he was recognized as a standard, canonized as a saint, and revered\nunder the title of \u201cThe Doctor of Grace.\u201d On the great doctrine of\nsalvation by grace, he is scriptural and evangelical; and hence he has\nbeen frequently quoted with admiration by our Reformed divines, partly\nto evince the declension of Rome from the faith of the earlier fathers,\npartly from that veneration for antiquity, which induces us to bestow\nmore notice on the ivy-mantled ruin, than on the more graceful and\ncommodious modern edifice in its vicinity. When arguing against\nPelagianism, Augustine is strong in the panoply of Scripture; when\ndeveloping his own system, he fails to do justice either to Scripture or\nto himself. Loud, and even fierce, for the entire corruption of human\nnature, he spoils all by admitting the absurd dogma of baptismal\nregeneration. Chivalrous in the defence of grace, as opposed to\nfree-will, he virtually abandons the field to the enemy, by teaching\nthat we are justified by our works of evangelical obedience, and that\nthe faith which justifies includes in its nature all the offices of\nChristian charity.\n\nDuring the dark ages, the Church of Rome, professing the highest\nveneration for St. Augustine, had ceased to hold the Augustinian\ntheology. The Dominicans, indeed, yielded a vague allegiance to it, by\nadhering to the views of Thomas Aquinas, \u201cthe angelic doctor\u201d of the\nschools, from whom they were termed Thomists; while the Franciscans, who\nopposed them, under the auspices of Duns Scotus, from whom they were\ntermed Scotists, leaned to the views of Pelagius. The Scotists, like the\nmodern advocates of free-will, inveighed against their opponents as\nfatalists, and charged them with making God the author of sin; the\nThomists, again, retorted on the Scotists, by accusing them of\nannihilating the grace of God. But the doctrines of grace had sunk out\nof view, under a mass of penances, oblations, and intercessions, founded\non the assumption of human merit, and on that very confusion of the\nforensic change in justification with the moral change in\nsanctification, in which Augustine had unhappily led the way. At length\nthe Reformation appeared; and as both Luther and Calvin appealed to the\nauthority of Augustine, when treating of grace and free-will, the Romish\ndivines, in their zeal against the Reformers, became still more\ndecidedly Pelagian. In the Council of Trent, the admirers of Augustine\ndurst hardly show themselves; the Jesuits carried everything before\nthem; and the anathemas of that synod, which were aimed at Calvin fully\nas much as Luther, though they professed to condemn only the less\nguarded statements of the German reformer, were all in favor of\nPelagius.\n\nThe controversy was revived in the Latin Church, about the close of the\nsixteenth century, both in the Low Countries and in Spain. In 1588,\nLewis Molina, a Spanish Jesuit, published lectures on \u201cThe Concord of\nGrace and Free-Will;\u201d and this work, filled with the jargon of the\nschools, gave rise to disputes which continued to agitate the Church\nduring the whole of the succeeding century. Molina conceived that he had\ndiscovered a method of reconciling the divine purposes with the freedom\nof the human will, which would settle the question forever. According to\nhis theory, God not only foresaw from eternity all things possible, by a\nforesight of intelligence, and all things future by a foresight of\nvision; but by another kind of foresight, intermediate between these\ntwo, which he termed _scientia media_, or middle knowledge, he foresaw\nwhat _might_ have happened under certain circumstances or conditions,\nthough it never may take place. All men, according to Molina, are\nfavored with a general grace, sufficient to work out their salvation, if\nthey choose to improve it; but when God designs to convert a sinner, he\nvouchsafes that measure of grace which he foresees, according to the\nmiddle knowledge, or in all the circumstances of the case, the person\nwill comply with. The honor of this discovery was disputed by another\nJesuit, Peter Fonseca, who declared that the very same thing had burst\nupon his mind with all the force of inspiration, when lecturing on the\nsubject some years before.[4]\n\nAbstruse as these questions may appear, they threatened a serious\nrupture in the Romish Church. The Molinists were summoned to Rome in\n1598, to answer the charges of the Dominicans; and after some years of\ndeliberation, Pope Clement VIII. decided against Molina. The Jesuits,\nhowever, alarmed for the credit of their order, never rested till they\nprevailed on the old pontiff to re-examine the matter; and in 1602, he\nappointed a grand council of cardinals, bishops, and divines, who\nconvened for discussion no less than seventy-eight times. This council\nwas called _Congregatio de Auxiliis_, or council on the aids of grace.\nIts records being kept secret, the result of their collective wisdom was\nnot known with certainty, and has been lost to the world.[5] The\nprobability is, that like Milton\u2019s \u201cgrand infernal peers,\u201d who reasoned\nhigh on similar points,\n\n \u201cThey found no end, in wandering mazes lost.\u201d\n\nThose who appealed to them for the settlement of the question, had too\nmuch reason to say, as the man in Terence does to his lawyers\u2014\u201c_Fecistis\nprobe; incertior sum multo quam dudum._\u201d[6]\n\nBut this interminable dispute was destined to assume a more popular\nform, and lead to more practical results. In 1604, two young men\nentered, as fellow-students, the university of Louvain, which had been\ndistinguished for its hostility to Molinism. Widely differing in natural\ntemperament as well as outward rank, Cornelius Jansen, who was\nafterwards bishop of Ypres, and John Duverger de Hauranne, afterwards\nknown as the Abb\u00e9 de St. Cyran, formed an acquaintance which soon\nripened into friendship. They began to study together the works of\nAugustine, and to compare them with the Scriptures. The immediate result\nwas, an agreement in opinion that the ancient father was in the right,\nand that the Jesuits, and other followers of Molina, were in the wrong.\nThis was followed by an ardent desire to revive the doctrines of their\nfavorite doctor\u2014a task which each of them prosecuted in the way most\nsuited to his respective character.\n\nJansen, or Jansenius, as he is often called,[7] was descended of humble\nparentage, and born October 28, 1585, in a village near Leerdam, in\nHolland. By his friends he is extolled for his penetrating genius,\ntenacious memory, magnanimity, and piety. Taciturn and contemplative in\nhis habits, he was frequently overheard, when taking his solitary walks\nin the garden of the monastery, to exclaim: \u201c_O veritas! veritas!_\u2014O\ntruth! truth!\u201d Keen in controversy, ascetic in devotion, and rigid in\nhis Catholicism, his antipathies were about equally divided between\nheretics and Jesuits. Towards the Protestants, his acrimony was probably\naugmented by the consciousness of having embraced views which might\nexpose himself to the suspicion of heresy; or, still more probably, by\nthat uneasy feeling with which we cannot help regarding those who,\nholding the same doctrinal views with ourselves, may have made a more\ndecided and consistent profession of them. The first supposition derives\ncountenance from the private correspondence between him and his friend\nSt. Cyran, which shows some dread of persecution;[8] the second is\nconfirmed by his acknowledged writings. He speaks of Protestants as no\nbetter than Turks, and gives it as his opinion that \u201cthey had much more\nreason to congratulate themselves on the mercy of princes, than to\ncomplain of their severities, which, as the vilest of heretics, they\nrichly deserved.\u201d[9] His controversy with the learned Gilbert Voet led\nthe latter to publish his _Desperata Causa Papatus_, one of the best\nexposures of the weaknesses of Popery. When to this we add that the\nCalvinistic synod of Dort, in 1618, had condemned Arminius and the Dutch\nRemonstrants as having fallen into the errors of Pelagius and Molina,\nthe position of Jansen became still more complicated. Of Arminius he\ncould not approve, without condemning Augustine; with the Protestant\nsynod he could not agree, unless he chose to be denounced as a\nCalvinist.\n\nBut the natural enemies of Jansen were, without doubt, the Jesuits. To\nthe history of this Society we can only now advert in a very cursory\nmanner. It may appear surprising that an order so powerful and politic\nshould have owed its origin to such a person as Ignatius Loyola, a\nSpanish soldier: and that a wound in the leg, which this hidalgo\nreceived at the battle of Pampeluna, should have issued in his becoming\nthe founder of a Society which has embroiled the world and the Church.\nBut in fact, Loyola, though the originator of the sect, is not entitled\nto the honor, or rather the disgrace, of organizing its constitution.\nThis must be assigned to Laynez and Aquaviva, the two generals who\nsucceeded him\u2014men as superior to the founder of the Society in talents\nas he excelled them in enthusiasm. Ignatius owed his success to\ncircumstances. While he was watching his arms as the knight-errant of\nthe Virgin, in her chapel at Montserrat, or squatting within his cell in\na state of body too noisome for human contact, and of mind verging on\ninsanity, Luther was making Germany ring with the first trumpet-notes of\nthe Reformation. The monasteries, in which ignorance had so long\nslumbered in the lap of superstition, were awakened; but their inmates\nwere totally unfit for doing battle on the new field of strife that had\nopened around them. Unwittingly, in the heat of his fanaticism, the\nilliterate Loyola suggested a line of policy which, matured by wiser\nheads, proved more adapted to the times. Bred in the court and the camp,\nhe contrived to combine the finesse of the one, and the discipline of\nthe other, with the sanctity of a religious community; and proposed\nthat, instead of the lazy routine of monastic life, his followers should\nactively devote themselves to the education of youth, the conversion of\nthe heathen, and the suppression of heresy. Such a proposal, backed by a\nvow of devotion to the Holy See, commended itself to the pope so highly\nthat, in 1540, he confirmed the institution by a bull, granted it ample\nprivileges, and appointed Loyola to be its first general. In less than a\ncentury, this sect, which assumed to itself, with singular arrogance,\nthe name of \u201cThe Society of Jesus,\u201d rose to be the most enterprising and\nformidable order in the Romish communion.\n\nNever was the name of the blessed Jesus more grossly prostituted than\nwhen applied to a Society which is certainly the very opposite, in\nspirit and character, to Him who was \u201cmeek and lowly,\u201d \u201choly, harmless,\nundefiled, and separate from sinners.\u201d The Jesuits may be said to have\ninvented, for their own peculiar use, an entirely new system of ethics.\nIn place of the divine law, they prescribed, as the rule of their\nconduct, a \u201cblind obedience\u201d to the will of their superiors, whom they\nare bound to recognize as \u201cstanding in the place of God,\u201d and in\nfulfilling whose orders they are to have no more will of their own \u201cthan\na corpse, or an old man\u2019s staff.\u201d The glory of God they identify with\nthe aggrandizement of their Society; and holding that \u201cthe end\nsanctifies the means,\u201d they scruple at no means, foul or fair, which\nthey conceive may advance such an end.[10] The supreme power is vested\nin the general, who is not responsible to any other authority, civil or\necclesiastical. A system of mutual espionage, and a secret\ncorrespondence with head-quarters at Rome, in which everything that can,\nin the remotest degree, affect the interests of the Society is made\nknown, and by means of which the whole machinery of Jesuitism can be set\nin motion at once, or its minutest feelers directed to any object at\npleasure, presents the most complete system of organization in the\nworld. Every member is sworn, by secret oath, to obey the orders, and\nall are confederated in a solemn league to advance the cause of the\nSociety. It has been defined to be \u201ca naked sword, the hilt of which is\nat Rome.\u201d Such a monstrous combination could not fail to render itself\nobnoxious. Constantly aiming at ascendency in the Church, in which it is\nan _imperium in imperio_, the Society has not only been embroiled in\nperpetual feuds with the other orders, but has repeatedly provoked the\nthunders of the Vatican. Ever intermeddling with the affairs of civil\ngovernments, with allegiance to which, under any form, its principles\nare utterly at variance, it has been expelled in turn from almost every\nEuropean State, as a political nuisance. But Jesuitism is the very soul\nof Popery; both have revived or declined together; and accordingly,\nthough the order was abolished by Clement XIV. in 1775, it was found\nnecessary to resuscitate it under Pius VII. in 1814; and the Society was\nnever in greater power, nor more active operation, than it is at the\npresent moment. It boasts of immortality, and, in all probability, it\nwill last as long as the Church of Rome. It has been termed \u201ca militia\ncalled out to combat the Reformation,\u201d and exhibiting, as it does to\nthis day, the same features of ambition, treachery, and intolerance, it\nseems destined to fall only in the ruins of that Church of whose\nunchanging spirit it is the genuine type and representative.[11]\n\nIn prosecuting the ends of their institution, the Jesuits have adhered\nwith singular fidelity to its distinguishing spirit. As the instructors\nof youth, their solicitude has ever been less to enlarge the sphere of\nhuman knowledge than to bar out what might prove dangerous to clerical\ndomination; they have confined their pupils to mere literary studies,\nwhich might amuse without awakening their minds, and make them subtle\ndialecticians without disturbing a single prejudice of the dark ages. As\nmissionaries, they have been much more industrious and successful in the\nmanual labor of baptizing all nations than in teaching them the\nGospel.[12] As theologians, they have uniformly preferred the views of\nMolina; regarding these, if not as more agreeable to Scripture and right\nreason, at least (to use the language of a late writer) as \u201cmore\nconsonant with the common sense and natural feelings of mankind.\u201d[13] As\ncontroversialists, they were the decided foes of all reform and all\nreformers, from within or without the Church. As moralists, they\ncultivated, as might be expected, the loosest system of casuistry, to\nqualify themselves for directing the consciences of high and low, and\nbecoming, through the confessional, the virtual governors of mankind. In\nall these departments they have, doubtless, produced men of abilities;\nbut the very means which they employed to aggrandize the Society have\ntended to dwarf the intellectual growth of its individual members: and\nhence, while it is true that \u201cthe Jesuits had to boast of the most\nvigorous controversialists, the most polite scholars, the most refined\ncourtiers, and the most flexible casuists of their age,\u201d[14] it has been\ncommonly remarked, that they have never produced a single great man.\n\nCasuistry, the art in which the Jesuits so much excelled, is, strictly\nspeaking, that branch of theology which treats of cases of conscience,\nand originally consisted in nothing more than an application of the\ngeneral precepts of Scripture to particular cases. The ancient casuists,\nso long as they confined themselves to the simple rules of the Gospel,\nwere at least harmless, and their ingenious writings are still found\nuseful in cases of ecclesiastical discipline; but they gradually\nintroduced into the science of morals the metaphysical jargon of the\nschools, and instead of aiming at making men moral, contented themselves\nwith disputing about morality.[15] The main source of the aberrations of\ncasuistry lay in the unscriptural dogma of priestly absolution\u2014in the\nright claimed by man to forgive _sin_, as a transgression of the law of\nGod; and the arbitrary distinction between sins as venial and mortal\u2014a\ndistinction which assigns to the priest the prerogative, and imposes on\nhim the obligation, of drawing the critical line, or fixing a kind of\ntariff on human actions, and apportioning penance or pardon, as the case\nmay seem to require. In their desperate attempt to define the endless\nforms of depravity on which they were called to adjudicate, or which the\npruriency of the cloister suggested to the imagination, the casuists\nsank deeper into the mire at every step; and their productions, at\nlength, resembled the common sewers of a city, which, when exposed,\nbecome more pestiferous than the filth which they were meant to remove.\nEven under the best management, such a system was radically bad; in the\nhands of the Jesuits it became unspeakably worse. To their \u201cmodern\ncasuists,\u201d as they were termed, must we ascribe the invention of\n_probabilism_, _mental reservation_, and the _direction of the\nintention_, which have been sufficiently explained and rebuked in the\nProvincial Letters. We shall only remark here, that the actions to which\nthese principles were applied were not only such as have been termed\nindifferent, and the criminality of which may be doubtful, or dependent\non the intention of the actor: the probabilism of the Jesuits was, in\nfact, a systematic attempt to legalize crime, under the sanction of some\ngrave doctor, who had found out some excuse for it; and their theory of\nmental reservations, and direction of the intention, was equally\nemployed to sanctify the plainest violations of the divine law.\nCasuistry, it is true, has generally vibrated betwixt the extremes of\nimpracticable severity and contemptible indulgence; but the charge\nagainst the Jesuits was, not that they softened the rigors of ascetic\nvirtue, but that they propagated principles which sapped the foundation\nof all moral obligation. \u201cThey are a people,\u201d said Boileau, \u201cwho\nlengthen the creed and shorten the decalogue.\u201d\n\nSuch was the community with which the Bishop of Ypres ventured to enter\nthe lists. Already had he incurred their resentment by opposing their\ninterests in some political negotiations; and by publishing his \u201cMars\nGallicus,\u201d he had mortally offended their patron, Cardinal Richelieu;\nbut, strange to say, his deadly sin against the Society was a posthumous\nwork. Jansen was cut off by the plague, May 8, 1638. Shortly after his\ndecease, his celebrated work, entitled \u201cAugustinus,\u201d was published by\nhis friends Fromond and Calen, to whom he had committed it on his\ndeath-bed. To the preparation of this work he may be said to have\ndevoted his life. It occupied him twenty-two years, during which, we are\ntold, he had ten times read through the works of Augustine (ten volumes,\nfolio!) and thirty times collated those passages which related to\nPelagianism.[16] The book itself, as the title imports, was little more\nthan a digest of the writings of Augustine on the subject of grace.[17]\nIt was divided into three parts; the first being a refutation of\nPelagianism, the second demonstrating the spiritual disease of man, and\nthe third exhibiting the remedy provided. The sincerity of Jansen\u2019s love\nto truth is beyond question, though we may be permitted to question the\nform in which it was evinced. The radical defect of the work is, that\ninstead of resorting to the living fountain of inspiration, he confined\nhimself to the cistern of tradition. Enamored with the excellences of\nAugustine, he adopted even his inconsistencies. With the former he\nchallenged the Jesuits; with the latter he warded off the charge of\nheresy. As a controvertist, he is chargeable with prejudice, rather than\ndishonesty. As a reformer, he wanted the independence of mind necessary\nto success. Instead of standing boldly forward on the ground of\nScripture, he attempted, with more prudence than wisdom, to shelter\nhimself behind the venerable name of Augustine.\n\nIf by thus preferring the shield of tradition to the sword of the\nSpirit, Jansen expected to out-man\u0153uvre the Jesuits, he had mistaken his\npolicy. \u201cAugustinus,\u201d though professedly written to revive the doctrine\nof Augustine, was felt by the Society as, in reality, an attack upon\nthem, under the name of Pelagians. To conscious delinquency, the\nlanguage of implied censure is ever more galling than formal\nimpeachment. Jansen\u2019s portrait of Augustine was but too faithfully\nexecuted; and the disciples of Loyola could not fail to see how far they\nhad departed from the faith of the ancient Church; but the discovery\nonly served to incense them at the man who had exhibited their defection\nbefore the world. The approbation which the book received from forty\nlearned doctors, and the rapture with which it was welcomed by the\nfriends of the author, only added to their exasperation. The whole\nefforts of the Society were summoned to defeat its influence. Balked by\nthe hand of death of their revenge on the person of the author, they\nvented it even on his remains. By a decree of the pope, procured through\ntheir instigation, a splendid monument, which had been erected over the\ngrave of the learned and much-loved bishop, was completely demolished,\nthat, in the words of his Holiness, \u201cthe memory of Jansen might perish\nfrom the earth.\u201d It is even said that his body was torn from its\nresting-place, and thrown into some unknown receptacle.[18] His literary\nremains were no less severely handled. Nicholas Cornet, a member of the\nSociety, after incredible pains, extracted the heretical poison of\n\u201cAugustinus,\u201d in the form of seven propositions, which were afterwards\nreduced to five. These having been submitted to the judgment of Innocent\nX., were condemned by that pontiff in a bull dated 31st May, 1653. This\ndecision, so far from restoring peace, awakened a new controversy. The\nJansenists, as the admirers of Jansen now began to be named by their\nopponents, while they professed acquiescence in the judgment of the\npope, denied that these propositions were to be found in \u201cAugustinus.\u201d\nThe succeeding pope, Alexander VII., who was still more favorable to the\nJesuits, declared formally, in a bull dated 1657, \u201cthat the five\npropositions were certainly taken from the book of Jansenius, and had\nbeen condemned in the sense of that author.\u201d But the Jansenists were\nready to meet him on this point; they replied, that a decision of this\nkind overstepped the limits of papal authority, and that the pope\u2019s\ninfallibility did not extend to a judgment of facts.[19]\n\nThe reader may be curious to know something more about these famous five\npropositions, condemned by the pope, which, in fact, may be said to have\ngiven occasion to the Provincial Letters. They were as follows:\u2014\n\n1. There are divine precepts which good men, though willing, are\nabsolutely unable to obey.\n\n2. No person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the influence\nof divine grace.\n\n3. In order to render human actions meritorious, or otherwise, it is not\nrequisite that they be exempt from necessity, but only free from\nconstraint.\n\n4. The semi-Pelagian heresy consisted in allowing the human will to be\nendued with a power of resisting grace, or of complying with its\ninfluence.\n\n5. Whoever says that Christ died or shed his blood for all mankind, is a\nsemi-Pelagian.\n\nThe Jansenists, in their subsequent disputes on these propositions,\ncontended that they were ambiguously expressed, and that they might be\nunderstood in three different senses\u2014a Calvinistic, a Pelagian, and a\nCatholic or Augustinian sense. In the first two senses they disclaimed\nthem, in the last they approved and defended them. Owing to the extreme\naversion of the party to Calvinism, while they substantially held the\nsame system under the name of Augustinianism, it becomes extremely\ndifficult to convey an intelligible idea of their theological views. On\nthe first proposition, for example, while they disclaimed what they term\nthe Calvinistic sense, namely, that the best of men are liable to sin in\nall that they do, they equally disclaim the Pelagian sentiment, that all\nmen have a general sufficient grace, at all times, for the discharge of\nduty, subject to free will; and they strenuously maintained that,\nwithout efficacious grace, constantly vouchsafed, we can do nothing\nspiritually good. In regard to the resistibility of grace, they seem to\nhave held that the will of man might always resist the influence of\ngrace, if it chose to do so; but that grace would effectually prevent it\nfrom so choosing. And with respect to redemption, they appear to have\ncompromised the matter, by holding that Christ died for all, so as that\nall might be partakers of the grace of justification by the merits of\nhis death; but they denied that Christ died for each man in particular,\nso as to secure his final salvation; in this sense, he died for the\nelect only.\n\nWere this the proper place, it would be easy to show that, in the\nleading points of his theology, Jansen did not differ from Calvin, so\nmuch as he misunderstood Calvinism. The Calvinists, for example, never\nheld, as they are represented in the Provincial Letters,[20] \u201cthat we\nhave not the power of resisting grace.\u201d So far from this, they held that\nfallen man could not but resist the grace of God. They preferred,\ntherefore, the term \u201cinvincible,\u201d as applied to grace. In short, they\nheld exactly the _victrix delectatio_ of Augustine, by which the will of\nman is sweetly but effectually inclined to comply with the will of\nGod.[21] On the subject of necessity and constraint their views are\nprecisely similar. Nor can they be considered as differing essentially\nin their views of the death of Christ, as these, at least, were given by\nJansen, who acknowledges in his \u201cAugustinus,\u201d that, \u201caccording to St.\nAugustine, Jesus Christ did not die for all mankind.\u201d It is certain that\nneither Augustine nor Jansen would have subscribed to the views of grace\nand redemption held by many who, in our day, profess evangelical views.\nMaking allowance for the different position of the parties, it is very\nplain that the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, Jansen and\nMolina, Calvin and Arminius, was substantially one and the same. At the\nsame time, it must be granted that on the great point of justification\nby faith, Jansen went widely astray from the truth; and in the\nsubsequent controversial writings of the party, especially when arguing\nagainst the Protestants, this departure became still more strongly\nmarked, and more deplorably manifested.[22]\n\nThe revenge of the Jesuits did not stop at procuring the condemnation of\nJansen\u2019s book; it aimed at his living followers. Among these none was\nmore conspicuous for virtue and influence than the Abb\u00e9 de St. Cyran,\nwho was known to have shared his counsels, and even aided in the\npreparation of his obnoxious work. While Jansen labored to restore the\ntheoretical doctrines of Augustine, St. Cyran was ambitious to reduce\nthem to practice. In pursuance of the moral system of that father, he\ntaught the renunciation of the world, and the total absorption of the\nsoul in the love of God. His religious fervor led him into some\nextravagances. He is said to have laid some claim to a species of\ninspiration, and to have anticipated for the Saviour some kind of\ntemporal dominion, in which the saints alone would be entitled to the\nwealth and dignities of the world.[23] But his piety appears to have\nbeen sincere, and, what is more surprising, his love to the Scriptures\nwas such that he not only lived in the daily study of them himself, but\nearnestly enforced it on all his disciples. He recommended them to study\nthe Scriptures on their knees. \u201cNo means of conversion,\u201d he would say,\n\u201ccan be more apostolic than the Word of God. Every word in Scripture\ndeserves to be weighed more attentively than gold. The Scriptures were\npenned by a direct ray of the Holy Spirit; the fathers only by a reflex\nray emanating therefrom.\u201d His whole character and appearance\ncorresponded with his doctrine. \u201cHis simple mortified air, and his\nhumble garb formed a striking contrast with the awful sanctity of his\ncountenance, and his native lofty dignity of manner.\u201d[24] Possessing\nthat force of character by which men of strong minds silently but surely\ngovern others, his proselytes soon increased, and he became the nucleus\nof a new class of reformers.\n\nSt. Cyran was soon called to preside over the renowned monastery of\nPort-Royal. Two houses went under this name, though forming one abbey.\nOne of these was called Port-Royal des Champs, and was situated in a\ngloomy forest, about six leagues from Paris; but this having been found\nan unhealthy situation, the nuns were removed for some time to another\nhouse in Paris, which went under the name of Port-Royal de Paris. The\nAbbey of Port-Royal was one of the most ancient belonging to the order\nof Citeaux, having been founded by Eudes de Sully, bishop of Paris, in\n1204. It was placed originally under the rigorous discipline of St.\nBenedict, but in course of time fell, like most other monasteries, into\na state of the greatest relaxation. In 1602, a new abbess was appointed\nin the person of Maria Angelica Arnauld, sister of the famous Arnauld,\nthen a mere child, scarcely eleven years old! The nuns, promising\nthemselves a long period of unbounded liberty, rejoiced at this\nappointment. But their joy was not of long duration. The young abbess,\nat first, indeed, thought of nothing but amusement; but at the age of\nseventeen a change came over her spirit. A certain Capuchin, wearied, it\nis said, or more probably disgusted, with the monastic life, had been\nrequested by the nuns, who were not aware of his character, to preach\nbefore them. The preacher, equally ignorant of his audience, and\nsupposing them to be eminently pious ladies, delivered an affecting\ndiscourse, pitched on the loftiest key of devotion, which left an\nimpression on the mind of Angelica never to be effaced. She set herself\nto reform her establishment, and carried it into effect with a\ndetermination and self-denial quite beyond her years. This\n\u201creformation,\u201d so highly lauded by her panegyrists, consisted chiefly in\nrestoring the austere discipline of St. Benedict, and other severities\npractised in the earlier ages, the details of which would be neither\nedifying nor agreeable. The substitution of coarse serge in place of\nlinen as underclothing, and dropping melted wax on the bare arms, may be\ntaken as specimens of the reformation introduced by M\u00e8re Angelique. In\nthese mortifying exercises the abbess showed an example to all the rest.\nShe chose as her dormitory the filthiest cell in the convent, a place\ninfested with toads and vermin, in which she found the highest delight,\ndeclaring that she \u201cseemed transported to the grotto of Bethlehem.\u201d The\nsame rigid denial of pleasure was extended to her food, her dress, her\nwhole occupations. Clothed herself in the rudest dress she could\nprocure, nothing gave her greater offence than to see in her nuns any\napproach to the fashions of the world, even in the adjustment of the\ncoarse black serge, with the scarlet cross, which formed their humble\napparel[25]. Yet, in the midst of all this \u201cvoluntary humility,\u201d her\nheart seems to have been turned mainly to the Saviour. It was Jesus\nChrist whom she aimed at adoring in the worship she paid to \u201cthe\nsacrament of the altar.\u201d And in a book of devotion, composed by her for\nprivate use, she gave expression to sentiments too much savoring of\nundivided affection to Christ to escape the censure of the Church. It\nwas dragged to light and condemned at Rome[26]. There is reason to\nbelieve that, under the direction of M. de St. Cyran, her religious\nsentiments, as well as those of her community, became much more\nenlightened. Her firmness in resisting subscription to the formulary and\ncondemning Jansen, in spite of the most cruel and unmanly persecution,\nand the piety and faith she manifested on her death-bed, when, in the\nmidst of exquisite suffering, and in the absence of the rites which her\npersecutors denied her, she expired in the full assurance of salvation\nthrough the merits of the only Saviour, form one of the most interesting\nchapters in the martyrology of the Church.\n\nBut St. Cyran aimed at higher objects than the management of a nunnery.\nHis energetic mind planned a system of education, in which, along with\nthe elements of learning, the youth might be imbued with early piety.\nAttracted by his fame, several learned men, some of them of rank and\nfortune, fled to enjoy at Port-Royal des Champs a sacred retreat from\nthe world. This community, which differed from a monastery in not being\nbound by any vows, settled in a farm adjoining the convent, called Les\nGranges. The names of Arnauld, D\u2019Andilly, Nicole, Le Maitre, Sacy,[27]\nFontaine, Pascal, and others, have conferred immortality on the spot.\nThe system pursued in this literary hermitage was, in many respects,\ndeserving of praise. The time of the recluses was divided between\ndevotional and literary pursuits, relieved by agricultural and\nmechanical labors. The Scriptures, and other books of devotion, were\ntranslated into the vernacular language; and the result was, the\nsingular anomaly of a Roman Catholic community distinguished for the\ndevout and diligent study of the Bible. Protestants they certainly were\nnot, either in spirit or in practice. Firm believers in the\ninfallibility of their Church, and fond devotees in the observance of\nher rites, they held it a point of merit to yield a blind obedience, in\nmatters of faith, to the dogmas of Rome. None were more hostile to\nProtestantism. St. Cyran, it is said, would never open a Protestant\nbook, even for the purpose of refuting it, without first making the sign\nof the cross on it, to exorcise the evil spirit which he believed to\nlurk within its pages.[28] From no community did there emanate more\nlearned apologies for Rome than from Port-Royal. Still, it must be\nowned, that in attachment to the doctrines of grace, so far as they\nwent, and in the exhibition of the Christian virtues, attested by their\nsufferings, lives, and writings, the Port-Royalists, including under\nthis name both the nuns and recluses, greatly surpassed many Protestant\ncommunities. Their piety, indeed, partook of the failings which have\nalways characterized the religion of the cloister. It seems to have\nhovered between superstition and mysticism. Afraid to fight against the\nworld, they fled from it; and, forgetting that our Saviour was driven\ninto the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, they retired to a\nwilderness to avoid temptation. Half conscious of the hollowness of the\nceremonial they practised, they sought to graft on its dead stock the\nvitalities of the Christian faith. In their hands, penance was\nsublimated into the symbol of penitential sorrow, and the mass into a\nspiritual service, the benefit of which depended on the preparation of\nthe heart of the worshipper. In their eyes, the priest was but a\nsuggestive emblem of the Saviour; and to them the altar, with its\ncrucifix and bleeding image, served only as a platform on which they\nmight obtain a more advantageous view of Calvary. Transferring to the\nChurch of Rome the attributes of the Church of God, and regarding her\nstill, in spite of her eclipse and disfigurement, as of one spirit, and\neven of one body, with Christ, infallible and immortal, they worshipped\nthe fond creation of their own fancy. At the same time, they attempted\nto revive the doctrine of religious abstraction, or the absorption of\nthe soul in Deity, and the total renouncement of everything in the shape\nof sensual enjoyment, which afterwards distinguished the mystics of the\nContinent. Even in their literary recreations, while they acquired an\nelegance of style which marked a new era in the literature of France,\nthey betrayed their ascetic spirit. Poetry was only admissible when\nclothed in a devotional garb. It was by stealth that Racine, who studied\nat Port-Royal, indulged his poetic vein in the profane pieces which\nafterwards gave him celebrity. And yet it is candid to admit, that the\nmortifications in which this amiable fraternity engaged, consisted\nrather in the exclusion of pleasure than the infliction of pain, and\nthat the object aimed at in these austerities was not so much to merit\nheaven as to attain an ideal perfection on earth. Port-Royalism, in\nshort, was Popery in its mildest type, as Jesuitism is Popery in its\nperfection; and had it been possible to present that system in a form\ncalculated to disarm prejudice and to cover its native deformities, the\ntask might have been achieved by the pious devotees of Les Granges. But\nthe same merciful Providence which, for the preservation of the human\nspecies, has furnished the snake with his rattle, and taught the lion to\n\u201croar for his prey,\u201d has so ordered it that the Romish Church should\nbetray her real character, in order that his people might \u201ccome out of\nher, and not be partakers of her sins, that they receive not of her\nplagues.\u201d The whole system adopted at Port-Royal was regarded, from the\ncommencement, with extreme jealousy by the authorities of that Church;\nthe schools were soon dispersed, and the Jesuits never rested till they\nhad destroyed every vestige of the obnoxious establishment.\n\nThe enemies of Port-Royal have attempted to show that St. Cyran and his\nassociates had formed a deep-laid plot for overturning the Roman\nCatholic faith. From time to time, down to the present day, works have\nappeared, under the auspices of the Jesuits, in which this charge is\nreiterated; and the old calumnies against the sect are revived\u2014a\nperiodical trampling on the ashes of the poor Jansenists (after having\naccomplished their ruin two hundred years ago), which reminds one of\nnothing so much as the significant grinning and yelling with which the\nmodern Jews celebrate to this day the downfal of Haman the Agagite.[29]\nIn one point only could their assailants find room to question their\northodoxy\u2014the supremacy of the pope. Here, certainly, they were led,\nmore from circumstances than from inclination, to lean to the side of\nthe Gallican liberties. But even Jansen himself, after spending a\nlifetime on his \u201cAugustinus,\u201d and leaving it behind him as a sacred\nlegacy, abandoned himself and his treatise to the judgment of the pope.\nThe following are his words, dictated by him half an hour before his\ndeath: \u201cI feel that it will be difficult to alter anything. Yet if the\nRomish see should wish anything to be altered, I am her obedient son;\nand to that Church in which I have always lived, even to this bed of\ndeath, I will prove obedient. This is my last will.\u201d The same sentiment\nis expressed by Pascal, in one of his letters. Alas! how sad is the\npredicament in which the Church of Rome places her conscientious\nvotaries! Both of these excellent men were as firmly persuaded, no\ndoubt, of the faith which they taught, as of the facts which came under\ntheir observation; and yet they held themselves bound to cast their\nreligious convictions at the feet of a fellow-mortal, notoriously under\nthe influence of the Jesuits, and professed themselves ready, at a\nsignal from Rome, to renounce what they held as divine truth, and to\nembrace what they regarded as damnable error! A spectacle more painful\nand piteous can hardly be imagined than that of such men struggling\nbetween the dictates of conscience, and the night-mare of that \u201cstrong\ndelusion,\u201d which led them to \u201cbelieve a lie.\u201d\n\nIn every feature that distinguished the Port-Royalists, they stood\nopposed to the Jesuits. In theology they were antipodes\u2014in learning they\nwere rivals. The schools of Port-Royal already eclipsed those of the\nJesuits, whose policy it has always been to monopolize education, under\nthe pretext of charity. But the Jansenists might have been allowed to\nretain their peculiar tenets, had they not touched the idol of every\nJesuit, \u201cthe glory of the Society,\u201d by supplanting them in the\nconfessional. The priests connected with Port-Royal, from their\nprimitive simplicity of manners and severity of morals, and, above all,\nfrom their spiritual Christianity, acquired a popularity which could not\nfail to give mortal offence to the Society, who then ruled the councils\nboth of the Church and the nation. Nothing less than the annihilation of\nthe whole party would satisfy their vengeful purpose. In this nefarious\ndesign they were powerfully aided by Cardinal Richelieu, and by Louis\nXIV., a prince who, though yet a mere youth, was entirely under\nJesuitical influence in matters of religion; and who, having resolved to\nextirpate Protestantism, could not well endure the existence of a sect\nwithin the Church, which seemed to favor the Reformation by exposing the\ncorruptions of the clergy.[30]\n\nTo effect their object, St. Cyran, the leader and ornament of the party,\nrequired to be disposed of. He was accused of various articles of\nheresy; and Cardinal Richelieu at once gratified his party resentment\nand saved himself the trouble of controversy, by immuring him in the\ndungeon of Vincennes. In this prison St. Cyran languished for five\nyears, and survived his release only a few months, having died in\nOctober, 1643. His place, however, as leader of the Jansenist party, was\nsupplied by one destined to annoy the Jesuits by his controversial\ntalents fully more than his predecessor had done by his apostolic\nsanctity. Anthony Arnauld may be said to have been born an enemy to the\nJesuits. His father, a celebrated lawyer, had distinguished himself for\nhis opposition to the Society, and having engaged in an important\nlaw-suit against them, in which he warmly pleaded, in the name of the\nuniversity, that they should be interdicted from the education of youth,\nand even expelled from the kingdom. Anthony, who inherited his spirit,\nwas the youngest in a family of twenty children, and was born February\n6, 1612.[31] Several of them were connected with Port-Royal. His sister,\nas we have seen, became its abbess; and five other sisters were nuns in\nthat establishment. He is said to have given precocious proof of his\npolemic turn. Busying himself, when a mere boy, with some papers in his\nuncle\u2019s library, and being asked what he was about, he replied, \u201cDon\u2019t\nyou see that I am helping you to refute the Hugonots?\u201d This\nprognostication he certainly verified in after life. He wrote, with\nalmost equal vehemence, against Rome, against the Jesuits, and against\nthe Protestants. He was, for many years, the _facile princeps_ of the\nparty termed Jansenists; and was one of those characters who present to\nthe public an aspect nearly the reverse of the estimate formed of them\nby their private friends. By the latter he is represented as the best of\nmen, totally free from pride and passion. Judging from his physiognomy,\nhis writings and his life, we would say the natural temper of Arnauld\nwas austere and indomitable. Expelled from the Sorbonne, driven out of\nFrance, and hunted from place to place, he continued to fight to the\nlast. On one occasion, wishing his friend Nicole to assist him in a new\nwork, the latter observed, \u201cWe are now old, is it not time to rest?\u201d\n\u201cRest!\u201d exclaimed Arnauld, \u201chave we not all eternity to rest in?\u201d\n\nSuch was the character of the man who now entered the lists against the\nredoubtable Society. His first offence was the publication, in 1643, of\na book on \u201cFrequent Communion;\u201d in which, while he inculcates the\nnecessity of a spiritual preparation for the eucharist, he insinuated\nthat the Church of Rome had a two-fold head, in the persons of Peter and\nPaul.[32] His next was in the shape of two letters, published in 1656,\noccasioned by a dispute referred to in the first Provincial Letter, in\nwhich he declared that he had not been able to find the condemned\npropositions in Jansen, and added some opinions on grace. The first of\nthese assertions was deemed derogatory to the holy see; the second was\ncharged with heresy. The Jesuits, who sighed for an opportunity of\nhumbling the obnoxious doctor, strained every nerve to procure his\nexpulsion from the Sorbonne, or college of divinity in the university.\nThis object they had just accomplished, and everything promised fair to\nsecure their triumph, when another combatant unexpectedly appeared, like\none of those closely-visored knights of whom we read in romance, who so\nopportunely enter the field at the critical moment, and with their\nsingle arm turn the tide of battle. Need we say that we allude to the\nauthor of the PROVINCIAL LETTERS?\n\nBayle commences his Life of Pascal by declaring him to be \u201cone of the\nsublimest geniuses that the world ever produced.\u201d Seldom, at least, has\nthe world ever seen such a combination of excellences in one man. In him\nwe are called to admire the loftiest attributes of mind with the\nloveliest simplicity of moral character. He is a rare example of one\nborn with a natural genius for the exact sciences, who applied the\nsubtlety of his mind to religious subjects, combining with the closest\nlogic the utmost elegance of style, and crowning all with a simple and\nprofound piety. Blaise Pascal was born at Clermont, 19th June, 1623. His\nfamily had been ennobled by Louis XI., and his father, Stephen Pascal,\noccupied a high post in the civil government. Blaise manifested from an\nearly age a strong liking for the study of mathematics, and, while yet a\nchild, made some astonishing discoveries in natural philosophy. To these\nstudies he devoted the greater part of his life. An incident, however,\nwhich occurred in his thirty-first year\u2014a narrow escape from sudden\ndeath\u2014had the effect of giving an entire change to the current of his\nthoughts. He regarded it as a message from heaven, calling him to\nrenounce all secular occupations, and devote himself exclusively to God.\nHis sister and niece being nuns in Port-Royal, he was naturally led to\nassociate with those who then began to be called Jansenists. But though\nhe had several of the writings of the party, there can be no doubt that\nit was the devotion rather than the theology of Port-Royal that\nconstituted its charm in the eyes of Pascal. His sister informs us, in\nher memoirs of him, that \u201che had never applied himself to abstruse\nquestions in divinity.\u201d Nor, beyond a temporary retreat to Port-Royal\ndes Champs, and an intimacy with its leading solitaries, can he be said\nto have had any connection with that establishment. His fragile frame,\nwhich was the victim of complicated disease, and his feminine delicacy\nof spirit, unfitting him for the rough collisions of ordinary life, he\nfound a congenial retreat amidst these literary solitudes; while, with\nhis clear and comprehensive mind, and his genuine piety of heart, he\nmust have sympathized with those who sought to remove from the Church\ncorruptions which he could not fail to deplore, and to renovate the\nspirit of that Christianity which he loved far above any of its\norganized forms. His life, not unlike a perpetual miracle, is ever\nexciting our admiration, not unmingled, however, with pity. We see great\ntalents enlisted in the support, not indeed of the errors of a system,\nbut of a system of errors\u2014we see a noble mind debilitated by\nsuperstition\u2014we see a useful life prematurely terminating in, if not\nshortened by, the petty austerities and solicitudes of monasticism.\nTruth requires us to state, that he not only denied himself, at last,\nthe most common comforts of life, but wore beneath his clothes a girdle\nof iron, with sharp points, which, as soon as he felt any pleasurable\nsensation, he would strike with his elbow, so as to force the points of\niron more deeply into his sides. Let the Church, which taught him such\nfolly, be responsible for it; and let us ascribe to the grace of God the\npatience, the meekness, the charity, and the faith, which hovered,\nseraph-wise, over the death-bed of expiring genius. The curate who\nattended him, struck with the triumph of religion over the pride of an\nintellect which continued to burn after it had ceased to blaze, would\nfrequently exclaim: \u201cHe is an infant\u2014humble and submissive as an\ninfant!\u201d He died on the 19th of August, 1662, aged thirty-nine years and\ntwo months.\n\nWhile Arnauld\u2019s process before the Sorbonne was in dependence, a few of\nhis friends, among whom were Pascal and Nicole, were in the habit of\nmeeting privately at Port-Royal, to consult on the measures they should\nadopt. During these conferences one of their number said to Arnauld:\n\u201cWill you really suffer yourself to be condemned like a child, without\nsaying a word, or telling the public the real state of the question?\u201d\nThe rest concurred, and in compliance with their solicitations, Arnauld,\nafter some days, produced and read before them a long and serious\nvindication of himself. His audience listened in coolness and silence,\nupon which he remarked: \u201cI see you don\u2019t think highly of my production,\nand I believe you are right; but,\u201d added he, turning himself round and\naddressing Pascal, \u201cyou who are young, why cannot you produce\nsomething?\u201d The appeal was not lost upon our author; he had hitherto\nwritten almost nothing, but he engaged to try a sketch or rough draft,\nwhich they might fill up; and retiring to his room, he produced, in a\nfew hours, instead of a sketch, the first letter to a provincial. On\nreading this to his assembled friends, Arnauld exclaimed, \u201cThat is\nexcellent! that will go down; we must have it printed immediately.\u201d\n\nPascal had, in fact, with the native superiority of genius, pitched on\nthe very tone which, in a controversy of this kind, was calculated to\narrest the public mind. Treating theology in a style entirely new, he\nbrought down the subject to the comprehension of all, and translated\ninto the pleasantries of comedy, and familiarities of dialogue,\ndiscussions which had till then been confined to the grave utterances of\nthe school. The framework which he adopted in his first letter was\nexceedingly happy. A Parisian is supposed to transmit to one of his\nfriends in the provinces an account of the disputes of the day. It is\nsaid that the provincial with whom he affected to correspond was\nPerrier, who had married one of his sisters. Hence arose the name of the\n_Provincials_, which was given to the rest of the letters.\n\nThis title they owe, it would appear, to a mistake of the printer; for\nin an advertisement prefixed to one of the early editions, it is stated\nthat \u201cthey have been called \u2018Provincials,\u2019 because the first having been\naddressed without any name to a person in the country, the printer\npublished it under the title \u2018Letter written to a Provincial by one of\nhis Friends.\u2019\u201d This may be regarded as an apology for the use of a term\nwhich, critically speaking, was rather unhappy. The word _provincial_ in\nFrench, when used to signify a person residing in the provinces, was\ngenerally understood in a bad sense, as denoting an unpolished\nclown.[33] But the title, uncouth as it is, has been canonized and made\nclassical forever; and \u201cThe Provincials\u201d is a phrase which it would now\nbe fully as ridiculous to attempt to change as it could be at first to\napply it to the Letters.\n\nThe most trifling particulars connected with such a publication possess\nan interest. The Letters, we learn, were published at first in separate\nstitched sheets of a quarto size; and, on account of their brevity, none\nof them extending to more than one sheet of eight pages, except the last\nthree, which were somewhat longer, they were at first known by the name\nof the \u201cLITTLE LETTERS.\u201d No stated time was observed in their\npublication. The first letter appeared January 13, 1656, being on a\nWednesday; the second on January 29, being Saturday; and the rest were\nissued at intervals varying from a week to a month, till March 24, 1657,\nwhich is the date of the last letter in the series; the whole thus\nextending over the space of a year and three months.\n\nAll accounts agree in stating that the impression produced by the\nProvincials, on their first appearance, was quite unexampled. They were\ncirculated in thousands in Paris and throughout France. Speaking of the\nfirst letter, Father Daniel says: \u201cIt created a fracas which filled the\nfathers of the Society with consternation. Never did the post-office\nreap greater profits; copies were despatched over the whole kingdom; and\nI myself, though very little known to the gentlemen of Port-Royal,\nreceived a large packet of them, post-paid, in a town of Brittany where\nI was then residing.\u201d The same method was followed with the rest of the\nletters. The seventh found its way to Cardinal Mazarin, who laughed over\nit very heartily. The eighth did not appear till a month after its\npredecessor, apparently to keep up expectation.[34] In short, everybody\nread the \u201cLittle Letters,\u201d and, whatever might be their opinions of the\npoints in dispute, all agreed in admiring the genius which they\ndisplayed. They were found lying on the merchant\u2019s counter, the lawyer\u2019s\ndesk, the doctor\u2019s table, the lady\u2019s toilet; and everywhere they were\nsought for and perused with the same avidity.[35] The success of the\nLetters in gaining their object was not less extraordinary. The Jesuits\nwere fairly checkmated; and though they succeeded in carrying through\nthe censure of Arnauld, the public sympathy was enlisted in his favor.\nThe confessionals and churches of the Jesuits were deserted, while those\nof their opponents were crowded with admiring thousands.[36] \u201cThat book\nalone,\u201d says one of its bitterest enemies, \u201chas done more for the\nJansenists than the \u2018Augustinus\u2019 of Jansen, and all the works of Arnauld\nput together.\u201d[37] This is the more surprising when we consider that, at\nthat time, the influence of the Jesuits was so high in the ascendant,\nthat Arnauld had to contend with the pope, the king, the chancellor, the\nclergy, the Sorbonne, the universities, and the great body of the\npopulace; and that never was Jansenism at a lower ebb, or more generally\nanathematized than when the first Provincial Letter appeared.\n\nThis, however, was not all. Besides having the tide of public favor\nturned against them, the Jesuits found themselves the objects of\nuniversal derision. The names of their favorite casuists were converted\ninto proverbs: _Escobarder_ came to signify the same thing with\n\u201cpaltering in a double sense;\u201d Father Bauny\u2019s grotesque maxims furnished\ntopics for perpetual badinage; and the Jesuits, wherever they went, were\nassailed with inextinguishable laughter. By no other method could Pascal\nhave so severely stung this proud and self-conceited Society. The rage\ninto which they were thrown was extreme, and was variously expressed. At\none time it found vent in calumnies and threats of vengeance. At other\ntimes they indulged in puerile lamentations. It was amusing to hear\nthese stalwart divines, after breathing fire and slaughter against their\nenemies, assume the querulous tones of injured and oppressed innocence.\n\u201cThe persecution which the Jesuits suffer from the buffooneries of\nPort-Royal,\u201d they said, \u201cis perfectly intolerable: the wheel and the\ngibbet are nothing to it; it can only be compared to the torture\ninflicted on the ancient martyrs, who were first rubbed over with honey\nand then left to be stung to death by wasps and wild bees. Their tyrants\nhave subjected them to empoisoned raillery, and the world leaves them\nunpitied to suffer a sweet death, more cruel in its sweetness than the\nbitterest punishment.\u201d[38]\n\nThe Letters were published anonymously, under the fictitious signature\nof Louis de Montalte, and the greatest care was taken to preserve the\nsecret of their authorship. As on all such occasions, many were the\nguesses made, and the false reports circulated; but beyond the circle of\nPascal\u2019s personal friends, none knew him to be the author, nor was the\nfact certainly or publicly known till after his death. The following\nanecdote shows, however, that he was suspected, and was once very nearly\ndiscovered: After publishing the third letter, Pascal left Port-Royal\ndes Champs, to avoid being disturbed, and took up his residence in\nParis, under the name of M. de Mons, in a _hotel garni_, at the sign of\nthe King of Denmark, Rue des Poiriers, exactly opposite the college of\nthe Jesuits. Here he was joined by his brother-in-law, Perrier, who\npassed as the master of the house. One day Perrier received a visit from\nhis relative, Father Fr\u00e9tat, a Jesuit, accompanied by a brother monk.\nFr\u00e9tat told him that the Society suspected M. Pascal to be the author of\nthe \u201cLittle Letters,\u201d which were making such a noise, and advised him as\na friend to prevail on his brother-in-law to desist from writing any\nmore of them, as he might otherwise involve himself in much trouble, and\neven danger. Perrier thanked him for his advice, but said he was afraid\nit would be altogether useless, as Pascal would just reply that he could\nnot hinder people from suspecting him, and that though he should deny it\nthey would not believe him. The monks took their departure, much to the\nrelief of Perrier, for at that very time several sheets of the seventh\nor eighth letter, newly come from the printer, were lying on the bed,\nwhere they had been placed for the purpose of drying, but, fortunately,\nthough the curtains were only partially drawn, and one of the monks sat\nvery close to the bed, they were not observed. Perrier ran immediately\nto communicate the incident to his brother-in-law, who was in an\nadjoining apartment; and he had reason to congratulate him on the narrow\nescape which he had made.[39]\n\nAs Pascal proceeded, he transmitted his manuscripts to Port-Royal des\nChamps, where they were carefully revised and corrected by Arnauld and\nNicole. Occasionally, these expert divines suggested the plans of the\nletters; and by them he was, beyond all doubt, furnished with most of\nhis quotations from the voluminous writings of the casuists, which, with\nthe exception of Escobar, he appears never to have read. We must not\nsuppose, however, that he took these on trust, or gave himself no\ntrouble to verify them. We shall afterwards have proof of the contrary.\nThe first letters he composed with the rapidity of new-born enthusiasm;\nbut the pains and mental exertion which he bestowed on the rest are\nalmost incredible. Nicole says \u201che was often twenty whole days on a\nsingle letter: and some of them he recommenced seven or eight times\nbefore bringing them to their present state of perfection.\u201d[40] We are\nassured that he wrote over the eighteenth letter no less than thirteen\ntimes.[41] Having been obliged to hasten the publication of the\nsixteenth, on account of a search made after it in the printing office,\nhe apologizes for its length on the ground that \u201che had found no time to\nmake it shorter.\u201d[42]\n\nThe fruits of this extraordinary elaboration appear in every letter; but\nwhat is equally remarkable, is the art with which so many detached\nletters, written at distant intervals, and prompted by passing events,\nhave been so arranged as to form an harmonious whole. The first three\nletters refer to Arnauld\u2019s affair; the questions of grace are but\nslightly touched, the main object being to interest the reader in favor\nof the Jansenists, and excite his contempt and indignation against their\nopponents. After this prelude, the fourth letter serves as a transition\nto the following six, in which he takes up maxims of the casuists. In\nthe eight concluding letters he resumes the grand objects of the\nwork\u2014the morals of the Jesuits and the question of grace. These three\nparts have each their peculiar style. The first is distinguished for\nlively dialogue and repartee. Jacobins, Molinists, and Jansenists are\nbrought on the stage, and speak in character, while Pascal does little\nmore than act as reporter. In the second part, he comes into personal\ncontact with a casuistical doctor, and extracts from him, under the\npretext of desiring information, some of the weakest and worst of his\nmaxims. At the eleventh letter, Pascal throws off his disguise, and\naddressing himself directly to the whole order of the Jesuits, and to\ntheir Provincial by name, he pours out his whole soul in an impetuous\nand impassioned torrent of declamation. From beginning to end it is a\nwell-sustained battle, in which the weapons are only changed in order to\nstrike the harder.\n\nThe literary merits of the Provincials have been universally\nacknowledged and applauded. On this point, where Pascal\u2019s countrymen\nmust be considered the most competent judges, we have the testimonies of\nthe leading spirits of France. Boileau pronounced it a work that has\n\u201csurpassed at once the ancients and the moderns.\u201d Perrault has given a\nsimilar judgment: \u201cThere is more wit in these eighteen letters than in\nPlato\u2019s Dialogues; more delicate and artful raillery than in those of\nLucian; and more strength and ingenuity of reasoning than in the\norations of Cicero. We have nothing more beautiful in this species of\nwriting.\u201d[43] \u201cPascal\u2019s style,\u201d says the Abb\u00e9 d\u2019Artigny, \u201chas never been\nsurpassed, nor perhaps equalled.\u201d[44] The high encomium of Voltaire is\nwell known: \u201cThe Provincial Letters were models of eloquence and\npleasantry. The best comedies of Moli\u00e8re have not more wit in them than\nthe first letters; Bossuet has nothing more sublime than the last ones.\u201d\nAgain, the same writer says: \u201cThe first work of genius that appeared in\nprose was the collection of the Provincial Letters. Examples of every\nspecies of eloquence may there be found. There is not a single word in\nit which, after a hundred years, has undergone the change to which all\nliving languages are liable. We may refer to this work the era when our\nlanguage became fixed. The Bishop of Lu\u00e7on told me, that having asked\nthe Bishop of Meaux what work he would wish most to have been the author\nof, setting his own works aside, Bossuet instantly replied, \u2018The\nProvincial Letters.\u2019\u201d[45] \u201cPascal succeeded beyond all expression,\u201d says\nD\u2019Alembert; \u201cseveral of his bon-mots have become proverbial in our\nlanguage, and the Provincials will be ever regarded as a model of taste\nand style.\u201d[46] To this day the same high eulogiums are passed on the\nwork by the best scholars of France.[47]\n\nTo these testimonies it would be superfluous to add any criticism of our\nown, were it not to prepare the English reader for the peculiar\ncharacter of our author\u2019s style. Pascal\u2019s wit is essentially French. It\nis not the broad humor of Smollet; it is not the cool irony of Swift;\nfar less is it the envenomed sarcasm of Junius. It is wit\u2014the lively,\npolite, piquant wit of the early French school. Nothing can be finer\nthan its spirit; but from its very fineness it is apt to evaporate in\nthe act of transfusion into another tongue. Nothing can be more\ningenious than the transitions by which the author glides insensibly\nfrom one topic to another; and in the more serious letters, we cannot\nfail to be struck with the mathematical precision of his reasoning. But\nthere is a species of iteration, and a style of dovetailing his\nsentiments, which does not quite accord with our taste; and the foreign\ntexture of which, in spite of every effort to the contrary, must shine\nthrough any translation.\n\nHigh as the Provincials stand in the literary world, they were not\nsuffered to pass without censure in the high places of the Church. The\nfirst effect of their publication, indeed, was to raise a storm against\nthe casuists, whom Pascal had so effectually exposed. The cur\u00e9s of\nParis, and afterwards the assembly of the clergy, shocked at the\ndiscovery of such a sink of corruption, the existence of which, though\njust beneath their feet, they never appear to have suspected, determined\nto institute an examination into the subject. Hitherto the tenets of the\ncasuists, buried in huge folios, or only taught in the colleges of the\nJesuits, had escaped public observation. The clergy resolved to compare\nthe quotations of Pascal with these writings; and the result of the\ninvestigation was, that he was found to be perfectly correct, while a\nmultitude of other maxims, equally scandalous, were dragged to light.\nThese were condemned in a general assembly of the clergy.[48]\nUnfortunately for the Jesuits, they had not a single writer at the time\ncapable of conducting their vindication. Several replies to the\nProvincials were attempted while they were in the course of publication;\nbut these were taken up by the redoubtable Montalte, and fairly\nstrangled at their birth.[49] Shortly after the Letters were finished,\nthere appeared \u201cAn Apology for the Casuists,\u201d the production of a Jesuit\nnamed Pirot, who, with a folly and frankness which proved nearly as\nfatal to his order as it did to himself, attempted to vindicate the\nworst maxims of the casuistical school. This Apology was condemned by\nthe Sorbonne, and subsequently at Rome; its author died of chagrin, and\nthe Jesuits fell into temporary disgrace.[50]\n\nBut, with that tenaciousness of life and elasticity of limb which have\never distinguished the Society, it was not long before they rebounded\nfrom their fall and regained their feet. Unable to answer the Letters,\nthey succeeded in obtaining, in February, 1657, their condemnation by\nthe Parliament of Provence, by whose orders they were burnt on the\npillory by the hands of the common executioner. Not content with this\nclumsy method of refutation, they succeeded in procuring the formal\ncondemnation of the Provincials by a censure of the pope, Alexander\nVII., dated 6th September, 1657. In this decree the work is \u201cprohibited\nand condemned, under the pains and censures contained in the Council of\nTrent, and in the index of prohibited books, and other pains and\ncensures which it may please his holiness to ordain.\u201d It is almost\nneedless to say, that these sentences neither enhanced nor lessened the\nfame of the Provincials. It must be interesting to know what the\nfeelings of Pascal were, on learning that this work, into which he had\nthrown his whole heart, and mind, and strength, and which may be said to\nhave been at once his _chef-d\u2019\u0153uvre_ and his confession of faith, had\nbeen condemned by the head of that Church which he had hitherto believed\nto be infallible. Warped as his fine spirit was by education, his\nunbending rectitude forbids the supposition that he could surrender his\ncherished and conscientious sentiments at the mere dictum of the pope.\nAn incident occurred in 1661, shortly before his death, strikingly\nillustrative of his conscientiousness, and of the sincerity of purpose\nwith which the Letters were written. The persecution had begun to rage\nagainst Port-Royal; one _mandement_ after another, requiring\nsubscription to the condemnation of Jansen, came down from the court of\nRome; and the poor nuns, shrinking, on the one hand, from violating\ntheir consciences by subscribing what they believed to be an untruth,\nand trembling, on the other, at the consequences of disobeying their\necclesiastical superiors, were thrown into the most distressing\nembarrassment. Their \u201cobstinacy,\u201d as it was termed, only provoked their\npersecutors to more stringent demands. In these circumstances, even the\nstern Arnauld and the conscientious Nicole were tempted to make some\ncompromise, and drew up a declaration to accompany the signature of the\nnuns, which they thought might save at once the truth and their\nconsistency. To this Pascal objected, as not sufficiently clear, and as\nleaving it to be inferred that they condemned \u201cefficacious grace.\u201d He\ncould not endure the idea of their employing an ambiguous statement,\nwhich appeared, or might be supposed by their opponents, to grant what\nthey did not really mean to concede. The consequence was a slight and\ntemporary dispute\u2014not affecting principle so much as the mode of\nmaintaining it\u2014in which Pascal stood alone against all the members of\nPort-Royal. On one occasion, after exhausting his eloquence upon them\nwithout success, he was so deeply affected, that his feeble frame,\nlaboring under headache and other disorders, sunk under the excitement,\nand he fell into a swoon. After recovering his consciousness, he\nexplained the cause of his sudden illness, in answer to the affectionate\ninquiries of his sister: \u201cWhen I saw those,\u201d he said, \u201cwhom I regard as\nthe persons to whom God has made known his truth, and who ought to be\nits champions, all giving way, I was so overcome with grief that I could\nstand it no longer.\u201d Subsequent _mandements_, still more stringent, soon\nsaved the poor nuns from the temptation of ambiguous submissions, and\nreconciled Pascal and his friends.[51]\n\nBut we are fortunately furnished with his own reflections on the subject\nof the Provincials, in his celebrated \u201cThoughts on Religion:\u201d\n\n\u201cI feared,\u201d says he, \u201cthat I might have written erroneously, when I saw\nmyself condemned; but the example of so many pious witnesses made me\nthink differently. It is no longer allowable to write truth. IF MY\nLETTERS ARE CONDEMNED AT ROME, THAT WHICH I CONDEMN IN THEM IS CONDEMNED\nIN HEAVEN.\u201d[52]\n\nIt is only necessary to add, that Pascal continued to maintain his\nsentiments on this subject unchanged to the last. On his death-bed, M.\nBeurrier, his parish priest, administered to him the last rites of his\nChurch, and came to learn, after having confessed him, that he was the\nauthor of the \u201cProvincial Letters.\u201d Full of concern at having absolved\nthe author of a book condemned by the pope, the good priest returned,\nand asked him if it was true, and if he had no remorse of conscience on\nthat account. Pascal replied, that \u201che could assure him, as one who was\nnow about to give an account to God of all his actions, that his\nconscience gave him no trouble on that score; and that in the\ncomposition of that work he was influenced by no mad motive, but solely\nby regard to the glory of God and the vindication of truth, and not in\nthe least by any passion or personal feeling against the Jesuits.\u201d\nAttempts were made by Perefixe, archbishop of Paris, first to bully the\npriest for having absolved such an impenitent offender,[53] and\nafterwards to force him into a false account of his penitent\u2019s\nconfession. It was confidently reported, on the pretended authority of\nthe confessor, that Pascal had expressed his sorrow for having written\nthe Provincials, and that he had condemned his friends of Port-Royal for\nwant of due respect to papal authority. Both these allegations were\nafterwards distinctly refuted\u2014the first by the written avowal of M.\nBeurrier, and the other by two depositions formally made by Nicole,\nshowing that the real ground of Pascal\u2019s brief disagreement with his\nfriends was directly the reverse of that which had been assigned.[54]\n\nFew books have passed through more editions than the Provincials. The\nfollowing, among many others, may be mentioned as French editions:\u2014The\nfirst, in 1656, 4to; a second in 1657, 12mo; a third in 1658, 8vo; a\nfourth in 1659, 8vo; a fifth in 1666, 12mo; a sixth in 1667, 8vo; a\nseventh in 1669, 12mo; an eighth in 1689, 8vo; a ninth in 1712, 8vo; a\ntenth in 1767, 12mo.[55] The later editions are beyond enumeration. The\nLetters were translated into Latin, during the lifetime of Pascal, by\nhis intimate friend, the learned and indefatigable Nicole, under the\nassumed name of \u201cWilliam Wendrock, a Saltzburg divine.\u201d[56] Nicole, who\nwas a complete master of Latin, has given an elegant, though somewhat\nfree version of his friend\u2019s work. He has frequently added to the\nquotations taken from the writings of the Jesuits and others; a liberty\nwhich he doubtless felt himself the more warranted to take, from the\nshare he had in the original concoction of the Letters. Nicole\u2019s\npreliminary dissertation and notes were translated by Mademoiselle de\nJoncourt, a lady, it is said, \u201cpossessed of talents and piety, who, to\nthe graces peculiar to her own sex, added the accomplishments which are\nthe ornament of ours.\u201d[57] Besides this, the Provincials have been\ntranslated into nearly all the languages of Europe. Bayle informs us\nthat he had seen an edition of them in 8vo, with four columns,\ncontaining the French, Latin, Italian, and Spanish.[58] The Spanish\ntranslation, executed by Gratien Cordero of Burgos, was suppressed by\norder of the Inquisition.[59] But all the efforts made for the\nsuppression of the Provincials only served to promote their popularity;\nand their enemies found that, if they would silence, they must answer\nthem.\n\nForty years elapsed after the publication of the Provincials before the\nJesuits ventured on a reply. At length, in 1697, appeared an answer,\nentitled _Entretiens de Cleandre et d\u2019Eudoxe, sur les Lettres au\nProvincial_. The author is known to have been Father Daniel, the\nhistoriographer of France. This learned Jesuit undertook the desperate\ntask of refuting the Provincials, in a form somewhat resembling that of\nthe Letters themselves, being a series of supposed conversations between\ntwo friends, aided by an abb\u00e9, \u201cwho is excessively frank and honest, one\nwho never could bear all his life to see people imposed upon.\u201d The\ndialogue is conducted with considerable spirit, but is sadly deficient\nin _vraisemblance_. The author commences with high professions of\nimpartiality. Cleander and Eudoxus are supposed to be quite\nneutral\u2014somewhat like the free-will of Molina, \u201cin a state of perfect\nequilibrium, until good sense and stubborn facts turn the scale.\u201d But,\nalas! the equilibrium is soon lost, without the help either of facts or\nof sense. The friends have hardly uttered two sentences, till they begin\nto talk as like two Jesuits as could well be imagined. Party rage gets\nthe better of literary discretion; the Port-Royalists are \u201chonest\nknaves,\u201d \u201ctrue hypocrites,\u201d \u201cvillains animated with stubborn fury;\u201d\nArnauld\u2019s \u201cpen may be known by the gall that drops from it;\u201d Nicole\n\u201cswears like a trooper,\u201d and as to Pascal he is all these characters in\nturn, while his book is \u201ca repertory of slander,\u201d and is \u201cvillainous in\na supreme degree!\u201d\n\nThe whole strain of Daniel\u2019s reply corresponds with this specimen of its\nspirit. Avoiding the error of Pirot, and yet without renouncing the\nfavorite dogmas of the Society, such as probabilism, equivocations, and\nmental reservations, which he only attempts to palliate, Father Daniel\nhas exhausted his skill in an attack on the sincerity of Pascal. His\nmain object is to convey the impression that the Provincials are a\nlibel, written in bad faith, and full of altered texts and false\ncitations. In selecting this plan of defence, the Jesuit champion\nevinces considerably more ingenuity than ingenuousness. He was well\naware that, at the time of their publication, the Letters had been\nsubjected to a sifting process of examination by the most clear-sighted\nJesuits, who had signally failed in proving any falsifications. But he\nknew also, that, during the forty years that had elapsed, the writings\nof the casuists had fallen into disuse and contempt, mainly in\nconsequence of the scorching which they had received from the wit and\neloquence of Pascal, and that it would be now a much easier and safer\ntask to call in question the fidelity of citations which none would give\nthemselves the trouble of verifying. In this bold attempt to turn the\ntables against the Jansenists, by accusing them of chicanery and pious\nfraud, the very crimes which they had succeeded in establishing against\ntheir opponents, the unscrupulous Jesuit could be at no loss to find,\namong the voluminous writings of the casuists, some plausible grounds\nfor his charges. At all events, he could calculate on the readiness with\nwhich certain minds, fonder of generalizing than of investigating facts,\nwould lay hold of the mere circumstance of a book having been written in\ndefence of his order, as sufficient to show that a great deal may be\nsaid on both sides. As to the manner in which Daniel has executed his\ntask, it might be sufficient to say, that it has been acknowledged by\nthe Jesuits themselves to be a failure. Even at its first appearance,\ngreat efforts were made to suppress it altogether, as likely to do more\nharm than good to the Society; and in their references to it afterwards,\nwe see the disappointment which they felt. \u201cThere was lately published,\u201d\nsays Richelet, \u201can answer to the Lettres Provinciales, which professes\nto demolish them, but which, nevertheless, will not do them much harm.\nDo you ask how? The reason is, that although this answer shows the\nhorrid injustice, the abominable slanders, and injurious falsehoods of\nthe Provincials, against one of the most famous societies in the Church,\nyet these Letters have so long, by their facetious touches, got the\nlaughers of all denominations on their side, that they have acquired a\ncredit and authority of which it will be difficult to divest them. It\nmust be confessed that prejudice, on this occasion, is very unjust, very\ncruel, and very obstinate in its verdict; since, though these Letters\nhave been condemned by popes, bishops, and divines, and burnt by the\nhands of the hangman, yet they have taken such deep root in people\u2019s\nminds as to bid defiance to all these powers.\u201d[60] \u201cThe reply,\u201d says\nanother writer, \u201cas may be easily imagined, was not so well received as\nthe Letters had been. Father Daniel professed to have reason and truth\non his side; but his adversary had in his favor what goes much further\nwith men, the arms of ridicule and pleasantry.\u201d[61] This, however, is a\nmere begging of the question. _Ridentem dicere verum, quid vetat?_ It is\nquite possible that Father Daniel may be lugubriously in the wrong, and\nPascal laughingly in the right. This was very triumphantly made out in\nthe answer to Daniel\u2019s work, which appeared in the same year with the\n_Entretiens_, under the title of \u201cApology for the Provincial Letters,\nagainst the last Reply of the Jesuits, entitled Conversations of\nCleander and Eudoxus.\u201d The author was Don Mathieu Petitdidier,\nBenedictine of the congregation of St. Vanne, who died bishop of\nMacra.[62] In this masterly performance, the accusations of Daniel are\nshown to be totally groundless, his answers jesuitical and evasive, and\nhis arguments untenable. The \u201cApology\u201d was never answered, and Daniel\u2019s\nwork sank out of sight.\n\nSubsequent apologists of the Jesuits have followed the line of defence\nadopted by Father Daniel. The continued repetition of his charges,\nthough they have been long since disposed of, renders it necessary to\nadvert to them. For the strict fidelity of Pascal\u2019s citations, we have\nnot merely the testimony of contemporary witnesses, but what will be to\nmany a sufficient guarantee, the solemn assertion of Pascal himself. In\na conversation that took place within a year of his death, and which has\nbeen preserved by his sister, he thus answers the chief articles of\naccusation that had been brought against the Provincials:\u2014\n\n\u201cI have been asked, first, if I repented of having written the\nProvincial Letters? I answered that, far from repenting, if I had it to\ndo again, I would write them yet more strongly.\n\n\u201cI have been asked, in the second place, why I named the authors from\nwhom I extracted these abominable passages which I have cited? I\nanswered, If I were in a town where there were a dozen fountains, and I\nknew for certain that one of them was poisoned, I should be under\nobligation to tell the world not to draw from that fountain; and, as it\nmight be supposed that this was a mere fancy on my part, I should be\nobliged to name him who had poisoned it, rather than expose a whole city\nto the risk of death.\n\n\u201cI have been asked, thirdly, why I adopted an agreeable, jocose, and\nentertaining style? I answered, If I had written dogmatically, none but\nthe learned would have read my book; and they had no need of it, knowing\nhow the matter stood, at least as well as I did. I conceived it,\ntherefore, my duty to write, so that my Letters might be read by women,\nand people in general, that they might know the danger of all those\nmaxims and propositions which were then spread abroad, and admitted with\nso little hesitation.\n\n\u201cFinally, I have been asked, if I had myself read all the books which I\nquoted? I answered, No. To do this, I had need have passed the greater\npart of my life in reading very bad books. But I have twice read Escobar\nthroughout; and for the others, I got several of my friends to read\nthem; but _I have never used a single passage without having read it\nmyself in the book quoted_, without having examined the case in which it\nis brought forward, and without having read the preceding and subsequent\ncontext, that I might not run the risk of citing that for an answer\nwhich was in fact an objection, which would have been very unjust and\nblamable.\u201d[63]\n\nIf this solemn declaration, emitted by one whose heart was a stranger to\ndeceit, and whose shrewdness placed him beyond the risk of delusion, is\nnot accepted as sufficient, we might refer to the mass of evidence\ncollected at the time in the _Factums_ of the cur\u00e9s of Paris and Rouen,\nto the voluminous notes of Nicole, and to the Apology of Petitdidier, in\nwhich the citations made by Pascal are authenticated with a carefulness\nwhich not only sets all suspicion at rest, but leaves a large balance of\ncredit in the author\u2019s favor, by showing that, so far from having\nreported the worst maxims of the Jesuitical school, or placed them in\nthe most odious light of which they were susceptible, he has been\nextremely tender towards them. But, indeed, the truth was placed beyond\nall dispute, through the efforts of the celebrated Bossuet, in 1700,\nwhen, by a sentence of an assembly of the clergy of France, the morals\nof the Jesuits, as exhibited in their \u201cmonstrous maxims, which had been\nlong the scandal of the Church and of Europe,\u201d were formally condemned,\nand when it may be said that the Provincial Letters met at once their\nfull vindication and their final triumph.[64]\n\nAnother class of objectors, whom the Jesuits have had the good fortune\nto number among their apologists, are the sceptical philosophers, whose\nnative antipathy to Jansenism, as a phase of serious religion, renders\nthem willing to sacrifice truth for the sake of a sneer at his\ndisciples. D\u2019Alembert expresses his regret that Pascal did not lampoon\nJesuits and Jansenists alike;[65] and Voltaire, in the mere wantonness\nof his cynical humor, if not from a more worthless motive, has appended\nto his high panegyric on the Provincials, already quoted, the following\nqualifications: \u201cIt is true that the whole of Pascal\u2019s book is founded\nupon a false principle. He has artfully charged the whole Society with\nthe extravagant opinions of some few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits, which\nhe might with equal ease have detected among the casuists of the\nDominican and Franciscan orders; but the Jesuits alone were the persons\nhe wanted to attack. In these Letters he endeavored to prove that they\nhad a settled design to corrupt the morals of mankind\u2014a design which no\nsect or society ever had, or ever could have. But his business was not\nto be right, but to entertain the public.\u201d[66] Every clause here\ncontains a fallacy. The charge of party-spirit, insinuated throughout,\nis perfectly gratuitous. Never, perhaps, was any man more free from this\ninfirmity than Pascal. That it was pure zeal for the morality of the\nGospel which engaged him to take up his pen against the Jesuits, can be\ndoubted by none but those who make it a point to call in question the\nreality of all religious conviction.[67] Equally unfounded is the\nimputation of levity. Pascal was earnest in his raillery. A deep\nseriousness of purpose lurked under the smile of his irony. Voltaire\ndescribes himself, not the author of the Provincials, when he says that\n\u201chis business was not to be right, but to entertain the public.\u201d As to\nPascal having \u201cendeavored to prove that the Jesuits had a settled design\nto corrupt the morals of mankind,\u201d we are not surprised at Father Daniel\nsaying so; but it is unaccountable how any but a Jesuit, who professed\nto have read the Letters, could advance a theory so distinctly\nanticipated and disclaimed in the Letters themselves. \u201cKnow, then,\u201d it\nis said in letter fifth, \u201cthat their object is not the corruption of\nmanners\u2014that is _not their design_. But as little is it their sole aim\nto reform them\u2014that would be bad policy.\u201d[68] \u201cAlas!\u201d says the Jesuit,\nin letter sixth, \u201cour main object, no doubt, should have been to\nestablish no other maxims than those of the Gospel; and it is easy to\nsee, from our rules, that if we tolerate some degree of relaxation in\nothers, it is rather out of complaisance than _design_.\u201d[69] In truth,\nnothing is more clearly marked throughout the Letters than this\ndistinction between the design of the Society and the tendency of its\npolicy\u2014a distinction which leaves very small scope for the sage\napophthegm of the philosophical historian. There is some reason to think\nthat Voltaire expressed himself in this manner, with the view of\nprocuring the recommendation of Father Latour to enter the Academy\u2014an\nobject for the accomplishment of which, it is well known, he made the\nmost unworthy concessions to the Jesuits.[70]\n\nLater critics, in speaking of the Provincials, have indulged in a\nsimilar strain of vague depreciation; as a specimen of which we might\nhave referred to Schlegel, who talks of their being \u201cnothing more than a\nmaster-piece of sophistry,\u201d[71] and repeats the charge of profaneness,\nwhich Pascal has so triumphantly refuted in his eleventh letter. It\nwould be a sad waste of time to answer this ridiculous objection. Nor\nwill it be surprising to those who know the history of Blanco White, to\nfind him indulging in a sceptical vein on this as on other subjects.\n\u201cPascal and the Jansenist party,\u201d he says, \u201caccused them of systematic\nlaxity in their moral doctrines; but the charge, I believe, though\nplausible in theory, was perfectly groundless in practice. The strict,\nunbending maxims of the Jansenists, by urging persons of all characters\nand tempers on to an imaginary goal of perfection, bring quickly their\nwhole system to the decision of experience. A greater knowledge of\nmankind made the Jesuits more cautious in the culture of devotional\nfeelings. They well knew that but few can prudently engage in open\nhostility with what, in ascetic language, is called the world.\u201d[72] The\nstrange mixture of truth and error in this statement leaves an\nunfavorable impression on the mind, the fallacy of which we feel ere we\nhave time to analyze it. It is true that nothing could be more opposite\nto the laxity of the Jesuits than the asceticism of Port-Royal. But it\nis doing injustice to Pascal to insinuate that he measured Jesuitical\nmorality by \u201cthe strict, unbending maxims of the Jansenists;\u201d and it is\nflagrantly untrue that the Jesuits merely aimed at reducing monastic\nenthusiasm to the standard of common sense and ordinary life. We repeat\nthat the real charge which Pascal substantiates against them is, not\nthat they softened the austerities of the cloister, but that they\nsacrificed the eternal laws of morality\u2014not that they prudently suited\ntheir rules to men\u2019s tempers, but that they licensed the worst passions\nand propensities of our nature\u2014not that they declined urging all to\nforsake the world (which he never expected), but that they sought, for\ntheir own politic ends, to veil its impurities, and countenance its evil\ncustoms.\n\nDisguising their hostility to science, under the mask of friendship to\nliterature, the Jesuits have succeeded in making to themselves friends\nof many who are acquainted with them only through the medium of their\nwritings. And it is the remarkable fact of our day, that, while on the\nContinent, where they are practically known, the Jesuits have enlisted\nagainst themselves the pens of its most eminent novelists, historians,\nand philosophers, in Protestant England it is quite the reverse. The\nmost talented of our periodical writers have exerted all their powers to\nwhite-wash them, to paint and paper them, and set them off with\nornamental designs; and where they have not dared to defend, they have\ntried to blunt the edge of censure against them. Following in the same\nline of defence, a certain class of Protestant writers, fond of\nhistorical paradox, and of appearing superior to vulgar prejudices, have\nvolunteered to protect the Jesuits. \u201cNo man is a stranger to the fame of\nPascal,\u201d says Sir James Macintosh; \u201cbut those who may desire to form a\nright judgment on the contents of the _Lettres Provinciales_ would do\nwell to cast a glance over the _Entretiens d\u2019Ariste et d\u2019Eugenie_, by\nBouhours, a Jesuit, who has ably vindicated his order.\u201d[73] Sir James\nhad heard, perhaps, of Father Daniel\u2019s _Entretiens de Cleandre et\nd\u2019Eudoxe_, but it is very evident that he had never even \u201ccast a glance\nover\u201d that book; for the work of Bouhours, which he has confounded with\nit, is a philological treatise, which has no reference whatever to the\nProvincial Letters; and yet he could say that the Jesuit \u201chas ably\nvindicated his order!\u201d Next to the art which the Jesuits have shown in\nsmuggling themselves into places of power and trust, is that by which\nthey have succeeded in hoodwinking the merely literary portion of\nsociety.\n\nBut, not to dwell longer on these objections, the Provincials are liable\nto another charge, seldomer advanced, and not so easily answered; which\nis, that the loose casuistical morality denounced by Pascal was not\nconfined to the Jesuits, nor to any one of the orders of the Romish\nChurch, much less, as Voltaire says, to \u201ca few Spanish and Flemish\nJesuits,\u201d but was common to all the divines of that Church, and was, in\nfact, the native offspring and inevitable growth of the practices of\nconfession and absolution. It is admitted that the Jesuits were mainly\nresponsible for its preservation and propagation; that they have been\nthe most zealous in reducing it to practice; that, even after it had\nincurred the anathemas of popes, bishops, and divines, and after it had\nbeen disclaimed by all the other orders of the Church, the Jesuits\npertinaciously adhered to it; and that, even to this day, they have\nidentified themselves with the worst tenets of the casuists. But\nProtestants writers have generally alleged, not without reason, that the\ncorruptions of casuistical divinity may be traced from the days of\nThomas Aquinas and Cajetan, whom the Church of Rome owns as authorities;\nthat the \u201cnew casuists\u201d merely carried the maxims of their predecessors\nto their legitimate conclusions; and that though condemned by some\npopes, the censure has been only partial, and has been more than\nneutralized by the condemnation of other works written against the\nmorality of the Jesuits. Thus, in a work entitled \u201cGuimenius Amadeus,\u201d\nthe author, who was the Jesuit Moya, boldly claimed the sanction of the\nmost venerated names in favor of the modern casuists. This work, it is\ntrue, was condemned to the flames in 1680, by Pope Innocent XI., who was\nfavorable to the Jansenists; but the Jesuits boast of having obtained\nother papal constitutions, reversing the judgment of that pontiff, whom\nthey do not scruple to stigmatize with heresy.[74] It cannot be denied\nthat the Jesuits have all along succeeded in obtaining for their system\nthe sanction of the highest authorities in the Church; while those works\nwhich undertook to advocate a purer morality were printed clandestinely,\nwithout privilege or approbation, under fictitious names of authors and\nprinters; nor can it be forgotten that the Provincial Letters, the most\npowerful exposure of Jesuitical morality that ever appeared, were\ncensured at Rome, and burnt by the hands of the executioner.[75] In\nshort, and without entering into the question so ingeniously handled by\nNicole and other Jansenists, whether the modern casuists were justified\nin their excesses by the ancient schoolmen, it is undeniable that this\nis the weakest point of the Provincials, and one on which the\nthorough-going Jesuit occupies, on popish principles, the most\nadvantageous ground. The disciples of Loyola constitute the very soul of\nthe Papacy; and they must be held as the genuine exponents of that\natrocious system of morals which, engendered in the privacy of the\ncloister during the dark ages, reached its maturity in the hands of a\ndesigning priesthood, who still find it too convenient a tool for their\npurposes to part with it.\n\nThere are other respects in which we cannot fail to detect, throughout\nthese Letters, the enfeebling and embarrassing influence of Popery over\nthe naturally ingenuous mind of the author. Among all the maxims\npeculiar to the Jesuits, none are more pernicious than those in which\nthey have openly taught that disobedience to the Papal See releases\nsubjects from their allegiance and oaths of fidelity to their\nsovereigns, and authorizes them to put heretical rulers to death, even\nby assassination.[76] On this point Pascal has failed to speak out the\nwhole truth. Whether it may have been from genuine dread of heresy, or\nfrom a wish to spare the dignity of the pope, it is easy to see the\ntimidity, the circumspection, the delicacy with which he touches on the\npoint of papal authority.\n\nThe Jansenists have been called the Methodists of the Church of Rome;\nbut the term is applicable to them rather in the wide sense in which it\nhas been applied, derisively, to those who have sought reformation or\naimed at superior sanctity within the pale of an established Church,\nthan as applied to the party now known under that designation. They\ndisclaimed the title of Jansenists, as a nickname applied to them by\ntheir adversaries. They held themselves to be the true Catholics, the\nrepresentatives of the Church as it existed down, at least, to the days\nof St. Bernard, whom they termed \u201cthe last of the fathers.\u201d They\nascribed a species of semi-inspiration to the early fathers of the\nChurch. They reverenced the Scriptures, but received them at\nsecond-hand, through the medium of tradition. To be a Catholic and a\nChristian were with them convertible terms. Hence the horror evinced by\nPascal, in his concluding letters, at the bare thought of \u201cheresy\nexisting in the Church.\u201d \u201cEmbarrassed at every step,\u201d it has been well\nobserved, \u201cby their professed submission to the authority of the popes,\ngalled and oppressed by their necessary acquiescence in the flagrant\nerrors of their Church, these good men made profession of the great\ntruths of Christianity under an incomparably heavier weight of\ndisadvantage than has been sustained by any other class of Christians\nfrom the apostolic to the present times. Enfeebled by the enthusiasm to\nwhich they clung, the piety of these admirable men failed in the force\nnecessary to carry them through the conflict with their atrocious enemy,\n\u2018the Society.\u2019 They were themselves in too many points vulnerable to\nclose fearlessly with their adversary, and they grasped the sword of the\nSpirit in too infirm a manner to drive home a deadly thrust.... The\nJansenists and the inmates of Port-Royal displayed a constancy that\nwould doubtless have carried them through the fires of martyrdom; but\nthe intellectual courage necessary to bear them fearlessly through an\nexamination of the errors of the papal superstition, could spring only\nfrom a healthy form of mind, utterly incompatible with the dotings of\nreligious abstraction, and the petty solicitudes of sackclothed\nabstinence. The Jansenists had not such courage; if they worshipped not\nthe Beast, they cringed before him; he placed his dragon-foot upon their\nnecks, and their wisdom and their virtues were lost forever to\nFrance.\u201d[77]\n\nIt is the policy of the Jesuits at present, as of old, to deny,\npoint-blank, the truthfulness of Pascal\u2019s statements of their doctrine\nand policy\u2014to reiterate the exploded charge of his having garbled his\nextracts\u2014and, after affecting to join in the laugh at his pleasantry,\nand to forgive, for the wit\u2019s sake, his injustice to their innocent and\nmuch-calumniated fathers, to declare that, of course, he could not\nhimself believe the half of what he said against them, nor comprehend\nthe profound questions of casuistry on which he presumed to argue. Under\nthis affectation of charity, they dexterously evade Pascal\u2019s main\ncharges, and slyly insinuate a vindication of the heresies of which they\nhave been convicted. Thus, in a late publication, one of their number\nactually attempts to vindicate the old Jesuitical doctrine of\n_probabilism_![78] At the same time, they retain, with undiminished\ntenacity, the moral maxims which Pascal condemns. The discovery lately\nmade of the Theology of Dens, still taught by the Jesuits in Ireland, is\na proof of this; for it is nothing more than a collection of the most\nwicked and obscene maxims of casuistical morality. Matters are no better\nin France. Dr. Gilly mentions a publication issued at Lyons, in 1825,\nwhich is so bad that the reviewer says, \u201cWe cannot, we dare not copy it;\nit is a book to which the cases of conscience of Dr. Sanchez were purity\nitself.\u201d[79] The disclosures made still more recently by M. Michelet and\nM. Quinet, are equally startling, and will, in all probability, issue in\nanother expulsion of the Jesuits from France.\n\nThe policy of the Society, as hitherto exhibited in the countries where\nthey have settled, describes a regular cycle of changes. Commencing with\nloud professions of charity, of liberal views in politics, and of an\naccommodating code of morals, they succeed in gaining popularity among\nthe non-religious, the dissipated, and the restless portion of society.\nAvailing themselves of this, and carefully concealing, in a Protestant\ncountry, the more obnoxious parts of their creed, their next step is to\nplant some of the most plausible of their apostles in the principal\nlocalities, who are instructed to establish schools and seminaries on\nthe most charitable footing, so as to ingratiate themselves with the\npoor, while they secure the contributions of the rich; to attack the\ncredit of the most active and influential among the evangelical\nministry; to revive old slanders against the reformers; to disseminate\ntracts of the most alluring description; and, when assailed in turn, to\ndeny everything and to grant nothing. Rising by these means to power and\ninfluence, they gradually monopolize the seats of learning and the halls\nof theology\u2014they glide, with noiseless steps, into closets, cabinets,\nand palaces\u2014they become the dictators of the public press, the\npersecutors of the good, and the oppressors of all public and private\nliberty. At length, their treacherous designs being discovered, they\nrouse against themselves the storm of natural passions, which,\ndescending on them first as the authors of the mischief, sweeps away\nalong with them, in its headlong career, everything that bears the\naspect of that active and earnest religion, under the guise of which\nthey had succeeded in duping mankind.\n\nWhat portion of this cycle they have reached among us, it is needless to\ndemonstrate. They have evidently got beyond the first stage; and it is\nhighly probable that, in proof of it, the present publication may elicit\na more than ordinary exhibition of their skill in the science of\ndefamation and denial. It is far from being unlikely that, at the\npresent point of their revolution, they may find it their interest,\nafter all the mischief that Pascal has done them, and all the ill that\nthey have spoken against Pascal, to claim him as a good Catholic, and\ntake advantage of the prestige of his name to insinuate, that the Church\nwhich could boast of such a man is not to be lightly esteemed. And, in\nfact, it requires no small exercise of caution to guard ourselves\nagainst such an illusion. It is difficult to characterize Popery as it\ndeserves without apparent uncharitableness to individuals, such as\nFenelon and Pascal, who, though members of a corrupt Church, possessed\nmuch of the spirit of true religion. But, though it would be impossible\nto class such eminent and pious men with an infidel cardinal or a\nSpanish inquisitor, it does not follow that they are free from\ncondemnation. It has been justly remarked, that \u201ctheir example has done\nmuch harm, and been only the more pernicious from their eminence and\ntheir virtues. It is difficult to calculate how much assistance their\nwell-merited reputation has given to prop the falling cause of Popery,\nand to lengthen out the continuance of a delusion the most lasting and\nthe most dangerous that has ever led mankind astray from the truth.\u201d[80]\nWith regard to our author, in particular, it may be well to remember,\nthat he was virtuous without being indebted to his Church, and\nevangelical in spite of his creed; that his piety, for which he is so\nmuch esteemed by us, was the very quality that exposed him to odium and\nsuspicion from his own communion; that the truths, for his adherence to\nwhich we would claim him as a brother in Christ, were those which were\nreprobated by the authorities of Rome; and that the following Letters,\nfor which he is so justly admired, were, by the same Church, formally\ncensured and ignominiously burnt, along with the Bible which Pascal\nloved, and the martyrs who have suffered for \u201cthe truth as it is in\nJesus.\u201d\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n Non quia per nos sancti et immaculati futuri essemus, sed elegit\n pr\u00e6destinavitque ut essemus. (De Pr\u00e6dest., Aug. Op., tom. x. 815.)\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n De dono Persever. (Ib., 822.)\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n Neander, Bibl. Repos., iii. 94; Leydecker, de Jansen. Dogm., 413.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n The question of the middle knowledge is learnedly handled by Voetius\n (Disp. Theol., i. 264), by Hoornbeck (Socin. Confut.), and other\n Protestant divines, who have shown it to be untenable, useless, and\n fraught with absurdity.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n Dupin, Eccl. Hist., 17th cent. 1\u201314.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n \u201cWell done, gentlemen; you have left me more in the dark than ever.\u201d\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n He was the son of a poor artisan, whose name was Jan, or John Ottho;\n hence Jansen, corresponding to our Johnson, which was Latinized into\n Jansenius.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Petitot, Collect. des M\u00e9moires, Notice sur Port-Royal, tom. xxxiii.,\n p. 19. This author\u2019s attempt to fix the charge of a conspiracy between\n Jansen and St. Cyran to overturn the Church, is a piece of special\n pleading, bearing on its face its own refutation.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n The followers of Jansen were not more charitable than he in their\n judgments of the Reformed, and showed an equal zeal with the Jesuits\n to persecute them, when they had it in their power. (Benoit, Hist. de\n l\u2019Edit de Nantes, iii. 200.)\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n _C\u00e6ca quadam obedientia.\u2014Ut Christum Dominum in superiore quolibet\n agnoscere studeatis.\u2014Perinde ac si cadaver essent, vel similiter atque\n senis baculus.\u2014Ad majorem Dei gloriam._ (Constit. Jesuit. pars vi.\n cap. 1; Ignat. Epist., &c.)\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Balde, whom the Jesuits honor in their schools as a modern Horace,\n thus celebrates the longevity of the Society, in his _Carmen Seculare\n de Societate Jesu_, 1640:\u2014\n\n \u201cProfuit quisquis voluit nocere.\n Cuncta subsident sociis; ubique\n Exules vivunt, et ubique cives!\n Sternimus victi, supreamus imi,\n Surgimus plures toties cadendo.\u201d\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Their famous missionary, Francis Xavier, whom they canonized, was\n ignorant of a single word in the languages of the Indians whom he\n professed to evangelize. He employed a hand-bell to summon the natives\n around him; and the poor savages, mistaking him for one of their\n learned Brahmans, he baptized them until his arm was exhausted with\n the task, and boasted of every one he baptized as a regenerated\n convert!\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n Macintosh, Hist. of England, ii. 353.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n Macintosh, Hist. of England, ii. 357.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n Augustine himself is chargeable with having been the first to\n introduce the scholastic mode of treating morality in the form of\n trifling questions, more fitted to gratify curiosity, and display\n acumen, than to edify or enlighten. His example was followed and\n miserably abused, by the moralists of succeeding ages. (Buddei\n Isagoge, vol. i. p. 568.)\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Lancelot. Tour to Alet, p. 173; Leydecker, p. 122.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n The whole title was: \u201cAugustinus Cornelii Jansenii episcopi, seu\n doctrina sancti Augustini de human\u00e6 natur\u00e6 sanctitate \u00e6gritudin\u00e6\n medica, adversus Pelagianos et Massilienses.\u201d Louvain, 1640.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n Leydecker, p. 132; Lancelot, p. 180.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Ranke, Hist. of the Popes, vol. iii. 143; Abb\u00e9 Du Mas, Hist. des Cinq\n Propositions, p. 48.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n Letter xviii. pp. 310\u2013313.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n Witsii \u0152conom. F\u0153d., lib. iii.; Turret. Theol., Elenct. xv. quest. 4;\n De Moor Comment, iv. 496; Mestrezat, Serm. sur Rom., viii. 274.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n I refer here particularly to Arnauld\u2019s treatise, entitled\n \u201cRenversement de la Morale de Jesus Christ par les Calvinistes,\u201d which\n was answered by Jurieu in his \u201cJustification de la Morale des\n Reformez.\u201d 1685, by M. Merlat, and others. Jurieu has shown at great\n length, and with a severity for which he had too much provocation,\n that Arnauld and his friends, in their violent tirades against the\n Reformed, neither acted in good faith, nor in consistency with the\n sentiments of their much admired leaders, Augustine and Jansen.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n Fontaine, M\u00e9moires, i. 200; Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., cent. xvii. 2.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n Lancelot, p. 123.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n M\u00e9moires pour servir a l\u2019Histoire de Port-Royal, vol. i. pp. 35, 57,\n 142.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n Ib., p. 456. The title of this work was, \u201cThe Secret Chaplet of the\n Holy Sacrament.\u201d\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n Sacy, or Saci, was the inverted name of Isaac Le Maitre, celebrated\n for his translation of the Bible.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., cent. xvii. \u00a72.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n We may refer particularly to Petitot in his Collection des M\u00e9moires,\n tom. xxxiii., Paris, 1824; and to a History of the Company of Jesus by\n J. Cretineau-Joly, Paris, 1845. With high pretensions to impartiality,\n these works abound with the most glaring specimens of special\n pleading.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n Voltaire, Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV, t. ii.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n M\u00e9moires de P. Royal, i. 13. Bayle insists that his father had\n twenty-two children. Dict., art. _Arnauld_.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Weisman, Hist. Eccl., ii. 204.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n The title under which the Letters appeared when first collected into a\n volume was, \u201c_Lettres \u00e9crites par Louis de Montalte, a un Provincial\n de ses amis, et aux RR. PP. Jesuites, sur la morale et la politique de\n ces Peres_.\u201d\n\n Father Bouhours, a Jesuit, ridicules the title of the Letters, and\n says he is surprised they were not rather entitled \u201cLetters from a\n Country Bumpkin to his Friends,\u201d and instead of \u201cThe Provincials\u201d\n called \u201cThe Bumpkins\u201d\u2014\u201c_Campagnardes_.\u201d (Remarques sur la langue\n Fran., p. ii. 306. Dict. Univ., art. _Provincial_.)\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Daniel, Entretiens, p. 19.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Petitot, Notices, p. 121.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n Benoit, Hist. de l\u2019Edit. de Nantes, iii. 198.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n Daniel, Entretiens, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n Nicole, Notes sur la xi. Lettre iii. 332.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n Recueil de Port-Royal, 278, 279; Petitot, pp. 122, 123.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n Histoire des Provinciales, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n Petitot, p. 124. The eighteenth letter embraces the delicate topic of\n papal authority, as well as the distinction between _faith_ and\n _fact_, in stating which we can easily conceive how severely the\n ingenuous mind of Pascal must have labored to find some plausible\n ground for vindicating his consistency as a Roman Catholic. To the\n Protestant reader, it must appear the most unsatisfactory of all the\n Letters.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Prov. Let., p. 340.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n Perrault, Parallele des Anc. et Mod., Bayle, art. _Pascal_.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n D\u2019Artigny, Nouveaux M\u00e9moires iii. p. 34.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Voltaire, Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV., tom. ii. pp. 171, 274.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n D\u2019Alembert, Destruct. des Jesuites, p. 54.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Bordas-Demoulin, Eloge de Pascal, p. xxv. (This was the prize essay\n before the French Academy, in June, 1842.)\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n Nicole, Hist. des Provinciales.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n The names of these unfortunate productions alone survive; 1. \u201cFirst\n Reply to Letters, &c., by a Father of the Company of Jesus.\u201d 2.\n \u201cProvincial Impostures of Sieur de Montalte, Secretary of Port-Royal,\n discovered and refuted by a Father of the Company of Jesus.\u201d 3. \u201cReply\n to a Theologian,\u201d &c. 4. \u201cReply to the Seventeenth Letter, by Francis\n Annat,\u201d &c., &c.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n Eichhorn, Geschichte der Litteratur, vol. i. pp. 420\u2013423.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n Recueil de Port-Royal, pp. 314\u2013323. Some papers passed between Pascal\n and his friends on this topic. Pascal committed these on his death-bed\n to his friend M. Domat, \u201cwith a request that he would burn them if the\n nuns of Port-Royal proved firm, and print them if they should yield.\u201d\n (Ib., p. 322.) The nuns having stood firm, the probability is that\n they were destroyed. Had they been preserved, they might have thrown\n some further light on the opinions of Pascal regarding papal\n authority.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n _Si mes Lettres sont condamn\u00e9es \u00e0 Rome, ce que j\u2019y condamne, est\n condamn\u00e9 dans le ciel._ (Pens\u00e9es de Blaise Pascal, tom. ii. 163.\n Paris, 1824.)\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n \u201cHow came you,\u201d said the archbishop to M. Beurrier, \u201cto administer the\n sacraments to such a person? Didn\u2019t you know that he was a Jansenist?\u201d\n (Recueil, 348.)\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n Recueil de Port-Royal, pp. 327\u2013330; Petitot, p. 165.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n Walchii Biblioth. Theol., ii. 295.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n The title of Nicole\u2019s translation, now rarely to be met with, is,\n _Ludovici Montaltii Litter\u00e6 Provinciales, de Morali et Politica\n Jesuitarum Disciplina. A Willelmo Wendrockio, Salisburgensi Theologo._\n Several editions of this translation were printed. I have the first,\n published at Cologne in 1658, and the fifth, much enlarged, Cologne,\n 1679.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n Avertissement, Les Provinciales, ed. 1767. Mad. de Joncourt, or\n Joncoux, took a deep interest in the falling fortunes of Port-Royal.\n (See some account of her in Madame Schimmelpenninck\u2019s History of the\n Demolition of Port-Royal, p. 135.)\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Bayle, Dict., art. _Pascal_.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n Daniel, Entretiens, p. 111.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Bayle, Dict., art. _Pascal_, note K.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n Abb\u00e9 de Castres, Les Trois Si\u00e8cles, ii. 63.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Barbier, Dict. des Ouvrages Anon. et Pseudon.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Tabaraud, _Dissertation sur la foi qui est due au Temoignage de Pascal\n dans ses Lettres Provinciales_, p. 12.\u2014This work, published some years\n ago in France, contains a complete justification of Pascal\u2019s picture\n of the Jesuits in the Provincials, accompanied with a mass of\n authorities. The above sentiments have been introduced into Pascal\u2019s\n Thoughts. (See Craig\u2019s translation, p. 185.)\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n Vie de Bossuet, t. iv. p. 19; Tabaraud, Dissert. sur la foi, &c., p.\n 43.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n \u201cThe shocking doctrine of Jansenius and of St. Cyran, afforded at\n least as much room for ridicule as the pliant doctrine of Molina,\n Tambourin, and Vasquez.\u201d (D\u2019Alembert, Dest. of the Jesuits, p. 55.)\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Voltaire, Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV., ii. 367.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Eichhorn, Geschichte der Lit., i. 426.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Prov. Let., p. 118.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n Ib., p. 142.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n Tabaraud, p. 117; Bord. Demoulin, Eloge de Pascal, Append.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Schlegel, Lectures on Hist. of Lit. ii. 188.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Letters from Spain, p. 86.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n Macintosh, History of England, vol. ii. 359, note.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n Eichhorn, Geschichte der Litter., vol. i. pp. 423\u2013425; Weisman, Hist.\n Eccl., vol. ii. 21; Jurieu, Prejugez Legitimes cont. le Papisme, p.\n 386; Claude, Defence of the Reformation, p. 29.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n Jurieu, Justification de la Morale des Reformez, contre M. Arnauld, i.\n p. 30.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n A disingenuous attempt has been sometimes made to identify these\n nefarious maxims with certain principles held by some of our\n reformers. There is an essential difference between the natural right\n claimed, we do not say with what justice, for subjects to proceed\n against their rulers as tyrants, and the right assumed by the pope to\n depose rulers as heretics. And it is equally easy to distinguish\n between the disallowed acts of some fanatical individuals who have\n taken the law into their own hands, and the atrocious deeds of such\n men as Chatel and Ravaillac, who could plead the authority of Mariana\n the Jesuit, that \u201cto put tyrannical princes to death is not only a\n lawful, but a laudable, heroic, and glorious action.\u201d (Dalton\u2019s\n Jesuits; their Principles and Acts, London, 1843.) The Church of St.\n Ignatius at Rome is or was adorned, it seems, with pictures of all the\n assassinations mentioned in Scripture, which they have, most\n presumptuously, perverted in justification of their feats in this\n department. (D\u2019Alembert, Dest. of the Jesuits, p. 101.)\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Taylor, Natural Hist. of Enthusiasm, p. 256.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n De l\u2019Existence et de l\u2019Institut des Jesuites. Par le R. P. de\n Ravignan, de la Compagnie de Jesus. Paris, 1845, p. 83. _Probabilism_\n is the doctrine, that if any opinion in morals has been held by any\n _grave doctor_ of the Church, it is _probably true_, and may be safely\n followed in practice.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n Gilly, Narrative of an Excursion to Piedmont, p. 156.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n Douglas on Errors in Religion, p. 113.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER I.\n\nDISPUTES IN THE SORBONNE, AND THE INVENTION OF PROXIMATE POWER\u2014A TERM\n EMPLOYED BY THE JESUITS TO PROCURE THE CENSURE OF M. ARNAULD.\n\n\n PARIS, _January 23, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014We were entirely mistaken. It was only yesterday that I was\nundeceived. Until that time I had labored under the impression that the\ndisputes in the Sorbonne were vastly important, and deeply affected the\ninterests of religion. The frequent convocations of an assembly so\nillustrious as that of the Theological Faculty of Paris, attended by so\nmany extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, led one to form such\nhigh expectations, that it was impossible to help coming to the\nconclusion that the subject was most extraordinary. You will be greatly\nsurprised, however, when you learn from the following account, the issue\nof this grand demonstration, which, having made myself perfectly master\nof the subject, I shall be able to tell you in very few words.\n\nTwo questions, then, were brought under examination; the one a question\nof fact, the other a question of right.\n\nThe question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was\nguilty of presumption, for having asserted in his second letter[81] that\nhe had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not\ndiscovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that,\nnevertheless, as he condemned these propositions wherever they might\noccur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in\nthat work.[82]\n\nThe question here was, if he could, without presumption, entertain a\ndoubt that these propositions were in Jansenius, after the bishops had\ndeclared that they were.\n\nThe matter having been brought before the Sorbonne, seventy-one doctors\nundertook his defence, maintaining that the only reply he could possibly\ngive to the demands made upon him in so many publications, calling on\nhim to say if he held that these propositions were in that book, was,\nthat he had not been able to find them, but that if they were in the\nbook, he condemned them in the book.\n\nSome even went a step farther, and protested that, after all the search\nthey had made into the book, they had never stumbled upon these\npropositions, and that they had, on the contrary, found sentiments\nentirely at variance with them. They then earnestly begged that, if any\ndoctor present had discovered them, he would have the goodness to point\nthem out; adding, that what was so easy could not reasonably be refused,\nas this would be the surest way to silence the whole of them, M. Arnauld\nincluded; but this proposal has been uniformly declined. So much for the\none side.\n\nOn the other side are eighty secular doctors, and some forty mendicant\nfriars, who have condemned M. Arnauld\u2019s proposition, without choosing to\nexamine whether he has spoken truly or falsely\u2014who, in fact, have\ndeclared, that they have nothing to do with the veracity of his\nproposition, but simply with its temerity.\n\nBesides these, there were fifteen who were not in favor of the censure,\nand who are called Neutrals.\n\nSuch was the issue of the question of fact, regarding which, I must say,\nI give myself very little concern. It does not affect my conscience in\nthe least whether M. Arnauld is presumptuous, or the reverse; and should\nI be tempted, from curiosity, to ascertain whether these propositions\nare contained in Jansenius, his book is neither so very rare nor so very\nlarge as to hinder me from reading it over from beginning to end, for my\nown satisfaction, without consulting the Sorbonne on the matter.\n\nWere it not, however, for the dread of being presumptuous myself, I\nreally think that I would be disposed to adopt the opinion which has\nbeen formed by the most of my acquaintances, who, though they have\nbelieved hitherto on common report that the propositions were in\nJansenius, begin now to suspect the contrary, owing to this strange\nrefusal to point them out\u2014a refusal, the more extraordinary to me, as I\nhave not yet met with a single individual who can say that he has\ndiscovered them in that work. I am afraid, therefore, that this censure\nwill do more harm than good, and that the impression which it will leave\non the minds of all who know its history will be just the reverse of the\nconclusion that has been come to. The truth is, the world has become\nsceptical of late, and will not believe things till it sees them. But,\nas I said before, this point is of very little moment, as it has no\nconcern with religion.[83]\n\nThe question of right, from its affecting the faith, appears much more\nimportant, and, accordingly, I took particular pains in examining it.\nYou will be relieved, however, to find that it is of as little\nconsequence as the former.\n\nThe point of dispute here, was an assertion of M. Arnauld\u2019s in the same\nletter, to the effect, \u201cthat the grace without which we can do nothing,\nwas wanting to St. Peter at his fall.\u201d You and I supposed that the\ncontroversy here would turn upon the great principles of grace; such as,\nwhether grace is given to all men? or, if it is efficacious of itself?\nBut we were quite mistaken. You must know I have become a great\ntheologian within this short time; and now for the proofs of it!\n\nTo ascertain the matter with certainty, I repaired to my neighbor, M.\nN\u2014\u2014, doctor of Navarre, who, as you are aware, is one of the keenest\nopponents of the Jansenists, and my curiosity having made me almost as\nkeen as himself, I asked him if they would not formally decide at once\nthat \u201cgrace is given to all men,\u201d and thus set the question at rest. But\nhe gave me a sore rebuff, and told me that that was not the point; that\nthere were some of his party who held that grace was not given to all;\nthat the examiners themselves had declared, in a full assembly of the\nSorbonne, that that opinion was _problematical_; and that he himself\nheld the same sentiment, which he confirmed by quoting to me what he\ncalled that celebrated passage of St. Augustine: \u201cWe know that grace is\nnot given to all men.\u201d\n\nI apologized for having misapprehended his sentiment, and requested him\nto say if they would not at least condemn that other opinion of the\nJansenists which is making so much noise, \u201cThat grace is efficacious of\nitself, and invincibly determines our will to what is good.\u201d But in this\nsecond query I was equally unfortunate. \u201cYou know nothing about the\nmatter,\u201d he said; \u201cthat is not a heresy\u2014it is an orthodox opinion; all\nthe Thomists[84] maintain it; and I myself have defended it in my\nSorbonic thesis.\u201d[85]\n\nI did not venture again to propose my doubts, and yet I was as far as\never from understanding where the difficulty lay; so, at last, in order\nto get at it, I begged him to tell me where, then, lay the heresy of M.\nArnauld\u2019s proposition? \u201cIt lies here,\u201d said he, \u201cthat he does not\nacknowledge that the righteous have the power of obeying the\ncommandments of God, in the manner in which we understand it.\u201d\n\nOn receiving this piece of information, I took my leave of him; and,\nquite proud at having discovered the knot of the question, I sought M.\nN\u2014\u2014, who is gradually getting better, and was sufficiently recovered to\nconduct me to the house of his brother-in-law, who is a Jansenist, if\never there was one, but a very good man notwithstanding. Thinking to\ninsure myself a better reception, I pretended to be very high on what I\ntook to be his side, and said: \u201cIs it possible that the Sorbonne has\nintroduced into the Church such an error as this, \u2018that all the\nrighteous have always the power of obeying the commandments of God?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat say you?\u201d replied the doctor. \u201cCall you that an error\u2014a sentiment\nso Catholic that none but Lutherans and Calvinists impugn it?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed!\u201d said I, surprised in my turn; \u201cso you are not of their\nopinion?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d he replied; \u201cwe anathematize it as heretical and impious.\u201d[86]\n\nConfounded by this reply, I soon discovered that I had overacted the\nJansenist, as I had formerly overdone the Molinist.[87] But not being\nsure if I had rightly understood him, I requested him to tell me frankly\nif he held \u201cthat the righteous have always a real power to observe the\ndivine precepts?\u201d Upon this the good man got warm (but it was with a\nholy zeal), and protested that he would not disguise his sentiments on\nany consideration\u2014that such was, indeed, his belief, and that he and all\nhis party would defend it to the death, as the pure doctrine of St.\nThomas, and of St. Augustine their master.\n\nThis was spoken so seriously as to leave me no room for doubt; and under\nthis impression I returned to my first doctor, and said to him, with an\nair of great satisfaction, that I was sure there would be peace in the\nSorbonne very soon; that the Jansenists were quite at one with them in\nreference to the power of the righteous to obey the commandments of God;\nthat I could pledge my word for them, and could make them seal it with\ntheir blood.\n\n\u201cHold there!\u201d said he. \u201cOne must be a theologian to see the point of\nthis question. The difference between us is so subtle, that it is with\nsome difficulty we can discern it ourselves\u2014you will find it rather too\nmuch for your powers of comprehension. Content yourself, then, with\nknowing that it is very true the Jansenists will tell you that all the\nrighteous have always the power of obeying the commandments; that is not\nthe point in dispute between us; but mark you, they will not tell you\nthat that power is _proximate_. That is the point.\u201d\n\nThis was a new and unknown word to me. Up to this moment I had managed\nto understand matters, but that term involved me in obscurity; and I\nverily believe that it has been invented for no other purpose than to\nmystify. I requested him to give me an explanation of it, but he made a\nmystery of it, and sent me back, without any further satisfaction, to\ndemand of the Jansenists if they would admit this _proximate power_.\nHaving charged my memory with the phrase (as to my understanding, that\nwas out of the question), I hastened with all possible expedition,\nfearing that I might forget it, to my Jansenist friend, and accosted\nhim, immediately after our first salutations, with: \u201cTell me, pray, if\nyou admit _the proximate power_?\u201d He smiled, and replied, coldly: \u201cTell\nme yourself in what sense you understand it, and I may then inform you\nwhat I think of it.\u201d As my knowledge did not extend quite so far, I was\nat a loss what reply to make; and yet, rather than lose the object of my\nvisit, I said at random: \u201cWhy, I understand it in the sense of the\nMolinists.\u201d \u201cTo which of the Molinists do you refer me?\u201d replied he,\nwith the utmost coolness. I referred him to the whole of them together,\nas forming one body, and animated by one spirit.\n\n\u201cYou know very little about the matter,\u201d returned he. \u201cSo far are they\nfrom being united in sentiment, that some of them are diametrically\nopposed to each other. But, being all united in the design to ruin M.\nArnauld, they have resolved to agree on this term _proximate_, which\nboth parties might use indiscriminately, though they understand it\ndiversely, that thus, by a similarity of language, and an apparent\nconformity, they may form a large body, and get up a majority to crush\nhim with the greater certainty.\u201d\n\nThis reply filled me with amazement; but without imbibing these\nimpressions of the malicious designs of the Molinists, which I am\nunwilling to believe on his word, and with which I have no concern, I\nset myself simply to ascertain the various senses which they give to\nthat mysterious word _proximate_. \u201cI would enlighten you on the subject\nwith all my heart,\u201d he said; \u201cbut you would discover in it such a mass\nof contrariety and contradiction, that you would hardly believe me. You\nwould suspect me. To make sure of the matter, you had better learn it\nfrom some of themselves; and I shall give you some of their addresses.\nYou have only to make a separate visit to one called M. le Moine,[88]\nand to Father Nicolai.\u201d[89]\n\n\u201cI have no acquaintance with any of these persons,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cLet me see, then,\u201d he replied, \u201cif you know any of those whom I shall\nname to you; they all agree in sentiment with M. le Moine.\u201d\n\nI happened, in fact, to know some of them.\n\n\u201cWell, let us see if you are acquainted with any of the Dominicans whom\nthey call the \u2018New Thomists,\u2019[90] for they are all the same with Father\nNicolai.\u201d\n\nI knew some of them also whom he named; and, resolved to profit by this\ncounsel, and to investigate the matter, I took my leave of him, and went\nimmediately to one of the disciples of M. le Moine. I begged him to\ninform me what it was to have the _proximate power_ of doing a thing.\n\n\u201cIt is easy to tell you that,\u201d he replied; \u201cit is merely to have all\nthat is necessary for doing it in such a manner that nothing is wanting\nto performance.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd so,\u201d said I, \u201cto have the proximate power of crossing a river, for\nexample, is to have a boat, boatmen, oars, and all the rest, so that\nnothing is wanting?\u201d\n\n\u201cExactly so,\u201d said the monk.\n\n\u201cAnd to have the proximate power of _seeing_,\u201d continued I, \u201cmust be to\nhave good eyes and the light of day; for a person with good sight in the\ndark would not have the proximate power of seeing, according to you, as\nhe would want the light, without which one cannot see?\u201d\n\n\u201cPrecisely,\u201d said he.\n\n\u201cAnd consequently,\u201d returned I, \u201cwhen you say that all the righteous\nhave the proximate power of observing the commandments of God, you mean\nthat they have always all the grace necessary for observing them, so\nthat nothing is wanting to them on the part of God.\u201d\n\n\u201cStay there,\u201d he replied; \u201cthey have always all that is necessary for\nobserving the commandments, or at least for asking it of God.\u201d\n\n\u201cI understand you,\u201d said I; \u201cthey have all that is necessary for praying\nto God to assist them, without requiring any new grace from God to\nenable them to pray.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have it now,\u201d he rejoined.\n\n\u201cBut is it not necessary that they have an efficacious grace, in order\nto pray to God?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said he; \u201cnot according to M. le Moine.\u201d\n\nTo lose no time, I went to the Jacobins,[91] and requested an interview\nwith some whom I knew to be New Thomists, and I begged them to tell me\nwhat \u201cproximate power\u201d was. \u201cIs it not,\u201d said I, \u201cthat power to which\nnothing is wanting in order to act?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said they.\n\n\u201cIndeed! fathers,\u201d said I; \u201cif anything is wanting to that power, do you\ncall it proximate? Would you say, for instance, that a man in the night\ntime, and without any light, had the proximate power of seeing?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, indeed, he would have it, in our opinion, if he is not blind.\u201d\n\n\u201cI grant that,\u201d said I; \u201cbut M. le Moine understands it in a different\nmanner.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery true,\u201d they replied; \u201cbut so it is that we understand it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have no objections to that,\u201d I said; \u201cfor I never quarrel about a\nname, provided I am apprized of the sense in which it is understood. But\nI perceive from this, that when you speak of the righteous having always\nthe proximate power of praying to God, you understand that they require\nanother supply for praying, without which they will never pray.\u201d\n\n\u201cMost excellent!\u201d exclaimed the good fathers, embracing me; \u201cexactly the\nthing; for they must have, besides, an efficacious grace bestowed upon\nall, and which determines their wills to pray; and it is heresy to deny\nthe necessity of that efficacious grace in order to pray.\u201d\n\n\u201cMost excellent!\u201d cried I, in return; \u201cbut, according to you, the\nJansenists are Catholics, and M. le Moine a heretic; for the Jansenists\nmaintain that, while the righteous have power to pray, they require\nnevertheless an efficacious grace; and this is what you approve. M. le\nMoine, again, maintains that the righteous may pray without efficacious\ngrace; and this is what you condemn.\u201d\n\n\u201cAy,\u201d said they; \u201cbut M. le Moine calls that power _proximate power_.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow now! fathers,\u201d I exclaimed; \u201cthis is merely playing with words, to\nsay that you are agreed as to the common terms which you employ, while\nyou differ with them as to the sense of these terms.\u201d\n\nThe fathers made no reply; and at this juncture, who should come in but\nmy old friend the disciple of M. le Moine! I regarded this at the time\nas an extraordinary piece of good fortune; but I have discovered since\nthen that such meetings are not rare\u2014that, in fact, they are constantly\nmixing in each other\u2019s society.[92]\n\n\u201cI know a man,\u201d said I, addressing myself to M. le Moine\u2019s disciple,\n\u201cwho holds that all the righteous have always the power of praying to\nGod, but that, notwithstanding this, they will never pray without an\nefficacious grace which determines them, and which God does not always\ngive to all the righteous. Is he a heretic?\u201d\n\n\u201cStay,\u201d said the doctor; \u201cyou might take me by surprise. Let us go\ncautiously to work. _Distinguo._[93] If he call that power _proximate\npower_, he will be a Thomist, and therefore a Catholic; if not, he will\nbe a Jansenist, and therefore a heretic.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe calls it neither proximate nor non-proximate,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cThen he is a heretic,\u201d quoth he; \u201cI refer you to these good fathers if\nhe is not.\u201d\n\nI did not appeal to them as judges, for they had already nodded assent;\nbut I said to them: \u201cHe refuses to admit that word _proximate_, because\nhe can meet with nobody who will explain it to him.\u201d\n\nUpon this one of the fathers was on the point of offering his definition\nof the term, when he was interrupted by M. le Moine\u2019s disciple, who said\nto him: \u201cDo you mean, then, to renew our broils? Have we not agreed not\nto explain that word _proximate_, but to use it on both sides without\nsaying what it signifies?\u201d To this the Jacobin gave his assent.\n\nI was thus let into the whole secret of their plot; and rising to take\nmy leave of them, I remarked: \u201cIndeed, fathers, I am much afraid this is\nnothing better than pure chicanery; and whatever may be the result of\nyour convocations, I venture to predict that, though the censure should\npass, peace will not be established. For though it should be decided\nthat the syllables of that word _proximate_ should be pronounced, who\ndoes not see that, the meaning not being explained, each of you will be\ndisposed to claim the victory? The Jacobins will contend that the word\nis to be understood in their sense; M. le Moine will insist that it must\nbe taken in his; and thus there will be more wrangling about the\nexplanation of the word than about its introduction. For, after all,\nthere would be no great danger in adopting it without any sense, seeing\nit is through the sense only that it can do any harm. But it would be\nunworthy of the Sorbonne and of theology to employ equivocal and\ncaptious terms without giving any explanation of them. In short,\nfathers, tell me, I entreat you, for the last time, what is necessary to\nbe believed in order to be a good Catholic?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou must say,\u201d they all vociferated simultaneously, \u201cthat all the\nrighteous have the _proximate power_, abstracting from it all sense\u2014from\nthe sense of the Thomists and the sense of other divines.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is to say,\u201d I replied, in taking leave of them, \u201cthat I must\npronounce that word to avoid being the heretic of a name. For, pray, is\nthis a Scripture word?\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d said they. \u201cIs it a word of the Fathers,\nthe Councils, or the Popes?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cIs the word, then, used by St.\nThomas?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cWhat necessity, therefore, is there for using it, since\nit has neither the authority of others nor any sense of itself?\u201d \u201cYou\nare an opinionative fellow,\u201d said they; \u201cbut you shall say it, or you\nshall be a heretic, and M. Arnauld into the bargain; for we are the\nmajority, and should it be necessary, we can bring a sufficient number\nof Cordeliers[94] into the field to carry the day.\u201d\n\nOn hearing this solid argument, I took my leave of them, to write you\nthe foregoing account of my interview, from which you will perceive that\nthe following points remain undisputed and uncondemned by either party.\n_First_, That grace is not given to all men. _Second_, That all the\nrighteous have always the power of obeying the divine commandments.\n_Third_, That they require, nevertheless, in order to obey them, and\neven to pray, an efficacious grace, which invincibly determines their\nwill. _Fourth_, That this efficacious grace is not always granted to all\nthe righteous, and that it depends on the pure mercy of God. So that,\nafter all, the truth is safe, and nothing runs any risk but that word\nwithout the sense, _proximate_.\n\nHappy the people who are ignorant of its existence!\u2014happy those who\nlived before it was born!\u2014for I see no help for it, unless the gentlemen\nof the Academy,[95] by an act of absolute authority, banish that\nbarbarous term, which causes so many divisions, from beyond the\nprecincts of the Sorbonne. Unless this be done, the censure appears\ncertain; but I can easily see that it will do no other harm than\ndiminish the credit[96] of the Sorbonne, and deprive it of that\nauthority which is so necessary to it on other occasions.\n\nMeanwhile, I leave you at perfect liberty to hold by the word\n_proximate_ or not, just as you please; for I love you too much to\npersecute you under that pretext. If this account is not displeasing to\nyou, I shall continue to apprize you of all that happens.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n Anthony Arnauld, or Arnaud, priest and doctor of the Sorbonne, was the\n son of Anthony Arnauld, a famous advocate, and born at Paris, February\n 6, 1612. He early distinguished himself in philosophy and divinity,\n advocating the doctrines of Augustine and Port-Royal, and opposing\n those of the Jesuits. The disputes concerning grace which broke out\n about 1643 in the University of Paris, served to foment the mutual\n animosity between M. Arnauld and the Jesuits, who entertained a\n hereditary feud against the whole family, from the active part taken\n by their father against the Society in the close of the preceding\n century. In 1655 it happened that a certain duke, who was educating\n his grand-daughter at Port-Royal, the Jansenist monastery, and kept a\n Jansenist abb\u00e9 in his house, on presenting himself for confession to a\n priest under the influence of the Jesuits, was refused absolution,\n unless he promised to recall his grand-daughter and discard his abb\u00e9.\n This produced two letters from M. Arnauld, in the second of which he\n exposed the calumnies and falsities with which the Jesuits had\n assailed him in a multitude of pamphlets. This is the letter referred\n to in the text.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n The book which occasioned these disputes was entitled _Augustinus_,\n and was written by Cornelius Jansenius or Jansen, bishop of Ypres, and\n published after his death. Five propositions, selected from this work,\n were condemned by the pope; and armed with these, as with a scourge,\n the Jesuits continued to persecute the Jansenists till they\n accomplished their ruin.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n And yet \u201cthe question of fact,\u201d which Pascal professes to treat so\n lightly, became the turning point of all the subsequent persecutions\n directed against the unhappy Port-Royalists! Those who have read the\n sad tale of the demolition of Port-Royal, will recollect with a sigh,\n the sufferings inflicted on the poor scholars and pious nuns of that\n establishment solely on the ground that, from respect to Jansenius and\n to a good conscience they would not subscribe a formulary\n acknowledging the five propositions to be contained in his book.\u2014(See\n Narrative of the Demolition of the Monastery of Port-Royal, by Mary\n Anne Schimmelpenninck p. 170, &c.)\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n The Thomists were so called after Thomas Aquinas, the celebrated\n \u201cAngelic Doctor\u201d of the schools. He flourished in the thirteenth\n century, and was opposed in the following century, by Duns Scotus, a\n British, some say a Scottish, monk of the order of St. Francis. This\n gave rise to a fierce and protracted controversy, in the course of\n which the Franciscans took the side of Duns Scotus, and were called\n Scotists; while the Dominicans espoused the cause of Thomas Aquinas,\n and were sometimes called Thomists.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n _Sorbonique_\u2014an act or thesis of divinity, delivered in the hall of\n the college of the Sorbonne by candidates for the degree of doctor.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n The Jansenists, in their dread of being classed with Lutherans and\n Calvinists, condescended to quibble on this question. In reality, as\n we shall see, they agreed with the Reformers for they denied that any\n could actually obey the commandments without efficacious grace.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n _Molinist._ The Jesuits were so called, in this dispute, after Lewis\n Molina, a famous Jesuit of Spain, who published a work, entitled\n _Concordia Grati\u00e6 et Liberi Arbitrii_, in which he professed to have\n found out a new way of reconciling the freedom of the human will with\n the divine prescience. This new invention was termed _Scientia Media_,\n or middle knowledge. All who adopted the sentiments of Molina, whether\n Jesuits or not, were termed Molinists.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n _Pierre le Moine_ was a doctor of the Sorbonne, whom Cardinal\n Richelieu employed to write against Jansenius. This Jesuit was the\n author of several works which display considerable talent, though\n little principle. His book on Grace was forcibly answered, and himself\n somewhat severely handled, in a work entitled \u201cAn Apology for the Holy\n Fathers,\u201d which he suspected to be written by Arnauld. It was Le Moine\n who, according to Nicole, had the chief share in raising the storm\n against Arnauld, of whom he was the bitter and avowed enemy.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n _Father Nicolai_ was a Dominican\u2014an order of friars who professed to\n be followers of St. Thomas. He is here mentioned as a representative\n of his class; but Nicole informs us that he abandoned the principles\n of his order, and became a Molinist, or an abettor of Pelagianism.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n _New Thomists._ It is more difficult to trace or remember the various\n sects into which the Roman Church is divided, than those of the\n Protestant Church. The New Thomists were the disciples of Diego\n Alvarez, a theologian of the order of St. Dominic, who flourished in\n the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He was sent from Spain to\n Rome in 1596, to defend the doctrine of grace against Molina, and\n distinguished himself in the Congregation _De Auxiliis_. The New\n Thomists contended for _efficacious grace_, but admitted at the same\n time, a _sufficient grace_, which was given to all, and yet not\n sufficient for any actual performance without the efficacious. The\n ridiculous incongruity of this doctrine is admirably exposed by Pascal\n in his second letter.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n _Jacobins_, another name for the Dominicans in France, where they were\n so called from the street in Paris, Rue de St. Jacques, where their\n first convent was erected, in the year 1218. In England they were\n called Black Friars. Their founder was Dominick, a Spaniard. His\n mother, it is said, dreamt, before his birth, that she was to be\n delivered of a wolf with a torch in his mouth. The augury was realized\n in the barbarous humor of Dominick, and the massacres which he\n occasioned in various parts of the world, by preaching up crusades\n against the heretics. He was the founder of the Inquisition, and his\n order was, before the Reformation, what the Jesuits were after it\u2014the\n soul of the Romish hierarchy, and the bitterest enemies of the truth.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n This is a sly hit at the Dominicans for combining with their natural\n enemies the Jesuits, in order to accomplish the ruin of M. Arnauld.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n _Distinguo._ \u201cI draw a distinction\u201d\u2014a humorous allusion to the endless\n distinctions of the Aristotelian school, in which the writings of the\n Casuists abounded, and by means of which they may be said to have more\n frequently eluded than elucidated the truth. M. le Moine was\n particularly famous for these _distinguos_, frequently introducing\n three or four of them in succession on one head; and the disciple in\n the test is made to echo the favorite phrase of his master.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n _Cordeliers_, a designation of the Franciscans, or monks of the order\n of St. Francis.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n The Royal Academy, which compiled the celebrated dictionary of the\n French language, and was held at that time to be the great umpire in\n literature.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n The edition of 1657 had it, _Rendre la Sorbonne meprisable_\u2014\u201cRender\n the Sorbonne contemptible\u201d\u2014an expression much more just, but which the\n editors durst not allow to remain in the subsequent editions.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER II.\n\n OF SUFFICIENT GRACE.\n\n\n PARIS, _January 29, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014Just as I had sealed up my last letter, I received a visit from our\nold friend M. N\u2014\u2014. Nothing could have happened more luckily for my\ncuriosity; for he is thoroughly informed in the questions of the day,\nand is completely in the secret of the Jesuits, at whose houses,\nincluding those of their leading men, he is a constant visitor. After\nhaving talked over the business which brought him to my house, I asked\nhim to state, in a few words, what were the points in dispute between\nthe two parties.\n\nHe immediately complied, and informed me that the principal points were\ntwo\u2014the _first_ about the _proximate power_, and the _second_ about\n_sufficient grace_. I have enlightened you on the first of these points\nin my former letter, and shall now speak of the second.\n\nIn one word, then, I found that their difference about sufficient grace\nmay be defined thus: The Jesuits maintain that there is a grace given\ngenerally to all men, subject in such a way to free-will that the will\nrenders it efficacious or inefficacious at its pleasure, without any\nadditional aid from God, and without wanting anything on his part in\norder to acting effectively; and hence they term this grace\n_sufficient_, because it suffices of itself for action. The Jansenists,\non the other hand, will not allow that any grace is actually sufficient\nwhich is not also efficacious; that is, that all those kinds of grace\nwhich do not determine the will to act effectively are insufficient for\naction; for they hold that a man can never act without _efficacious\ngrace_.\n\nSuch are the points in debate between the Jesuits and the Jansenists;\nand my next object was to ascertain the doctrine of the New\nThomists.[97] \u201cIt is rather an odd one,\u201d he said; \u201cthey agree with the\nJesuits in admitting a _sufficient grace_ given to all men; but they\nmaintain, at the same time, that no man can act with this grace alone,\nbut that, in order to this, he must receive from God an efficacious\ngrace which really determines his will to the action, and which God does\nnot grant to all men.\u201d \u201cSo that, according to this doctrine,\u201d said I,\n\u201cthis grace is _sufficient_ without being sufficient.\u201d \u201cExactly so,\u201d he\nreplied; \u201cfor if it suffices, there is no need of anything more for\nacting; and if it does not suffice, why\u2014it is not sufficient.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d asked I, \u201cwhere, then, is the difference between them and the\nJansenists?\u201d \u201cThey differ in this,\u201d he replied, \u201cthat the Dominicans\nhave this good qualification, that they do not refuse to say that all\nmen have the _sufficient grace_.\u201d \u201cI understand you,\u201d returned I; \u201cbut\nthey say it without thinking it; for they add that, in order to action,\nwe must have an _efficacious grace which is not given to all_;\nconsequently, if they agree with the Jesuits in the use of a term which\nhas no sense, they differ from them, and coincide with the Jansenists in\nthe substance of the thing.\u201d \u201cThat is very true,\u201d said he. \u201cHow, then,\u201d\nsaid I, \u201care the Jesuits united with them? and why do they not combat\nthem as well as the Jansenists, since they will always find powerful\nantagonists in these men, who, by maintaining the necessity of the\nefficacious grace which determines the will, will prevent them from\nestablishing that grace which they hold to be of itself sufficient?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Dominicans are too powerful,\u201d he replied, \u201cand the Jesuits are too\npolitic, to come to an open rupture with them. The Society is content\nwith having prevailed on them so far as to admit the name of _sufficient\ngrace_, though they understand it in another sense; by which man\u0153uvre\nthey gain this advantage, that they will make their opinion appear\nuntenable, as soon as they judge it proper to do so. And this will be no\ndifficult matter; for, let it be once granted that all men have the\nsufficient graces, nothing can be more natural than to conclude, that\nthe efficacious grace is not necessary to action\u2014the sufficiency of the\ngeneral grace precluding the necessity of all others. By saying\n_sufficient_ we express all that is necessary for action; and it will\nserve little purpose for the Dominicans to exclaim that they attach\nanother sense to the expression; the people, accustomed to the common\nacceptation of that term, would not even listen to their explanation.\nThus the Society gains a sufficient advantage from the expression which\nhas been adopted by the Dominicans, without pressing them any further;\nand were you but acquainted with what passed under Popes Clement VIII.\nand Paul V., and knew how the Society was thwarted by the Dominicans in\nthe establishment of the sufficient grace, you would not be surprised to\nfind that it avoids embroiling itself in quarrels with them, and allows\nthem to hold their own opinion, provided that of the Society is left\nuntouched; and more especially, when the Dominicans countenance its\ndoctrine, by agreeing to employ, on all public occasions, the term\n_sufficient grace_.\n\n\u201cThe Society,\u201d he continued, \u201cis quite satisfied with their\ncomplaisance. It does not insist on their denying the necessity of\nefficacious grace; this would be urging them too far. People should not\ntyrannize over their friends; and the Jesuits have gained quite enough.\nThe world is content with words; few think of searching into the nature\nof things; and thus the name of _sufficient grace_ being adopted on both\nsides, though in different senses, there is nobody, except the most\nsubtle theologians, who ever dreams of doubting that the thing signified\nby that word is held by the Jacobins as well as by the Jesuits; and the\nresult will show that these last are not the greatest dupes.\u201d[98]\n\nI acknowledged that they were a shrewd class of people, these Jesuits;\nand, availing myself of his advice, I went straight to the Jacobins, at\nwhose gate I found one of my good friends, a staunch Jansenist (for you\nmust know I have got friends among all parties), who was calling for\nanother monk, different from him whom I was in search of. I prevailed on\nhim, however, after much entreaty, to accompany me, and asked for one of\nmy New Thomists. He was delighted to see me again. \u201cHow now! my dear\nfather,\u201d I began, \u201cit seems it is not enough that all men have a\n_proximate power_, with which they can never act with effect; they must\nhave besides this a _sufficient grace_, with which they can act as\nlittle. Is not that the doctrine of your school?\u201d \u201cIt is,\u201d said the\nworthy monk; \u201cand I was upholding it this very morning in the Sorbonne.\nI spoke on the point during my whole half-hour; and but for the\n_sand-glass_, I bade fair to have reversed that wicked proverb, now so\ncurrent in Paris: \u2018He votes without speaking, like a monk in the\nSorbonne.\u2019\u201d[99] \u201cWhat do you mean by your half-hour and your\nsand-glass?\u201d I asked; \u201cdo they cut your speeches by a certain measure?\u201d\n\u201cYes,\u201d said he, \u201cthey have done so for some days past.\u201d \u201cAnd do they\noblige you to speak for half an hour?\u201d \u201cNo; we may speak as little as we\nplease.\u201d \u201cBut not as much as you please,\u201d said I. \u201cO what a capital\nregulation for the boobies! what a blessed excuse for those who have\nnothing worth the saying! But, to return to the point, father; this\ngrace given to all men is _sufficient_, is it not?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d said he. \u201cAnd\nyet it has no effect without _efficacious grace_?\u201d \u201cNone whatever,\u201d he\nreplied. \u201cAnd all men have the sufficient,\u201d continued I, \u201cand all have\nnot the efficacious?\u201d \u201cExactly,\u201d said he. \u201cThat is,\u201d returned I, \u201call\nhave enough of grace, and all have not enough of it\u2014that is, this grace\nsuffices, though it does not suffice\u2014that is, it is sufficient in name,\nand insufficient in effect! In good sooth, father, this is particularly\nsubtle doctrine! Have you forgotten, since you retired to the cloister,\nthe meaning attached, in the world you have quitted, to the word\n_sufficient_?\u2014don\u2019t you remember that it includes all that is necessary\nfor acting? But no, you cannot have lost all recollection of it; for, to\navail myself of an illustration which will come home more vividly to\nyour feelings, let us suppose that you were supplied with no more than\ntwo ounces of bread and a glass of water daily, would you be quite\npleased with your prior were he to tell you that this would be\nsufficient to support you, under the pretext that, along with something\nelse, which, however, he would not give you, you would have all that\nwould be necessary to support you? How, then, can you allow yourselves\nto say that all men have sufficient grace for acting, while you admit\nthat there is another grace absolutely necessary to acting which all men\nhave not? Is it because this is an unimportant article of belief, and\nyou leave all men at liberty to believe that efficacious grace is\nnecessary or not, as they choose? Is it a matter of indifference to say,\nthat with sufficient grace a man may really act?\u201d \u201cHow!\u201d cried the good\nman; \u201cindifference!\u2014it is heresy\u2014formal heresy. The necessity of\n_efficacious grace_ for acting effectively, is a point of _faith_\u2014it is\nheresy to deny it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhere are we now?\u201d I exclaimed; \u201cand which side am I to take here? If I\ndeny the sufficient grace, I am a Jansenist. If I admit it, as the\nJesuits do, in the way of denying that efficacious grace is necessary, I\nshall be a heretic, say you. And if I admit it, as you do, in the way of\nmaintaining the necessity of efficacious grace, I sin against common\nsense, and am a blockhead, say the Jesuits. What must I do, thus reduced\nto the inevitable necessity of being a blockhead, a heretic, or a\nJansenist? And what a sad pass are matters come to, if there are none\nbut the Jansenists who avoid coming into collision either with the faith\nor with reason, and who save themselves at once from absurdity and from\nerror!\u201d\n\nMy Jansenist friend took this speech as a good omen, and already looked\nupon me as a convert. He said nothing to me, however; but, addressing\nthe monk: \u201cPray, father,\u201d inquired he, \u201cwhat is the point on which you\nagree with the Jesuits?\u201d \u201cWe agree in this,\u201d he replied, \u201cthat the\nJesuits and we acknowledge the sufficient grace given to all.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d\nsaid the Jansenist, \u201cthere are two things in this expression _sufficient\ngrace_\u2014there is the sound, which is only so much breath; and there is\nthe thing which it signifies, which is real and effectual. And,\ntherefore, as you are agreed with the Jesuits in regard to the word\n_sufficient_, and opposed to them as to the sense, it is apparent that\nyou are opposed to them in regard to the substance of that term, and\nthat you only agree with them as to the sound. Is this what you call\nacting sincerely and cordially?\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said the good man, \u201cwhat cause have you to complain, since we\ndeceive nobody by this mode of speaking? In our schools we openly teach\nthat we understand it in a manner different from the Jesuits.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I complain of,\u201d returned my friend, \u201cis, that you do not proclaim\nit everywhere, that by sufficient grace you understand the grace which\nis _not_ sufficient. You are bound in conscience, by thus altering the\nsense of the ordinary terms of theology, to tell that, when you admit a\nsufficient grace in all men, you understand that they have not\nsufficient grace in effect. All classes of persons in the world\nunderstand the word sufficient in one and the same sense; the New\nThomists alone understand it in another sense. All the women, who form\none-half of the world, all courtiers, all military men, all magistrates,\nall lawyers, merchants, artisans, the whole populace\u2014in short, all sorts\nof men, except the Dominicans, understand the word _sufficient_ to\nexpress all that is necessary. Scarcely any one is aware of this\nsingular exception. It is reported over the whole earth, simply that the\nDominicans hold that all men have the _sufficient graces_. What other\nconclusion can be drawn from this, than that they hold that all men have\nall the graces necessary for action; especially when they are seen\njoined in interest and intrigue with the Jesuits, who understand the\nthing in that sense? Is not the uniformity of your expressions, viewed\nin connection with this union of party, a manifest indication and\nconfirmation of the uniformity of your sentiments?\n\n\u201cThe multitude of the faithful inquire of theologians: What is the real\ncondition of human nature since its corruption? St. Augustine and his\ndisciples reply, that it has no sufficient grace until God is pleased to\nbestow it. Next come the Jesuits, and they say that all have the\neffectually sufficient graces. The Dominicans are consulted on this\ncontrariety of opinion; and what course do they pursue? They unite with\nthe Jesuits; by this coalition they make up a majority; they secede from\nthose who deny these sufficient graces; they declare that all men\npossess them. Who, on hearing this, would imagine anything else than\nthat they gave their sanction to the opinion of the Jesuits? And then\nthey add that, nevertheless, these said sufficient graces are perfectly\nuseless without the efficacious, which are not given to all!\n\n\u201cShall I present you with a picture of the Church amidst these\nconflicting sentiments? I consider her very like a man who, leaving his\nnative country on a journey, is encountered by robbers, who inflict many\nwounds on him, and leave him half dead. He sends for three physicians\nresident in the neighboring towns. The first, on probing his wounds,\npronounces them mortal, and assures him that none but God can restore to\nhim his lost powers. The second, coming after the other, chooses to\nflatter the man\u2014tells him that he has still sufficient strength to reach\nhis home; and, abusing the first physician who opposed his advice,\ndetermines upon his ruin. In this dilemma, the poor patient, observing\nthe third medical gentleman at a distance, stretches out his hands to\nhim as the person who should determine the controversy. This\npractitioner, on examining his wounds, and ascertaining the opinions of\nthe first two doctors, embraces that of the second, and uniting with\nhim, the two combine against the first, and being the stronger party in\nnumber, drive him from the field in disgrace. From this proceeding, the\npatient naturally concludes that the last comer is of the same opinion\nwith the second; and, on putting the question to him, he assures him\nmost positively that his strength is sufficient for prosecuting his\njourney. The wounded man, however, sensible of his own weakness, begs\nhim to explain to him how he considered him sufficient for the journey.\n\u2018Because,\u2019 replies his adviser, \u2018you are still in possession of your\nlegs, and legs are the organs which naturally suffice for walking.\u2019\n\u2018But,\u2019 says the patient, \u2018have I all the strength necessary to make use\nof my legs? for, in my present weak condition, it humbly appears to me\nthat they are wholly useless.\u2019 \u2018Certainly you have not,\u2019 replies the\ndoctor; \u2018you will never walk _effectively_, unless God vouchsafes some\nextraordinary assistance to sustain and conduct you.\u2019 \u2018What!\u2019 exclaims\nthe poor man, \u2018do you not mean to say that I have sufficient strength in\nme, so as to want for nothing to walk effectively?\u2019 \u2018Very far from it,\u2019\nreturns the physician. \u2018You must, then,\u2019 says the patient, \u2018be of a\ndifferent opinion from your companion there about my real condition.\u2019 \u2018I\nmust admit that I am,\u2019 replies the other.\n\n\u201cWhat do you suppose the patient said to this? Why, he complained of the\nstrange conduct and ambiguous terms of this third physician. He censured\nhim for taking part with the second, to whom he was opposed in\nsentiment, and with whom he had only the semblance of agreement, and for\nhaving driven away the first doctor, with whom he in reality agreed;\nand, after making a trial of his strength, and finding by experience his\nactual weakness, he sent them both about their business, recalled his\nfirst adviser, put himself under his care, and having, by his advice,\nimplored from God the strength of which he confessed his need, obtained\nthe mercy he sought, and, through divine help, reached his house in\npeace.\u201d\n\nThe worthy monk was so confounded with this parable that he could not\nfind words to reply. To cheer him up a little, I said to him, in a mild\ntone: \u201cBut, after all, my dear father, what made you think of giving the\nname of _sufficient_ to a grace which you say it is a point of faith to\nbelieve is, in fact, insufficient?\u201d \u201cIt is very easy for you to talk\nabout it,\u201d said he. \u201cYou are an independent and private man; I am a\nmonk, and in a community\u2014cannot you estimate the difference between the\ntwo cases? We depend on superiors; they depend on others. They have\npromised our votes\u2014what would you have to become of me?\u201d We understood\nthe hint; and this brought to our recollection the case of his brother\nmonk, who, for a similar piece of indiscretion, has been exiled to\nAbbeville.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I resumed, \u201chow comes it about that your community is bound to\nadmit this grace?\u201d \u201cThat is another question,\u201d he replied. \u201cAll that I\ncan tell you is, in one word, that our order has defended, to the utmost\nof its ability, the doctrine of St. Thomas on efficacious grace. With\nwhat ardor did it oppose, from the very commencement, the doctrine of\nMolina? How did it labor to establish the necessity of the efficacious\ngrace of Jesus Christ? Don\u2019t you know what happened under Clement VIII.\nand Paul V., and how the former having been prevented by death, and the\nlatter hindered by some Italian affairs from publishing his bull, our\narms still sleep in the Vatican? But the Jesuits, availing themselves,\nsince the introduction of the heresy of Luther and Calvin, of the scanty\nlight which the people possess for discriminating between the error of\nthese men and the truth of the doctrine of St. Thomas, disseminated\ntheir principles with such rapidity and success, that they became, ere\nlong, masters of the popular belief; while we, on our part, found\nourselves in the predicament of being denounced as Calvinists, and\ntreated as the Jansenists are at present, unless we qualified the\nefficacious grace with, at least, the apparent avowal of a\n_sufficient_.[100] In this extremity, what better course could we have\ntaken for saving the truth, without losing our own credit, than by\nadmitting the name of sufficient grace, while we denied that it was such\nin effect? Such is the real history of the case.\u201d\n\nThis was spoken in such a melancholy tone, that I really began to pity\nthe man; not so, however, my companion. \u201cFlatter not yourselves,\u201d said\nhe to the monk, \u201cwith having saved the truth; had she not found other\ndefenders, in your feeble hands she must have perished. By admitting\ninto the Church the name of her enemy, you have admitted the enemy\nhimself. Names are inseparable from things. If the term sufficient grace\nbe once established, it will be vain for you to protest that you\nunderstand by it a grace which is _not_ sufficient. Your protest will be\nheld inadmissible. Your explanation would be scouted as odious in the\nworld, where men speak more ingenuously about matters of infinitely less\nmoment. The Jesuits will gain a triumph\u2014it will be their grace, which is\nsufficient, in fact, and not yours, which is only so in name, that will\npass as established; and the converse of your creed will become an\narticle of faith.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe will all suffer martyrdom first,\u201d cried the father, \u201crather than\nconsent to the establishment of _sufficient grace in the sense of the\nJesuits_. St. Thomas, whom we have sworn to follow even to the death, is\ndiametrically opposed to such doctrine.\u201d[101]\n\nTo this my friend, who took up the matter more seriously than I did,\nreplied: \u201cCome now, father, your fraternity has received an honor which\nit sadly abuses. It abandons that grace which was confided to its care,\nand which has never been abandoned since the creation of the world. That\nvictorious grace, which was waited for by the patriarchs, predicted by\nthe prophets, introduced by Jesus Christ, preached by St. Paul,\nexplained by St. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, embraced by his\nfollowers, confirmed by St. Bernard, the last of the fathers,[102]\nsupported by St. Thomas, the angel of the schools,[103] transmitted by\nhim to your order, maintained by so many of your fathers, and so nobly\ndefended by your monks under popes Clement and Paul\u2014that efficacious\ngrace, which had been committed as a sacred deposit into your hands,\nthat it might find, in a sacred and everlasting order, a succession of\npreachers, who might proclaim it to the end of time\u2014is discarded and\ndeserted for interests the most contemptible. It is high time for other\nhands to arm in its quarrel. It is time for God to raise up intrepid\ndisciples of the Doctor of grace,[104] who, strangers to the\nentanglements of the world, will serve God for God\u2019s sake. Grace may\nnot, indeed, number the Dominicans among her champions, but champions\nshe shall never want; for, by her own almighty energy, she creates them\nfor herself. She demands hearts pure and disengaged; nay, she herself\npurifies and disengages them from worldly interests, incompatible with\nthe truths of the Gospel. Reflect seriously on this, father; and take\ncare that God does not remove this candlestick from its place, leaving\nyou in darkness, and without the crown, as a punishment for the coldness\nwhich you manifest to a cause so important to his Church.\u201d[105]\n\nHe might have gone on in this strain much longer, for he was kindling as\nhe advanced, but I interrupted him by rising to take my leave, and said:\n\u201cIndeed, my dear father, had I any influence in France, I should have it\nproclaimed, by sound of trumpet: \u2018_BE IT KNOWN TO ALL MEN, that when the\nJacobins SAY that sufficient grace is given to all, they MEAN that all\nhave not the grace which actually suffices!_\u2019 After which, you might say\nit as often as you please, but not otherwise.\u201d And thus ended our visit.\n\nYou will perceive, therefore, that we have here a _politic sufficiency_\nsomewhat similar to _proximate power_. Meanwhile I may tell you, that it\nappears to me that both the proximate power and this same sufficient\ngrace may be safely doubted by anybody, provided he is not a\nJacobin.[106]\n\nI have just come to learn, when closing my letter, that the censure[107]\nhas passed. But as I do not yet know in what terms it is worded, and as\nit will not be published till the 15th of February, I shall delay\nwriting you about it till the next post.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n The Dominicans.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n _Et la suite fera voir que ces derniers ne sont pas les plus dupes._\n This clause, which appears in the last Paris edition, is wanting in\n the ordinary editions. The following sentence seems to require it.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n _Il opine du bonnet comme un moine en Sorbonne_\u2014literally, \u201cHe votes\n with his cap like a monk in the Sorbonne\u201d\u2014alluding to the custom in\n that place of taking off the cap when a member was not disposed to\n speak, or in token of agreement with the rest. The half-hour\n sand-glass was a trick of the Jesuits, or Molinist party, to prevent\n their opponents from entering closely into the merits of the\n controversy, which required frequent references to the fathers.\n (Nicole, i. 184.)\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n \u201cIt is certain,\u201d says Bayle, \u201cthat the obligation which the Romish\n Church is under to respect the doctrine of St. Augustine on the\n subject of grace, in consequence of its having received the sanction\n of Popes and Councils at various times, placed it in a very awkward\n and ridiculous situation. It is so obvious to every man who examines\n the matter without prejudice, and with the necessary means of\n information, that the doctrine of Augustine and that of Jansenius are\n one and the same, that it is impossible to see, without feelings of\n indignation, the Court of Rome boasting of having condemned Jansenius,\n and nevertheless preserving to St. Augustine all his glory. The two\n things are utterly irreconcilable. What is more, the Council of Trent,\n by condemning the doctrine of Calvin on free-will, has, by necessity,\n condemned that of St. Augustine; for there is no Calvinist who has\n denied, or who can deny, the concourse of the human will and the\n liberty of the soul, in the sense which St. Augustine gives to the\n words concourse, co-operation, and liberty. There is no Calvinist who\n does not acknowledge the freedom of the will, and its use in\n conversion, if that word is understood according to the ideas of St.\n Augustine. Those whom the Council of Trent condemns do not reject\n free-will, except as signifying the liberty of indifference. The\n Thomists, also, reject it under this notion, and yet they pass for\n very good Catholics.\u201d (Bayle\u2019s Dict., art. _Augustine_.)\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n It is a singular fact that the Roman Church, which boasts so much of\n her unity, and is ever charging the Reformed with being Calvinists,\n Lutherans, &c., is, in reality, divided into numerous conflicting\n sects, each _sworn_ to uphold the peculiar sentiments of its founder.\n If there is one principle more essential than another to the\n Reformation, it is that of entire independence of all masters in the\n faith: \u201cNullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.\u201d\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n \u201cThe famous St. Bernard, abbot of Clairval, whose influence throughout\n all Europe was incredible\u2014whose word was a law, and whose counsels\n were regarded by kings and princes as so many orders to which the most\n respectful obedience was due; this eminent ecclesiastic was the person\n who contributed most to enrich and aggrandize the Cistercian order.\u201d\n (Mosh. Eccl. Hist., cent. xii.)\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n Thomas Aquinas, a scholastic divine of the thirteenth century, who was\n termed the _Angelic Doctor_.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n Augustine.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n Who can help regretting that sentiments so evangelical, so truly\n noble, and so eloquently expressed, should have been held by Pascal in\n connection with a Church which denounced him as a heretic for\n upholding them!\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n An ironical reflection on the cowardly compromise of the Jacobins, or\n Dominicans, for having pledged themselves to the use of the term\n \u201csufficient,\u201d in order to please the Jesuits.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n The censure of the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne passed against\n M. Arnauld, and which is fully discussed in Letter iii.\n\n\n\n\n REPLY OF THE \u201cPROVINCIAL\u201d TO THE FIRST TWO LETTERS OF HIS FRIEND.\n\n _February 2, 1656._\n\nSIR,\u2014Your two letters have not been confined to me. Everybody has seen\nthem, everybody understands them, and everybody believes them. They are\nnot only in high repute among theologians\u2014they have proved agreeable to\nmen of the world, and intelligible even to the ladies.\n\nIn a communication which I lately received from one of the gentlemen of\nthe Academy\u2014one of the most illustrious names in a society of men who\nare all illustrious\u2014who had seen only your first letter, he writes me as\nfollows: \u201cI only wish that the Sorbonne, which owes so much to the\nmemory of the late cardinal,[108] would acknowledge the jurisdiction of\nhis French Academy. The author of the letter would be satisfied; for, in\nthe capacity of an academician, I would authoritatively condemn, I would\nbanish, I would proscribe\u2014I had almost said exterminate\u2014to the extent of\nmy power, this _proximate power_, which makes so much noise about\nnothing, and without knowing what it would have. The misfortune is, that\nour academic \u2018power\u2019 is a very limited and _remote_ power. I am sorry\nfor it; and still more sorry that my small power cannot discharge me\nfrom my obligations to you,\u201d &c.\n\nMy next extract is from the pen of a lady, whom I shall not indicate in\nany way whatever. She writes thus to a female friend who had transmitted\nto her the first of your letters: \u201cYou can have no idea how much I am\nobliged to you for the letter you sent me\u2014it is so very ingenious, and\nso nicely written. It narrates, and yet it is not a narrative; it clears\nup the most intricate and involved of all possible matters; its raillery\nis exquisite; it enlightens those who know little about the subject, and\nimparts double delight to those who understand it. It is an admirable\napology; and, if they would so take it, a delicate and innocent censure.\nIn short, that letter displays so much art, so much spirit, and so much\njudgment, that I burn with curiosity to know who wrote it,\u201d &c.\n\nYou too, perhaps, would like to know who the lady is that writes in this\nstyle; but you must be content to esteem without knowing her; when you\ncome to know her, your esteem will be greatly enhanced.\n\nTake my word for it, then, and continue your letters; and let the\ncensure come when it may, we are quite prepared for receiving it. These\nwords, \u201cproximate power,\u201d and \u201csufficient grace,\u201d with which we are\nthreatened, will frighten us no longer. We have learned from the\nJesuits, the Jacobins, and M. le Moine, in how many different ways they\nmay be turned, and how little solidity there is in these new-fangled\nterms, to give ourselves any trouble about them.\u2014Meanwhile, I remain,\n&c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n The Cardinal de Richelieu, the celebrated founder of the French\n Academy. The Sorbonne owed its magnificence to the liberality of this\n eminent statesman, who rebuilt its house, enlarged its revenues,\n enriched its library, and took it under his special patronage.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER III.\n\n INJUSTICE, ABSURDITY, AND NULLITY OF THE CENSURE ON M. ARNAULD.\n\n\n PARIS, _February 9, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014I have just received your letter; and, at the same time, there was\nbrought me a copy of the censure in manuscript. I find that I am as well\ntreated in the former, as M. Arnauld is ill-treated in the latter. I am\nafraid there is some extravagance in both cases, and that neither of us\nis sufficiently well known by our judges. Sure I am, that were we better\nknown, M. Arnauld would merit the approval of the Sorbonne, and I the\ncensure of the Academy. Thus our interests are quite at variance with\neach other. It is his interest to make himself known, to vindicate his\ninnocence; whereas it is mine to remain in the dark, for fear of\nforfeiting my reputation. Prevented, therefore, from showing my face, I\nmust devolve on you the task of making my acknowledgments to my\nillustrious admirers, while I undertake that of furnishing you with the\nnews of the censure.\n\nI assure you, sir, it has filled me with astonishment. I expected to\nfind it condemning the most shocking heresy in the world, but your\nwonder will equal mine, when informed that these alarming preparations,\nwhen on the point of producing the grand effect anticipated, have all\nended in smoke.\n\nTo understand the whole affair in a pleasant way, only recollect, I\nbeseech you, the strange impressions which, for a long time past, we\nhave been taught to form of the Jansenists. Recall to mind the cabals,\nthe factions, the errors, the schisms, the outrages, with which they\nhave been so long charged; the manner in which they have been denounced\nand vilified from the pulpit and the press; and the degree to which this\ntorrent of abuse, so remarkable for its violence and duration, has\nswollen of late years, when they have been openly and publicly accused\nof being not only heretics and schismatics, but apostates and\ninfidels\u2014with \u201cdenying the mystery of transubstantiation, and renouncing\nJesus Christ and the Gospel.\u201d[109]\n\nAfter having published these startling[110] accusations, it was resolved\nto examine their writings, in order to pronounce judgment on them. For\nthis purpose the second letter of M. Arnauld, which was reported to be\nfull of the greatest errors,[111] is selected. The examiners appointed\nare his most open and avowed enemies. They employ all their learning to\ndiscover something that they might lay hold upon, and at length they\nproduce one proposition of a doctrinal character, which they exhibit for\ncensure.\n\nWhat else could any one infer from such proceedings, than that this\nproposition, selected under such remarkable circumstances, would contain\nthe essence of the blackest heresies imaginable. And yet the proposition\nso entirely agrees with what is clearly and formally expressed in the\npassages from the fathers quoted by M. Arnauld, that I have not met with\na single individual who could comprehend the difference between them.\nStill, however, it might be imagined that there was a very great\ndifference; for the passages from the fathers being unquestionably\ncatholic, the proposition of M. Arnauld, if heretical, must be widely\nopposed[112] to them.\n\nSuch was the difficulty which the Sorbonne was expected to clear up. All\nChristendom waited, with wide-opened eyes, to discover, in the censure\nof these learned doctors, the point of difference which had proved\nimperceptible to ordinary mortals. Meanwhile M. Arnauld gave in his\ndefences, placing his own proposition and the passages of the fathers\nfrom which he had drawn it in parallel columns, so as to make the\nagreement between them apparent to the most obtuse understandings.\n\nHe shows, for example, that St. Augustine says in one passage, that\n\u201cJesus Christ points out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous\nman warning us by his fall to avoid presumption.\u201d He cites another\npassage from the same father, in which he says, \u201cthat God, in order to\nshow us that without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter without\ngrace.\u201d He produces a third, from St. Chrysostom, who says, \u201cthat the\nfall of St. Peter happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus\nChrist, but because grace failed him; and that he fell, not so much\nthrough his own negligence as through the withdrawment of God, as a\nlesson to the whole Church, that without God we can do nothing.\u201d He then\ngives his own accused proposition, which is as follows: \u201cThe fathers\npoint out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man to whom\nthat grace without which we can do nothing, was wanting.\u201d\n\nIn vain did people attempt to discover how it could possibly be, that M.\nArnauld\u2019s expression differed from those of the fathers as much as truth\nfrom error, and faith from heresy. For where was the difference to be\nfound? Could it be in these words, \u201cthat the fathers point out to us, in\nthe person of St. Peter, a righteous man?\u201d St. Augustine has said the\nsame thing in so many words. Is it because he says \u201cthat grace had\nfailed him?\u201d The same St. Augustine, who had said that \u201cSt. Peter was a\nrighteous man,\u201d says \u201cthat he had not had grace on that occasion.\u201d Is\nit, then, for his having said, \u201cthat without grace we can do nothing?\u201d\nWhy, is not this just what St. Augustine says in the same place, and\nwhat St. Chrysostom had said before him, with this difference only, that\nhe expresses it in much stronger language, as when he says \u201cthat his\nfall did not happen through his own coldness or negligence, but through\nthe failure of grace, and the withdrawment of God?\u201d[113]\n\nSuch considerations as these kept everybody in a state of breathless\nsuspense, to learn in what this diversity could consist, when at length,\nafter a great many meetings, this famous and long-looked for censure\nmade its appearance. But, alas! it has sadly baulked our expectation.\nWhether it be that the Molinist doctors would not condescend so far as\nto enlighten us on the point, or for some other mysterious reason, the\nfact is, they have done nothing more than pronounce these words: \u201cThis\nproposition is rash, impious, blasphemous, accursed, and heretical!\u201d\n\nWould you believe it, sir, that most people, finding themselves deceived\nin their expectations, have got into bad humor, and begin to fall foul\nupon the censors themselves? They are drawing strange inferences from\ntheir conduct in favor of M. Arnauld\u2019s innocence. \u201cWhat!\u201d they are\nsaying, \u201cis this all that could be achieved, during all this time, by so\nmany doctors joining in a furious attack on one individual? Can they\nfind nothing in all his works worthy of reprehension, but three lines,\nand these extracted, word for word, from the greatest doctors of the\nGreek and Latin Churches? Is there any author whatever whose writings,\nwere it intended to ruin him, would not furnish a more specious pretext\nfor the purpose? And what higher proof could be furnished of the\northodoxy of this illustrious accused?\n\n\u201cHow comes it to pass,\u201d they add, \u201cthat so many denunciations are\nlaunched in this censure, into which they have crowded such terms as\n\u2018poison, pestilence, horror, rashness, impiety, blasphemy, abomination,\nexecration, anathema, heresy\u2019\u2014the most dreadful epithets that could be\nused against Arius, or Antichrist himself; and all to combat an\nimperceptible heresy, and that, moreover, without telling us what it is?\nIf it be against the words of the fathers that they inveigh in this\nstyle, where is the faith and tradition? If against M. Arnauld\u2019s\nproposition, let them point out the difference between the two; for we\ncan see nothing but the most perfect harmony between them. As soon as we\nhave discovered the evil of the proposition, we shall hold it in\nabhorrence; but so long as we do not see it, or rather see nothing in\nthe statement but the sentiments of the holy fathers, conceived and\nexpressed in their own terms, how can we possibly regard it with any\nother feelings than those of holy veneration?\u201d\n\nSuch is a specimen of the way in which they are giving vent to their\nfeelings. But these are by far too deep-thinking people. You and I, who\nmake no pretensions to such extraordinary penetration, may keep\nourselves quite easy about the whole affair. What! would we be wiser\nthan our masters? No: let us take example from them, and not undertake\nwhat they have not ventured upon. We would be sure to get boggled in\nsuch an attempt. Why it would be the easiest thing imaginable, to render\nthis censure itself heretical. Truth, we know, is so delicate, that if\nwe make the slightest deviation from it, we fall into error; but this\nalleged error is so extremely fine-spun, that, if we diverge from it in\nthe slightest degree, we fall back upon the truth. There is positively\nnothing between this obnoxious proposition and the truth but an\nimperceptible point. The distance between them is so impalpable, that I\nwas in terror lest, from pure inability to perceive it, I might, in my\nover-anxiety to agree with the doctors of the Sorbonne, place myself in\nopposition to the doctors of the Church. Under this apprehension, I\njudged it expedient to consult one of those who, through policy, was\nneutral on the first question, that from him I might learn the real\nstate of the matter. I have accordingly had an interview with one of the\nmost intelligent of that party, whom I requested to point out to me the\ndifference between the two things, at the same time frankly owning to\nhim that I could see none.\n\nHe appeared to be amused at my simplicity, and replied, with a smile:\n\u201cHow simple it is in you to believe that there is any difference! Why,\nwhere could it be? Do you imagine that, if they could have found out any\ndiscrepancy between M. Arnauld and the fathers, they would not have\nboldly pointed it out, and been delighted with the opportunity of\nexposing it before the public, in whose eyes they are so anxious to\ndepreciate that gentleman?\u201d\n\nI could easily perceive, from these few words, that those who had been\nneutral on the first question, would not all prove so on the second; but\nanxious to hear his reasons, I asked: \u201cWhy, then, have they attacked\nthis unfortunate proposition?\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it possible,\u201d he replied, \u201cyou can be ignorant of these two things,\nwhich I thought had been known to the veriest tyro in these\nmatters?\u2014that, on the one hand, M. Arnauld has uniformly avoided\nadvancing a single tenet which is not powerfully supported by the\ntradition of the Church; and that, on the other hand, his enemies have\ndetermined, cost what it may, to cut that ground from under him; and,\naccordingly, that as the writings of the former afforded no handle to\nthe designs of the latter, they have been obliged, in order to satiate\ntheir revenge, to seize on some proposition, it mattered not what, and\nto condemn it without telling why or wherefore. Do not you know how the\nJansenists keep them in check, and annoy them so desperately, that they\ncannot drop the slightest word against the principles of the fathers\nwithout being incontinently overwhelmed with whole volumes, under the\npressure of which they are forced to succumb? So that, after a great\nmany proofs of their weakness, they have judged it more to the purpose,\nand much less troublesome, to censure than to reply\u2014it being a much\neasier matter with them to find monks than reasons.\u201d[114]\n\n\u201cWhy then,\u201d said I, \u201cif this be the case, their censure is not worth a\nstraw; for who will pay any regard to it, when they see it to be without\nfoundation, and refuted, as it no doubt will be, by the answers given to\nit?\u201d\n\n\u201cIf you knew the temper of people,\u201d replied my friend the doctor, \u201cyou\nwould talk in another sort of way. Their censure, censurable as it is,\nwill produce nearly all its designed effect for a time; and although, by\nthe force of demonstration, it is certain that, in course of time, its\ninvalidity will be made apparent, it is equally true that, at first, it\nwill tell as effectually on the minds of most people as if it had been\nthe most righteous sentence in the world. Let it only be cried about the\nstreets: \u2018Here you have the censure of M. Arnauld!\u2014here you have the\ncondemnation of the Jansenists!\u2019 and the Jesuits will find their account\nin it. How few will ever read it! How few of them who do read, will\nunderstand it! How few will observe that it answers no objections! How\nfew will take the matter to heart, or attempt to sift it to the\nbottom?\u2014Mark then, how much advantage this gives to the enemies of the\nJansenists. They are sure to make a triumph of it, though a vain one, as\nusual, for some months at least\u2014and that is a great matter for them\u2014they\nwill look out afterwards for some new means of subsistence. They live\nfrom hand to mouth, sir. It is in this way they have contrived to\nmaintain themselves down to the present day. Sometimes it is by a\ncatechism in which a child is made to condemn their opponents; then it\nis by a procession, in which sufficient grace leads the efficacious in\ntriumph; again it is by a comedy, in which Jansenius is represented as\ncarried off by devils; at another time it is by an almanac; and now it\nis by this censure.\u201d[115]\n\n\u201cIn good sooth,\u201d said I, \u201cI was on the point of finding fault with the\nconduct of the Molinists; but after what you have told me, I must say I\nadmire their prudence and their policy. I see perfectly well that they\ncould not have followed a safer or more judicious course.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right,\u201d returned he; \u201ctheir safest policy has always been to\nkeep silent; and this led a certain learned divine to remark, \u2018that the\ncleverest among them are those who intrigue much, speak little, and\nwrite nothing.\u2019\n\n\u201cIt is on this principle that, from the commencement of the meetings,\nthey prudently ordained that, if M. Arnauld came into the Sorbonne, it\nmust be simply to explain what he believed, and not to enter the lists\nof controversy with any one. The examiners having ventured to depart a\nlittle from this prudent arrangement, suffered for their temerity. They\nfound themselves rather too vigorously[116] refuted by his second\napology.\n\n\u201cOn the same principle, they had recourse to that rare and very novel\ndevice of the half-hour and the sand-glass.[117] By this means they rid\nthemselves of the importunity of those troublesome doctors,[118] who\nmight undertake to refute all their arguments, to produce books which\nmight convict them of forgery, to insist on a reply, and reduce them to\nthe predicament of having none to give.\n\n\u201cIt is not that they were so blind as not to see that this encroachment\non liberty, which has induced so many doctors to withdraw from the\nmeetings, would do no good to their censure; and that the protest of\nnullity, taken on this ground by M. Arnauld before it was concluded,\nwould be a bad preamble for securing it a favorable reception. They know\nvery well that unprejudiced persons place fully as much weight on the\njudgment of seventy doctors, who had nothing to gain by defending M.\nArnauld, as on that of a hundred others who had nothing to lose by\ncondemning him. But, upon the whole, they considered that it would be of\nvast importance to have a censure, although it should be the act of a\nparty only in the Sorbonne, and not of the whole body; although it\nshould be carried with little or no freedom of debate, and obtained by a\ngreat many small man\u0153uvres not exactly according to order; although it\nshould give no explanation of the matter in dispute; although it should\nnot point out in what this heresy consists, and should say as little as\npossible about it, for fear of committing a mistake. This very silence\nis a mystery in the eyes of the simple; and the censure will reap this\nsingular advantage from it, that they may defy the most critical and\nsubtle theologians to find in it a single weak argument.\n\n\u201cKeep yourself easy, then, and do not be afraid of being set down as a\nheretic, though you should make use of the condemned proposition. It is\nbad, I assure you, only as occurring in the second letter of M. Arnauld.\nIf you will not believe this statement on my word, I refer you to M. le\nMoine, the most zealous of the examiners, who, in the course of\nconversation with a doctor of my acquaintance this very morning, on\nbeing asked by him where lay the point of difference in dispute, and if\none would no longer be allowed to say what the fathers had said before\nhim, made the following exquisite reply: \u2018This proposition would be\northodox in the mouth of any other\u2014it is only as coming from M. Arnauld\nthat the Sorbonne have condemned it!\u2019 You must now be prepared to admire\nthe machinery of Molinism, which can produce such prodigious\noverturnings in the Church\u2014that what is catholic in the fathers becomes\nheretical in M. Arnauld\u2014that what is heretical in the Semi-Pelagians\nbecomes orthodox in the writings of the Jesuits; the ancient doctrine of\nSt. Augustine becomes an intolerable innovation, and new inventions,\ndaily fabricated before our eyes, pass for the ancient faith of the\nChurch.\u201d So saying, he took his leave of me.\n\nThis information has satisfied my purpose. I gather from it that this\nsame heresy is one of an entirely new species. It is not the sentiments\nof M. Arnauld that are heretical; it is only his person. This is a\npersonal heresy. He is not a heretic for anything he has said or\nwritten, but simply because he is M. Arnauld. This is all they have to\nsay against him. Do what he may, unless he cease to be, he will never be\na good Catholic. The grace of St. Augustine will never be the true\ngrace, so long as he continues to defend it. It would become so at once,\nwere he to take it into his head to impugn it. That would be a sure\nstroke, and almost the only plan for establishing the truth and\ndemolishing Molinism; such is the fatality attending all the opinions\nwhich he embraces.\n\nLet us leave them, then, to settle their own differences. These are the\ndisputes of theologians, not of theology. We, who are no doctors, have\nnothing to do with their quarrels. Tell our friends the news of the\ncensure, and love me while I am, &c.[119]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n The charge of \u201cdenying the mystery of transubstantiation,\u201d certainly\n did not justly apply to the Jansenists as such; these religious\n devotees denied nothing. Their system, so far as the dogmas of the\n Church were concerned, was one of implicit faith; but though Arnauld,\n Nicole, and the other learned men among them, stiffly maintained the\n leading tenets of the Romish Church, in opposition to those of the\n Reformers the Jansenist creed, as held by their pious followers, was\n practically at variance with transubstantiation, and many other errors\n of the Church to which they nominally belonged. (Mad.\n Schimmelpenninck\u2019s Demolition of Port-Royal, pp. 77\u201380, &c.)\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n _Atroces_\u2014\u201catrocious.\u201d (Edit. 1657.)\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n _Des plus detestables erreurs_\u2014\u201cthe most detestable errors.\u201d (Edit.\n 1657.) _Erreurs_\u2014\u201cerrors.\u201d (Nicole\u2019s Edit., 1767.)\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n _Horriblement contraire_\u2014\u201chorribly contrary.\u201d (Edit. 1657.)\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n The meaning of Chrysostom is good, but the expressions of these\n ancient fathers are often more remarkable for their strength than\n their precision. The Protestant reader hardly needs to be reminded,\n that if divine grace can be said to have failed the Apostle Peter at\n his fall, it can only be in the sense of a temporary suspension of its\n influences; and that this withdrawment of grace must be regarded as\n the punishment, and not as the cause, of his own negligence.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n That is, they could more readily procure monks to vote against M.\n Arnauld, than arguments to answer him.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n The allusions in the text afford curious illustrations of the mode of\n warfare pursued by the Jesuits of the seventeenth century. The first\n refers to a comic catechism, in which the simple language of childhood\n was employed as a vehicle for the most calumnious charges against the\n opponents of the Society. Pascal refers again to this catechism in\n Letter xvii. The second device was a sort of school-boy masquerade. A\n handsome youth, disguised as a female, in splendid attire, and bearing\n the inscription of _sufficient grace_, dragged behind him another\n dressed as a bishop (representing Jansenius, bishop of Ypres), who\n followed with a rueful visage, amidst the hootings of the other boys.\n The comedy referred to was acted in the Jesuits\u2019 college of Clermont.\n The almanacs published in France at that period being usually\n embellished with rude cuts for the amusement of the vulgar, the\n Jesuits procured the insertion of a caricature of the Jansenists, who\n were represented as pursued by the pope, and taking refuge among the\n Calvinists. This, however, called forth a retaliation, in the shape of\n a poem, entitled \u201cThe Prints of the Famous Jesuitical Almanac,\u201d in\n which the Jesuits were so successfully held up to ridicule, that they\n could hardly show face for some time in the streets of Paris. (Nicole,\n i. p. 208.)\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n _Vertement_\u2014\u201csmartly.\u201d (Edit. 1657.)\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n See Letter ii.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n _Ces docteurs_\u2014\u201cthose doctors.\u201d (Edit. 1767.)\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n In Nicole\u2019s edition, this letter is signed with the initials \u201cE. A. A.\n B. P. A. F. D. E. P.\u201d which seem merely a chance medley of letters, to\n quiz those who were so anxious to discover the author. There may have\n been an allusion to the absurd story of a Jansenist conference held,\n it was said, at Bourg-Fontaine, in 1621, to deliberate on ways and\n means for abolishing Christianity; among the persons present at which,\n indicated by initials, Anthony Arnauld was ridiculously accused of\n having been one under the initials A. A. (See Bayle\u2019s Dict., art.\n _Ant. Arnauld_.)\n\n\n\n\n LETTER IV.\n\n ON ACTUAL GRACE AND SINS OF IGNORANCE.\n\n\n PARIS, _February 25, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014Nothing can come up to the Jesuits. I have seen Jacobins, doctors,\nand all sorts of people in my day, but such an interview as I have just\nhad was wanting to complete my knowledge of mankind. Other men are\nmerely copies of them. As things are always found best at the\nfountainhead, I paid a visit to one of the ablest among them, in company\nwith my trusty Jansenist\u2014the same who accompanied me to the Dominicans.\nBeing particularly anxious to learn something of a dispute which they\nhave with the Jansenists about what they call _actual grace_, I said to\nthe worthy father that I would be much obliged to him if he would\ninstruct me on this point\u2014that I did not even know what the term meant,\nand would thank him to explain it. \u201cWith all my heart,\u201d the Jesuit\nreplied; \u201cfor I dearly love inquisitive people. Actual grace, according\nto our definition, \u2018is an inspiration of God, whereby he makes us to\nknow his will, and excites within us a desire to perform it.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd where,\u201d said I, \u201clies your difference with the Jansenists on this\nsubject?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe difference lies here,\u201d he replied; \u201cwe hold that God bestows actual\ngrace _on all men in every case of temptation_; for we maintain, that\nunless a person have, whenever tempted, actual grace to keep him from\nsinning, his sin, whatever it may be, can never be imputed to him. The\nJansenists, on the other hand, affirm that sins, though committed\nwithout actual grace, are, nevertheless, imputed; but they are a pack of\nfools.\u201d I got a glimpse of his meaning; but, to obtain from him a fuller\nexplanation, I observed: \u201cMy dear father, it is that phrase _actual\ngrace_ that puzzles me; I am quite a stranger to it, and if you would\nhave the goodness to tell me the same thing over again, without\nemploying that term, you would infinitely oblige me.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery good,\u201d returned the father; \u201cthat is to say, you want me to\nsubstitute the definition in place of the thing defined; that makes no\nalteration on the sense; I have no objections. We maintain it, then, as\nan undeniable principle, _that an action cannot be imputed as a sin,\nunless God bestow on us, before committing it, the knowledge of the evil\nthat is in the action, and an inspiration inciting us to avoid it_. Do\nyou understand me now?\u201d\n\nAstonished at such a declaration, according to which, no sins of\nsurprise, nor any of those committed in entire forgetfulness of God,\ncould be imputed, I turned round to my friend the Jansenist, and easily\ndiscovered from his looks that he was of a different way of thinking.\nBut as he did not utter a word, I said to the monk, \u201cI would fain wish,\nmy dear father, to think that what you have now said is true, and that\nyou have good proofs for it.\u201d\n\n\u201cProofs, say you!\u201d he instantly exclaimed: \u201cI shall furnish you with\nthese very soon, and the very best sort too; let me alone for that.\u201d\n\nSo saying, he went in search of his books, and I took this opportunity\nof asking my friend if there was any other person who talked in this\nmanner? \u201cIs this so strange to you?\u201d he replied. \u201cYou may depend upon it\nthat neither the fathers, nor the popes, nor councils, nor Scripture,\nnor any book of devotion, employ such language; but if you wish casuists\nand modern schoolmen, he will bring you a goodly number of them on his\nside.\u201d \u201cO! but I care not a fig about these authors, if they are\ncontrary to tradition,\u201d I said. \u201cYou are right,\u201d he replied.\n\nAs he spoke, the good father entered the room, laden with books; and\npresenting to me the first that came to hand, \u201cRead that,\u201d he said;\n\u201cthis is \u2018The Summary of Sins,\u2019 by Father Bauny[120]\u2014the fifth edition\ntoo, you see, which shows that it is a good book.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a pity, however,\u201d whispered the Jansenist in my ear, \u201cthat this\nsame book has been condemned at Rome, and by the bishops of France.\u201d\n\n\u201cLook at page 906,\u201d said the father. I did so, and read as follows: \u201cIn\norder to sin and become culpable in the sight of God, it is necessary to\nknow that the thing we wish to do is not good, or at least to doubt that\nit is\u2014to fear or to judge that God takes no pleasure in the action which\nwe contemplate, but forbids it; and in spite of this, to commit the\ndeed, leap the fence, and transgress.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis is a good commencement,\u201d I remarked. \u201cAnd yet,\u201d said he, \u201cmark how\nfar envy will carry some people. It was on that very passage that M.\nHallier, before he became one of our friends, bantered Father Bauny, by\napplying to him these words: _Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi_\u2014\u2018Behold the\nman that taketh away the sins of the world!\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly,\u201d said I, \u201caccording to Father Bauny, we may be said to\nbehold a redemption of an entirely new description.\u201d\n\n\u201cWould you have a more authentic witness on the point?\u201d added he. \u201cHere\nis the book of Father Annat.[121] It is the last that he wrote against\nM. Arnauld. Turn up to page 34, where there is a dog\u2019s ear, and read the\nlines which I have marked with pencil\u2014they ought to be written in\nletters of gold.\u201d I then read these words: \u201cHe that has no thought of\nGod, nor of his sins, nor any apprehension (that is, as he explained it,\nany knowledge) of his obligation to exercise the acts of love to God or\ncontrition, has no actual grace for exercising those acts; but it is\nequally true that he is guilty of no sin in omitting them, and that, if\nhe is damned, it will not be as a punishment for that omission.\u201d And a\nfew lines below, he adds: \u201cThe same thing may be said of a culpable\ncommission.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou see,\u201d said the monk, \u201chow he speaks of sins of _omission_ and of\n_commission_. Nothing escapes him. What say you to that?\u201d\n\n\u201cSay!\u201d I exclaimed. \u201cI am delighted! What a charming train of\nconsequences do I discover flowing from this doctrine! I can see the\nwhole results already; and such mysteries present themselves before me!\nWhy, I see more people, beyond all comparison, justified by this\nignorance and forgetfulness of God, than by grace and the\nsacraments![122] But, my dear father, are you not inspiring me with a\ndelusive joy? Are you sure there is nothing here like that _sufficiency_\n_which suffices not_? I am terribly afraid of the _Distinguo_;\u2014I was\ntaken in with that once already! Are you quite in earnest?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow now!\u201d cried the monk, beginning to get angry; \u201chere is no matter\nfor jesting. I assure you there is no such thing as equivocation here.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am not making a jest of it,\u201d said I; \u201cbut that is what I really\ndread, from pure anxiety to find it true.\u201d[123]\n\n\u201cWell then,\u201d he said, \u201cto assure yourself still more of it, here are the\nwritings of M. le Moine,[124] who taught the doctrine in a full meeting\nof the Sorbonne. He learned it from us, to be sure; but he has the merit\nof having cleared it up most admirably. O how circumstantially he goes\nto work! He shows that, in order to make out an action to be _a sin_,\nall these things must have passed through the mind. Read, and weigh\nevery word.\u201d\u2014I then read what I now give you in a translation from the\noriginal Latin: \u201c1. On the one hand, God sheds abroad on the soul some\nmeasure of love, which gives it a bias toward the thing commanded; and\non the other, a rebellious concupiscence solicits it in the opposite\ndirection. 2. God inspires the soul with a knowledge of its own\nweakness. 3. God reveals the knowledge of the physician who can heal it.\n4. God inspires it with a desire to be healed. 5. God inspires a desire\nto pray and solicit his assistance.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd unless all these things occur and pass through the soul,\u201d added the\nmonk, \u201cthe action is not properly a sin, and cannot be imputed, as M. le\nMoine shows in the same place and in what follows. Would you wish to\nhave other authorities for this? Here they are.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll modern ones, however,\u201d whispered my Jansenist friend.\n\n\u201cSo I perceive,\u201d said I to him aside; and then, turning to the monk: \u201cO\nmy dear sir,\u201d cried I, \u201cwhat a blessing this will be to some persons of\nmy acquaintance! I must positively introduce them to you. You have\nnever, perhaps, met with people who had fewer sins to account for all\nyour life. For, in the first place, they never think of God at all;\ntheir vices have got the better of their reason; they have never known\neither their weakness or the physician who can cure it; they have never\nthought of \u2018desiring the health of their soul,\u2019 and still less of\n\u2018praying to God to bestow it;\u2019 so that, according to M. le Moine, they\nare still in the state of baptismal innocence. They have \u2018never had a\nthought of loving God or of being contrite for their sins;\u2019 so that,\naccording to Father Annat, they have never committed sin through the\nwant of charity and penitence. Their life is spent in a perpetual round\nof all sorts of pleasures, in the course of which they have not been\ninterrupted by the slightest remorse. These excesses had led me to\nimagine that their perdition was inevitable; but you, father, inform me\nthat these same excesses secure their salvation. Blessings on you, my\ngood father, for this way of justifying people! Others prescribe painful\nausterities for healing the soul; but you show that souls which may be\nthought desperately distempered are in quite good health. What an\nexcellent device for being happy both in this world and in the next! I\nhad always supposed that the less a man thought of God, the more he\nsinned; but, from what I see now, if one could only succeed in bringing\nhimself not to think upon God at all, everything would be pure with him\nin all time coming. Away with your half-and-half sinners, who retain\nsome sneaking affection for virtue! They will be damned every one of\nthem, these semi-sinners. But commend me to your arrant\nsinners\u2014hardened, unalloyed, out-and-out, thorough-bred sinners. Hell is\nno place for them; they have cheated the devil, purely by virtue of\ntheir devotion to his service!\u201d\n\nThe good father, who saw very well the connection between these\nconsequences and his principle, dexterously evaded them; and maintaining\nhis temper, either from good nature or policy, he merely replied: \u201cTo\nlet you understand how we avoid these inconveniences, you must know\nthat, while we affirm that these reprobates to whom you refer would be\nwithout sin if they had no thoughts of conversion and no desires to\ndevote themselves to God, we maintain, that they all actually _have_\nsuch thoughts and desires, and that God never permitted a man to sin\nwithout giving him previously a view of the evil which he contemplated,\nand a desire, either to avoid the offence, or at all events to implore\nhis aid to enable him to avoid it; and none but Jansenists will assert\nthe contrary.\u201d\n\n\u201cStrange! father,\u201d returned I; \u201cis this, then, the heresy of the\nJansenists, to deny that every time a man commits a sin, he is troubled\nwith a remorse of conscience, in spite of which, he \u2018leaps the fence and\ntransgresses,\u2019 as Father Bauny has it? It is rather too good a joke to\nbe made a heretic for that. I can easily believe that a man may be\ndamned for not having good thoughts; but it never would have entered my\nhead to imagine that any man could be subjected to that doom for not\nbelieving that all mankind must have good thoughts! But, father, I hold\nmyself bound in conscience to disabuse you, and to inform you that there\nare thousands of people who have no such desires\u2014who sin without\nregret\u2014who sin with delight\u2014who make a boast of sinning. And who ought\nto know better about these things than yourself? You cannot have failed\nto have confessed some of those to whom I allude; for it is among\npersons of high rank that they are most generally to be met with.[125]\nBut mark, father, the dangerous consequences of your maxim. Do you not\nperceive what effect it may have on those libertines who like nothing\nbetter than to find out matter of doubt in religion? What a handle do\nyou give them, when you assure them, as an article of faith, that on\nevery occasion when they commit a sin, they feel an inward presentiment\nof the evil, and a desire to avoid it? Is it not obvious that, feeling\nconvinced by their own experience of the falsity of your doctrine on\nthis point, which you say is a matter of faith, they will extend the\ninference drawn from this to all the other points? They will argue that,\nsince you are not trust-worthy in one article, you are to be suspected\nin them all; and thus you shut them up to conclude, either that religion\nis false, or that you must know very little about it.\u201d\n\nHere my friend the Jansenist, following up my remarks, said to him: \u201cYou\nwould do well, father, if you wish to preserve your doctrine, not to\nexplain so precisely as you have done to us, what you mean by _actual\ngrace_. For, how could you, without forfeiting all credit in the\nestimation of men, openly declare that _nobody sins without having\npreviously the knowledge of his weakness, and of a physician, or the\ndesire of a cure, and of asking it of God_? Will it be believed, on your\nword, that those who are immersed in avarice, impurity, blasphemy,\nduelling, revenge, robbery and sacrilege, have really a desire to\nembrace chastity, humility, and the other Christian virtues? Can it be\nconceived that those philosophers who boasted so loudly of the powers of\nnature, knew its infirmity and its physician? Will you maintain that\nthose who held it as a settled maxim that \u2018it is not God that bestows\nvirtue, and that no one ever asked it from him,\u2019 would think of asking\nit for themselves? Who can believe that the Epicureans, who denied a\ndivine providence, ever felt any inclination to pray to God?\u2014men who\nsaid that \u2018it would be an insult to invoke the Deity in our necessities,\nas if he were capable of wasting a thought on beings like us?\u2019 In a\nword, how can it be imagined that idolaters and Atheists, every time\nthey are tempted to the commission of sin, in other words, infinitely\noften during their lives, have a desire to pray to the true God, of whom\nthey are ignorant, that he would bestow on them virtues of which they\nhave no conception?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said the worthy monk, in a resolute tone, \u201cwe will affirm it: and\nsooner than allow that any one sins without having the consciousness\nthat he is doing evil, and the desire of the opposite virtue, we will\nmaintain that the whole world, reprobates and infidels included, have\nthese inspirations and desires in every case of temptation. You cannot\nshow me, from the Scripture at least, that this is not the truth.\u201d\n\nOn this remark I struck in, by exclaiming: \u201cWhat! father, must we have\nrecourse to the Scripture to demonstrate a thing so clear as this? This\nis not a point of faith, nor even of reason. It is a matter of fact: we\nsee it\u2014we know it\u2014we feel it.\u201d\n\nBut the Jansenist, keeping the monk to his own terms, addressed him as\nfollows: \u201cIf you are willing, father, to stand or fall by Scripture, I\nam ready to meet you there; only you must promise to yield to its\nauthority; and since it is written that \u2018God has not revealed his\njudgments to the Heathen, but left them to wander in their own ways,\u2019\nyou must not say that God has enlightened those whom the Sacred Writings\nassure us \u2018he has left in darkness and in the shadow of death.\u2019 Is it\nnot enough to show the erroneousness of your principle, to find that St.\nPaul calls himself \u2018the chief of sinners,\u2019 for a sin which he committed\n\u2018ignorantly, and with zeal?\u2019 Is it not enough to find, from the Gospel,\nthat those who crucified Jesus Christ had need of the pardon which he\nasked for them, although they knew not the malice of their action, and\nwould never have committed it, according to St. Paul, if they had known\nit? Is it not enough that Jesus Christ apprizes us that there will be\npersecutors of the Church, who, while making every effort to ruin her,\nwill \u2018think that they are doing God service;\u2019 teaching us that this sin,\nwhich in the judgment of the apostle, is the greatest of all sins, may\nbe committed by persons who, so far from knowing that they were sinning,\nwould think that they sinned by not committing it? In fine, is it not\nenough that Jesus Christ himself has taught us that there are two kinds\nof sinners, the one of whom sin with \u2018knowledge of their Master\u2019s will,\u2019\nand the other without knowledge; and that both of them will be\n\u2018chastised,\u2019 although, indeed, in a different manner?\u201d\n\nSorely pressed by so many testimonies from Scripture, to which he had\nappealed, the worthy monk began to give way; and, leaving the wicked to\nsin without inspiration, he said: \u201cYou will not deny that _good men_, at\nleast, never sin unless God give them\u201d\u2014\u2014\u201cYou are flinching,\u201d said I,\ninterrupting him; \u201cyou are flinching now, my good father; you abandon\nthe general principle, and finding that it will not hold good in regard\nto the wicked, you would compound the matter, by making it apply at\nleast to the righteous. But in this point of view the application of it\nis, I conceive, so circumscribed, that it will hardly apply to anybody,\nand it is scarcely worth while to dispute the point.\u201d\n\nMy friend, however, who was so ready on the whole question, that I am\ninclined to think he had studied it all that very morning, replied:\n\u201cThis, father, is the last entrenchment to which those of your party who\nare willing to reason at all are sure to retreat; but you are far from\nbeing safe even here. The example of the saints is not a whit more in\nyour favor. Who doubts that they often fall into sins of surprise,\nwithout being conscious of them? Do we not learn from the saints\nthemselves how often concupiscence lays hidden snares for them; and how\ngenerally it happens, as St. Augustine complains of himself in his\nConfessions, that, with all their discretion, they \u2018give to pleasure\nwhat they mean only to give to necessity?\u2019\n\n\u201cHow usual is it to see the more zealous friends of truth betrayed by\nthe heat of controversy into sallies of bitter passion for their\npersonal interests, while their consciences, at the time, bear them no\nother testimony than that they are acting in this manner purely for the\ninterests of truth, and they do not discover their mistake till long\nafterwards!\n\n\u201cWhat, again, shall we say of those who, as we learn from examples in\necclesiastical history, eagerly involve themselves in affairs which are\nreally bad, because they believe them to be really good; and yet this\ndoes not hinder the fathers from condemning such persons as having\nsinned on these occasions?\n\n\u201cAnd were this not the case, how could the saints have their secret\nfaults? How could it be true that God alone knows the magnitude and the\nnumber of our offences; that no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred\nor love; and that the best of saints, though unconscious of any\nculpability, ought always, as St. Paul says of himself, to remain in\n\u2018fear and trembling?\u2019[126]\n\n\u201cYou perceive, then, father, that this knowledge of the evil, and love\nof the opposite virtue, which you imagine to be essential to constitute\nsin, are equally disproved by the examples of the righteous and of the\nwicked. In the case of the wicked, their passion for vice sufficiently\ntestifies that they have no desire for virtue; and in regard to the\nrighteous, the love which they bear to virtue plainly shows that they\nare not always conscious of those sins which, as the Scripture teaches,\nthey are daily committing.\n\n\u201cSo true is it, indeed, that the righteous often sin through ignorance,\nthat the greatest saints rarely sin otherwise. For how can it be\nsupposed that souls so pure, who avoid with so much care and zeal the\nleast things that can be displeasing to God as soon as they discover\nthem, and who yet sin many times every day, could possibly have, every\ntime before they fell into sin, \u2018the knowledge of their infirmity on\nthat occasion, and of their physician, and the desire of their souls\u2019\nhealth, and of praying to God for assistance,\u2019 and that, in spite of\nthese inspirations, these devoted souls \u2018nevertheless transgress,\u2019 and\ncommit the sin?\n\n\u201cYou must conclude then, father, that neither sinners nor yet saints\nhave always that knowledge, or those desires and inspirations every time\nthey offend; that is, to use your own terms, they have not always actual\ngrace. Say no longer, with your modern authors, that it is impossible\nfor those to sin who do not know righteousness; but rather join with St.\nAugustine and the ancient fathers in saying that it is impossible _not_\nto sin, when we do not know righteousness: _Necesse est ut peccet, a quo\nignoratur justitia_.\u201d\n\nThe good father, though thus driven from both of his positions, did not\nlose courage, but after ruminating a little, \u201cHa!\u201d he exclaimed, \u201cI\nshall settle you immediately.\u201d And again taking up Father Bauny, he\npointed to the same place he had before quoted, exclaiming: \u201cLook\nnow\u2014see the ground on which he establishes his opinion! I was sure he\nwould not be deficient in good proofs. Read what he quotes from\nAristotle, and you will see that after so express an authority, you must\neither burn the books of this prince of philosophers or adopt our\nopinion. Hear, then, the principles which support Father Bauny:\nAristotle states first, \u2018_that an action cannot be imputed as\nblameworthy, if it be involuntary_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI grant that,\u201d said my friend.\n\n\u201cThis is the first time you have agreed together,\u201d said I. \u201cTake my\nadvice, father, and proceed no further.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat would be doing nothing,\u201d he replied; \u201cwe must know what are the\nconditions necessary to constitute an action voluntary.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am much afraid,\u201d returned I, \u201cthat you will get at loggerheads on\nthat point.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo fear of that,\u201d said he; \u201cthis is sure ground\u2014Aristotle is on my\nside. Hear, now, what Father Bauny says: \u2018In order that an action be\nvoluntary, it must proceed from a man who perceives, knows, and\ncomprehends what is good and what is evil in it. _Voluntarium est_\u2014that\nis a voluntary action, as we commonly say with the philosopher\u2019 (that is\nAristotle, you know, said the monk, squeezing my hand;) \u2018_quod fit a\nprincipio cognoscente singula in quibus est actio_\u2014which is done by a\nperson knowing the particulars of the action; so that when the will is\nled inconsiderately, and without mature reflection, to embrace or\nreject, to do or omit to do anything, before the understanding has been\nable to see whether it would be right or wrong, such an action is\nneither good nor evil; because previous to this mental inquisition,\nview, and reflection on the good or bad qualities of the matter in\nquestion, the act by which it is done is not voluntary.\u2019 Are you\nsatisfied now?\u201d said the father.\n\n\u201cIt appears,\u201d returned I, \u201cthat Aristotle agrees with Father Bauny; but\nthat does not prevent me from feeling surprised at this statement. What,\nsir! is it not enough to make an action voluntary that the man knows\nwhat he is doing, and does it just because he chooses to do it? Must we\nsuppose, besides this, that he \u2018perceives, knows, and comprehends what\nis good and evil in the action?\u2019 Why, on this supposition there would be\nhardly such a thing in nature as voluntary actions, for nobody almost\nthinks about all this. How many oaths in gambling\u2014how many excesses in\ndebauchery\u2014how many riotous extravagances in the carnival, must, on this\nprinciple, be excluded from the list of voluntary actions, and\nconsequently neither good nor bad, because not accompanied by those\n\u2018mental reflections on the good and evil qualities\u2019 of the action? But\nis it possible, father, that Aristotle held such a sentiment? I have\nalways understood that he was a sensible man.\u201d\n\n\u201cI shall soon convince you of that,\u201d said the Jansenist; and requesting\na sight of Aristotle\u2019s Ethics, he opened it at the beginning of the\nthird book, from which Father Bauny had taken the passage quoted, and\nsaid to the monk: \u201cI excuse you, my dear sir, for having believed, on\nthe word of Father Bauny, that Aristotle held such a sentiment; but you\nwould have changed your mind had you read him for yourself. It is true\nthat he teaches, that \u2018in order to make an action voluntary, we must\nknow the particulars of that action\u2019\u2014_singula in quibus est actio_. But\nwhat else does he mean by that, than the _particular circumstances_ of\nthe action? The examples which he adduces clearly show this to be his\nmeaning, for they are exclusively confined to cases in which the persons\nwere ignorant of some of the circumstances; such as that of \u2018a person\nwho, wishing to exhibit a machine, discharges a dart which wounds a\nbystander; and that of Merope, who killed her own son instead of her\nenemy,\u2019 and such like.\n\n\u201cThus you see what is the kind of ignorance that renders actions\ninvoluntary; namely, that of the particular circumstances, which is\ntermed by divines, as you must know, _ignorance of the fact_. But with\nrespect to _ignorance of the right_\u2014ignorance of the good or evil in an\naction\u2014which is the only point in question, let us see if Aristotle\nagrees with Father Bauny. Here are the words of the philosopher: \u2018All\nwicked men are ignorant of what they ought to do, and what they ought to\navoid; and it is this very ignorance which makes them wicked and\nvicious. Accordingly, a man cannot be said to act involuntarily merely\nbecause he is ignorant of what it is proper for him to do in order to\nfulfil his duty. This ignorance in the choice of good and evil does not\nmake the action involuntary; it only makes it vicious. The same thing\nmay be affirmed of the man who is ignorant generally of the rules of his\nduty; such ignorance is worthy of blame, not of excuse. And\nconsequently, the ignorance which renders actions involuntary and\nexcusable is simply that which relates to the fact and its particular\ncircumstances. In this case the person is excused and forgiven, being\nconsidered as having acted contrary to his inclination.\u2019\n\n\u201cAfter this, father, will you maintain that Aristotle is of your\nopinion? And who can help being astonished to find that a Pagan\nphilosopher had more enlightened views than your doctors, in a matter so\ndeeply affecting morals, and the direction of conscience, too, as the\nknowledge of those conditions which render actions voluntary or\ninvoluntary, and which, accordingly, charge or discharge them as sinful?\nLook for no more support, then, father, from the prince of philosophers,\nand no longer oppose yourselves to the prince of theologians,[127] who\nhas thus decided the point in the first book of his Retractations,\nchapter XV.: \u2018Those who sin through ignorance, though they sin without\nmeaning to sin, commit the deed only because they _will_ commit it. And,\ntherefore, even this sin of ignorance cannot be committed except by the\nwill of him who commits it, though by a will which incites him to the\naction merely, and not to the sin; and yet the action itself is\nnevertheless sinful, for it is enough to constitute it such that he has\ndone what he was bound not to do.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe Jesuit seemed to be confounded more with the passage from Aristotle,\nI thought, than that from St. Augustine; but while he was thinking on\nwhat he could reply, a messenger came to inform him that Madame la\nMareschale of \u2014\u2014, and Madame the Marchioness of \u2014\u2014, requested his\nattendance. So taking a hasty leave of us, he said: \u201cI shall speak about\nit to our fathers. They will find an answer to it, I warrant you; we\nhave got some long heads among us.\u201d\n\nWe understood him perfectly well; and on our being left alone, I\nexpressed to my friend my astonishment at the subversion which this\ndoctrine threatened to the whole system of morals. To this he replied\nthat he was quite astonished at my astonishment. \u201cAre you not yet\naware,\u201d he said, \u201cthat they have gone to far greater excess in morals\nthan in any other matter?\u201d He gave me some strange illustrations of\nthis, promising me more at some future time. The information which I may\nreceive on this point, will, I hope, furnish the topic of my next\ncommunication.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Etienne Bauni, or Stephen Bauny, was a French Jesuit. His \u201cSummary,\u201d\n which Pascal has immortalized by his frequent references to it, was\n published in 1633. It is a large volume, stuffed with the most\n detestable doctrines. In 1642, the General Assembly of the French\n clergy censured his books on moral theology, as containing\n propositions \u201cleading to licentiousness, and the corruption of good\n manners, violating natural equity, and excusing blasphemy, usury,\n simony, and other heinous sins, as trivial matters.\u201d (Nicole, i. 164.)\n And yet this abominable work was formally defended in the \u201cApology for\n the Casuists,\u201d written in 1657, by Father Pirot, and acknowledged by\n the Jesuits as having been written under their direction! (Nicole,\n Hist. des Provinciales, p. 30.)\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n Francis Annat was born in the year 1590. He was made rector of the\n College of Toulouse, and appointed by the Jesuits their French\n provincial; and, while in that situation, was chosen by Louis XIV. as\n his confessor. His friends have highly extolled his virtues as a man;\n and the reader may judge of the value of these eulogiums from the\n fact, that he retained his post as the favorite confessor of that\n licentious monarch, without interruption, till deafness prevented him\n from listening any longer to the confessions of his royal penitent.\n (Bayle, art. _Annat_.) They have also extolled his answer to the\n Provincial Letters, in his \u201cBonne Foy des Jansenistes,\u201d in which he\n professed to expose the falsity of the quotations made from the\n Casuists, with what success, appears from the Notes of Nicole, who has\n completely vindicated Pascal from the unfounded charges which the\n Jesuits have reiterated on this point. (Notes Preliminaires, vol. i.\n p. 256, &c.; Entretiens de Cleandre et Eudoxe, p. 79.)\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n When Madame du Valois, a lady of birth and high accomplishments, one\n of the nuns of Port-Royal, among other trials by which she was\n harassed and tormented for not signing the formulary condemning\n Jansenius, was threatened with being deprived of the benefit of the\n sacraments at the hour of death, she replied: \u201cIf, at the awful hour\n of death, I should be deprived of those assistances which the Church\n grants to all her children, then God himself will, by his grace,\n immediately and abundantly supply their instrumentality. I know,\n indeed, that it is most painful to approach the awful hour of death\n without an outward participation in the sacraments; but it is better\n dying to enter into heaven, though without the sacraments, for the\n cause of truth, than, receiving the sacraments, to be cited to\n irrevocable judgment for committing perjury.\u201d (Narrative of Dem. of\n Port-Royal, p. 176.)\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n Will it be believed that the Jesuits actually had the consummate\n hypocrisy to pretend that Pascal meant to throw ridicule on the grace\n of God, while he was merely exposing to merited contempt their own\n perversions of the doctrine?\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n See before, page 70.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n The Jesuits were notorious for the assiduity with which they sought\n admission into the families, and courted the confidence of the great,\n with whom, from the laxness of their discipline and morality, as well\n as from their superior manners and accomplishments, they were, as they\n still are, the favorite confessors. They have a maxim among their\n secret instructions, that in dealing with the consciences of the\n great, the confessor must be guided by the looser sort of opinions.\n The author of the _Theatre Jesuitique_ illustrates this by an\n anecdote. A rich gentleman falling sick, confessed himself to a\n Jesuit, and among other sins acknowledged an illicit intercourse with\n a lady, whose portrait, thinking himself dying, he gave with many\n expressions of remorse, to his confessor. The gentleman, however,\n recovered, and with returning health a salutary change was effected on\n his character. The Jesuit, finding himself forgotten, paid a visit to\n his former penitent, and gave him back the portrait, which renewed all\n his former passion, and soon brought him again to the feet of his\n confessor!\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n \u201cThe doubtsome faith of the pope,\u201d as it was styled by our Reformers,\n is here lamentably apparent. The \u201cfear and trembling\u201d of the apostle\n were those of anxious care and diligence, not of doubt or\n apprehension. The Church of Rome, with all her pretensions to be\n regarded as the only safe and infallible guide to salvation, keeps her\n children in darkness and doubt on this point to the last moment of\n life; they are never permitted to reach the peaceful assurance of\n God\u2019s love and the humble hope of eternal life which the Gospel\n warrants the believer to cherish; and this, while it serves to keep\n the superstitious multitude under the sway of priestly domination,\n accounts for the _gloom_ which has characterized, in all ages, the\n devotion of the best and most intelligent Romanists.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n Augustine.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER V.\n\nDESIGN OF THE JESUITS IN ESTABLISHING A NEW SYSTEM OF MORALS\u2014TWO SORTS\n OF CASUISTS AMONG THEM, A GREAT MANY LAX, AND SOME SEVERE ONES\u2014REASON\n OF THIS DIFFERENCE\u2014EXPLANATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILITY\u2014A\n MULTITUDE OF MODERN AND UNKNOWN AUTHORS SUBSTITUTED IN THE PLACE OF\n THE HOLY FATHERS.\n\n\n PARIS, _March 20, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014According to my promise, I now send you the first outlines of the\nmorals taught by those good fathers the Jesuits\u2014\u201cthose men distinguished\nfor learning and sagacity, who are all under the guidance of divine\nwisdom\u2014a surer guide than all philosophy.\u201d You imagine, perhaps, that I\nam in jest, but I am perfectly serious; or rather, they are so when they\nspeak thus of themselves in their book entitled \u201cThe Image of the First\nCentury.\u201d[128] I am only copying their own words, and may now give you\nthe rest of the eulogy: \u201cThey are a society of men, or rather let us\ncall them angels, predicted by Isaiah in these words, \u2018Go, ye swift and\nready angels.\u2019\u201d[129] The prediction is as clear as day, is it not? \u201cThey\nhave the spirit of eagles; they are a flock of ph\u0153nixes (a late author\nhaving demonstrated that there are a great many of these birds); they\nhave changed the face of Christendom!\u201d Of course, we must believe all\nthis, since they have said it; and in one sense you will find the\naccount amply verified by the sequel of this communication, in which I\npropose to treat of their maxims.\n\nDetermined to obtain the best possible information, I did not trust to\nthe representations of our friend the Jansenist, but sought an interview\nwith some of themselves. I found, however, that he told me nothing but\nthe bare truth, and I am persuaded he is an honest man. Of this you may\njudge from the following account of these conferences.\n\nIn the conversation I had with the Jansenist, he told me so many strange\nthings about these fathers, that I could with difficulty believe them,\ntill he pointed them out to me in their writings; after which he left me\nnothing more to say in their defence, than that these might be the\nsentiments of some individuals only, which it was not fair to impute to\nthe whole fraternity.[130] And, indeed, I assured him that I knew some\nof them who were as severe as those whom he quoted to me were lax. This\nled him to explain to me the spirit of the Society, which is not known\nto every one; and you will perhaps have no objections to learn something\nabout it.\n\n\u201cYou imagine,\u201d he began, \u201cthat it would tell considerably in their favor\nto show that some of their fathers are as friendly to Evangelical maxims\nas others are opposed to them; and you would conclude from that\ncircumstance, that these loose opinions do not belong to the whole\nSociety. That I grant you; for had such been the case, they would not\nhave suffered persons among them holding sentiments so diametrically\nopposed to licentiousness. But as it is equally true that there are\namong them those who hold these licentious doctrines, you are bound also\nto conclude that the Spirit of the Society is not that of Christian\nseverity; for had such been the case, they would not have suffered\npersons among them holding sentiments so diametrically opposed to that\nseverity.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what, then,\u201d I asked, \u201ccan be the design of the whole as a body?\nPerhaps they have no fixed principle, and every one is left to speak out\nat random whatever he thinks.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat cannot be,\u201d returned my friend; \u201csuch an immense body could not\nsubsist in such a hap-hazard sort of way, or without a soul to govern\nand regulate its movements; besides, it is one of their express\nregulations, that none shall print a page without the approval of their\nsuperiors.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said I, \u201chow can these same superiors give their consent to\nmaxims so contradictory?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is what you have yet to learn,\u201d he replied. \u201cKnow, then, that\ntheir object is not the corruption of manners\u2014that is not their design.\nBut as little is it their sole aim to reform them\u2014that would be bad\npolicy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of\nthemselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially\nnecessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend\neverywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the\nEvangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts\nof people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favorable\nto their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great\nbulk of people, they wave them in the case of such persons, in order to\nkeep on good terms with all the world. Accordingly, having to deal with\npersons of all classes and of all different nations, they find it\nnecessary to have casuists cut out to match this diversity.\n\n\u201cOn this principle, you will easily see that if they had none but the\nlooser sort of casuists, they would defeat their main design, which is\nto embrace all; for those that are truly pious are fond of a stricter\ndiscipline. But as there are not many of that stamp, they do not require\nmany severe directors to guide them. They have a few for the select few;\nwhile whole multitudes of lax casuists are provided for the multitudes\nthat prefer laxity.[131]\n\n\u201cIt is in virtue of this \u2018obliging and accommodating\u2019 conduct, as Father\nPetau[132] calls it, that they may be said to stretch out a helping hand\nto all mankind. Should any person present himself before them, for\nexample, fully resolved to make restitution of some ill-gotten gains, do\nnot suppose that they would dissuade him from it. By no means; on the\ncontrary, they will applaud and confirm him in such a holy resolution.\nBut suppose another should come who wishes to be absolved without\nrestitution, and it will be a particularly hard case indeed, if they\ncannot furnish him with means of evading the duty, of one kind or\nanother, the lawfulness of which they will be ready to guarantee.\n\n\u201cBy this policy they keep all their friends, and defend themselves\nagainst all their foes; for, when charged with extreme laxity, they have\nnothing more to do than produce their austere directors, with some books\nwhich they have written on the severity of the Christian code of morals;\nand simple people, or those who never look below the surface of things,\nare quite satisfied with these proofs of the falsity of the accusation.\n\n\u201cThus are they prepared for all sorts of persons, and so ready are they\nto suit the supply to the demand, that when they happen to be in any\npart of the world where the doctrine of a crucified God is accounted\nfoolishness, they suppress the offence of the cross, and preach only a\nglorious and not a suffering Jesus Christ. This plan they followed in\nthe Indies and in China, where they permitted Christians to practise\nidolatry itself, with the aid of the following ingenious\ncontrivance:\u2014they made their converts conceal under their clothes an\nimage of Jesus Christ, to which they taught them to transfer mentally\nthose adorations which they rendered ostensibly to the idol Cachinchoam\nand Keum-fucum. This charge is brought against them by Gravina, a\nDominican, and is fully established by the Spanish memorial presented to\nPhilip IV., king of Spain, by the Cordeliers of the Philippine Islands,\nquoted by Thomas Hurtado, in his \u2018Martyrdom of the Faith,\u2019 page 427. To\nsuch a length did this practice go, that the Congregation _De\nPropaganda_ were obliged expressly to forbid the Jesuits, on pain of\nexcommunication, to permit the worship of idols on any pretext whatever,\nor to conceal the mystery of the cross from their catechumens; strictly\nenjoining them to admit none to baptism who were not thus instructed,\nand ordering them to expose the image of the crucifix in their\nchurches:\u2014all which is amply detailed in the decree of that\nCongregation, dated the 9th of July, 1646, and signed by Cardinal\nCapponi.[133]\n\n\u201cSuch is the manner in which they have spread themselves over the whole\nearth, aided by _the doctrine of probable opinions_, which is at once\nthe source and the basis of all this licentiousness. You must get some\nof themselves to explain this doctrine to you. They make no secret of\nit, any more than of what you have already learned; with this difference\nonly, that they conceal their carnal and worldly policy under the garb\nof divine and Christian prudence; as if the faith, and tradition its\nally, were not always one and the same at all times and in all places;\nas if it were the part of the rule to bend in conformity to the subject\nwhich it was meant to regulate; and as if souls, to be purified from\ntheir pollutions, had only to corrupt the law of the Lord, in place of\n\u2018the law of the Lord, which is clean and pure, converting the soul which\nlieth in sin,\u2019 and bringing it into conformity with its salutary\nlessons!\n\n\u201cGo and see some of these worthy fathers, I beseech you, and I am\nconfident that you will soon discover, in the laxity of their moral\nsystem, the explanation of their doctrine about grace. You will then see\nthe Christian virtues exhibited in such a strange aspect, so completely\nstripped of the charity which is the life and soul of them\u2014you will see\nso many crimes palliated and irregularities tolerated, that you will no\nlonger be surprised at their maintaining that \u2018all men have always\nenough of grace\u2019 to lead a pious life, in the sense in which they\nunderstand piety. Their morality being entirely Pagan, nature is quite\ncompetent to its observance. When we maintain the necessity of\nefficacious grace, we assign it another sort of virtue for its object.\nIts office is not to cure one vice by means of another; it is not merely\nto induce men to practise the external duties of religion: it aims at a\nvirtue higher than that propounded by Pharisees, or the greatest sages\nof Heathenism. The law and reason are \u2018sufficient graces\u2019 for these\npurposes. But to disenthral the soul from the love of the world\u2014to tear\nit from what it holds most dear\u2014to make it die to itself\u2014to lift it up\nand bind it wholly, only, and forever, to God\u2014can be the work of none\nbut an all-powerful hand. And it would be as absurd to affirm that we\nhave the full power of achieving such objects, as it would be to allege\nthat those virtues, devoid of the love of God, which these fathers\nconfound with the virtues of Christianity, are beyond our power.\u201d\n\nSuch was the strain of my friend\u2019s discourse, which was delivered with\nmuch feeling; for he takes these sad disorders very much to heart. For\nmy own part, I began to entertain a high admiration of these fathers,\nsimply on account of the ingenuity of their policy; and following his\nadvice, I waited on a good casuist of the Society, one of my old\nacquaintances, with whom I now resolved purposely to renew my former\nintimacy. Having my instructions how to manage them, I had no great\ndifficulty in getting him afloat. Retaining his old attachment, he\nreceived me immediately with a profusion of kindness; and after talking\nover some indifferent matters, I took occasion from the present\nseason,[134] to learn something from him about fasting, and thus slip\ninsensibly into the main subject. I told him, therefore, that I had\ndifficulty in supporting the fast. He exhorted me to do violence to my\ninclinations; but as I continued to murmur, he took pity on me, and\nbegan to search out some ground for a dispensation. In fact he suggested\na number of excuses for me, none of which happened to suit my case, till\nat length he bethought himself of asking me, whether I did not find it\ndifficult to sleep without taking supper? \u201cYes, my good father,\u201d said I;\n\u201cand for that reason I am obliged often to take a refreshment at\nmid-day, and supper at night.\u201d[135]\n\n\u201cI am extremely happy,\u201d he replied, \u201cto have found out a way of\nrelieving you without sin: go in peace\u2014you are under no obligation to\nfast. However, I would not have you depend on my word: step this way to\nthe library.\u201d\n\nOn going thither with him he took up a book, exclaiming, with great\nrapture, \u201cHere is the authority for you: and, by my conscience, such an\nauthority! It is ESCOBAR!\u201d[136]\n\n\u201cWho is Escobar?\u201d I inquired.\n\n\u201cWhat! not know Escobar?\u201d cried the monk; \u201cthe member of our Society who\ncompiled this Moral Theology from twenty-four of our fathers, and on\nthis founds an analogy, in his preface, between his book and \u2018that in\nthe Apocalypse which was sealed with seven seals,\u2019 and states that\n\u2018Jesus presents it thus sealed to the four living creatures, Suarez,\nVasquez, Molina, and Valencia,[137] in presence of the four-and-twenty\nJesuits who represent the four-and-twenty elders?\u2019\u201d\n\nHe read me, in fact, the whole of that allegory, which he pronounced to\nbe admirably appropriate, and which conveyed to my mind a sublime idea\nof the excellence of the work. At length, having sought out the passage\non fasting, \u201cO here it is!\u201d he said; \u201ctreatise 1, example 13, no. 67:\n\u2018If a man cannot sleep without taking supper, is he bound to fast?\nAnswer: _By no means!_\u2019 Will that not satisfy you?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot exactly,\u201d replied I; \u201cfor I might sustain the fast by taking my\nrefreshment in the morning, and supping at night.\u201d\n\n\u201cListen, then, to what follows; they have provided for all that: \u2018And\nwhat is to be said, if the person might make a shift with a refreshment\nin the morning and supping at night?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s my case exactly.\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2018Answer: Still he is not obliged to fast; because no person is obliged\nto change the order of his meals.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cA most excellent reason!\u201d I exclaimed.\n\n\u201cBut tell me, pray,\u201d continued the monk, \u201cdo you take much wine?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, my dear father,\u201d I answered; \u201cI cannot endure it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI merely put the question,\u201d returned he, \u201cto apprize you that you\nmight, without breaking the fast, take a glass or so in the morning, or\nwhenever you felt inclined for a drop; and that is always something in\nthe way of supporting nature. Here is the decision at the same place,\nno. 57: \u2018May one, without breaking the fast, drink wine at any hour he\npleases, and even in a large quantity? Yes, he may: and a dram of\nhippocrass too.\u2019[138] I had no recollection of the hippocrass,\u201d said the\nmonk; \u201cI must take a note of that in my memorandum-book.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe must be a nice man, this Escobar,\u201d observed I.\n\n\u201cOh! everybody likes him,\u201d rejoined the father; \u201che has such delightful\nquestions! Only observe this one in the same place, no. 38: \u2018If a man\ndoubt whether he is twenty-one years old, is he obliged to fast?[139]\nNo. But suppose I were to be twenty-one to-night an hour after midnight,\nand to-morrow were the fast, would I be obliged to fast to-morrow? No;\nfor you were at liberty to eat as much as you pleased for an hour after\nmidnight, not being till then fully twenty-one; and therefore having a\nright to break the fast-day, you are not obliged to keep it.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, that is vastly entertaining!\u201d cried I.\n\n\u201cOh,\u201d rejoined the father, \u201cit is impossible to tear one\u2019s self away\nfrom the book: I spend whole days and nights in reading it; in fact, I\ndo nothing else.\u201d\n\nThe worthy monk, perceiving that I was interested, was quite delighted,\nand went on with his quotations. \u201cNow,\u201d said he, \u201cfor a taste of\nFiliutius, one of the four-and-twenty Jesuits: \u2018Is a man who has\nexhausted himself any way\u2014by profligacy, for example[140]\u2014obliged to\nfast? By no means. But if he has exhausted himself expressly to procure\na dispensation from fasting, will he be held obliged? He will not, even\nthough he should have had that design.\u2019 There now! would you have\nbelieved that?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, good father, I do not believe it yet,\u201d said I. \u201cWhat! is it no\nsin for a man not to fast when he has it in his power? And is it\nallowable to court occasions of committing sin, or rather, are we not\nbound to shun them? That would be easy enough, surely.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot always so,\u201d he replied; \u201cthat is just as it may happen.\u201d\n\n\u201cHappen, how?\u201d cried I.\n\n\u201cOho!\u201d rejoined the monk, \u201cso you think that if a person experience some\ninconvenience in avoiding the occasions of sin, he is still bound to do\nso? Not so thinks Father Bauny. \u2018Absolution,\u2019 says he, \u2018is not to be\nrefused to such as continue in the proximate occasions of sin,[141] if\nthey are so situated that they cannot give them up without becoming the\ncommon talk of the world, or subjecting themselves to personal\ninconvenience.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI am glad to hear it, father,\u201d I remarked; \u201cand now that we are not\nobliged to avoid the occasions of sin, nothing more remains but to say\nthat we may deliberately court them.\u201d\n\n\u201cEven that is occasionally permitted,\u201d added he; \u201cthe celebrated casuist\nBasil Ponce has said so, and Father Bauny quotes his sentiment with\napprobation, in his Treatise on Penance, as follows: \u2018We may seek an\noccasion of sin directly and designedly\u2014_primo et per se_\u2014when our own\nor our neighbor\u2019s spiritual or temporal advantage induces us to do so.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cTruly,\u201d said I, \u201cit appears to be all a dream to me, when I hear grave\ndivines talking in this manner! Come now, my dear father, tell me\nconscientiously, do _you_ hold such a sentiment as that?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, indeed,\u201d said he, \u201cI do not.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are speaking, then, against your conscience,\u201d continued I.\n\n\u201cNot at all,\u201d he replied; \u201cI was speaking on that point not according to\nmy own conscience, but according to that of Ponce and Father Bauny, and\nthem you may follow with the utmost safety, for I assure you that they\nare able men.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat, father! because they have put down these three lines in their\nbooks, will it therefore become allowable to court the occasions of sin?\nI always thought that we were bound to take the Scripture and the\ntradition of the Church as our only rule, and not your casuists.\u201d\n\n\u201cGoodness!\u201d cried the monk, \u201cI declare you put me in mind of these\nJansenists. Think you that Father Bauny and Basil Ponce are not able to\nrender their opinion _probable_?\u201d\n\n\u201cProbable won\u2019t do for me,\u201d said I; \u201cI must have certainty.\u201d\n\n\u201cI can easily see,\u201d replied the good father, \u201cthat you know nothing\nabout our doctrine of _probable opinions_. If you did, you would speak\nin another strain. Ah! my dear sir, I must really give you some\ninstructions on this point; without knowing this, positively you can\nunderstand nothing at all. It is the foundation\u2014the very A, B, C, of our\nwhole moral philosophy.\u201d\n\nGlad to see him come to the point to which I had been drawing him on, I\nexpressed my satisfaction, and requested him to explain what was meant\nby a probable opinion?[142]\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d he replied, \u201cour authors will answer better than I can do. The\ngenerality of them, and, among others, our four-and-twenty elders,\ndescribe it thus: \u2018An opinion is called probable, when it is founded\nupon reasons of some consideration. Hence it may sometimes happen that a\nsingle _very grave doctor_ may render an opinion probable.\u2019 The reason\nis added: \u2018For a man particularly given to study would not adhere to an\nopinion unless he was drawn to it by a good and sufficient reason.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cSo it would appear,\u201d I observed, with a smile, \u201cthat a single doctor\nmay turn consciences round about and upside down as he pleases, and yet\nalways land them in a safe position.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou must not laugh at it, sir,\u201d returned the monk; \u201cnor need you\nattempt to combat the doctrine. The Jansenists tried this; but they\nmight have saved themselves the trouble\u2014it is too firmly established.\nHear Sanchez, one of the most famous of our fathers: \u2018You may doubt,\nperhaps, whether the authority of a single good and learned doctor\nrenders an opinion probable. I answer, that it does; and this is\nconfirmed by Angelus, Sylvester Navarre, Emanuel Sa, &c. It is proved\nthus: A probable opinion is one that has a considerable foundation. Now\nthe authority of a learned and pious man is entitled to very great\nconsideration; because (mark the reason), if the testimony of such a man\nhas great influence in convincing us that such and such an event\noccurred, say at Rome, for example, why should it not have the same\nweight in the case of a question in morals?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAn odd comparison this,\u201d interrupted I, \u201cbetween the concerns of the\nworld and those of conscience!\u201d\n\n\u201cHave a little patience,\u201d rejoined the monk; \u201cSanchez answers that in\nthe very next sentence: \u2018Nor can I assent to the qualification made here\nby some writers, namely, that the authority of such a doctor, though\nsufficient in matters of human right, is not so in those of divine\nright. It is of vast weight in both cases.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d said I, frankly, \u201cI really cannot admire that rule. Who\ncan assure me, considering the freedom your doctors claim to examine\neverything by reason, that what appears safe to one may seem so to all\nthe rest? The diversity of judgments is so great\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cYou don\u2019t understand it,\u201d said he, interrupting me; \u201cno doubt they are\noften of different sentiments, but what signifies that?\u2014each renders his\nown opinion probable and safe. We all know well enough that they are far\nfrom being of the same mind; what is more, there is hardly an instance\nin which they ever agree. There are very few questions, indeed, in which\nyou do not find the one saying Yes, and the other saying No. Still, in\nall these cases, each of the contrary opinions is probable. And hence\nDiana says on a certain subject: \u2018Ponce and Sanchez hold opposite views\nof it; but, as they are both learned men, each renders his own opinion\nprobable.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father,\u201d I remarked, \u201ca person must be sadly embarrassed in\nchoosing between them!\u201d\u2014\u201cNot at all,\u201d he rejoined; \u201che has only to\nfollow the opinion which suits him best.\u201d\u2014\u201cWhat! if the other is more\nprobable?\u201d \u201cIt does not signify.\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd if the other is the safer?\u201d \u201cIt\ndoes not signify,\u201d repeated the monk; \u201cthis is made quite plain by\nEmanuel Sa, of our Society, in his Aphorisms: \u2018A person may do what he\nconsiders allowable according to a probable opinion, though the contrary\nmay be the safer one. The opinion of a single grave doctor is all that\nis requisite.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd if an opinion be at once the less probable and the less safe, is it\nallowable to follow it,\u201d I asked, \u201ceven in the way of rejecting one\nwhich we believe to be more probable and safe?\u201d\n\n\u201cOnce more, I say Yes,\u201d replied the monk. \u201cHear what Filiutius, that\ngreat Jesuit of Rome, says: \u2018It is allowable to follow the less probable\nopinion, even though it be the less safe one. That is the common\njudgment of modern authors.\u2019 Is not that quite clear?\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, reverend father,\u201d said I, \u201cyou have given _us_ elbow-room, at all\nevents! Thanks to your probable opinions, we have got liberty of\nconscience with a witness! And are you casuists allowed the same\nlatitude in giving your responses?\u201d\n\n\u201cO yes,\u201d said he, \u201cwe answer just as we please; or rather, I should say,\njust as it may please those who ask our advice. Here are our rules,\ntaken from Fathers Layman, Vasquez, Sanchez, and the four-and-twenty\nworthies, in the words of Layman: \u2018A doctor, on being consulted, may\ngive an advice, not only probable according to his own opinion, but\ncontrary to his opinion, provided this judgment happens to be more\nfavorable or more agreeable to the person that consults him\u2014_si forte\nh\u00e6c favorabilior seu exoptatior sit_. Nay, I go further, and say, that\nthere would be nothing unreasonable in his giving those who consult him\na judgment held to be probable by some learned person, even though he\nshould be satisfied in his own mind that it is absolutely false.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, seriously, father,\u201d I said, \u201cyour doctrine is a most uncommonly\ncomfortable one! Only think of being allowed to answer Yes or No, just\nas you please! It is impossible to prize such a privilege too highly. I\nsee now the advantage of the contrary opinions of your doctors. One of\nthem always serves your turn, and the other never gives you any\nannoyance. If you do not find your account on the one side, you fall\nback on the other, and always land in perfect safety.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is quite true,\u201d he replied; \u201cand accordingly, we may always say\nwith Diana, on his finding that Father Bauny was on his side, while\nFather Lugo was against him: _S\u00e6pe premente deo, fert deus alter\nopem_.\u201d[143]\n\n\u201cI understand you,\u201d resumed I; \u201cbut a practical difficulty has just\noccurred to me, which is this, that supposing a person to have consulted\none of your doctors, and obtained from him a pretty liberal opinion,\nthere is some danger of his getting into a scrape by meeting a confessor\nwho takes a different view of the matter, and refuses him absolution\nunless he recant the sentiment of the casuist. Have you not provided for\nsuch a case as that, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cCan you doubt it?\u201d he replied. \u201cWe have bound them, sir, to absolve\ntheir penitents who act according to probable opinions, under the pain\nof mortal sin, to secure their compliance. \u2018When the penitent,\u2019 says\nFather Bauny, \u2018follows a probable opinion, the confessor is bound to\nabsolve him, though his opinion should differ from that of his\npenitent.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut he does not say it would be a mortal sin not to absolve him,\u201d said\nI.\n\n\u201cHow hasty you are!\u201d rejoined the monk; \u201clisten to what follows; he has\nexpressly decided that, \u2018to refuse absolution to a penitent who acts\naccording to a probable opinion, is a sin which is in its nature\nmortal.\u2019 And to settle that point, he cites the most illustrious of our\nfathers\u2014Suarez, Vasquez, and Sanchez.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy dear sir,\u201d said I, \u201cthat is a most prudent regulation. I see nothing\nto fear now. No confessor can dare to be refractory after this. Indeed,\nI was not aware that you had the power of issuing your orders on pain of\ndamnation. I thought that your skill had been confined to the taking\naway of sins; I had no idea that it extended to the introduction of new\nones. But from what I now see, you are omnipotent.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is not a correct way of speaking,\u201d rejoined the father. \u201cWe do not\nintroduce sins; we only pay attention to them. I have had occasion to\nremark, two or three times during our conversation, that you are no\ngreat scholastic.\u201d\n\n\u201cBe that as it may, father, you have at least answered my difficulty.\nBut I have another to suggest. How do you manage when the Fathers of the\nChurch happen to differ from any of your casuists?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou really know very little of the subject,\u201d he replied. \u201cThe Fathers\nwere good enough for the morality of their own times; but they lived too\nfar back for that of the present age, which is no longer regulated by\nthem, but by the modern casuists. On this Father Cellot, following the\nfamous Reginald, remarks: \u2018In questions of morals, the modern casuists\nare to be preferred to the ancient fathers, though those lived nearer to\nthe times of the apostles.\u2019 And following out this maxim, Diana thus\ndecides: \u2018Are beneficiaries bound to restore their revenue when guilty\nof mal-appropriation of it? The ancients would say Yes, but the moderns\nsay No; let us, therefore, adhere to the latter opinion, which relieves\nfrom the obligation of restitution.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cDelightful words these, and most comfortable they must be to a great\nmany people!\u201d I observed.\n\n\u201cWe leave the fathers,\u201d resumed the monk, \u201cto those who deal with\npositive divinity.[144] As for us, who are the directors of conscience,\nwe read very little of them, and quote only the modern casuists. There\nis Diana, for instance, a most voluminous writer; he has prefixed to his\nworks a list of his authorities, which amount to two hundred and\nninety-six, and the most ancient of them is only about eighty years\nold.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt would appear, then,\u201d I remarked, \u201cthat all these have come into the\nworld since the date of your Society?\u201d\n\n\u201cThereabouts,\u201d he replied.\n\n\u201cThat is to say, dear father, on your advent, St. Augustine, St.\nChrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and all the rest, in so far as\nmorals are concerned, disappeared from the stage. Would you be so kind\nas let me know the names, at least, of those modern authors who have\nsucceeded them?\u201d\n\n\u201cA most able and renowned class of men they are,\u201d replied the monk.\n\u201cTheir names are, Villabolos, Conink, Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer,\nDellacrux, Veracruz, Ugolin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, Suarez,\nHenriquez, Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez, Sanchez, De Vechis, De Grassis, De\nGrassalis, De Pitigianis, De Graph\u0153is, Squilanti, Bizozeri, Barcola, De\nBobadilla, Simancha, Perez de Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, De Scarcia,\nQuaranta, Scophra, Pedezza, Cabrezza, Bisbe, Dias, De Clavasis,\nVillagut, Adam \u00e0 Manden, Iribarne, Binsfeld, Volfangi \u00e0 Vorberg,\nVosthery, Strevesdorf.\u201d[145]\n\n\u201cO my dear father!\u201d cried I, quite alarmed, \u201cwere all these people\nChristians?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow! Christians!\u201d returned the casuist; \u201cdid I not tell you that these\nare the only writers by whom we now govern Christendom?\u201d\n\nDeeply affected as I was by this announcement, I concealed my emotion\nfrom the monk, and only asked him if all these authors were Jesuits?\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said he; \u201cbut that is of little consequence; they have said a\nnumber of good things for all that. It is true the greater part of these\nsame good things are extracted or copied from our authors, but we do not\nstand on ceremony with them on that score, more especially as they are\nin the constant habit of quoting our authors with applause. When Diana,\nfor example, who does not belong to our Society, speaks of Vasquez, he\ncalls him \u2018that ph\u0153nix of genius;\u2019 and he declares more than once, \u2018that\nVasquez alone is to him worth all the rest of men put together\u2019\u2014_instar\nomnium_. Accordingly, our fathers often make use of this good Diana; and\nif you understand our doctrine of probability, you will see that this is\nno small help in its way. In fact, we are anxious that others besides\nthe Jesuits would render their opinions probable, to prevent people from\nascribing them all to us; for you will observe, that when any author,\nwhoever he may be, advances a probable opinion, we are entitled, by the\ndoctrine of probability, to adopt it if we please; and yet, if the\nauthor do not belong to our fraternity, we are not responsible for its\nsoundness.\u201d\n\n\u201cI understand all that,\u201d said I. \u201cIt is easy to see that all are welcome\nthat come your way, except the ancient fathers; you are masters of the\nfield, and have only to walk the course. But I foresee three or four\nserious difficulties and powerful barriers which will oppose your\ncareer.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what are these?\u201d cried the monk, looking quite alarmed.\n\n\u201cThey are, the Holy Scriptures,\u201d I replied, \u201cthe popes, and the\ncouncils, whom you cannot gainsay, and who are all in the way of the\nGospel.\u201d[146]\n\n\u201cIs that all!\u201d he exclaimed; \u201cI declare you put me in a fright. Do you\nimagine that we would overlook such an obvious scruple as that, or that\nwe have not provided against it? A good idea, forsooth, to suppose that\nwe would contradict Scripture, popes, and councils! I must convince you\nof your mistake; for I should be sorry you should go away with an\nimpression that we are deficient in our respect to these authorities.\nYou have doubtless taken up this notion from some of the opinions of our\nfathers, which are apparently at variance with their decisions, though\nin reality they are not. But to illustrate the harmony between them\nwould require more leisure than we have at present; and as I would not\nlike you to retain a bad impression of us, if you agree to meet with me\nto-morrow, I shall clear it all up then.\u201d\n\nThus ended our interview, and thus shall end my present communication,\nwhich has been long enough, besides, for one letter. I am sure you will\nbe satisfied with it, in the prospect of what is forthcoming.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n _Imago Primi Seculi._\u2014The work to which Pascal here refers was printed\n by the Jesuits in Flanders in the year 1640, under the title of\n \u201cL\u2019Image du Premier Si\u00e8cle de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Jesus,\u201d being a history of\n the Society of the Jesuits from the period of its establishment in\n 1540\u2014a century before the publication. The work itself is very rare,\n and would probably have fallen into oblivion, had not the substance of\n it been embodied in a little treatise, itself also scarce, entitled\n \u201cLa Morale Pratique des J\u00e9suites.\u201d The small specimen which Pascal has\n given conveys but an imperfect idea of the mingled blasphemy and\n absurdity of this Jesuitical production.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n Isa. xviii. 2.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n The reader is requested to notice how completely the charge brought\n against the Provincial Letters by Voltaire and others is here\n anticipated and refuted. (See Hist. Introduction.)\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n \u201cIt must be observed that most of those Jesuits who were so severe in\n their writings, were less so towards their penitents. It has been said\n of Bourdaloue himself that if he required too much in the pulpit, he\n abated it in the confessional chair: a new stroke of policy well\n understood on the part of the Jesuits, inasmuch as speculative\n severity suits persons of rigid morals, and practical condescension\n attracts the multitude.\u201d (D\u2019Alembert, Account of Dest. of Jesuits, p.\n 44.)\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n Petau was one of the obscure writers who were employed by the Jesuits\n to publish defamatory libels against M. Arnauld and the bishops who\n approved of his book on Frequent Communion. (Coudrette, ii. 426.)\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n The policy to which Pascal refers was introduced by Matthew Ricci, an\n Italian Jesuit, who succeeded the famous Francis Xavier in attempting\n to convert the Chinese. Ricci declared that, after consulting the\n writings of the Chinese literati, he was persuaded that the Xamti and\n Cachinchoam of the mandarins were merely other names for the King of\n Heaven, and that the idolatries of the natives were harmless civil\n ceremonies. He therefore allowed his converts to practise them, on the\n condition mentioned in the text. In 1631, some new paladins of the\n orders of Dominic and Francis, who came from the Philippine Islands to\n share in the spiritual conquest of that vast empire, were grievously\n scandalized at the monstrous compromise between Christianity and\n idolatry tolerated by the followers of Loyola, and carried their\n complaints to Rome. The result is illustrative of the papal policy.\n Pope Innocent X. condemned the Jesuitical policy; Pope Alexander VII.,\n in 1656 (when this letter was written) sanctioned it; and in 1669,\n Pope Clement IX. ordained that the decrees of _both_ of his\n predecessors should continue in full force. The Jesuits, availing\n themselves of this suspense, paid no regard either to the popes or\n their rival orders, the Dominicans and Franciscans, who, in the\n persecutions which ensued, always came off with the worst. (Coudrette,\n iv. 281; Hist. of D. Ign. Loyola, pp. 97\u2013112.)\n\n The prescription given to the Jesuits by the cardinals, to expose the\n image of the crucifix in their churches, appears to us a sort of\n hom\u0153opathic cure, very little better than the disease. Bossuet, and\n others who have tried to soften down the doctrines of Rome, would\n represent the worship ostensibly paid to the crucifix as really paid\n to Christ, who is represented by it. But even this does not accord\n with the determination of the Council of Trent, which declared of\n images _Eisque venerationem impertiendam_; or with Bellarmine who\n devotes a chapter expressly to prove that true and proper worship is\n to be given to images. (Stillingfleet on Popery, by Dr. Cunningham, p.\n 77.)\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n Lent.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n \u201cAccording to the rules of the Roman Catholic fast, one meal alone is\n allowed on a fast-day. Many, however, fall off before the end of Lent,\n and take to their breakfast and suppers, under the sanction of some\n good-natured doctor, who declares fasting injurious to their health.\u201d\n (Blanco White, Letters from Spain, p. 272.)\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n Father Antoine Escobar of Mendoza was a Jesuit of Spain, and born at\n Valladolid in 1589, where he died in 1669. His principal work is his\n \u201cExposition of Uncontroverted Opinions in Moral Theology,\u201d in six\n volumes. It abounds with the most licentious doctrines, and being a\n compilation from numerous Jesuitical writers, afforded a rich field\n for the satire of Pascal. The characteristic absurdity of this author\n is, that his questions uniformly exhibit two faces\u2014an affirmative and\n a negative;\u2014so that _escobarderie_ became a synonym in France for\n _duplicity_. (Biographie Pittoresque des Jesuites, par M. C. de\n Plancy, Paris, 1826, p. 38.) Nicole tells us that he had in his\n possession a portrait of the casuist which gave him a \u201cresolute and\n decisive cast of countenance\u201d\u2014not exactly what might have been\n expected from his double-faced questions. His friends describe Escobar\n as a good man, a laborious student, and very devout in his way. It is\n said that, when he heard that his name and writings were so frequently\n noticed in the Provincial Letters, he was quite overjoyed to think\n that his fame would extend as far as the _little letters_ had done.\n Boileau has celebrated him in the following couplet:\u2014\n\n Si Bourdaloue un peu s\u00e9v\u00e8re,\n Nous dit, craignez la volupt\u00e9:\n Escobar, lui dit-on, mon p\u00e8re,\n Nous la permet pour la sant\u00e9.\n\n \u201cIf Bourdaloue, a little too severe,\n Cries, Fly from pleasure\u2019s fatal fascination\n Dear Father, cries another, Escoba,\n Permits it as a healthy relaxation.\u201d\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n Four celebrated casuists.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n _Hippocrass_\u2014a medicated wine.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n All persons above the age of one-and-twenty are bound to observe the\n rules of the Roman Catholic fast during Lent. The obligation of\n fasting begins at midnight, just when the leading clock of every town\n strikes twelve. (Letters from Spain, p. 270.)\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n _Ad insequendam amicam._ (Tom. ii. tr. 27, part 2, c. 6, n. 143.) The\n accuracy with which the references are made to the writings of these\n casuists shows anything but a design to garble or misrepresent them.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n In the technical language of theology, an \u201coccasion of sin\u201d is any\n situation or course of conduct which has a tendency to induce the\n commission of sin. \u201cProximate occasions\u201d are those which have a direct\n and immediate tendency of this kind.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n \u201cThe casuists are divided into _Probabilist\u00e6_ and _Probabiliorist\u00e6_.\n The first, among whom were the Jesuits, maintain that a certain degree\n of probability as to the lawfulness of an action is enough to secure\n against sin. The second, supported by the Dominicans and the\n Jansenists (a kind of Catholic Calvinists condemned by the Church),\n insist on always taking the _safest_ or most probable side. The French\n proverb, _Le mieux est l\u2019ennemi, du bien_, is perfectly applicable to\n the practical effects of these two systems in Spain.\u201d (Letters from\n Spain, p. 277.) Nicole has a long dissertation on the subject in his\n Notes on this Letter.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n \u201cWhen one god presses hard, another brings relief.\u201d\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n In the twelfth century, in consequence of the writings of Peter\n Lombard, commonly called the \u201cMaster of the Sentences,\u201d the Christian\n doctors were divided into two classes\u2014the _Positive_ or dogmatic, and\n the _Scholastic_ divines. The _Positive_ divines, who were the\n teachers of systematic divinity, expounded, though in a wretched\n manner, the Sacred Writings, and confirmed their sentiments by\n Scripture and tradition. The scholastics, instead of the Bible,\n explained the book of Sentences, indulging in the most idle and\n ridiculous speculations.\u2014\u201cThe practice of choosing a certain priest,\n not only to be the occasional confessor, but _the director of the\n conscience_, was greatly encouraged by the Jesuits.\u201d (Letters from\n Spain, p. 89.)\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n In this extraordinary list of obscure and now forgotten casuistical\n writers, most of them belonging to Spain, Portugal, and Flanders, the\n art of the author lies in stringing together the most outlandish names\n he could collect, ranging them mostly according to their terminations,\n and placing them in contrast with the venerable and well-known names\n of the ancient fathers. To a French ear these names must have sounded\n as uncouth and barbarous as those of the Scotch which Milton has\n satirized to the ear of an Englishman:\u2014\n\n \u201cCries the stall-reader, \u2018Bless us! what a word on\n A title-page is this!\u2019 Why, is it harder, sirs, than Gordon,\n Colkitto, or Macdonnel, or Galasp?\n Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek,\n That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.\u201d\n\n (Milton\u2019s Minor Poems.)\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n That is, they were all, in Pascal\u2019s opinion, favorable to the Gospel\n scheme of morality.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER VI.\n\nVARIOUS ARTIFICES OF THE JESUITS TO ELUDE THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPEL,\n OF COUNCILS, AND OF THE POPES\u2014SOME CONSEQUENCES WHICH RESULT FROM\n THEIR DOCTRINE OF PROBABILITY\u2014THEIR RELAXATION IN FAVOR OF\n BENEFICIARIES, PRIESTS, MONKS, AND DOMESTICS\u2014STORY OF JOHN D\u2019ALBA.\n\n\n PARIS, _April 10, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014I mentioned, at the close of my last letter, that my good friend\nthe Jesuit had promised to show me how the casuists reconcile the\ncontrarieties between their opinions and the decisions of the popes, the\ncouncils, and the Scripture. This promise he fulfilled at our last\ninterview, of which I shall now give you an account.\n\n\u201cOne of the methods,\u201d resumed the monk, \u201cin which we reconcile these\napparent contradictions, is by the interpretation of some phrase. Thus,\nPope Gregory XIV. decided that assassins are not worthy to enjoy the\nbenefit of sanctuary in churches, and ought to be dragged out of them;\nand yet our four-and-twenty elders affirm that \u2018the penalty of this bull\nis not incurred by all those that kill in treachery.\u2019 This may appear to\nyou a contradiction; but we get over this by interpreting the word\n_assassin_ as follows: \u2018Are assassins unworthy of sanctuary in churches?\nYes, by the bull of Gregory XIV. they are. But by the word _assassins_\nwe understand those that have received money to murder one; and\naccordingly, such as kill without taking any reward for the deed, but\nmerely _to oblige their friends_, do not come under the category of\nassassins.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cTake another instance: It is said in the Gospel, \u2018Give alms of your\nsuperfluity.\u2019[147] Several Casuists, however, have contrived to\ndischarge the wealthiest from the obligation of alms-giving. This may\nappear another paradox, but the matter is easily put to rights by giving\nsuch an interpretation to the word _superfluity_ that it will seldom or\nnever happen that any one is troubled with such an article. This feat\nhas been accomplished by the learned Vasquez, in his Treatise on Alms,\nc. 4: \u2018What men of the world lay up to improve their circumstances, or\nthose of their relatives, cannot be termed superfluity; and accordingly,\nsuch a thing as superfluity is seldom to be found among men of the\nworld, not even excepting kings.\u2019 Diana, too, who generally founds on\nour fathers, having quoted these words of Vasquez, justly concludes,\n\u2018that as to the question whether the rich are bound to give alms of\ntheir superfluity, even though the affirmative were true, it will seldom\nor never happen to be obligatory in practice.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI see very well how that follows from the doctrine of Vasquez,\u201d said I.\n\u201cBut how would you answer this objection, that, in working out one\u2019s\nsalvation, it would be as safe, according to Vasquez, to give no alms,\nprovided one can muster as much ambition as to have no superfluity; as\nit is safe, according to the Gospel, to have no ambition at all, in\norder to have some superfluity for the purpose of alms-giving?\u201d[148]\n\n\u201cWhy,\u201d returned he, \u201cthe answer would be, that both of these ways are\nsafe according to the Gospel; the one according to the Gospel in its\nmore literal and obvious sense, and the other according to the same\nGospel as interpreted by Vasquez. There you see the utility of\ninterpretations. When the terms are so clear, however,\u201d he continued,\n\u201cas not to admit of an interpretation, we have recourse to the\nobservation of favorable circumstances. A single example will illustrate\nthis. The popes have denounced excommunication on monks who lay aside\ntheir canonicals; our casuists, notwithstanding, put it as a question,\n\u2018On what occasions may a monk lay aside his religious habit without\nincurring excommunication?\u2019 They mention a number of cases in which they\nmay, and among others the following: \u2018If he has laid it aside for an\ninfamous purpose, such as to pick pockets or to go _incognito_ into\nhaunts of profligacy, meaning shortly after to resume it.\u2019 It is evident\nthe bulls have no reference to cases of that description.\u201d\n\nI could hardly believe that, and begged the father to show me the\npassage in the original. He did so, and under the chapter headed\n\u201cPractice according to the School of the Society of Jesus\u201d\u2014_Praxis ex\nSocietatis Jesu Schola_\u2014I read these very words: _Si habitum dimittat ut\nfuretur occulte, vel fornicetur_. He showed me the same thing in Diana,\nin these terms: _Ut eat incognitus ad lupanar_. \u201cAnd why, father,\u201d I\nasked, \u201care they discharged from excommunication on such occasions?\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you understand it?\u201d he replied. \u201cOnly think what a scandal it\nwould be, were a monk surprised in such a predicament with his\ncanonicals on! And have you never heard,\u201d he continued, \u201chow they answer\nthe first bull _contra sollicitantes_? and how our four-and-twenty, in\nanother chapter of the Practice according to the School of our Society,\nexplain the bull of Pius V. _contra clericos_, &c.?\u201d[149]\n\n\u201cI know nothing about all that,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cThen it is a sign you have not read much of Escobar,\u201d returned the\nmonk.\n\n\u201cI got him only yesterday, father,\u201d said I; \u201cand I had no small\ndifficulty, too, in procuring a copy. I don\u2019t know how it is, but\neverybody of late has been in search of him.\u201d[150]\n\n\u201cThe passage to which I referred,\u201d returned the monk, \u201cmay be found in\ntreatise 1, example 8, no. 102. Consult it at your leisure when you go\nhome.\u201d\n\nI did so that very night; but it is so shockingly bad, that I dare not\ntranscribe it.\n\nThe good father then went on to say: \u201cYou now understand what use we\nmake of favorable circumstances. Sometimes, however, obstinate cases\nwill occur, which will not admit of this mode of adjustment; so much so,\nindeed, that you would almost suppose they involved flat contradictions.\nFor example, three popes have decided that monks who are bound by a\nparticular vow to a Lenten life,[151] cannot be absolved from it even\nthough they should become bishops. And yet Diana avers that\nnotwithstanding this decision they _are_ absolved.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd how does he reconcile that?\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cBy the most subtle of all the modern methods, and by the nicest\npossible application of probability,\u201d replied the monk. \u201cYou may\nrecollect you were told the other day, that the affirmative and negative\nof most opinions have each, according to our doctors, some\nprobability\u2014enough, at least, to be followed with a safe conscience. Not\nthat the _pro_ and _con_ are both true in the same sense\u2014that is\nimpossible\u2014but only they are both probable, and therefore safe, as a\nmatter of course. On this principle our worthy friend Diana remarks: \u2018To\nthe decision of these three popes, which is contrary to my opinion, I\nanswer, that they spoke in this way by adhering to the affirmative\nside\u2014which, in fact, even in my judgment, is probable; but it does not\nfollow from this that the negative may not have its probability too.\u2019\nAnd in the same treatise, speaking of another subject on which he again\ndiffers from a pope, he says: \u2018The pope, I grant, has said it as the\nhead of the Church; but his decision does not extend beyond the sphere\nof the probability of his own opinion.\u2019 Now you perceive this is not\ndoing any harm to the opinions of the popes; such a thing would never be\ntolerated at Rome, where Diana is in high repute. For he does not say\nthat what the popes have decided is not probable; but leaving their\nopinion within the sphere of probability, he merely says that the\ncontrary is also probable.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is very respectful,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d added the monk, \u201cand rather more ingenious than the reply made by\nFather Bauny, when his books were censured at Rome; for when pushed very\nhard on this point by M. Hallier, he made bold to write: \u2018What has the\ncensure of Rome to do with that of France?\u2019 You now see how, either by\nthe interpretation of terms, by the observation of favorable\ncircumstances, or by the aid of the double probability of _pro_ and\n_con_, we always contrive to reconcile those seeming contradictions\nwhich occasioned you so much surprise, without ever touching on the\ndecisions of Scripture, councils, or popes.\u201d\n\n\u201cReverend father,\u201d said I, \u201chow happy the world is in having such men as\nyou for its masters! And what blessings are these probabilities! I never\nknew the reason why you took such pains to establish that a single\ndoctor, _if a grave one_, might render an opinion probable, and that the\ncontrary might be so too, and that one may choose any side one pleases,\neven though he does not believe it to be the right side, and all with\nsuch a safe conscience, that the confessor who should refuse him\nabsolution on the faith of the casuists would be in a state of\ndamnation. But I see now that a single casuist may make new rules of\nmorality at his discretion, and dispose, according to his fancy, of\neverything pertaining to the regulation of manners.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat you have now said,\u201d rejoined the father, \u201cwould require to be\nmodified a little. Pay attention now, while I explain our method, and\nyou will observe the progress of a new opinion, from its birth to its\nmaturity. First, the grave doctor who invented it exhibits it to the\nworld, casting it abroad like seed, that it may take root. In this state\nit is very feeble; it requires time gradually to ripen. This accounts\nfor Diana, who has introduced a great many of these opinions, saying: \u2018I\nadvance this opinion; but as it is new, I give it time to come to\nmaturity\u2014_relinquo tempori maturandum_.\u2019 Thus in a few years it becomes\ninsensibly consolidated; and after a considerable time it is sanctioned\nby the tacit approbation of the Church, according to the grand maxim of\nFather Bauny, \u2018that if an opinion has been advanced by some casuist, and\nhas not been impugned by the Church, it is a sign that she approves of\nit.\u2019 And, in fact, on this principle he authenticates one of his own\nprinciples in his sixth treatise, p. 312.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father!\u201d cried I, \u201cwhy, on this principle the Church would\napprove of all the abuses which she tolerates, and all the errors in all\nthe books which she does not censure!\u201d\n\n\u201cDispute the point with Father Bauny,\u201d he replied. \u201cI am merely quoting\nhis words, and you begin to quarrel with _me_. There is no disputing\nwith facts, sir. Well, as I was saying, when time has thus matured an\nopinion, it thenceforth becomes completely probable and safe. Hence the\nlearned Caramuel, in dedicating his Fundamental Theology to Diana,\ndeclares that this great Diana has rendered many opinions probable which\nwere not so before\u2014_qu\u00e6 antea non erant_; and that, therefore, in\nfollowing them, persons do not sin now, though they would have sinned\nformerly\u2014_jam non peccant, licet ante peccaverint_.\u201d\n\n\u201cTruly, father,\u201d I observed, \u201cit must be worth one\u2019s while living in the\nneighborhood of your doctors. Why, of two individuals who do the same\nactions, he that knows nothing about their doctrine sins, while he that\nknows it does no sin. It seems, then, that their doctrine possesses at\nonce an edifying and a justifying virtue! The law of God, according to\nSt. Paul, made transgressors;[152] but this law of yours makes nearly\nall of us innocent. I beseech you, my dear sir, let me know all about\nit. I will not leave you till you have told me all the maxims which your\ncasuists have established.\u201d\n\n\u201cAlas!\u201d the monk exclaimed, \u201cour main object, no doubt, should have been\nto establish no other maxims than those of the Gospel in all their\nstrictness: and it is easy to see, from the Rules for the regulation of\nour manners,[153] that if we tolerate some degree of relaxation in\nothers, it is rather out of complaisance than through design. The truth\nis, sir, we are forced to it. Men have arrived at such a pitch of\ncorruption now-a-days, that unable to make them come to us, we must e\u2019en\ngo to them, otherwise they would cast us off altogether; and what is\nworse, they would become perfect castaways. It is to retain such\ncharacters as these that our casuists have taken under consideration the\nvices to which people of various conditions are most addicted, with the\nview of laying down maxims which, while they cannot be said to violate\nthe truth, are so gentle that he must be a very impracticable subject\nindeed who is not pleased with them. The grand project of our Society,\nfor the good of religion, is never to repulse any one, let him be what\nhe may, and so avoid driving people to despair.[154]\n\n\u201cThey have got maxims, therefore, for all sorts of persons; for\nbeneficiaries, for priests, for monks; for gentlemen, for servants; for\nrich men, for commercial men; for people in embarrassed or indigent\ncircumstances; for devout women, and women that are not devout; for\nmarried people, and irregular people. In short, nothing has escaped\ntheir foresight.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn other words,\u201d said I, \u201cthey have got maxims for the clergy, the\nnobility, and the commons.[155] Well, I am quite impatient to hear\nthem.\u201d\n\n\u201cLet us commence,\u201d resumed the father, \u201cwith the beneficiaries. You are\naware of the traffic with benefices that is now carried on, and that\nwere the matter referred to St. Thomas and the ancients who have written\non it, there might chance to be some simoniacs in the Church. This\nrendered it highly necessary for our fathers to exercise their prudence\nin finding out a palliative. With what success they have done so will\nappear from the following words of Valencia, who is one of Escobar\u2019s\n\u2018four living creatures.\u2019 At the end of a long discourse, in which he\nsuggests various expedients, he propounds the following at page 2039,\nvol. iii., which, to my mind, is the best: \u2018If a person gives a temporal\nin exchange for a spiritual good\u2019\u2014that is, if he gives money for a\nbenefice\u2014\u2018and gives the money as the price of the benefice, it is\nmanifest simony. But if he gives it merely as the motive which inclines\nthe will of the patron to confer on him the living, it is not simony,\neven though the person who confers it considers and expects the money as\nthe principal object.\u2019 Tanner, who is also a member of our Society,\naffirms the same thing, vol. iii., p. 1519, although he \u2018grants that St.\nThomas is opposed to it; for he expressly teaches that it is always\nsimony to give a spiritual for a temporal good, if the temporal is the\nend in view.\u2019 By this means we prevent an immense number of simoniacal\ntransactions; for who would be so desperately wicked as to refuse, when\ngiving money for a benefice, to take the simple precaution of so\ndirecting his intentions as to give it as _a motive_ to induce the\nbeneficiary to part with it, instead of giving it as _the price_ of the\nbenefice? No man, surely, can be so far left to himself as that would\ncome to.\u201d\n\n\u201cI agree with you there,\u201d I replied; \u201call men, I should think, have\n_sufficient grace_ to make a bargain of that sort.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere can be no doubt of it,\u201d returned the monk. \u201cSuch, then, is the\nway in which we soften matters in regard to the beneficiaries. And now\nfor the priests\u2014we have maxims pretty favorable to them also. Take the\nfollowing, for example, from our four-and-twenty elders: \u2018Can a priest,\nwho has received money to say a mass, take an additional sum upon the\nsame mass? Yes, says Filiutius, he may, by applying that part of the\nsacrifice which belongs to himself as a priest to the person who paid\nhim last; provided he does not take a sum equivalent to a whole mass,\nbut only a part, such as the third of a mass.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely, father,\u201d said I, \u201cthis must be one of those cases in which the\n_pro_ and the _con_ have both their share of probability. What you have\nnow stated cannot fail, of course, to be probable, having the authority\nof such men as Filiutius and Escobar; and yet, leaving that within the\nsphere of probability, it strikes me that the contrary opinion might be\nmade out to be probable too, and might be supported by such reasons as\nthe following: That, while the Church allows priests who are in poor\ncircumstances to take money for their masses, seeing it is but right\nthat those who serve at the altar should live by the altar, she never\nintended that they should barter the sacrifice for money,[156] and still\nless, that they should deprive themselves of those benefits which they\nought themselves, in the first place, to draw from it; to which I might\nadd, that, according to St. Paul, the priests are to offer sacrifice\nfirst for themselves, and then for the people;[157] and that\naccordingly, while permitted to participate with others in the benefit\nof the sacrifice, they are not at liberty to forego their share, by\ntransferring it to another for a third of a mass, or, in other words,\nfor the matter of fourpence or fivepence. Verily, father, little as I\npretend to be a _grave_ man, I might contrive to make this opinion\nprobable.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt would cost you no great pains to do that,\u201d replied the monk; \u201cit is\nvisibly probable already. The difficulty lies in discovering probability\nin the converse of opinions manifestly good; and this is a feat which\nnone but great men can achieve. Father Bauny shines in this department.\nIt is really delightful to see that learned casuist examining with\ncharacteristic ingenuity and subtlety, the negative and affirmative of\nthe same question, and proving both of them to be right! Thus in the\nmatter of priests, he says in one place: \u2018No law can be made to oblige\nthe curates to say mass every day; for such a law would unquestionably\n(_haud dubi\u00e8_) expose them to the danger of saying it sometimes in\nmortal sin.\u2019 And yet in another part of the same treatise, he says,\n\u2018that priests who have received money for saying mass every day ought to\nsay it every day, and that they cannot excuse themselves on the ground\nthat they are not always in a fit state for the service; because it is\nin their power at all times to do penance, and if they neglect this they\nhave themselves to blame for it, and not the person who made them say\nmass.\u2019 And to relieve their minds from all scruples on the subject, he\nthus resolves the question: \u2018May a priest say mass on the same day in\nwhich he has committed a mortal sin of the worst kind, in the way of\nconfessing himself beforehand?\u2019 Villabolos says No, because of his\nimpurity; but Sancius says, He may without any sin; and I hold his\nopinion to be safe, and one which may be followed in practice\u2014_et tuta\net sequenda in praxi_.\u201d[158]\n\n\u201cFollow this opinion in practice!\u201d cried I. \u201cWill any priest who has\nfallen into such irregularities, have the assurance on the same day to\napproach the altar, on the mere word of Father Bauny? Is he not bound to\nsubmit to the ancient laws of the Church, which debarred from the\nsacrifice forever, or at least for a long time, priests who had\ncommitted sins of that description\u2014instead of following the modern\nopinions of casuists, who would admit him to it on the very day that\nwitnessed his fall?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have a very short memory,\u201d returned the monk. \u201cDid I not inform you\na little ago that, according to our fathers Cellot and Reginald, \u2018in\nmatters of morality we are to follow, not the ancient fathers, but the\nmodern casuists?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI remember it perfectly,\u201d said I; \u201cbut we have something more here: we\nhave the laws of the Church.\u201d\n\n\u201cTrue,\u201d he replied; \u201cbut this shows you do not know another capital\nmaxim of our fathers, \u2018that the laws of the Church lose their authority\nwhen they have gone into desuetude\u2019\u2014_cum jam desuetudine abierunt_\u2014as\nFiliutius says.[159] We know the present exigencies of the Church much\nbetter than the ancients could do. Were we to be so strict in excluding\npriests from the altar, you can understand there would not be such a\ngreat number of masses. Now a multitude of masses brings such a revenue\nof glory to God and of good to souls, that I may venture to say, with\nFather Cellot, that there would not be too many priests, \u2018though not\nonly all men and women, were that possible, but even inanimate bodies,\nand even brute beasts\u2014_bruta animalia_\u2014were transformed into priests to\ncelebrate mass.\u2019\u201d[160]\n\nI was so astounded at the extravagance of this imagination, that I\ncould not utter a word, and allowed him to go on with his discourse.\n\u201cEnough, however, about priests; I am afraid of getting tedious: let\nus come to the _monks_. The grand difficulty with them is the\nobedience they owe to their superiors; now observe the palliative\nwhich our fathers apply in this case. Castro Palao[161] of our Society\nhas said: \u2018Beyond all dispute, a monk who has a probable opinion of\nhis own, is not bound to obey his superior, though the opinion of the\nlatter is the more probable. For the monk is at liberty to adopt the\nopinion which is more agreeable to himself\u2014_qu\u00e6 sibi gratior\nfuerit_\u2014as Sanchez says. And though the order of his superior be just,\nthat does not oblige you to obey him, for it is not just at all points\nor in every respect\u2014_non undequaqu\u00e8 just\u00e8 pr\u00e6cepit_\u2014but only probably\nso; and consequently, you are only probably bound to obey him, and\nprobably not bound\u2014_probabiliter obligatus, et probabiliter\ndeobligatus_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly, father,\u201d said I, \u201cit is impossible too highly to estimate\nthis precious fruit of the double probability.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is of great use indeed,\u201d he replied; \u201cbut we must be brief. Let me\nonly give you the following specimen of our famous Molina in favor of\nmonks who are expelled from their convents for irregularities. Escobar\nquotes him thus: \u2018Molina asserts that a monk expelled from his monastery\nis not obliged to reform in order to get back again, and that he is no\nlonger bound by his vow of obedience.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d cried I, \u201cthis is all very comfortable for the clergy.\nYour casuists, I perceive, have been very indulgent to them, and no\nwonder\u2014they were legislating, so to speak, for themselves. I am afraid\npeople of other conditions are not so liberally treated. Every one for\nhimself in this world.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere you do us wrong,\u201d returned the monk; \u201cthey could not have been\nkinder to themselves than we have been to them. We treat all, from the\nhighest to the lowest, with an even-handed charity, sir. And to prove\nthis, you tempt me to tell you our maxims for servants. In reference to\nthis class, we have taken into consideration the difficulty they must\nexperience, when they are men of conscience, in serving profligate\nmasters. For if they refuse to perform all the errands in which they are\nemployed, they lose their places; and if they yield obedience, they have\ntheir scruples. To relieve them from these, our four-and-twenty fathers\nhave specified the services which they may render with a safe\nconscience; such as, \u2018carrying letters and presents, opening doors and\nwindows, helping their master to reach the window, holding the ladder\nwhich he is mounting. All this,\u2019 say they, \u2018is allowable and\nindifferent; it is true that, as to holding the ladder, they must be\nthreatened, more than usually, with being punished for refusing; for it\nis doing an injury to the master of a house to enter it by the window.\u2019\nYou perceive the judiciousness of that observation, of course?\u201d\n\n\u201cI expected nothing less,\u201d said I, \u201cfrom a book edited by\nfour-and-twenty Jesuits.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d added the monk, \u201cFather Bauny has gone beyond this; he has taught\nvalets how to perform these sorts of offices for their masters quite\ninnocently, by making them direct their intention, not to the sins to\nwhich they are accessary, but to the gain which is to accrue from them.\nIn his Summary of Sins, p. 710, first edition, he thus states the\nmatter: \u2018Let confessors observe,\u2019 says he, \u2018that they cannot absolve\nvalets who perform base errands, if they consent to the sins of their\nmasters; but the reverse holds true, if they have done the thing merely\nfrom a regard to their temporal emolument.\u2019 And that, I should conceive,\nis no difficult matter to do; for why should they insist on consenting\nto sins of which they taste nothing but the trouble? The same Father\nBauny has established a prime maxim in favor of those who are not\ncontent with their wages: \u2018May servants who are dissatisfied with their\nwages, use means to raise them by laying their hands on as much of the\nproperty of their masters as they may consider necessary to make the\nsaid wages equivalent to their trouble? They may, in certain\ncircumstances; as when they are so poor that, in looking for a\nsituation, they have been obliged to accept the offer made to them, and\nwhen other servants of the same class are gaining more than they,\nelsewhere.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cHa, father!\u201d cried I, \u201cthat is John d\u2019Alba\u2019s passage, I declare.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat John d\u2019Alba?\u201d inquired the father: \u201cwhat do you mean?\u201d\n\n\u201cStrange, father!\u201d returned I: \u201cdo you not remember what happened in\nthis city in the year 1647? Where in the world were you living at that\ntime?\u201d\n\n\u201cI was teaching cases of conscience in one of our colleges far from\nParis,\u201d he replied.\n\n\u201cI see you don\u2019t know the story, father: I must tell it you. I heard it\nrelated the other day by a man of honor, whom I met in company. He told\nus that this John d\u2019Alba, who was in the service of your fathers in the\nCollege of Clermont, in the Rue St. Jacques, being dissatisfied with his\nwages, had purloined something to make himself amends; and that your\nfathers, on discovering the theft, had thrown him into prison on the\ncharge of larceny. The case was reported to the court, if I recollect\nright, on the 16th of April, 1647; for he was very minute in his\nstatements, and indeed they would hardly have been credible otherwise.\nThe poor fellow, on being questioned, confessed to having taken some\npewter plates, but maintained that for all that he had not _stolen_\nthem; pleading in his defence this very doctrine of Father Bauny, which\nhe produced before the judges, along with a pamphlet by one of your\nfathers, under whom he had studied cases of conscience, and who had\ntaught him the same thing. Whereupon M. De Montrouge, one of the most\nrespected members of the court, said, in giving his opinion, \u2018that he\ndid not see how, on the ground of the writings of these fathers\u2014writings\ncontaining a doctrine so illegal, pernicious, and contrary to all laws,\nnatural, divine, and human, and calculated to ruin all families, and\nsanction all sorts of household robbery\u2014they could discharge the\naccused. But his opinion was, that this too faithful disciple should be\nwhipped before the college gate, by the hand of the common hangman; and\nthat, at the same time, this functionary should burn the writings of\nthese fathers which treated of larceny, with certification that they\nwere prohibited from teaching such doctrine in future, upon pain of\ndeath.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe result of this judgment, which was heartily approved of, was waited\nfor with much curiosity when some incident occurred which made them\ndelay procedure. But in the mean time the prisoner disappeared, nobody\nknew how, and nothing more was heard about the affair; so that John\nd\u2019Alba got off, pewter plates and all. Such was the account he gave us,\nto which he added, that the judgment of M. De Montrouge was entered on\nthe records of the court, where any one may consult it. We were highly\namused at the story.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat are you trifling about now?\u201d cried the monk. \u201cWhat does all that\nsignify? I was explaining the maxims of our casuists, and was just going\nto speak of those relating to gentlemen, when you interrupt me with\nimpertinent stories.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt was only something put in by the way, father,\u201d I observed; \u201cand\nbesides, I was anxious to apprize you of an important circumstance,\nwhich I find you have overlooked in establishing your doctrine of\nprobability.\u201d\n\n\u201cAy, indeed!\u201d exclaimed the monk, \u201cwhat defect can this be, that has\nescaped the notice of so many ingenious men?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have certainly,\u201d continued I, \u201ccontrived to place your disciples in\nperfect safety so far as God and the conscience are concerned; for they\nare quite safe in that quarter, according to you, by following in the\nwake of a grave doctor. You have also secured them on the part of the\nconfessors, by obliging priests, on the pain of mortal sin, to absolve\nall who follow a probable opinion. But you have neglected to secure them\non the part of the judges; so that, in following your probabilities,\nthey are in danger of coming into contact with the whip and the gallows.\nThis is a sad oversight.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right,\u201d said the monk; \u201cI am glad you mentioned it. But the\nreason is, we have no such power over magistrates as over the\nconfessors, who are obliged to refer to us in cases of conscience, in\nwhich we are the sovereign judges.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo I understand,\u201d returned I; \u201cbut if, on the one hand, you are the\njudges of the confessors, are you not, on the other hand, the confessors\nof the judges? Your power is very extensive. Oblige them, on pain of\nbeing debarred from the sacraments, to acquit all criminals who act on a\nprobable opinion; otherwise it may happen, to the great contempt and\nscandal of probability, that those whom you render innocent in theory\nmay be whipped or hanged in practice. Without something of this kind,\nhow can you expect to get disciples?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe matter deserves consideration,\u201d said he; \u201cit will never do to\nneglect it. I shall suggest it to our father Provincial. You might,\nhowever, have reserved this advice to some other time, without\ninterrupting the account I was about to give you of the maxims which we\nhave established in favor of gentlemen; and I shall not give you any\nmore information, except on condition that you do not tell me any more\nstories.\u201d\n\nThis is all you shall have from me at present; for it would require more\nthan the limits of one letter to acquaint you with all that I learned in\na single conversation.\u2014Meanwhile I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n Luke xi. 41.\u2014_Quod superest, date eleemosynam_ (Vulgate); \u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 (Gr.); _Ea qu\u00e6 penes vos sunt date_ (Beza); \u201cGive alms of such\n things as ye have.\u201d (Eng. Ver.)\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n When Pascal speaks of alms-giving \u201cworking out our salvation,\u201d it is\n evident that he regarded it only as the evidence of our being in a\n state of salvation. Judging by the history of his life, and by his\n \u201cThoughts on Religion,\u201d no man was more free from spiritual pride, or\n that poor species of it which boasts of or rests in its eleemosynary\n sacrifices. His charity flowed from love and gratitude to God. Such\n was his regard for the poor that he could not refuse to give alms even\n though compelled to take from the supply necessary to relieve his own\n infirmities; and on his death-bed he entreated that a poor person\n should be brought into the house and treated with the same attention\n as himself, declaring that when he thought of his own comforts and of\n the multitudes who were destitute of the merest necessaries, he felt a\n distress which he could not endure. \u201cOne thing I have observed,\u201d he\n says in his Thoughts\u2014\u201cthat let a man be ever so poor, he has always\n something to leave on his death-bed.\u201d\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n These bulls were directed against gross and unnatural crimes\n prevailing among the clergy. (Nicolo, ii. pp. 372\u2013376.)\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n An allusion to the popularity of the Letters, which induced many to\n inquire after the casuistical writings so often quoted in them.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n _Lenten life_\u2014an abstemious life, or life of fasting.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n _Prevaricateurs._\u2014Alluding probably to such texts as Rom. iv. 15:\n \u201cThe law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no\n transgression.\u201d\u2014_Ubi enim non est lex, nec prevaricatio_ (Vulg.); or\n Rom. v. 13, &c.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n The Rules (_Regul\u00e6 Communes_) of the Society of Jesus, it must be\n admitted, are rigid enough in the enforcement of moral decency and\n discipline on the members; and the perfect candor of Pascal appears in\n the admission. This, however, only adds weight to the real charge\n which he substantiates against them, of teaching maxims which tend to\n the subversion of morality. With regard to their personal conduct,\n different opinions prevail. \u201cWhatever we may think of the political\n delinquencies of their leaders,\u201d says Blanco White, \u201ctheir bitterest\n enemies have never ventured to charge the order of Jesuits with moral\n irregularities. The internal policy of that body,\u201d he adds, \u201cprecluded\n the possibility of gross misconduct.\u201d (Letters from Spain, p. 89.) We\n are far from being sure of this. The remark seems to apply to only one\n species of vice, too common in monastic life, and may be true of the\n conventual establishments of the Jesuits, where outward decency forms\n part of the deep policy of the order; but what dependence can be\n placed on the moral purity of men whose consciences must be debauched\n by such maxims? Jarrige informs us that they boasted at one time in\n Spain of possessing an herb which preserved their chastity; and on\n being questioned by the king to tell what it was, they replied: \u201cIt\n was the fear of God.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d says the author, \u201cwhatever they might be\n then, it is plain that they have since lost the seed of that herb for\n it no longer grows in their garden.\u201d (Jesuites sur l\u2019Echaufaud, ch.\n 6.)\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n It has been observed, with great truth, by Sir James Macintosh, that\n \u201ccasuistry, the inevitable growth of the practices of confession and\n absolution, has generally vibrated betwixt the extremes of\n impracticable severity and contemptible indulgence.\u201d (Hist. of\n England, vol. ii. p. 359.)\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n _Tiers etat._\u2014These were the three orders into which the people of\n France were divided; the _tiers etat_ or third estate, corresponding\n to our commons.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n With all respect for Pascal and his good intention, it is plain that\n there is a wide difference between the duty, illustrated by the\n apostle from the ancient law, of supporting those who minister in holy\n things in and for their ministrations, and the practice introduced by\n the Church of Rome, of putting a price on the holy things themselves.\n In the one case, it was simply a recognition of the general principle\n that \u201cthe laborer is worthy of his hire.\u201d In the other, it was\n converting the minister into a shopman who was allowed to \u201cbarter\u201d his\n sacred wares at the market price, or any price he pleased. To this\n mercenary principle most of the superstitions of Rome may be traced.\n The popish doctrine of the mass is founded on transubstantiation, or\n the superstition broached in the ninth century, that the bread and\n wine are converted by the priest into the real body and blood of\n Christ. It was never settled in the Romish Church to be a proper\n propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead till the Council of\n Trent, in the sixteenth century; so that it is comparatively a modern\n invention. The mass proceeds on the absurd assumption that our blessed\n Lord offered up his body and blood in the institution of the supper,\n before offering them on the cross, and partook of them himself; and it\n involves the blasphemy of supposing that a sinful mortal may, whenever\n he pleases, offer up the great sacrifice of that body and blood, which\n could only be offered by the Son of God and offered by him only once.\n This, however, is the great Diana of the popish priests\u2014by this craft\n they have their wealth\u2014and the whole of its history proves that it was\n invented for no other purposes than imposture and extortion.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n Heb. vii. 27.\u2014It is astonishing to see an acute mind like that of\n Pascal so warped by superstition as not to perceive that in this, and\n other allusions to the Levitical priesthood, the object of the apostle\n was avowedly to prove that the great sacrifice for sin, of which the\n ancient sacrifices were the types, had been \u201conce offered in the end\n of the world,\u201d and that \u201cthere remaineth no more sacrifice for sins;\u201d\n and that the very text to which he refers, teaches that, in the person\n of Jesus Christ, our high priest, all the functions of the sacrificing\n priesthood were fulfilled and terminated: \u201cWho needeth _not_ daily _as\n those high priests_, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins,\n and then for the people\u2019s: for this he did _once_, when he offered up\n himself.\u201d The ministers of the New Testament are never in Scripture\n called priests, though this name has been applied to the Christian\n people who offer up the \u201cspiritual sacrifices\u201d of praise and good\n works. (Heb. xiii. 15, 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n Treatise 10, p. 474; ib., p. 441; Quest. 32, p. 457.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n Tom. ii. tr. 25. n. 33. And yet they will pretend to hold that their\n Church is infallible!\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n Book of the Hierarchy, p. 611, Rouen edition.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n Op. Mor. p. 1, disp. 2, p. 6. _Ferdinand de Castro Palao_ was a Jesuit\n of Spain, and author of a work on Virtues and Vices, published in\n 1631.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER VII.[162]\n\nMETHOD OF DIRECTING THE INTENTION ADOPTED BY THE CASUISTS\u2014PERMISSION TO\n KILL IN DEFENCE OF HONOR AND PROPERTY, EXTENDED EVEN TO PRIESTS AND\n MONKS\u2014CURIOUS QUESTION RAISED BY CARAMUEL, AS TO WHETHER JESUITS MAY\n BE ALLOWED TO KILL JANSENISTS.\n\n\n PARIS, _April 25, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014Having succeeded in pacifying the good father, who had been rather\ndisconcerted by the story of John d\u2019Alba, he resumed the conversation,\non my assuring him that I would avoid all such interruptions in future,\nand spoke of the maxims of his casuists with regard to gentlemen, nearly\nin the following terms:\u2014\n\n\u201cYou know,\u201d he said, \u201cthat the ruling passion of persons in that rank of\nlife is \u2018the point of honor,\u2019 which is perpetually driving them into\nacts of violence apparently quite at variance with Christian piety; so\nthat, in fact, they would be almost all of them excluded from our\nconfessionals, had not our fathers relaxed a little from the strictness\nof religion, to accommodate themselves to the weakness of humanity.\nAnxious to keep on good terms both with the Gospel, by doing their duty\nto God, and with the men of the world, by showing charity to their\nneighbor, they needed all the wisdom they possessed to devise expedients\nfor so nicely adjusting matters as to permit these gentlemen to adopt\nthe methods usually resorted to for vindicating their honor, without\nwounding their consciences, and thus reconcile two things apparently so\nopposite to each other as piety and the point of honor. But, sir, in\nproportion to the utility of the design was the difficulty of the\nexecution. You cannot fail, I should think, to realize the magnitude and\narduousness of such an enterprize?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt astonishes me, certainly,\u201d said I, rather coldly.\n\n\u201cIt astonishes you, forsooth!\u201d cried the monk. \u201cI can well believe that;\nmany besides you might be astonished at it. Why, don\u2019t you know that, on\nthe one hand, the Gospel commands us \u2018not to render evil for evil, but\nto leave vengeance to God;\u2019 and that, on the other hand, the laws of the\nworld forbid our enduring an affront without demanding satisfaction from\nthe offender, and that often at the expense of his life? You have never,\nI am sure, met with anything, to all appearance, more diametrically\nopposed than these two codes of morals; and yet, when told that our\nfathers have reconciled them, you have nothing more to say than simply\nthat this astonishes you!\u201d\n\n\u201cI did not sufficiently explain myself, father. I should certainly have\nconsidered the thing perfectly impracticable, if I had not known, from\nwhat I have seen of your fathers, that they are capable of doing with\nease what is impossible to other men. This led me to anticipate that\nthey must have discovered some method for meeting the difficulty\u2014a\nmethod which I admire even before knowing it, and which I pray you to\nexplain to me.\u201d\n\n\u201cSince that is your view of the matter,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cI cannot\nrefuse you. Know, then, that this marvellous principle is our grand\nmethod of _directing the intention_\u2014the importance of which, in our\nmoral system, is such, that I might almost venture to compare it with\nthe doctrine of probability. You have had some glimpses of it in\npassing, from certain maxims which I mentioned to you. For example, when\nI was showing you how servants might execute certain troublesome jobs\nwith a safe conscience, did you not remark that it was simply by\ndiverting their intention from the evil to which they were accessary, to\nthe profit which they might reap from the transaction? Now that is what\nwe call _directing the intention_. You saw, too, that were it not for a\nsimilar divergence of the mind, those who give money for benefices might\nbe downright simoniacs. But I will now show you this grand method in all\nits glory, as it applies to the subject of homicide\u2014a crime which it\njustifies in a thousand instances; in order that, from this startling\nresult, you may form an idea of all that it is calculated to effect.\u201d\n\n\u201cI foresee already,\u201d said I, \u201cthat, according to this mode, everything\nwill be permitted; it will stick at nothing.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou always fly from the one extreme to the other,\u201d replied the monk:\n\u201cprithee avoid that habit. For just to show you that we are far from\npermitting everything, let me tell you that we never suffer such a thing\nas a formal intention to sin, with the sole design of sinning; and if\nany person whatever should persist in having no other end but evil in\nthe evil that he does, we break with him at once: such conduct is\ndiabolical. This holds true, without exception of age, sex, or rank. But\nwhen the person is not of such a wretched disposition as this, we try to\nput in practice our method of _directing the intention_, which simply\nconsists in his proposing to himself, as the end of his actions, some\nallowable object. Not that we do not endeavor, as far as we can, to\ndissuade men from doing things forbidden; but when we cannot prevent the\naction, we at least purify the motive, and thus correct the viciousness\nof the mean by the goodness of the end. Such is the way in which our\nfathers have contrived to permit those acts of violence to which men\nusually resort in vindication of their honor. They have no more to do\nthan to turn off their intention from the desire of vengeance, which is\ncriminal, and direct it to a desire to defend their honor, which,\naccording to us, is quite warrantable. And in this way our doctors\ndischarge all their duty towards God and towards man. By permitting the\naction, they gratify the world; and by purifying the intention, they\ngive satisfaction to the Gospel. This is a secret, sir, which was\nentirely unknown to the ancients; the world is indebted for the\ndiscovery entirely to our doctors. You understand it now, I hope?\u201d\n\n\u201cPerfectly well,\u201d was my reply. \u201cTo men you grant the outward material\neffect of the action; and to God you give the inward and spiritual\nmovement of the intention; and by this equitable partition, you form an\nalliance between the laws of God and the laws of men. But, my dear sir,\nto be frank with you, I can hardly trust your premises, and I suspect\nthat your authors will tell another tale.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou do me injustice,\u201d rejoined the monk; \u201cI advance nothing but what I\nam ready to prove, and that by such a rich array of passages, that\naltogether their number, their authority, and their reasonings, will\nfill you with admiration. To show you, for example, the alliance which\nour fathers have formed between the maxims of the Gospel and those of\nthe world, by thus regulating the intention, let me refer you to\nReginald:[163] \u2018Private persons are forbidden to avenge themselves; for\nSt. Paul says to the Romans (ch. 12th), \u2018Recompense to no man evil for\nevil;\u2019 and Ecclesiasticus says (ch. 28th), \u2018He that taketh vengeance\nshall draw on himself the vengeance of God, and his sins will not be\nforgotten.\u2019 Besides all that is said in the Gospel about forgiving\noffences, as in the 6th and 18th chapters of St. Matthew.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father, if after that he says anything contrary to the Scripture,\nit will not be from lack of scriptural knowledge, at any rate. Pray, how\ndoes he conclude?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou shall hear,\u201d he said. \u201cFrom all this it appears that a military man\nmay demand satisfaction on the spot from the person who has injured\nhim\u2014not, indeed, with the intention of rendering evil for evil, but with\nthat of preserving his honor\u2014\u2018_non ut malum pro malo reddat, sed ut\nconservet honorem_.\u2019 See you how carefully they guard against the\nintention of rendering evil for evil, because the Scripture condemns it?\nThis is what they will tolerate on no account. Thus Lessius[164]\nobserves, that \u2018if a man has received a blow on the face, he must on no\naccount have an intention to avenge himself; but he may lawfully have an\nintention to avert infamy, and may, with that view, repel the insult\nimmediately, even at the point of the sword\u2014_etiam cum gladio_!\u2019 So far\nare we from permitting any one to cherish the design of taking vengeance\non his enemies, that our fathers will not allow any even to _wish their\ndeath_\u2014by a movement of hatred. \u2018If your enemy is disposed to injure\nyou,\u2019 says Escobar, \u2018you have no right to wish his death, by a movement\nof hatred; though you may, with a view to save yourself from harm.\u2019 So\nlegitimate, indeed, is this wish, with such an intention, that our great\nHurtado de Mendoza says, that \u2018we may _pray God_ to visit with speedy\ndeath those who are bent on persecuting us, if there is no other way of\nescaping from it.\u2019\u201d[165]\n\n\u201cMay it please your reverence,\u201d said I, \u201cthe Church has forgotten to\ninsert a petition to that effect among her prayers.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey have not put in everything into the prayers that one may lawfully\nask of God,\u201d answered the monk. \u201cBesides, in the present case the thing\nwas impossible, for this same opinion is of more recent standing than\nthe Breviary. You are not a good chronologist, friend. But, not to\nwander from the point, let me request your attention to the following\npassage, cited by Diana from Gaspar Hurtado,[166] one of Escobar\u2019s\nfour-and-twenty fathers: \u2018An incumbent may, without any mortal sin,\ndesire the decease of a life-renter on his benefice, and a son that of\nhis father, and rejoice when it happens; provided always it is for the\nsake of the profit that is to accrue from the event, and not from\npersonal aversion.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cGood!\u201d cried I. \u201cThat is certainly a very happy hit; and I can easily\nsee that the doctrine admits of a wide application. But yet there are\ncertain cases, the solution of which, though of great importance for\ngentlemen, might present still greater difficulties.\u201d\n\n\u201cPropose them, if you please, that we may see,\u201d said the monk.\n\n\u201cShow me, with all your directing of the intention,\u201d returned I, \u201cthat\nit is allowable to fight a duel.\u201d\n\n\u201cOur great Hurtado de Mendoza,\u201d said the father, \u201cwill satisfy you on\nthat point in a twinkling. \u2018If a gentleman,\u2019 says he, in a passage cited\nby Diana, \u2018who is challenged to fight a duel, is well known to have no\nreligion, and if the vices to which he is openly and unscrupulously\naddicted are such as would lead people to conclude, in the event of his\nrefusing to fight, that he is actuated, not by the fear of God, but by\ncowardice, and induce them to say of him that he was a _hen_, and not a\nman\u2014_gallina, et non vir_; in that case he may, to save his honor,\nappear at the appointed spot\u2014not, indeed, with the express intention of\nfighting a duel, but merely with that of defending himself, should the\nperson who challenged him come there unjustly to attack him. His action\nin this case, viewed by itself, will be perfectly indifferent; for what\nmoral evil is there in one stepping into a field, taking a stroll in\nexpectation of meeting a person, and defending one\u2019s self in the event\nof being attacked? And thus the gentleman is guilty of no sin whatever;\nfor in fact it cannot be called accepting a challenge at all, his\nintention being directed to other circumstances, and the acceptance of a\nchallenge consisting in an express intention to fight, which we are\nsupposing the gentleman never had.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have not kept your word with me, sir,\u201d said I. \u201cThis is not,\nproperly speaking, to permit duelling; on the contrary, the casuist is\nso persuaded that this practice is forbidden, that, in licensing the\naction in question, he carefully avoids calling it a duel.\u201d\n\n\u201cAh!\u201d cried the monk, \u201cyou begin to get knowing on my hand, I am glad to\nsee. I might reply, that the author I have quoted grants all that\nduellists are disposed to ask. But since you must have a categorical\nanswer, I shall allow our Father Layman to give it for me. He permits\nduelling in so many words, provided that, in accepting the challenge,\nthe person directs his intention solely to the preservation of his honor\nor his property: \u2018If a soldier or a courtier is in such a predicament\nthat he must lose either his honor or his fortune unless he accepts a\nchallenge, I see nothing to hinder him from doing so in self-defence.\u2019\nThe same thing is said by Peter Hurtado, as quoted by our famous\nEscobar; his words are: \u2018One may fight a duel even to defend one\u2019s\nproperty, should that be necessary; because every man has a right to\ndefend his property, though at the expense of his enemy\u2019s life!\u2019\u201d\n\nI was struck, on hearing these passages, with the reflection that while\nthe piety of the king appears in his exerting all his power to prohibit\nand abolish the practice of duelling in the State,[167] the piety of the\nJesuits is shown in their employing all their ingenuity to tolerate and\nsanction it in the Church. But the good father was in such an excellent\nkey for talking, that it would have been cruel to have interrupted him;\nso he went on with his discourse.\n\n\u201cIn short,\u201d said he, \u201cSanchez (mark, now, what great names I am quoting\nto you!) Sanchez, sir, goes a step further; for he shows how, simply by\nmanaging the intention rightly, a person may not only receive a\nchallenge, but give one. And our Escobar follows him.\u201d\n\n\u201cProve that, father,\u201d said I, \u201cand I shall give up the point: but I will\nnot believe that he has written it, unless I see it in print.\u201d\n\n\u201cRead it yourself, then,\u201d he replied: and, to be sure, I read the\nfollowing extract from the Moral Theology of Sanchez: \u201cIt is perfectly\nreasonable to hold that a man may fight a duel to save his life, his\nhonor, or any considerable portion of his property, when it is apparent\nthat there is a design to deprive him of these unjustly, by law-suits\nand chicanery, and when there is no other way of preserving them.\nNavarre justly observes, that in such cases, it is lawful either to\naccept or to send a challenge\u2014_licet acceptare et offerre duellum_. The\nsame author adds, that there is nothing to prevent one from despatching\none\u2019s adversary in a private way. Indeed, in the circumstances referred\nto, it is advisable to avoid employing the method of the duel, if it is\npossible to settle the affair by privately killing our enemy; for, by\nthis means, we escape at once from exposing our life in the combat, and\nfrom participating in the sin which our opponent would have committed by\nfighting the duel!\u201d[168]\n\n\u201cA most pious assassination!\u201d said I. \u201cStill, however, pious though it\nbe, it is assassination, if a man is permitted to kill his enemy in a\ntreacherous manner.\u201d\n\n\u201cDid I say that he might kill him treacherously?\u201d cried the monk. \u201cGod\nforbid! I said he might kill him _privately_, and you conclude that he\nmay kill him _treacherously_, as if that were the same thing! Attend,\nsir, to Escobar\u2019s definition before allowing yourself to speak again on\nthis subject: \u2018We call it killing in treachery, when the person who is\nslain had no reason to suspect such a fate. He, therefore, that slays\nhis _enemy_ cannot be said to kill him in treachery, even although the\nblow should be given insidiously and behind his back\u2014_licet per insidias\naut a tergo percutiat_.\u2019 And again: \u2018He that kills his enemy, with whom\nhe was reconciled under a promise of never again attempting his life,\ncannot be _absolutely_ said to kill in treachery, unless there was\nbetween them all the stricter friendship\u2014_arctior amicitia_.\u2019[169] You\nsee now, you do not even understand what the terms signify, and yet you\npretend to talk like a doctor.\u201d\n\n\u201cI grant you this is something quite new to me,\u201d I replied; \u201cand I\nshould gather from that definition that few, if any, were ever killed in\ntreachery; for people seldom take it into their heads to assassinate any\nbut their enemies. Be this as it may, however, it seems that, according\nto Sanchez, a man may freely slay (I do not say _treacherously_, but\nonly insidiously, and behind his back) a calumniator, for example, who\nprosecutes us at law?\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly he may,\u201d returned the monk, \u201calways, however, in the way of\ngiving a right direction to the intention: you constantly forget the\nmain point. Molina supports the same doctrine; and what is more, our\nlearned brother Reginald maintains that we may despatch the false\nwitnesses whom he summons against us. And, to crown the whole, according\nto our great and famous fathers Tanner and Emanuel Sa, it is lawful to\nkill both the false witnesses and _the judge himself_, if he has had any\ncollusion with them. Here are Tanner\u2019s very words: \u2018Sotus and Lessius\nthink that it is not lawful to kill the false witnesses and the\nmagistrate who conspire together to put an innocent person to death; but\nEmanuel Sa and other authors with good reason impugn that sentiment, at\nleast so far as the conscience is concerned.\u2019 And he goes on to show\nthat it is quite lawful to kill both the witnesses and the judge.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d said I, \u201cI think I now understand pretty well your\nprinciple regarding the direction of the intention; but I should like to\nknow something of its consequences, and all the cases in which this\nmethod of yours arms a man with the power of life and death. Let us go\nover them again, for fear of mistake, for equivocation here might be\nattended with dangerous results. Killing is a matter which requires to\nbe well-timed, and to be backed with a good probable opinion. You have\nassured me, then, that by giving a proper turn to the intention, it is\nlawful, according to your fathers, for the preservation of one\u2019s honor,\nor even property, to accept a challenge to a duel, to give one\nsometimes, to kill in a private way a false accuser, and his witnesses\nalong with him, and even the judge who has been bribed to favor them;\nand you have also told me that he who has got a blow, may, without\navenging himself, retaliate with the sword. But you have not told me,\nfather, to what length he may go.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe can hardly mistake there,\u201d replied the father, \u201cfor he may go all\nthe length of killing his man. This is satisfactorily proved by the\nlearned Henriquez, and others of our fathers quoted by Escobar, as\nfollows: \u2018It is perfectly right to kill a person who has given us a box\non the ear, although he should run away, provided it is not done through\nhatred or revenge, and there is no danger of giving occasion thereby to\nmurders of a gross kind and hurtful to society. And the reason is, that\nit is as lawful to pursue the thief that has stolen our honor, as him\nthat has run away with our property. For, although your honor cannot be\nsaid to be in the hands of your enemy in the same sense as your goods\nand chattels are in the hands of the thief, still it may be recovered in\nthe same way\u2014by showing proofs of greatness and authority, and thus\nacquiring the esteem of men. And, in point of fact, is it not certain\nthat the man who has received a buffet on the ear is held to be under\ndisgrace, until he has wiped off the insult with the blood of his\nenemy?\u2019\u201d\n\nI was so shocked on hearing this, that it was with great difficulty I\ncould contain myself; but, in my anxiety to hear the rest, I allowed him\nto proceed.\n\n\u201cNay,\u201d he continued, \u201cit is allowable to prevent a buffet, by killing\nhim that meant to give it, if there be no other way to escape the\ninsult. This opinion is quite common with our fathers. For example,\nAzor, one of the four-and-twenty elders, proposing the question, \u2018Is it\nlawful for a man of honor to kill another who threatens to give him a\nslap on the face, or strike him with a stick?\u2019 replies, \u2018Some say he may\nnot; alleging that the life of our neighbor is more precious than our\nhonor, and that it would be an act of cruelty to kill a man merely to\navoid a blow. Others, however, think that it is allowable; and I\ncertainly consider it probable, when there is no other way of warding\noff the insult; for, otherwise, the honor of the innocent would be\nconstantly exposed to the malice of the insolent.\u2019 The same opinion is\ngiven by our great Filiutius; by Father Hereau, in his Treatise on\nHomicide; by Hurtado de Mendoza, in his Disputations; by Becan, in his\nSummary; by our Fathers Flahaut and Lecourt, in those writings which the\nuniversity, in their third petition, quoted at length, in order to bring\nthem into disgrace (though in this they failed); and by Escobar. In\nshort, this opinion is so general, that Lessius lays it down as a point\nwhich no casuist has contested; he quotes a great many that uphold, and\nnone that deny it; and particularly Peter Navarre, who, speaking of\naffronts in general (and there is none more provoking than a box on the\near), declares that \u2018by the universal consent of the casuists, it is\nlawful to kill the calumniator, if there be no other way of averting the\naffront\u2014_ex sententia omnium, licet contumeliosum occidere, si aliter ea\ninjuria arceri nequit_.\u2019 Do you wish any more authorities?\u201d asked the\nmonk.\n\nI declared I was much obliged to him; I had heard rather more than\nenough of them already. But just to see how far this damnable doctrine\nwould go, I said, \u201cBut, father, may not one be allowed to kill for\nsomething still less? Might not a person so direct his intention as\nlawfully to kill another for telling a lie, for example?\u201d\n\n\u201cHe may,\u201d returned the monk; \u201cand according to Father Baldelle, quoted\nby Escobar, \u2018you may lawfully take the life of another for saying, You\nhave told a lie; if there is no other way of shutting his mouth.\u2019 The\nsame thing may be done in the case of slanders. Our Fathers Lessius and\nHereau agree in the following sentiments: \u2018If you attempt to ruin my\ncharacter by telling stories against me in the presence of men of honor,\nand I have no other way of preventing this than by putting you to death,\nmay I be permitted to do so? According to the modern authors, I may, and\nthat even though I have been really guilty of the crime which you\ndivulge, provided it is a secret one, which you could not establish by\nlegal evidence. And I prove it thus: If you mean to rob me of my honor\nby giving me a box on the ear, I may prevent it by force of arms; and\nthe same mode of defence is lawful when you would do me the same injury\nwith the tongue. Besides, we may lawfully obviate affronts, and\ntherefore slanders. In fine, honor is dearer than life; and as it is\nlawful to kill in defence of life, it must be so to kill in defence of\nhonor.\u2019 There, you see, are arguments in due form; this is\ndemonstration, sir\u2014not mere discussion. And, to conclude, this great man\nLessius shows, in the same place, that it is lawful to kill even for a\nsimple gesture, or a sign of contempt. \u2018A man\u2019s honor,\u2019 he remarks, \u2018may\nbe attacked or filched away in various ways\u2014in all which vindication\nappears very reasonable; as, for instance, when one offers to strike us\nwith a stick, or give us a slap on the face, or affront us either by\nwords or signs\u2014_sive per signa_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d said I, \u201cit must be owned that you have made every\npossible provision to secure the safety of reputation; but it strikes me\nthat human life is greatly in danger, if any one may be conscientiously\nput to death simply for a defamatory speech or a saucy gesture.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is true,\u201d he replied; \u201cbut as our fathers are very circumspect,\nthey have thought it proper to forbid putting this doctrine into\npractice on such trifling occasions. They say, at least, \u2018that it ought\n_hardly_ to be reduced to practice\u2014_practic\u00e8 vix probari potest_.\u2019 And\nthey have a good reason for that, as you shall see.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh! I know what it will be,\u201d interrupted I; \u201cbecause the law of God\nforbids us to kill, of course.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey do not exactly take that ground,\u201d said the father; \u201cas a matter of\nconscience, and viewing the thing abstractly, they hold it allowable.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd why, then, do they forbid it?\u201d\n\n\u201cI shall tell you that, sir. It is because, were we to kill all the\ndefamers among us, we should very shortly depopulate the country.\n\u2018Although,\u2019 says Reginald, \u2018the opinion that we may kill a man for\ncalumny is not without its probability in theory, the contrary one ought\nto be followed in practice; for, in our mode of defending ourselves, we\nshould always avoid doing injury to the commonwealth; and it is evident\nthat by killing people in this way there would be too many murders.\u2019 \u2018We\nshould be on our guard,\u2019 says Lessius, \u2018lest the practice of this maxim\nprove hurtful to the State; for in this case it ought not to be\npermitted\u2014_tunc enim non est permittendus_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat, father! is it forbidden only as a point of policy, and not of\nreligion? Few people, I am afraid, will pay any regard to such a\nprohibition, particularly when in a passion. Very probably they might\nthink they were doing no harm to the State, by ridding it of an unworthy\nmember.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd accordingly,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cour Filiutius has fortified that\nargument with another, which is of no slender importance, namely, \u2018that\nfor killing people after this manner, one might be punished in a court\nof justice.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThere now, father; I told you before, that you will never be able to do\nanything worth the while, unless you get the magistrates to go along\nwith you.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe magistrates,\u201d said the father, \u201cas they do not penetrate into the\nconscience, judge merely of the outside of the action, while we look\nprincipally to the intention; and hence it occasionally happens that our\nmaxims are a little different from theirs.\u201d\n\n\u201cBe that as it may, father; from yours, at least, one thing may be\nfairly inferred\u2014that, by taking care not to injure the commonwealth, we\nmay kill defamers with a safe conscience, provided we can do it with a\nsound skin. But, sir, after having seen so well to the protection of\nhonor, have you done nothing for property? I am aware it is of inferior\nimportance, but that does not signify; I should think one might direct\none\u2019s intention to kill for its preservation also.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d replied the monk; \u201cand I gave you a hint to that effect already,\nwhich may have suggested the idea to you. All our casuists agree in that\nopinion; and they even extend the permission to those cases \u2018where no\nfurther violence is apprehended from those that steal our property; as,\nfor example, where the thief runs away.\u2019 Azor, one of our Society,\nproves that point.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, sir, how much must the article be worth, to justify our proceeding\nto that extremity?\u201d\n\n\u201cAccording to Reginald and Tanner, \u2018the article must be of great value\nin the estimation of a judicious man.\u2019 And so think Layman and\nFiliutius.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, that is saying nothing to the purpose; where am I to find\n\u2018a judicious man\u2019 (a rare person to meet with at any time), in order to\nmake this estimation? Why do they not settle upon an exact sum at once?\u201d\n\n\u201cAy, indeed!\u201d retorted the monk; \u201cand was it so easy, think you, to\nadjust the comparative value between the life of a man, and a Christian\nman, too, and money? It is here I would have you feel the need of our\ncasuists. Show me any of your ancient fathers who will tell for how much\nmoney we may be allowed to kill a man. What will they say, but \u2018_Non\noccides_\u2014Thou shalt not kill?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd who, then, has ventured to fix that sum?\u201d I inquired.\n\n\u201cOur great and incomparable Molina,\u201d he replied\u2014\u201cthe glory of our\nSociety\u2014who has, in his inimitable wisdom, estimated the life of a man\n\u2018at six or seven ducats; for which sum he assures us it is warrantable\nto kill a thief, even though he should run off;\u2019 and he adds, \u2018that he\nwould not venture to condemn that man as guilty of any sin who should\nkill another for taking away an article worth a crown, or even\nless\u2014_unius aurei, vel minoris adhuc valoris_;\u2019 which has led Escobar to\nlay it down as a general rule, \u2018that a man may be killed quite\nregularly, according to Molina, for the value of a crown-piece.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cO father!\u201d cried I, \u201cwhere can Molina have got all this wisdom to\nenable him to determine a matter of such importance, without any aid\nfrom Scripture, the councils, or the fathers? It is quite evident that\nhe has obtained an illumination peculiar to himself, and is far beyond\nSt. Augustine in the matter of homicide, as well as of grace. Well, now,\nI suppose I may consider myself master of this chapter of morals; and I\nsee perfectly that, with the exception of ecclesiastics, nobody need\nrefrain from killing those who injure them in their property or\nreputation.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat say you?\u201d exclaimed the monk. \u201cDo you then suppose that it would\nbe reasonable that those who ought of all men to be most respected,\nshould alone be exposed to the insolence of the wicked? Our fathers have\nprovided against that disorder; for Tanner declares that \u2018Churchmen, and\neven monks, are permitted to kill, for the purpose of defending not only\ntheir lives, but their property, and that of their community.\u2019 Molina,\nEscobar, Becan, Reginald, Layman, Lessius, and others, hold the same\nlanguage. Nay, according to our celebrated Father Lamy,[170] priests and\nmonks may lawfully prevent those who would injure them by calumnies from\ncarrying their ill designs into effect, by putting them to death. Care,\nhowever, must be always taken to direct the intention properly. His\nwords are: \u2018An ecclesiastic or a monk may warrantably kill a defamer who\nthreatens to publish the scandalous crimes of his community, or his own\ncrimes, when there is no other way of stopping him; if, for instance, he\nis prepared to circulate his defamations unless promptly despatched.\nFor, in these circumstances, as the monk would be allowed to kill one\nwho threatened to take his life, he is also warranted to kill him who\nwould deprive him of his reputation or his property, in the same way as\nthe men of the world.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI was not aware of that,\u201d said I; \u201cin fact, I have been accustomed\nsimply enough to believe the very reverse, without reflecting on the\nmatter, in consequence of having heard that the Church had such an\nabhorrence of bloodshed as not even to permit ecclesiastical judges to\nattend in criminal cases.\u201d[171]\n\n\u201cNever mind that,\u201d he replied; \u201cour Father Lamy has completely proved\nthe doctrine I have laid down, although, with a humility which sits\nuncommonly well on so great a man, he submits it to the judgment of his\njudicious readers. Caramuel, too, our famous champion, quoting it in his\nFundamental Theology, p. 543, thinks it so certain, that he declares the\ncontrary opinion to be destitute of probability, and draws some\nadmirable conclusions from it, such as the following, which he calls\n\u2018the conclusion of conclusions\u2014_conclusionum conclusio_:\u2019 \u2018That a priest\nnot only may kill a slanderer, but there are certain circumstances in\nwhich it may be his _duty_ to do so\u2014_etiam aliquando debet occidere_.\u2019\nHe examines a great many new questions on this principle, such as the\nfollowing, for instance: \u2018_May the Jesuits kill the Jansenists?_\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cA curious point of divinity that, father!\u201d cried I. \u201cI hold the\nJansenists to be as good as dead men, according to Father Lamy\u2019s\ndoctrine.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere now, you are in the wrong,\u201d said the monk: \u201cCaramuel infers the\nvery reverse from the same principles.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd how so, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d he replied, \u201cit is not in the power of the Jansenists to\ninjure our reputation. \u2018The Jansenists,\u2019 says he, \u2018call the Jesuits\nPelagians; may they not be killed for that? No; inasmuch as the\nJansenists can no more obscure the glory of the Society than an owl can\neclipse that of the sun; on the contrary, they have, though against\ntheir intention, enhanced it\u2014_occidi non possunt, quia nocere non\npotuerunt_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cHa, father! do the lives of the Jansenists, then, depend on the\ncontingency of their injuring your reputation? If so, I reckon them far\nfrom being in a safe position; for supposing it should be thought in the\nslightest degree _probable_ that they might do you some mischief, why,\nthey are _killable_ at once! You have only to draw up a syllogism in due\nform, and, with a direction of the intention, you may despatch your man\nat once with a safe conscience. Thrice happy must those hot spirits be\nwho cannot bear with injuries, to be instructed in this doctrine! But\nwoe to the poor people who have offended them! Indeed, father, it would\nbe better to have to do with persons who have no religion at all, than\nwith those who have been taught on this system. For, after all, the\nintention of the wounder conveys no comfort to the wounded. The poor man\nsees nothing of that secret direction of which you speak; he is only\nsensible of the direction of the blow that is dealt him. And I am by no\nmeans sure but a person would feel much less sorry to see himself\nbrutally killed by an infuriated villain, than to find himself\nconscientiously stilettoed by a devotee. To be plain with you, father, I\nam somewhat staggered at all this; and these questions of Father Lamy\nand Caramuel do not please me at all.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow so?\u201d cried the monk. \u201cAre you a Jansenist?\u201d\n\n\u201cI have another reason for it,\u201d I replied. \u201cYou must know I am in the\nhabit of writing from time to time, to a friend of mine in the country,\nall that I can learn of the maxims of your doctors. Now, although I do\nno more than simply report and faithfully quote their own words, yet I\nam apprehensive lest my letter should fall into the hands of some stray\ngenius, who may take into his head that I have done you injury, and may\ndraw some mischievous conclusion from your premises.\u201d\n\n\u201cAway!\u201d cried the monk; \u201cno fear of danger from that quarter, I\u2019ll give\nyou my word for it. Know that what our fathers have themselves printed,\nwith the approbation of our superiors, it cannot be wrong to read nor\ndangerous to publish.\u201d\n\nI write you, therefore, on the faith of this worthy father\u2019s word of\nhonor. But, in the mean time, I must stop for want of paper\u2014not of\npassages; for I have got as many more in reserve, and good ones too, as\nwould require volumes to contain them.\u2014I am, &c.[172]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n This Letter was revised by M. Nicole.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n _In praxi_: liv. xxi., num. 62, p. 260.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n De Just., liv. ii., c. 9, d. 12, n. 79.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n In his book, De Spe, vol. ii., d. 15, sec. 4, 848.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n De Sub. Pecc., diff. 9; Diana, p. 5; tr. 14, r. 99.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Before the age of Louis XIV. the practice of duelling prevailed in\n France to such a frightful extent that a writer, who is not given to\n exaggerate in such matters, says, that \u201cIt had done as much to\n depopulate the country as the civil and foreign wars, and that in the\n course of twenty years, ten of which had been disturbed by war, more\n Frenchmen perished by the hands of Frenchmen than by those of their\n enemies.\u201d (Voltaire, Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV., p. 42.) The abolition of\n this barbarous custom was one of the greatest services which Louis\n XIV. rendered to his country. This was not fully accomplished till\n 1663, when a bloody combat of four against four determined him to put\n an end to the practice, by making it death, without benefit of clergy,\n to send or accept a challenge.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n Sanchez, Theol. Mor., liv. ii. c. 39, n. 7.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n Escobar, tr. 6, ex. 4, n. 26, 56.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Francois Amicus, or L\u2019Amy, was chancellor of the University of Gratz.\n In his _Cours Theologique_, published in 1642 he advances the most\n dangerous tenets, particularly on the subject of murder.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n This is true; but in the case of heretics, at least, they found out a\n convenient mode of compromising the matter. Having condemned their\n victim as worthy of death, he was delivered over to the secular court,\n with the disgusting farce of a recommendation to mercy, couched in\n these terms: \u201cMy lord judge, we beg of you with all possible\n affection, for the love of God, and as you would expect the gifts of\n mercy and compassion, and the benefit of our prayers, not to do\n anything injurious to this miserable man, tending to death or the\n mutilation of his body!\u201d (Crespin, Hist. des Martyres, p. 185.)\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n It may be noticed here, that Father Daniel has attempted to evade the\n main charge against the Jesuits in this letter by adroitly altering\n the state of the question. He argues that the _intention_ is the soul\n of an action, and that which often makes it good or evil; thus\n cunningly insinuating that his casuists refer only to _indifferent_\n actions, in regard to which nobody denies that it is the intention\n that makes them good or bad. (Entretiens de Cleandre et d\u2019Eudoxe, p.\n 334.) It is unnecessary to do more than refer the reader back to the\n instances cited in the letter, to convince him that what these\n casuists really maintain is, that actions in themselves _evil_, may be\n allowed, provided the _intentions_ are good; and, moreover, that in\n order to make these intentions good, it is not necessary that they\n have any reference to God, but sufficient if they refer to our own\n convenience, cupidity or vanity. (Apologie des Lettres Provinciales,\n pp. 212\u2013221.)\n\n\n\n\n LETTER VIII.[173]\n\nCORRUPT MAXIMS OF THE CASUISTS RELATING TO JUDGES\u2014USURERS\u2014THE CONTRACT\n MOHATRA\u2014BANKRUPTS\u2014RESTITUTION\u2014DIVERS RIDICULOUS NOTIONS OF THESE SAME\n CASUISTS.\n\n\n PARIS, _May 28, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014You did not suppose that anybody would have the curiosity to know\nwho we were; but it seems there are people who are trying to make it\nout, though they are not very happy in their conjectures. Some take me\nfor a doctor of the Sorbonne; others ascribe my letters to four or five\npersons, who, like me, are neither priests nor Churchmen. All these\nfalse surmises convince me that I have succeeded pretty well in my\nobject, which was to conceal myself from all but yourself and the worthy\nmonk, who still continues to bear with my visits, while I still\ncontrive, though with considerable difficulty, to bear with his\nconversations. I am obliged, however, to restrain myself; for were he to\ndiscover how much I am shocked at his communications, he would\ndiscontinue them, and thus put it out of my power to fulfil the promise\nI gave you, of making you acquainted with their morality. You ought to\nthink a great deal of the violence which I thus do to my own feelings.\nIt is no easy matter, I can assure you, to stand still and see the whole\nsystem of Christian ethics undermined by such a set of monstrous\nprinciples, without daring to put in a word of flat contradiction\nagainst them. But after having borne so much for your satisfaction, I am\nresolved I shall burst out for my own satisfaction in the end, when his\nstock of information has been exhausted. Meanwhile, I shall repress my\nfeelings as much as I possibly can; for I find that the more I hold my\ntongue, he is the more communicative. The last time I saw him, he told\nme so many things, that I shall have some difficulty in repeating them\nall. On the point of restitution you will find they have some most\nconvenient principles. For, however the good monk palliates his maxims,\nthose which I am about to lay before you really go to sanction corrupt\njudges, usurers, bankrupts, thieves, prostitutes and sorcerers\u2014all of\nwhom are most liberally absolved from the obligation of restoring their\nill-gotten gains. It was thus the monk resumed the conversation:\u2014\n\n\u201cAt the commencement of our interviews, I engaged to explain to you the\nmaxims of our authors for all ranks and classes; and you have already\nseen those that relate to beneficiaries, to priests, to monks, to\ndomestics, and to gentlemen. Let us now take a cursory glance of the\nremaining, and begin with the judges.\n\n\u201cNow I am going to tell you one of the most important and advantageous\nmaxims which our fathers have laid down in their favor. Its author is\nthe learned Castro Palao, one of our four-and-twenty elders. His words\nare: \u2018May a judge, in a question of right and wrong, pronounce according\nto a probable opinion, in preference to the more probable opinion? He\nmay, even though it should be contrary to his own judgment\u2014_imo contra\npropriam opinionem_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d cried I, \u201cthat is a very fair commencement! The judges,\nsurely, are greatly obliged to you; and I am surprised that they should\nbe so hostile, as we have sometimes observed, to your probabilities,\nseeing these are so favorable to them. For it would appear from this,\nthat you give them the same power over men\u2019s fortunes, as you have given\nto yourselves over their consciences.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou perceive we are far from being actuated by self-interest,\u201d returned\nhe; \u201cwe have had no other end in view than the repose of their\nconsciences; and to the same useful purpose has our great Molina devoted\nhis attention, in regard to the presents which may be made them. To\nremove any scruples which they might entertain in accepting of these on\ncertain occasions, he has been at the pains to draw out a list of all\nthose cases in which bribes may be taken with a good conscience,\nprovided, at least, there be no special law forbidding them. He says:\n\u2018Judges may receive presents from parties, when they are given them\neither for friendship\u2019s sake, or in gratitude for some former act of\njustice, or to induce them to give justice in future, or to oblige them\nto pay particular attention to their case, or to engage them to despatch\nit promptly.\u2019 The learned Escobar delivers himself to the same effect:\n\u2018If there be a number of persons, none of whom have more right than\nanother to have their causes disposed of, will the judge who accepts of\nsomething from one of them on condition\u2014_ex pacto_\u2014of taking up his\ncause first, be guilty of sin? Certainly not, according to Layman; for,\nin common equity, he does no injury to the rest, by granting to one, in\nconsideration of his present, what he was at liberty to grant to any of\nthem he pleased; and besides, being under an equal obligation to them\nall in respect of their right, he becomes more obliged to the individual\nwho furnished the donation, who thereby acquired for himself a\npreference above the rest\u2014a preference which seems capable of a\npecuniary valuation\u2014_qu\u00e6 obligatio videtur pretio \u00e6stimabilis_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cMay it please your reverence,\u201d said I, \u201cafter such a permission, I am\nsurprised that the first magistrates of the kingdom should know no\nbetter. For the first president[174] has actually carried an order in\nParliament to prevent certain clerks of court from taking money for that\nvery sort of preference\u2014a sign that he is far from thinking it allowable\nin judges; and everybody has applauded this as a reform of great benefit\nto all parties.\u201d\n\nThe worthy monk was surprised at this piece of intelligence, and\nreplied: \u201cAre you sure of that? I heard nothing about it. Our opinion,\nrecollect, is only probable; the contrary is probable also.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo tell you the truth, father,\u201d said I, \u201cpeople think that the first\npresident has acted more than probably well, and that he has thus put a\nstop to a course of public corruption which has been too long winked\nat.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am not far from being of the same mind,\u201d returned he; \u201cbut let us\nwaive that point, and say no more about the judges.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are quite right, sir,\u201d said I; \u201cindeed, they are not half thankful\nenough for all you have done for them.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is not my reason,\u201d said the father; \u201cbut there is so much to be\nsaid on all the different classes, that we must study brevity on each of\nthem. Let us now say a word or two about men of business. You are aware\nthat our great difficulty with these gentlemen is to keep them from\nusury\u2014an object to accomplish which our fathers have been at particular\npains; for they hold this vice in such abhorrence, that Escobar declares\n\u2018it is heresy to say that usury is no sin;\u2019 and Father Bauny has filled\nseveral pages of his Summary of Sins with the pains and penalties due to\nusurers. He declares them \u2018infamous during their life, and unworthy of\nsepulture after their death.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cO dear!\u201d cried I, \u201cI had no idea he was so severe.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe can be severe enough when there is occasion for it,\u201d said the monk;\n\u201cbut then this learned casuist, having observed that some are allured\ninto usury merely from the love of gain, remarks in the same place, that\n\u2018he would confer no small obligation on society, who, while he guarded\nit against the evil effects of usury, and of the sin which gives birth\nto it, would suggest a method by which one\u2019s money might secure as\nlarge, if not a larger profit, in some honest and lawful employment,\nthan he could derive from usurious dealings.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cUndoubtedly, father, there would be no more usurers after that.\u201d\n\n\u201cAccordingly,\u201d continued he, \u201cour casuist has suggested \u2018a general\nmethod for all sorts of persons\u2014gentlemen, presidents, councillors,\u2019\n&c.; and a very simple process it is, consisting only in the use of\ncertain words which must be pronounced by the person in the act of\nlending his money; after which he may take his interest for it without\nfear of being a usurer, which he certainly would be on any other plan.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd pray what may those mysterious words be, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cI will give you them exactly in his own words,\u201d said the father; \u201cfor\nhe has written his Summary in French, you know, \u2018that it may be\nunderstood by everybody,\u2019 as he says in the preface: \u2018The person from\nwhom the loan is asked, must answer, then, in this manner: I have got no\nmoney to _lend_; I have got a little, however, to lay out for an honest\nand lawful profit. If you are anxious to have the sum you mention in\norder to make something of it by your industry, dividing the profit and\nloss between us, I may perhaps be able to accommodate you. But now I\nthink of it, as it may be a matter of difficulty to agree about the\nprofit, if you will secure me a certain portion of it, and give me so\nmuch for my principal, so that it incur no risk, we may come to terms\nmuch sooner, and you shall touch the cash immediately.\u2019 Is not that an\neasy plan for gaining money without sin? And has not Father Bauny good\nreason for concluding with these words: \u2018Such, in my opinion, is an\nexcellent plan by which a great many people, who now provoke the just\nindignation of God by their usuries, extortions, and illicit bargains,\nmight save themselves, in the way of making good, honest, and legitimate\nprofits?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cO sir!\u201d I exclaimed, \u201cwhat potent words these must be! Doubtless they\nmust possess some latent virtue to chase away the demon of usury which I\nknow nothing of, for, in my poor judgment, I always thought that that\nvice consisted in recovering more money than what was lent.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou know little about it indeed,\u201d he replied. \u201cUsury, according to our\nfathers, consists in little more than the intention of taking the\ninterest as usurious. Escobar, accordingly, shows you how you may avoid\nusury by a simple shift of the intention. \u2018It would be downright usury,\u2019\nsays he, \u2018to take interest from the borrower, if we should exact it as\ndue in point of justice; but if only exacted as due in point of\ngratitude, it is not usury. Again, it is not lawful to have directly the\nintention of profiting by the money lent; but to claim it through the\nmedium of the benevolence of the borrower\u2014_media benevolentia_\u2014is not\nusury.\u2019 These are subtle methods; but, to my mind, the best of them all\n(for we have a great choice of them) is that of the Mohatra bargain.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Mohatra, father!\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are not acquainted with it, I see,\u201d returned he. \u201cThe name is the\nonly strange thing about it. Escobar will explain it to you: \u2018The\nMohatra bargain is effected by the needy person purchasing some goods at\na high price and on credit, in order to sell them over again, at the\nsame time and to the same merchant, for ready money and at a cheap\nrate.\u2019 This is what we call the Mohatra\u2014a sort of bargain, you perceive,\nby which a person receives a certain sum of ready money, by becoming\nbound to pay more.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, sir, I really think nobody but Escobar has employed such a term as\nthat; is it to be found in any other book?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow little you do know of what is going on, to be sure!\u201d cried the\nfather. \u201cWhy, the last work on theological morality, printed at Paris\nthis very year, speaks of the Mohatra, and learnedly, too. It is called\n_Epilogus Summarum_, and is an abridgment of all the summaries of\ndivinity\u2014extracted from Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius, Fagundez, Hurtado, and\nother celebrated casuists, as the title bears. There you will find it\nsaid, at p. 54, that \u2018the Mohatra bargain takes place when a man who has\noccasion for twenty pistoles purchases from a merchant goods to the\namount of thirty pistoles, payable within a year, and sells them back to\nhim on the spot for twenty pistoles ready money.\u2019 This shows you that\nthe Mohatra is not such an unheard-of term as you supposed.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, is that sort of bargain lawful?\u201d\n\n\u201cEscobar,\u201d replied he, \u201ctells us in the same place, that there are laws\nwhich prohibit it under very severe penalties.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is useless, then, I suppose?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot at all; Escobar, in the same passage, suggests expedients for\nmaking it lawful: \u2018It is so, even though the principal intention both of\nthe buyer and seller is to make money by the transaction, provided the\nseller, in disposing of the goods, does not exceed their highest price,\nand in re-purchasing them does not go below their lowest price, and that\nno previous bargain has been made, expressly or otherwise.\u2019 Lessius,\nhowever, maintains, that \u2018even though the merchant has sold his goods,\nwith the intention of re-purchasing them at the lowest price, he is not\nbound to make restitution of the profit thus acquired, unless, perhaps,\nas an act of charity, in the case of the person from whom it has been\nexacted being in poor circumstances, and not even then, if he cannot do\nit without inconvenience\u2014_si commode non potest_.\u2019 This is the utmost\nlength to which they could go.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, sir,\u201d said I, \u201cany further indulgence would, I should think, be\nrather too much.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, our fathers know very well when it is time for them to stop!\u201d cried\nthe monk. \u201cSo much, then, for the utility of the Mohatra. I might have\nmentioned several other methods, but these may suffice; and I have now\nto say a little in regard to those who are in embarrassed circumstances.\nOur casuists have sought to relieve them, according to their condition\nof life. For, if they have not enough of property for a decent\nmaintenance, and at the same time for paying their debts, they permit\nthem to secure a portion by making a bankruptcy with their\ncreditors.[175] This has been decided by Lessius, and confirmed by\nEscobar, as follows: \u2018May a person who turns bankrupt, with a good\nconscience keep back as much of his personal estate as may be necessary\nto maintain his family in a respectable way\u2014_ne indecor\u00e8 vivat_? I hold,\nwith Lessius, that he may, even though he may have acquired his wealth\nunjustly and by notorious crimes\u2014_ex injustitia et notorio delicto_;\nonly, in this case, he is not at liberty to retain so large an amount as\nhe otherwise might.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father! what a strange sort of charity is this, to allow\nproperty to remain in the hands of the man who has acquired it by\nrapine, to support him in his extravagance rather than go into the hands\nof his creditors, to whom it legitimately belongs!\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is impossible to please everybody,\u201d replied the father; \u201cand we have\nmade it our particular study to relieve these unfortunate people. This\npartiality to the poor has induced our great Vasquez, cited by Castro\nPalao, to say, that \u2018if one saw a thief going to rob a poor man, it\nwould be lawful to divert him from his purpose by pointing out to him\nsome rich individual, whom he might rob in place of the other.\u2019 If you\nhave not access to Vasquez or Castro Palao, you will find the same thing\nin your copy of Escobar; for, as you are aware, his work is little more\nthan a compilation from twenty-four of the most celebrated of our\nfathers. You will find it in his treatise, entitled \u2018The Practice of our\nSociety, in the matter of Charity towards our Neighbors.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cA very singular kind of charity this,\u201d I observed, \u201cto save one man\nfrom suffering loss, by inflicting it upon another! But I suppose that,\nto complete the charity, the charitable adviser would be bound in\nconscience to restore to the rich man the sum which he had made him\nlose?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot at all, sir,\u201d returned the monk; \u201cfor he did not rob the man\u2014he\nonly advised the other to do it. But only attend to this notable\ndecision of Father Bauny, on a case which will still more astonish you,\nand in which you would suppose there was a much stronger obligation to\nmake restitution. Here are his identical words: \u2018A person asks a soldier\nto beat his neighbor, or to set fire to the barn of a man that has\ninjured him. The question is, Whether, in the absence of the soldier,\nthe person who employed him to commit these outrages is bound to make\nreparation out of his own pocket for the damage that has followed? My\nopinion is, that he is not. For none can be held bound to restitution,\nwhere there has been no violation of justice; and is justice violated by\nasking another to do us a favor? As to the nature of the request which\nhe made, he is at liberty either to acknowledge or deny it; to whatever\nside he may incline, it is a matter of mere choice; nothing obliges him\nto it, unless it may be the goodness, gentleness, and easiness of his\ndisposition. If the soldier, therefore, makes no reparation for the\nmischief he has done, it ought not to be exacted from him at whose\nrequest he injured the innocent.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis sentence had very nearly broken up the whole conversation, for I\nwas on the point of bursting into a laugh at the idea of the _goodness\nand gentleness_ of a burner of barns, and at these strange sophisms\nwhich would exempt from the duty of restitution the principal and real\nincendiary, whom the civil magistrate would not exempt from the halter.\nBut had I not restrained myself, the worthy monk, who was perfectly\nserious, would have been displeased; he proceeded, therefore, without\nany alteration of countenance, in his observations.\n\n\u201cFrom such a mass of evidence, you ought to be satisfied now of the\nfutility of your objections; but we are losing sight of our subject. To\nrevert, then, to the succor which our fathers apply to persons in\nstraitened circumstances, Lessius, among others, maintains that \u2018it is\nlawful to steal, not only in a case of extreme necessity, but even where\nthe necessity is _grave_, though not extreme.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThis is somewhat startling, father,\u201d said I. \u201cThere are very few people\nin this world who do not consider their cases of necessity to be _grave_\nones, and to whom, accordingly, you would not give the right of stealing\nwith a good conscience. And though you should restrict the permission to\nthose only who are really and truly in that condition, you open the door\nto an infinite number of petty larcenies which the magistrates would\npunish in spite of your \u2018grave necessity,\u2019 and which you ought to\nrepress on a higher principle\u2014you who are bound by your office to be the\nconservators, not of justice only, but of charity between man and man, a\ngrace which this permission would destroy. For after all, now, is it not\na violation of the law of charity, and of our duty to our neighbor, to\ndeprive a man of his property in order to turn it to our own advantage?\nSuch, at least, is the way I have been taught to think hitherto.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat will not always hold true,\u201d replied the monk; \u201cfor our great\nMolina has taught us that \u2018the rule of charity does not bind us to\ndeprive ourselves of a profit, in order thereby to save our neighbor\nfrom a corresponding loss.\u2019 He advances this in corroboration of what he\nhad undertaken to prove\u2014\u2018that one is not bound in conscience to restore\nthe goods which another had put into his hands in order to cheat his\ncreditors.\u2019 Lessius holds the same opinion, on the same ground.[176]\nAllow me to say, sir, that you have too little compassion for people in\ndistress. Our fathers have had more charity than that comes to: they\nrender ample justice to the poor, as well as the rich; and, I may add,\nto sinners as well as saints. For, though far from having any\npredilection for criminals, they do not scruple to teach that the\nproperty gained by crime may be lawfully retained. \u2018No person,\u2019 says\nLessius, speaking generally, \u2018is bound, either by the law of nature or\nby positive laws (that is, _by any law_), to make restitution of what\nhas been gained by committing a criminal action, such as adultery, even\nthough that action is contrary to justice.\u2019 For, as Escobar comments on\nthis writer, \u2018though the property which a woman acquires by adultery is\ncertainly gained in an illicit way, yet once acquired, the possession of\nit is lawful\u2014_quamvis mulier illicit\u00e8 acquisat, licit\u00e8 tamen retinet\nacquisita_.\u2019 It is on this principle that the most celebrated of our\nwriters have formally decided that the bribe received by a judge from\none of the parties who has a bad case, in order to procure an unjust\ndecision in his favor, the money got by a soldier for killing a man, or\nthe emoluments gained by infamous crimes, may be legitimately retained.\nEscobar, who has collected this from a number of our authors, lays down\nthis general rule on the point, that \u2018the means acquired by infamous\ncourses, such as murder, unjust decisions, profligacy, &c., are\nlegitimately possessed, and none are obliged to restore them.\u2019 And\nfurther, \u2018they may dispose of what they have received for homicide,\nprofligacy, &c., as they please; for the possession is just, and they\nhave acquired a propriety in the fruits of their iniquity.\u2019\u201d[177]\n\n\u201cMy dear father,\u201d cried I, \u201cthis is a mode of acquisition which I never\nheard of before; and I question much if the law will hold it good, or if\nit will consider assassination, injustice, and adultery, as giving valid\ntitles to property.\u201d\n\n\u201cI do not know what your law-books may say on the point,\u201d returned the\nmonk; \u201cbut I know well that our books, which are the genuine rules for\nconscience, bear me out in what I say. It is true they make one\nexception, in which restitution is positively enjoined; that is, in the\ncase of any receiving money from those who have no right to dispose of\ntheir property, such as _minors and monks_. \u2018Unless,\u2019 says the great\nMolina, \u2018a woman has received money from one who cannot dispose of it,\nsuch as a monk or a minor\u2014_nisi mulier accepisset ab eo qui alienare non\npotest, ut a religioso et filio familias_. In this case she must give\nback the money.\u2019 And so says Escobar.\u201d[178]\n\n\u201cMay it please your reverence,\u201d said I, \u201cthe monks, I see, are more\nhighly favored in this way than other people.\u201d\n\n\u201cBy no means,\u201d he replied; \u201chave they not done as much generally for all\nminors, in which class monks may be viewed as continuing all their\nlives? It is barely an act of justice to make them an exception; but\nwith regard to all other people, there is no obligation whatever to\nrefund to them the money received from them for a criminal action. For,\nas has been amply shown by Lessius, \u2018a wicked action may have its price\nfixed in money, by calculating the advantage received by the person who\norders it to be done, and the trouble taken by him who carries it into\nexecution; on which account the latter is not bound to restore the money\nhe got for the deed, whatever that may have been\u2014homicide, injustice, or\na foul act\u2019 (for such are the illustrations which he uniformly employs\nin this question); \u2018unless he obtained the money from those having no\nright to dispose of their property. You may object, perhaps, that he who\nhas obtained money for a piece of wickedness is sinning, and therefore\nought neither to receive nor retain it. But I reply, that after the\nthing is done, there can be no sin either in giving or in receiving\npayment for it.\u2019 The great Filiutius enters still more minutely into\ndetails, remarking, \u2018that a man is _bound in conscience_, to vary his\npayments for actions of this sort, according to the different conditions\nof the individuals who commit them, and some may bring a higher price\nthan others.\u2019 This he confirms by very solid arguments.\u201d[179]\n\nHe then pointed out to me, in his authors, some things of this nature so\nindelicate that I should be ashamed to repeat them; and indeed the monk\nhimself, who is a good man, would have been horrified at them himself,\nwere it not for the profound respect which he entertains for his\nfathers, and which makes him receive with veneration everything that\nproceeds from them. Meanwhile, I held my tongue, not so much with the\nview of allowing him to enlarge on this matter, as from pure\nastonishment at finding the books of men in holy orders stuffed with\nsentiments at once so horrible, so iniquitous, and so silly. He went on,\ntherefore, without interruption in his discourse, concluding as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u201cFrom these premises, our illustrious Molina decides the following\nquestion (and after this, I think you will have got enough): \u2018If one has\nreceived money to perpetrate a wicked action, is he obliged to restore\nit? We must distinguish here,\u2019 says this great man; \u2018if he has not done\nthe deed, he must give back the cash; if he has, he is under no such\nobligation!\u2019[180] Such are some of our principles touching restitution.\nYou have got a great deal of instruction to-day; and I should like, now,\nto see what proficiency you have made. Come, then, answer me this\nquestion: \u2018Is a judge, who has received a sum of money from one of the\nparties before him, in order to pronounce a judgment in his favor,\nobliged to make restitution?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cYou were just telling me a little ago, father, that he was not.\u201d\n\n\u201cI told you no such thing,\u201d replied the father; \u201cdid I express myself so\ngenerally? I told you he was not bound to make restitution, provided he\nsucceeded in gaining the cause for the party who had the wrong side of\nthe question. But if a man has justice on his side, would you have him\nto purchase the success of his cause, which is his legitimate right? You\nare very unconscionable. Justice, look you, is a debt which the judge\nowes, and therefore he cannot sell it; but he cannot be said to owe\ninjustice, and therefore he may lawfully receive money for it. All our\nleading authors, accordingly, agree in teaching \u2018that though a judge is\nbound to restore the money he had received for doing an act of justice,\nunless it was given him out of mere generosity, he is not obliged to\nrestore what he has received from a man in whose favor he has pronounced\nan unjust decision.\u2019\u201d[181]\n\nThis preposterous decision fairly dumbfounded me, and while I was musing\non its pernicious tendencies, the monk had prepared another question for\nme. \u201cAnswer me again,\u201d said he, \u201cwith a little more circumspection. Tell\nme now, \u2018if a man who deals in divination is obliged to make restitution\nof the money he has acquired in the exercise of his art?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cJust as you please, your reverence,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cEh! what!\u2014just as I please! Indeed, but you are a pretty scholar! It\nwould seem, according to your way of talking, that the truth depended on\nour will and pleasure. I see that, in the present case, you would never\nfind it out yourself: so I must send you to Sanchez for a solution of\nthe problem\u2014no less a man than Sanchez. In the first place, he makes a\ndistinction between \u2018the case of the diviner who has recourse to\nastrology and other natural means, and that of another who employs the\ndiabolical art. In the one case, he says, the diviner is bound to make\nrestitution; in the other he is not.\u2019 Now, guess which of them is the\nparty bound?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is not difficult to find out that,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cI see what you mean to say,\u201d he replied. \u201cYou think that he ought to\nmake restitution in the case of his having employed the agency of\ndemons. But you know nothing about it; it is just the reverse. \u2018If,\u2019\nsays Sanchez, \u2018the sorcerer has not taken care and pains to discover, by\nmeans of the devil, what he could not have known otherwise, he must make\nrestitution\u2014_si nullam operam apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret_; but\nif he has been at that trouble, he is not obliged.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd why so, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you see?\u201d returned he. \u201cIt is because men may truly divine by the\naid of the devil, whereas astrology is a mere sham.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, sir, should the devil happen not to tell the truth (and he is not\nmuch more to be trusted than astrology), the magician must, I should\nthink, for the same reason, be obliged to make restitution?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot always,\u201d replied the monk: \u201c_Distinguo_, as Sanchez says, here. \u2018If\nthe magician be ignorant of the diabolic art\u2014_si sit artis diabolic\u00e6\nignarus_\u2014he is bound to restore: but if he is an expert sorcerer, and\nhas done all in his power to arrive at the truth, the obligation ceases;\nfor the industry of such a magician may be estimated at a certain sum of\nmoney.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is some sense in that,\u201d I said; \u201cfor this is an excellent plan to\ninduce sorcerers to aim at proficiency in their art, in the hope of\nmaking an honest livelihood, as you would say, by faithfully serving the\npublic.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are making a jest of it, I suspect,\u201d said the father: \u201cthat is very\nwrong. If you were to talk in that way in places where you were not\nknown, some people might take it amiss, and charge you with turning\nsacred subjects into ridicule.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat, father, is a charge from which I could very easily vindicate\nmyself; for certain I am that whoever will be at the trouble to examine\nthe true meaning of my words will find my object to be precisely the\nreverse; and perhaps, sir, before our conversations are ended, I may\nfind an opportunity of making this very amply apparent.\u201d\n\n\u201cHo, ho,\u201d cried the monk, \u201cthere is no laughing in your head now.\u201d\n\n\u201cI confess,\u201d said I, \u201cthat the suspicion that I intended to laugh at\nthings sacred, would be as painful for me to incur, as it would be\nunjust in any to entertain it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI did not say it in earnest,\u201d returned the father; \u201cbut let us speak\nmore seriously.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am quite disposed to do so, if you prefer it; that depends upon you,\nfather. But I must say, that I have been astonished to see your friends\ncarrying their attentions to all sorts and conditions of men so far as\neven to regulate the legitimate gains of sorcerers.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne cannot write for too many people,\u201d said the monk, \u201cnor be too\nminute in particularizing cases, nor repeat the same things too often in\ndifferent books. You may be convinced of this by the following anecdote,\nwhich is related by one of the gravest of our fathers, as you may well\nsuppose, seeing he is our present Provincial\u2014the reverend Father Cellot:\n\u2018We know a person,\u2019 says he, \u2018who was carrying a large sum of money in\nhis pocket to restore it, in obedience to the orders of his confessor,\nand who, stepping into a bookseller\u2019s shop by the way, inquired if there\nwas anything new?\u2014_numquid novi?_\u2014when the bookseller showed him a book\non moral theology, recently published; and turning over the leaves\ncarelessly, and without reflection, he lighted upon a passage describing\nhis own case, and saw that he was under no obligation to make\nrestitution: upon which, relieved from the burden of his scruples, he\nreturned home with a purse no less heavy, and a heart much lighter, than\nwhen he left it:\u2014_abjecta scrupuli sarcina, retento auri pondere, levior\ndomum repetiit_.\u2019[182]\n\n\u201cSay, after hearing that, if it is useful or not to know our maxims?\nWill you laugh at them now? or rather, are you not prepared to join with\nFather Cellot in the pious reflection which he makes on the blessedness\nof that incident? \u2018Accidents of that kind,\u2019 he remarks, \u2018are, with God,\nthe effect of his providence; with the guardian angel, the effect of his\ngood guidance; with the individuals to whom they happen, the effect of\ntheir predestination. From all eternity, God decided that the golden\nchain of their salvation should depend on such and such an author, and\nnot upon a hundred others who say the same thing, because they never\nhappen to meet with them. Had that man not written, this man would not\nhave been saved. All, therefore, who find fault with the multitude of\nour authors, we would beseech, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to beware\nof envying others those books which the eternal election of God and the\nblood of Jesus Christ has purchased for them!\u2019 Such are the eloquent\nterms in which this learned man proves so successfully the proposition\nwhich he had advanced, namely, \u2018How useful it must be to have a great\nmany writers on moral theology\u2014_qu\u00e0m utile sit de theologia morali\nmultos scribere_!\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cFather,\u201d said I, \u201cI shall defer giving you my opinion of that passage\nto another opportunity; in the mean time, I shall only say that as your\nmaxims are so useful, and as it is so important to publish them, you\nought to continue to give me further instruction in them. For I can\nassure you that the person to whom I send them shows my letters to a\ngreat many people. Not that we intend to avail ourselves of them in our\nown case; but indeed we think it will be useful for the world to be\ninformed about them.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery well,\u201d rejoined the monk, \u201cyou see I do not conceal them; and, in\ncontinuation, I am ready to furnish you, at our next interview, with an\naccount of the comforts and indulgences which our fathers allow, with\nthe view of rendering salvation easy, and devotion agreeable; so that in\naddition to what you have hitherto learned as to particular conditions\nof men, you may learn what applies in general to all classes, and thus\nyou will have gone through a complete course of instruction.\u201d\u2014So saying,\nthe monk took his leave of me.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_P. S._\u2014I have always forgot to tell you that there are different\neditions of Escobar. Should you think of purchasing him, I would advise\nyou to choose the Lyons edition, having on the title-page the device of\na lamb lying on a book sealed with seven seals; or the Brussels edition\nof 1651. Both of these are better and larger than the previous editions\npublished at Lyons in the years 1644 and 1646.[183]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n This Letter also was revised by M. Nicole.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n The president referred to was Pompone de Bellievre, on whom M.\n Pelisson pronounced a beautiful eulogy.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n The Jesuits exemplified their own maxim in this case by the famous\n bankruptcy of their College of St. Hermenigilde at Seville. We have a\n full account of this in the memorial presented to the King of Spain by\n the luckless creditors. The simple pathos and sincere earnestness of\n this document preclude all suspicion of the accuracy of its\n statements. By the advice of their Father Provincial, the Jesuits, in\n March, 1645, stopped payments after having borrowed upwards of 450,000\n ducats, mostly from poor widows and friendless girls. This shameful\n affair was exposed before the courts of justice, during a long\n litigation, in the course of which it was discovered that the Jesuit\n fathers had been carrying on extensive mercantile transactions, and\n that instead of spending the money left them for _pious uses_\u2014such as\n ransoming captives, and alms-giving\u2014they had devoted it to the\n purposes of what they termed \u201cour poor little house of profession.\u201d\n (Theatre Jesuitique, p. 200, &c.)\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n Molina, t. ii., tr. 2, disp. 338, n. 8; Lessius, liv. ii., ch. 20,\n dist. 19, n. 168.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n Escobar, tr. 3, ex. 1, n. 23, tr. 5, ex. 5, n. 53.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n Molina, l. tom. i.; De Just., tr. 2, disp. 94; Escobar, tr. 1, ex. 8,\n n. 59, tr. 3, ex. 1, n. 23.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Tr. 31, c. 9, n. 231.\u2014\u201cOccult\u00e6 fornicari\u00e6 debetur pretium in\n conscientia, et multo majore ratione, quam public\u00e6. Copia enim quam\n occulta facit mulier sui corporis, multo plus valet quam ea quam\n publica facit meretrix; nec ulla est lex positiva qu\u00e6 reddit eam\n incapacem pretii. Idem dicendum de pretio promisso virgini, conjugat\u00e6,\n moniali, et cuicumque alii. Est enim omnium eadem ratio.\u201d\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n Quoted by Escobar, tr. 3, ex. 2, n. 138.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n Molina, 94, 99; Reginald. l. 10, 184; Filiutius, tr. 31; Escobar, tr.\n 3; Lessius, l. 2, 14.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n Cellot, liv. viii., de la Hierarch, c. 16, 2.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n \u201cSince all this, a new edition has been printed at Paris, by Piget,\n more correct than any of the rest. But the sentiments of Escobar may\n be still better ascertained from the great work on moral theology,\n printed at Lyons.\u201d (Note in Nicole\u2019s edition of the Letters.)\n\n I may avail myself of this space to remark, that not one of the\n charges brought against the Jesuits in this letter has been met by\n Father Daniel in his celebrated reply. Indeed, after some vain efforts\n to contradict about a dozen passages in the letters, he leaves\n avowedly more than a hundred without daring to answer them. The\n pretext for thus failing to perform what he professed to do, and what\n he so loudly boasts, at the commencement, of his being able to do, is\n ingenious enough. \u201cYou will easily comprehend,\u201d says one of his\n characters, \u201cthat this confronting of texts and quotations is not a\n great treat for a man of my taste. I could not stand this\n _disagreeable labor_ much longer.\u201d (Entretiens de Cleandre et\n d\u2019Eudoxe, p. 277.) We reserve our remarks on the pretended\n falsifications charged against Pascal, till we come to his own\n masterly defence of himself in the subsequent letters.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER IX.\n\nFALSE WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN INTRODUCED BY THE JESUITS\u2014DEVOTION MADE\n EASY\u2014THEIR MAXIMS ON AMBITION, ENVY, GLUTTONY, EQUIVOCATION, AND\n MENTAL RESERVATIONS\u2014FEMALE DRESS\u2014GAMING\u2014HEARING MASS.\n\n\n PARIS, _July 3, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014I shall use as little ceremony with you as the worthy monk did with\nme, when I saw him last. The moment he perceived me, he came forward\nwith his eyes fixed on a book which he held in his hand and accosted me\nthus: \u201c\u2018Would you not be infinitely obliged to any one who should open\nto you the gates of paradise? Would you not give millions of gold to\nhave a key by which you might gain admittance whenever you thought\nproper? You need not be at such expense; here is one\u2014here are a hundred\nfor much less money.\u2019\u201d\n\nAt first I was at a loss to know whether the good father was reading, or\ntalking to me, but he soon put the matter beyond doubt by adding:\n\n\u201cThese, sir, are the opening words of a fine book, written by Father\nBarry of our Society; for I never give you anything of my own.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat book is it?\u201d asked I.\n\n\u201cHere is its title,\u201d he replied: \u201c\u2018_Paradise opened to Philagio, in a\nHundred Devotions to the Mother of God, easily practised._\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father! and is each of these easy devotions a sufficient\npassport to heaven?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is,\u201d returned he. \u201cListen to what follows: \u2018The devotions to the\nMother of God, which you will find in this book, are so many celestial\nkeys, which will open wide to you the gates of paradise, provided you\npractise them;\u2019 and accordingly, he says at the conclusion, \u2018that he is\nsatisfied if you practise only one of them.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cPray, then, father, do teach me one of the easiest of them.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are all easy,\u201d he replied; \u201cfor example\u2014\u2018Saluting the Holy Virgin\nwhen you happen to meet her image\u2014saying the little chaplet of the\npleasures of the Virgin\u2014fervently pronouncing the name of\nMary\u2014commissioning the angels to bow to her for us\u2014wishing to build her\nas many churches as all the monarchs on earth have done\u2014bidding her good\nmorrow every morning, and good night in the evening\u2014saying the _Ave\nMaria_ every day, in honor of the heart of Mary\u2019\u2014which last devotion, he\nsays, possesses the additional virtue of securing us the heart of the\nVirgin.\u201d[184]\n\n\u201cBut, father,\u201d said I, \u201conly provided we give her our own in return, I\npresume?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d he replied, \u201cis not absolutely necessary, when a person is too\nmuch attached to the world. Hear Father Barry: \u2018Heart for heart would,\nno doubt, be highly proper; but yours is rather too much attached to the\nworld, too much bound up in the creature, so that I dare not advise you\nto offer, at present, that _poor little slave_ which you call your\nheart.\u2019 And so he contents himself with the _Ave Maria_ which he had\nprescribed.\u201d[185]\n\n\u201cWhy, this is extremely easy work,\u201d said I, \u201cand I should really think\nthat nobody will be damned after that.\u201d\n\n\u201cAlas!\u201d said the monk, \u201cI see you have no idea of the hardness of some\npeople\u2019s hearts. There are some, sir, who would never engage to repeat,\nevery day, even these simple words, _Good day_, _Good evening_, just\nbecause such a practice would require some exertion of memory. And,\naccordingly, it became necessary for Father Barry to furnish them with\nexpedients still easier, such as wearing a chaplet night and day on the\narm, in the form of a bracelet, or carrying about one\u2019s person a rosary,\nor an image of the Virgin.[186] \u2018And, tell me now,\u2019 as Father Barry\nsays, \u2018if I have not provided you with easy devotions to obtain the good\ngraces of Mary?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cExtremely easy indeed, father,\u201d I observed.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he said, \u201cit is as much as could possibly be done, and I think\nshould be quite satisfactory. For he must be a wretched creature indeed,\nwho would not spare a single moment in all his lifetime to put a chaplet\non his arm, or a rosary in his pocket, and thus secure his salvation;\nand that, too, with so much certainty that none who have tried the\nexperiment have ever found it to fail, in whatever way they may have\nlived; though, let me add, we exhort people not to omit holy living. Let\nme refer you to the example of this, given at p. 34; it is that of a\nfemale who, while she practised daily the devotion of saluting the\nimages of the Virgin, spent all her days in mortal sin, and yet was\nsaved after all, by the merit of that single devotion.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd how so?\u201d cried I.\n\n\u201cOur Saviour,\u201d he replied, \u201craised her up again, for the very purpose of\nshowing it. So certain it is, that none can perish who practise any one\nof these devotions.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy dear sir,\u201d I observed, \u201cI am fully aware that the devotions to the\nVirgin are a powerful mean of salvation, and that the least of them, if\nflowing from the exercise of faith and charity, as in the case of the\nsaints who have practised them, are of great merit; but to make persons\nbelieve that, by practising these without reforming their wicked lives,\nthey will be converted by them at the hour of death, or that God will\nraise them up again, does appear calculated rather to keep sinners going\non in their evil courses, by deluding them with false peace and\nfool-hardy confidence, than to draw them off from sin by that genuine\nconversion which grace alone can effect.\u201d[187]\n\n\u201cWhat does it matter,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cby what road we enter\nparadise, provided we do enter it? as our famous Father Binet, formerly\nour provincial, remarks on a similar subject, in his excellent book On\nthe Mark of Predestination, \u2018Be it by hook or by crook,\u2019 as he says,\n\u2018what need we care, if we reach at last the celestial city.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cGranted,\u201d said I; \u201cbut the great question is, if we will get there at\nall?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Virgin will be answerable for that,\u201d returned he; \u201cso says Father\nBarry in the concluding lines of his book: \u2018If, at the hour of death,\nthe enemy should happen to put in some claim upon you, and occasion\ndisturbance in the little commonwealth of your thoughts, you have only\nto say that Mary will answer for you, and that he must make his\napplication to her.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, it might be possible to puzzle you, were one disposed to\npush the question a little further. Who, for example, has assured us\nthat the Virgin will be answerable in this case?\u201d\n\n\u201cFather Barry will be answerable for her,\u201d he replied. \u201c\u2018As for the\nprofit and happiness to be derived from these devotions,\u2019 he says, \u2018I\nwill be answerable for that; I will stand bail for the good Mother.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, who is to be answerable for Father Barry?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow!\u201d cried the monk; \u201cfor Father Barry? is he not a member of our\nSociety? and do you need to be told that our Society is answerable for\nall the books of its members? It is highly necessary and important for\nyou to know about this. There is an order in our Society, by which all\nbooksellers are prohibited from printing any work of our fathers without\nthe approbation of our divines and the permission of our superiors. This\nregulation was passed by Henry III., 10th May 1583, and confirmed by\nHenry IV., 20th December 1603, and by Louis XIII., 14th February 1612;\nso that the whole of our body stands responsible for the publications of\neach of the brethren. This is a feature quite peculiar to our community.\nAnd, in consequence of this, not a single work emanates from us which\ndoes not breathe the spirit of the Society. That, sir, is a piece of\ninformation quite _apropos_.\u201d[188]\n\n\u201cMy good father,\u201d said I, \u201cyou oblige me very much, and I only regret\nthat I did not know this sooner, as it will induce me to pay\nconsiderably more attention to your authors.\u201d\n\n\u201cI would have told you sooner,\u201d he replied, \u201chad an opportunity offered;\nI hope, however, you will profit by the information in future, and, in\nthe mean time, let us prosecute our subject. The methods of securing\nsalvation which I have mentioned are, in my opinion, very easy, very\nsure, and sufficiently numerous; but it was the anxious wish of our\ndoctors that people should not stop short at this first step, where they\nonly do what is absolutely necessary for salvation, and nothing more.\nAspiring, as they do without ceasing, after the greater glory of\nGod,[189] they sought to elevate men to a higher pitch of piety; and as\nmen of the world are generally deterred from devotion by the strange\nideas they have been led to form of it by some people, we have deemed it\nof the highest importance to remove this obstacle which meets us at the\nthreshold. In this department Father Le Moine has acquired much fame, by\nhis work entitled DEVOTION MADE EASY, composed for this very purpose.\nThe picture which he draws of devotion in this work is perfectly\ncharming. None ever understood the subject before him. Only hear what he\nsays in the beginning of his work: \u2018Virtue has never as yet been seen\naright; no portrait of her, hitherto produced, has borne the least\nverisimilitude. It is by no means surprising that so few have attempted\nto scale her rocky eminence. She has been held up as a cross-tempered\ndame, whose only delight is in solitude; she has been associated with\ntoil and sorrow; and, in short, represented as the foe of sports and\ndiversions, which are, in fact, the flowers of joy and the seasoning of\nlife.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, I am sure, I have heard at least, that there have been\ngreat saints who led extremely austere lives.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo doubt of that,\u201d he replied; \u201cbut still, to use the language of the\ndoctor, \u2018there have always been a number of genteel saints, and\nwell-bred devotees;\u2019 and this difference in their manners, mark you,\narises entirely from a difference of humors. \u2018I am far from denying,\u2019\nsays my author, \u2018that there are devout persons to be met with, pale and\nmelancholy in their temperament, fond of silence and retirement, with\nphlegm instead of blood in their veins, and with faces of clay; but\nthere are many others of a happier complexion, and who possess that\nsweet and warm humor, that genial and rectified blood, which is the true\nstuff that joy is made of.\u2019\n\n\u201cYou see,\u201d resumed the monk, \u201cthat the love of silence and retirement is\nnot common to all devout people; and that, as I was saying, this is the\neffect rather of their complexion than their piety. Those austere\nmanners to which you refer, are, in fact, properly the character of a\nsavage and barbarian, and, accordingly, you will find them ranked by\nFather Le Moine among the ridiculous and brutal manners of a moping\nidiot. The following is the description he has drawn of one of these in\nthe seventh book of his Moral Pictures: \u2018He has no eyes for the beauties\nof art or nature. Were he to indulge in anything that gave him pleasure,\nhe would consider himself oppressed with a grievous load. On festival\ndays, he retires to hold fellowship with the dead. He delights in a\ngrotto rather than a palace, and prefers the stump of a tree to a\nthrone. As to injuries and affronts, he is as insensible to them as if\nhe had the eyes and ears of a statue. Honor and glory are idols with\nwhom he has no acquaintance, and to whom he has no incense to offer. To\nhim a beautiful woman is no better than a spectre; and those imperial\nand commanding looks\u2014those charming tyrants who hold so many slaves in\nwilling and chainless servitude\u2014have no more influence over his optics\nthan the sun over those of owls,\u2019 &c.\u201d\n\n\u201cReverend sir,\u201d said I, \u201chad you not told me that Father Le Moine was\nthe author of that description, I declare I would have guessed it to be\nthe production of some profane fellow, who had drawn it expressly with\nthe view of turning the saints into ridicule. For if that is not the\npicture of a man entirely denied to those feelings which the Gospel\nobliges us to renounce, I confess that I know nothing of the\nmatter.\u201d[190]\n\n\u201cYou may now perceive, then, the extent of your ignorance,\u201d he replied;\n\u201cfor these are the features of a feeble, uncultivated mind, \u2018destitute\nof those virtuous and natural affections which it ought to possess,\u2019 as\nFather Le Moine says at the close of that description. Such is his way\nof teaching \u2018Christian virtue and philosophy,\u2019 as he announces in his\nadvertisement; and, in truth, it cannot be denied that this method of\ntreating devotion is much more agreeable to the taste of the world than\nthe old way in which they went to work before our times.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere can be no comparison between them,\u201d was my reply, \u201cand I now\nbegin to hope that you will be as good as your word.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou will see that better by-and-by,\u201d returned the monk. \u201cHitherto I\nhave only spoken of piety in general, but, just to show you more in\ndetail how our fathers have disencumbered it of its toils and troubles,\nwould it not be most consoling to the ambitious to learn that they may\nmaintain genuine devotion along with an inordinate love of greatness?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat, father! even though they should run to the utmost excess of\nambition?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he replied; \u201cfor this would be only a venial sin, unless they\nsought after greatness in order to offend God and injure the State more\neffectually. Now venial sins do not preclude a man from being devout, as\nthe greatest saints are not exempt from them.[191] \u2018Ambition,\u2019 says\nEscobar, \u2018which consists in an inordinate appetite for place and power,\nis of itself a venial sin; but when such dignities are coveted for the\npurpose of hurting the commonwealth, or having more opportunity to\noffend God, these adventitious circumstances render it mortal.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cVery savory doctrine, indeed, father.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd is it not still more savory,\u201d continued the monk, \u201cfor misers to be\ntold, by the same authority, \u2018that the rich are not guilty of mortal sin\nby refusing to give alms out of their superfluity to the poor in the\nhour of their greatest need?\u2014_scio in gravi pauperum necessitate divites\nnon dando superflua, non peccare mortaliter_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy truly,\u201d said I, \u201cif that be the case, I give up all pretension to\nskill in the science of sins.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo make you still more sensible of this,\u201d returned he, \u201cyou have been\naccustomed to think, I suppose, that a good opinion of one\u2019s self, and a\ncomplacency in one\u2019s own works, is a most dangerous sin? Now, will you\nnot be surprised if I can show you that such a good opinion, even though\nthere should be no foundation for it, is so far from being a sin, that\nit is, on the contrary, _the gift of God_?\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it possible, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat it is,\u201d said the monk; \u201cand our good Father Garasse[192] shows it\nin his French work, entitled Summary of the Capital Truths of Religion:\n\u2018It is a result of commutative justice that all honest labor should find\nits recompense either in praise or in self-satisfaction. When men of\ngood talents publish some excellent work, they are justly remunerated by\npublic applause. But when a man of weak parts has wrought hard at some\nworthless production, and fails to obtain the praise of the public, in\norder that his labor may not go without its reward, God imparts to him a\npersonal satisfaction, which it would be worse than barbarous injustice\nto envy him. It is thus that God, who is infinitely just, has given even\nto frogs a certain complacency in their own croaking.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cVery fine decisions in favor of vanity, ambition, and avarice!\u201d cried\nI; \u201cand envy, father, will it be more difficult to find an excuse for\nit?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is a delicate point,\u201d he replied. \u201cWe require to make use here of\nFather Bauny\u2019s distinction, which he lays down in his Summary of Sins:\n\u2018Envy of the spiritual good of our neighbor is mortal, but envy of his\ntemporal good is only venial.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd why so, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou shall hear,\u201d said he. \u201c\u2018For the good that consists in temporal\nthings is so slender, and so insignificant in relation to heaven, that\nit is of no consideration in the eyes of God and his saints.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, if temporal good is so _slender_, and of so little\nconsideration, how do you come to permit men\u2019s lives to be taken away in\norder to preserve it?\u201d[193]\n\n\u201cYou mistake the matter entirely,\u201d returned the monk; \u201cyou were told\nthat temporal good was of no consideration in the eyes of God, but not\nin the eyes of men.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat idea never occurred to me,\u201d I replied; \u201cand now, it is to be hoped\nthat, in virtue of these same distinctions, the world will get rid of\nmortal sins altogether.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo not flatter yourself with that,\u201d said the father; \u201cthere are still\nsuch things as mortal sins\u2014there is sloth, for example.\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, then, father dear!\u201d I exclaimed, \u201cafter that, farewell to all \u2018the\njoys of life!\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cStay,\u201d said the monk, \u201cwhen you have heard Escobar\u2019s definition of that\nvice, you will perhaps change your tone: \u2018Sloth,\u2019 he observes, \u2018lies in\ngrieving that spiritual things are spiritual, as if one should lament\nthat the sacraments are the sources of grace; which would be a mortal\nsin.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cO my dear sir!\u201d cried I, \u201cI don\u2019t think that anybody ever took it into\nhis head to be slothful in that way.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd accordingly,\u201d he replied, \u201cEscobar afterwards remarks: \u2018I must\nconfess that it is very rarely that a person falls into the sin of\nsloth.\u2019 You see now how important it is to _define_ things properly?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, father, and this brings to my mind your other definitions about\nassassinations, ambuscades, and superfluities. But why have you not\nextended your method to all cases, and given definitions of all vices in\nyour way; so that people may no longer sin in gratifying themselves?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is not always essential,\u201d he replied, \u201cto accomplish that purpose by\nchanging the definitions of things. I may illustrate this by referring\nto the subject of good cheer, which is accounted one of the greatest\npleasures of life, and which Escobar thus sanctions in his \u2018Practice\naccording to our Society:\u2019 \u2018Is it allowable for a person to eat and\ndrink to repletion, unnecessarily, and solely for pleasure? Certainly he\nmay, according to Sanchez, provided he does not thereby injure his\nhealth; because the natural appetite may be permitted to enjoy its\nproper functions.\u2019\u201d[194]\n\n\u201cWell, father, that is certainly the most complete passage, and the most\nfinished maxim in the whole of your moral system! What comfortable\ninferences may be drawn from it! Why, and is gluttony, then, not even a\nvenial sin?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot in the shape I have just referred to,\u201d he replied; \u201cbut, according\nto the same author, it would be a venial sin \u2018were a person to gorge\nhimself, unnecessarily, with eating and drinking, to such a degree as to\nproduce vomiting.\u2019[195] So much for that point. I would now say a little\nabout the facilities we have invented for avoiding sin in worldly\nconversations and intrigues. One of the most embarrassing of these cases\nis how to avoid telling lies, particularly when one is anxious to induce\na belief in what is false. In such cases, our doctrine of equivocations\nhas been found of admirable service, according to which, as Sanchez has\nit, \u2018it is permitted to use ambiguous terms, leading people to\nunderstand them in another sense from that in which we understand them\nourselves.\u2019\u201d[196]\n\n\u201cI know that already, father,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cWe have published it so often,\u201d continued he, \u201cthat at length, it\nseems, everybody knows of it. But do you know what is to be done when no\nequivocal words can be got?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, father.\u201d\n\n\u201cI thought as much,\u201d said the Jesuit; \u201cthis is something new, sir: I\nmean the doctrine of mental reservations. \u2018A man may swear,\u2019 as Sanchez\nsays in the same place, \u2018that he never did such a thing (though he\nactually did it), meaning within himself that he did not do so on a\ncertain day, or before he was born, or understanding any other such\ncircumstance, while the words which he employs have no such sense as\nwould discover his meaning. And this is very convenient in many cases,\nand quite innocent, when necessary or conducive to one\u2019s health, honor,\nor advantage.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father! is that not a lie, and perjury to boot?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said the father; \u201cSanchez and Filiutius prove that it is not; for,\nsays the latter, \u2018it is the intention that determines the quality of the\naction.\u2019[197] And he suggests a still surer method for avoiding\nfalsehood, which is this: After saying aloud, _I swear that I have not\ndone that_, to add, in a low voice, _to-day_; or after saying aloud, _I\nswear_, to interpose in a whisper, _that I say_, and then continue\naloud, _that I have done that_. This, you perceive, is telling the\ntruth.\u201d[198]\n\n\u201cI grant it,\u201d said I; \u201cit might possibly, however, be found to be\ntelling the truth in a low key, and falsehood in a loud one; besides, I\nshould be afraid that many people might not have sufficient presence of\nmind to avail themselves of these methods.\u201d\n\n\u201cOur doctors,\u201d replied the Jesuit, \u201chave taught, in the same passage,\nfor the benefit of such as might not be expert in the use of these\nreservations, that no more is required of them, to avoid lying, than\nsimply to say that _they have not done_ what they have done, provided\n\u2018they have, in general, the intention of giving to their language the\nsense which an _able man_ would give to it.\u2019 Be candid, now, and confess\nif you have not often felt yourself embarrassed, in consequence of not\nknowing this?\u201d\n\n\u201cSometimes,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cAnd will you not also acknowledge,\u201d continued he, \u201cthat it would often\nprove very convenient to be absolved in conscience from keeping certain\nengagements one may have made?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe most convenient thing in the world!\u201d I replied.\n\n\u201cListen, then, to the general rule laid down by Escobar: \u2018Promises are\nnot binding, when the person in making them had no intention to bind\nhimself. Now, it seldom happens that any have such an intention, unless\nwhen they confirm their promises by an oath or contract; so that when\none simply says, _I will do it_, he means that he will do it if he does\nnot change his mind; for he does not wish, by saying that, to deprive\nhimself of his liberty.\u2019 He gives other rules in the same strain, which\nyou may consult for yourself, and tells us, in conclusion, \u2018that all\nthis is taken from Molina and our other authors, and is therefore\nsettled beyond all doubt.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cMy dear father,\u201d I observed, \u201cI had no idea that the direction of the\nintention possessed the power of rendering promises null and void.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou must perceive,\u201d returned he, \u201cwhat facility this affords for\nprosecuting the business of life. But what has given us the most trouble\nhas been to regulate the commerce between the sexes; our fathers being\nmore chary in the matter of chastity. Not but that they have discussed\nquestions of a very curious and very indulgent character, particularly\nin reference to married and betrothed persons.\u201d\n\nAt this stage of the conversation I was made acquainted with the most\nextraordinary questions you can well imagine. He gave me enough of them\nto fill many letters; but as you show my communications to all sorts of\npersons, and as I do not choose to be the vehicle of such reading to\nthose who would make it the subject of diversion, I must decline even\ngiving the quotations.\n\nThe only thing to which I can venture to allude, out of all the books\nwhich he showed me, and these in French, too, is a passage which you\nwill find in Father Bauny\u2019s Summary, p. 165, relating to certain little\nfamiliarities, which, provided the intention is well directed, he\nexplains \u201c_as passing for gallant_;\u201d and you will be surprised to find,\nat p. 148, a principle of morals, as to the power which daughters have\nto dispose of their persons without the leave of their relatives,\ncouched in these terms: \u201cWhen that is done with the consent of the\ndaughter, although the father may have reason to complain, it does not\nfollow that she, or the person to whom she has sacrificed her honor, has\ndone him any wrong, or violated the rules of justice in regard to him;\nfor the daughter has possession of her honor, as well as of her body,\nand can do what she pleases with them, bating death or mutilation of her\nmembers.\u201d Judge, from that specimen, of the rest. It brings to my\nrecollection a passage from a Heathen poet, a much better casuist, it\nwould appear, than these reverend doctors; for he says, \u201cthat the person\nof a daughter does not belong wholly to herself, but partly to her\nfather and partly to her mother, without whom she cannot dispose of it,\neven in marriage.\u201d And I am much mistaken if there is a single judge in\nthe land who would not lay down as law the very reverse of this maxim of\nFather Bauny.\n\nThis is all I dare tell you of this part of our conversation, which\nlasted so long that I was obliged to beseech the monk to change the\nsubject. He did so, and proceeded to entertain me with their regulations\nabout female attire.\n\n\u201cWe shall not speak,\u201d he said, \u201cof those who are actuated by impure\nintentions; but as to others, Escobar remarks, that \u2018if the woman adorn\nherself without any evil intention, but merely to gratify a natural\ninclination to vanity\u2014_ob naturalem fastus inclinationem_\u2014this is only a\nvenial sin, or rather no sin at all.\u2019 And Father Bauny maintains, that\n\u2018even though the woman knows the bad effect which her care in adorning\nher person may have upon the virtue of those who may behold her, all\ndecked out in rich and precious attire, she would not sin in so\ndressing.\u2019[199] And among others, he cites our Father Sanchez as being\nof the same mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, what do your authors say to those passages of Scripture\nwhich so strongly denounce everything of that sort?\u201d\n\n\u201cLessius has well met that objection,\u201d said the monk, \u201cby observing,\n\u2018that these passages of Scripture have the force of precepts only in\nregard to the women of that period, who were expected to exhibit, by\ntheir modest demeanor, an example of edification to the Pagans.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd where did he find that, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt does not matter where he found it,\u201d replied he; \u201cit is enough to\nknow that the sentiments of these great men are always probable of\nthemselves. It deserves to be noticed, however, that Father Le Moine has\nqualified this general permission; for he will on no account allow it to\nbe extended to _the old ladies_. \u2018Youth,\u2019 he observes, \u2018is naturally\nentitled to adorn itself, nor can the use of ornament be condemned at an\nage which is the flower and verdure of life. But there it should be\nallowed to remain: it would be strangely out of season to seek for roses\non the snow. The stars alone have a right to be always dancing, for they\nhave the gift of perpetual youth. The wisest course in this matter,\ntherefore, for old women, would be to consult good sense and a good\nmirror, to yield to decency and necessity, and to retire at the first\napproach of the shades of night.\u2019\u201d[200]\n\n\u201cA most judicious advice,\u201d I observed.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d continued the monk, \u201cjust to show you how careful our fathers are\nabout everything you can think of, I may mention that, after granting\nthe ladies permission to gamble, and foreseeing that, in many cases,\nthis license would be of little avail unless they had something to\ngamble with, they have established another maxim in their favor, which\nwill be found in Escobar\u2019s chapter on larceny, n. 13: \u2018A wife,\u2019 says he,\n\u2018may gamble, and for this purpose may pilfer money from her husband.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, father, that is capital!\u201d\n\n\u201cThere are many other good things besides that,\u201d said the father; \u201cbut\nwe must waive them, and say a little about those more important maxims,\nwhich facilitate the practice of holy things\u2014the manner of attending\nmass, for example. On this subject our great divines, Gaspard Hurtado,\nand Coninck, have taught \u2018that it is quite sufficient to be present at\nmass in body, though we may be absent in spirit, provided we maintain an\noutwardly respectful deportment.\u2019 Vasquez goes a step further,\nmaintaining \u2018that one fulfils the precept of hearing mass, even though\none should go with no such intention at all.\u2019 All this is repeatedly\nlaid down by Escobar, who, in one passage, illustrates the point by the\nexample of those who are dragged to mass by force, and who put on a\nfixed resolution not to listen to it.\u201d\n\n\u201cTruly, sir,\u201d said I, \u201chad any other person told me that, I would not\nhave believed it.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn good sooth,\u201d he replied, \u201cit requires all the support which the\nauthority of these great names can lend it; and so does the following\nmaxim by the same Escobar, \u2018that even a wicked intention, such as that\nof ogling the women joined to that of hearing mass rightly, does not\nhinder a man from fulfilling the service.\u2019[201] But another very\nconvenient device, suggested by our learned brother Turrian,[202] is,\nthat \u2018one may hear the half of a mass from one priest, and the other\nhalf from another; and that it makes no difference though he should hear\nfirst the conclusion of the one, and then the commencement of the\nother.\u2019 I might also mention that it has been decided by several of our\ndoctors, to be lawful \u2018to hear the two halves of a mass at the same\ntime, from the lips of two different priests, one of whom is commencing\nthe mass, while the other is at the elevation; it being quite possible\nto attend to both parties at once, and two halves of a mass making a\nwhole\u2014_du\u0153 medietates unam missam constituunt_.\u2019[203] \u2018From all which,\u2019\nsays Escobar, \u2018I conclude, that you may hear mass in a very short period\nof time; if, for example, you should happen to hear four masses going on\nat the same time, so arranged that when the first is at the\ncommencement, the second is at the gospel, the third at the\nconsecration, and the last at the communion.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly, father, according to that plan, one may hear mass any day at\nNotre Dame in a twinkling.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d replied he, \u201cthat just shows how admirably we have succeeded in\nfacilitating the hearing of mass. But I am anxious now to show you how\nwe have softened the use of the sacraments, and particularly that of\npenance. It is here that the benignity of our fathers shines in its\ntruest splendor; and you will be really astonished to find that\ndevotion, a thing which the world is so much afraid of, should have been\ntreated by our doctors with such consummate skill, that, to use the\nwords of Father Le Moine, in his Devotion made Easy, \u2018demolishing the\nbugbear which the devil had placed at its threshold, they have rendered\nit easier than vice, and more agreeable than pleasure; so that, in fact,\nsimply to live is incomparably more irksome than to live well.\u2019 Is that\nnot a marvellous change, now?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father, I cannot help telling you a bit of my mind: I am sadly\nafraid that you have overshot the mark, and that this indulgence of\nyours will shock more people than it will attract. The mass, for\nexample, is a thing so grand and so holy, that, in the eyes of a great\nmany, it would be enough to blast the credit of your doctors forever, to\nshow them how you have spoken of it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWith a certain class,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cI allow that may be the case;\nbut do you not know that we accommodate ourselves to all sorts of\npersons? You seem to have lost all recollection of what I have\nrepeatedly told you on this point. The first time you are at leisure,\ntherefore, I propose that we make this the theme of our conversation,\ndeferring till then the lenitives we have introduced into the\nconfessional. I promise to make you understand it so well that you will\nnever forget it.\u201d\n\nWith these words we parted, so that our next conversation, I presume,\nwill, turn on the policy of the Society.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_P. S._\u2014Since writing the above, I have seen \u201cParadise Opened by a\nHundred Devotions easily Practised,\u201d by Father Barry; and also the \u201cMark\nof Predestination,\u201d by Father Binet; both of them pieces well worth the\nseeing.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n \u201cTowards the conclusion of the tenth century, new accessions were made\n to the worship of the Virgin. In this age, (the tenth century) there\n are to be found manifest indications of the institution of the\n _rosary_ and _crown_ (or chaplet) of the Virgin, by which her\n worshippers were to reckon the number of prayers they were to offer to\n this new divinity. The rosary consists of fifteen repetitions of the\n Lords Prayer, and a hundred and fifty salutations of the blessed\n Virgin; while the crown consists in six or seven repetitions of the\n Lord\u2019s Prayer, and seven times ten salutations, or _Ave Marias_.\u201d\n (Mosheim. cent. x.)\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n These are the devotions presented at pp. 33, 59, 145, 156, 172, 258,\n 420 of the first edition.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n See the devotions, at pp. 14, 326, 447.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n The Jesuits raised a great outcry against Pascal for having, in this\n letter, as they alleged, turned the worship of the Virgin into\n ridicule. Nicole seriously undertakes his defence, and draws several\n distinctions between true and false devotion to the Virgin. The\n Mariolatry or Mary-worship, of Pascal and the Port-Royalists, was\n certainly a different sort of thing from that practised in the Church\n of Rome; but it is sad to see the straits to which these sincere\n devotees were reduced, in their attempts to reconcile this practice\n with the honor due to God and his Son.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n Father Daniel makes an ingenious attempt to take off the force of this\n statement, by representing it as no more than what is done by other\n societies, universities, &c. (Entretiens, p. 32.) But while these\n bodies acted in good faith on this rule, the Jesuits (as Pascal\n afterwards shows, Letter xiii.) made it subservient to their double\n policy. Pascal\u2019s point was gained by establishing the fact, that the\n books published by the Jesuits had the imprimatur of the Society; and,\n in answer to all that Daniel has said on the point, it may be\n sufficient to ask, Why not try the simple plan of denouncing the error\n and censuring the author? (See Letter v., p. 117.)\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n There is an allusion here to the phrase which is perpetually occurring\n in the _Constitutions_ of the Jesuits, \u201c_Ad majorem Dei gloriam_\u2014To\n the greater glory of God,\u201d which is the reason ostentatiously paraded\n for almost all their laws and customs.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n If Rome be in the right, Pascal\u2019s notion is correct. The religion of\n the monastery is the only sort of piety or seriousness known to, or\n sanctioned by, the Romish Church.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n The Romish distinction of sins into _venial_ and _mortal_, afforded\n too fair a pretext for such sophistical conclusions to be overlooked\n by Jesuitical casuists.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n Francois Garasse was a Jesuit of Angouleme; he died in 1631. He was\n much followed as a preacher, his sermons being copiously interlarded\n with buffoonery. His controversial works are full of fire and fury;\n and his theological Summary, to which Pascal here refers, abounds with\n eccentricities. It deserves to be mentioned, as some offset to the\n folly of this writer, that Father Garasse lost his life in consequence\n of his attentions to his countrymen who were infected with the plague.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n See before, Letter vii., p. 159.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n \u201c_An comedere et libere usque ad satietatem absque necessitate ob\n solam voluptatem, sit peccatum? Cum Sanctio negative respondeo, modo\n non obsit valetudini, quia licite potest appetitus naturalis suis\n actibus frui._\u201d (N. 102.)\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n \u201c_Si quis se usque ad vomitum ingurgitet._\u201d (Esc., n. 56.)\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n Op. mor., p. 2, l. 3, c. 6, n. 13.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n Tr. 25, chap. 11, n. 331, 328.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n The method by which Father Daniel evades this charge is truly\n Jesuitical. First, he attempts to involve the question in a cloud of\n difficulties, by supposing extreme cases, in which equivocation may be\n allowed to preserve life, &c. He has then the assurance to quote\n Scripture in defence of the practice, referring to the equivocations\n of Abraham which he vindicates; to those of Tobit and the angel\n Raphael, which he applauds; and even to the sayings of our blessed\n Lord, which he charges with equivocation! (Entretiens, pp. 378, 382.)\n Even Bossuet was ashamed of this abominable maxim. \u201cI know nothing\u201d he\n says speaking of Sanchez, \u201cmore pernicious in morality, than the\n opinion of that Jesuit in regard to an oath; he maintains that the\n intention is necessary to an oath, without which in giving a false\n answer to a judge, when questioned at the bar, one is not capable of\n perjury.\u201d (Journal de l\u2019Abb\u00e9 le Dieu, apud Dissertation sur la foi qui\n es due au temoignage de Pascal, &c., p. 50.)\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n Esc. tr. 1, ex. 8; Summary of Sins, c. 46, p. 1094.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n \u201cThey had their Father Le Moine,\u201d said Cleandre, \u201cand I am surprised\n they did not oppose him to Pascal. That father had a lively\n imagination and a _florid, brilliant_ style; he stood high among\n polished society, and his Apology written against the book entitled\n \u2018The Moral Theology of the Jesuits,\u2019 was hardly less popular than his\n _Currycomb for the Jansenist Pegasus_.\u201d \u201cThe Society thought,\n perhaps,\u201d replied Eudoxus, \u201cthat he could not easily catch the\n delicate and at the same time easy style of Pascal. It was Father Le\n Moine\u2019s failing, to embellish all he said, to be always aiming at\n something witty, and never to speak simply. Perhaps, too, he did not\n feel himself equal for the combat, and did not like to commit\n himself.\u201d (Entretiens de Cleandre et d\u2019Eudoxe, p. 78.)\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n \u201c_Nec obest alia prava intentio, ut aspiciendi libidinose f\u0153minas._\u201d\n (Esc. tr. 1, ex. 11, n. 31.)\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n Select., p. 2, d. 16, Sub. 7.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n Bauny, Hurtado, Azor, &c. Escobar, \u201cPractice for Hearing Mass\n according to our Society,\u201d Lyons edition.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER X.\n\nPALLIATIVES APPLIED BY THE JESUITS TO THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, IN THEIR\n MAXIMS REGARDING CONFESSION, SATISFACTION, ABSOLUTION, PROXIMATE\n OCCASIONS OF SIN, CONTRITION, AND THE LOVE OF GOD.\n\n\n PARIS, _August 2, 1656_.\n\nSIR,\u2014I have not come yet to the policy of the Society, but shall first\nintroduce you to one of its leading principles. I refer to the\npalliatives which they have applied to confession, and which are\nunquestionably the best of all the schemes they have fallen upon to\n\u201cattract all and repel none.\u201d It is absolutely necessary to know\nsomething of this before going any further; and, accordingly, the monk\njudged it expedient to give me some instructions on the point, nearly as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u201cFrom what I have already stated,\u201d he observed, \u201cyou may judge of the\nsuccess with which our doctors have labored to discover, in their\nwisdom, that a great many things, formerly regarded as forbidden, are\ninnocent and allowable; but as there are some sins for which one can\nfind no excuse, and for which there is no remedy but confession, it\nbecame necessary to alleviate, by the methods I am now going to mention,\nthe difficulties attending that practice. Thus, having shown you, in our\nprevious conversations, how we relieve people from troublesome scruples\nof conscience, by showing them that what they believed to be sinful was\nindeed quite innocent, I proceed now to illustrate our convenient plan\nfor expiating what is really sinful, which is effected by making\nconfession as easy a process as it was formerly a painful one.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd how do you manage that, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy,\u201d said he, \u201cit is by those admirable subtleties which are peculiar\nto our Company, and have been styled by our fathers in Flanders, in \u201cThe\nImage of the First Century,\u201d[204] \u2018the pious finesse, the holy artifice\nof devotion\u2014_piam et religiosam calliditatem, et pietatis\nsolertiam_.\u2019[205] By the aid of these inventions, as they remark in the\nsame place, \u2018crimes may be expiated now-a-days _alacrius_\u2014with more zeal\nand alacrity than they were committed in former days, and a great many\npeople may be washed from their stains almost as cleverly as they\ncontracted them\u2014_plurimi vix citius maculas contrahunt quam eluunt_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cPray, then, father, do teach me some of these most salutary lessons of\n_finesse_.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe have a good number of them,\u201d answered the monk; \u201cfor there are a\ngreat many irksome things about confession, and for each of these we\nhave devised a palliative. The chief difficulties connected with this\nordinance are the shame of confessing certain sins, the trouble of\nspecifying the circumstances of others, the penance exacted for them,\nthe resolution against relapsing into them, the avoidance of the\nproximate occasions of sins, and the regret for having committed them. I\nhope to convince you to-day, that it is now possible to get over all\nthis with hardly any trouble at all; such is the care we have taken to\nallay the bitterness and nauseousness of this very necessary medicine.\nFor, to begin with the difficulty of confessing certain sins, you are\naware it is of importance often to keep in the good graces of one\u2019s\nconfessor; now, must it not be extremely convenient to be permitted, as\nyou are by our doctors, particularly Escobar and Suarez, \u2018to have two\nconfessors, one for the mortal sins and another for the venial, in order\nto maintain a fair character with your ordinary confessor\u2014_uti bonam\nfamam apud ordinarium tueatur_\u2014provided you do not take occasion from\nthence to indulge in mortal sin?\u2019 This is followed by another ingenious\ncontrivance for confessing a sin, even to the ordinary confessor,\nwithout his perceiving that it was committed since the last confession,\nwhich is, \u2018to make a general confession, and huddle this last sin in a\nlump among the rest which we confess.\u2019[206] And I am sure you will own\nthat the following decision of Father Bauny goes far to alleviate the\nshame which one must feel in confessing his relapses, namely, \u2018that,\nexcept in certain cases, which rarely occur, the confessor is not\nentitled to ask his penitent if the sin of which he accuses himself is\nan habitual one, nor is the latter obliged to answer such a question;\nbecause the confessor has no right to subject his penitent to the shame\nof disclosing his frequent relapses.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, father! I might as well say that a physician has no right to\nask his patient if it is long since he had the fever. Do not sins assume\nquite a different aspect according to circumstances? and should it not\nbe the object of a genuine penitent to discover the whole state of his\nconscience to his confessor, with the same sincerity and openheartedness\nas if he were speaking to Jesus Christ himself, whose place the priest\noccupies? If so, how far is he from realizing such a disposition, who,\nby concealing the frequency of his relapses, conceals the aggravations\nof his offence!\u201d[207]\n\nI saw that this puzzled the worthy monk, for he attempted to elude\nrather than resolve the difficulty, by turning my attention to another\nof their rules, which only goes to establish a fresh abuse, instead of\njustifying in the least the decision of Father Bauny; a decision which,\nin my opinion, is one of the most pernicious of their maxims, and\ncalculated to encourage profligate men to continue in their evil habits.\n\n\u201cI grant you,\u201d replied the father, \u201cthat habit aggravates the malignity\nof a sin, but it does not alter its nature; and that is the reason why\nwe do not insist on people confessing it, according to the rule laid\ndown by our fathers, and quoted by Escobar, \u2018that one is only obliged to\nconfess the circumstances that alter the species of the sin, and not\nthose that aggravate it.\u2019 Proceeding on this rule, Father Granados says,\n\u2018that if one has eaten flesh in Lent, all he needs to do is to confess\nthat he has broken the fast, without specifying whether it was by eating\nflesh, or by taking two fish meals.\u2019 And, according to Reginald, \u2018a\nsorcerer who has employed the diabolical art is not obliged to reveal\nthat circumstance; it is enough to say that he has dealt in magic,\nwithout expressing whether it was by palmistry or by a paction with the\ndevil.\u2019 Fagundez, again, has decided that \u2018rape is not a circumstance\nwhich one is bound to reveal, if the woman give her consent.\u2019 All this\nis quoted by Escobar,[208] with many other very curious decisions as to\nthese circumstances, which you may consult at your leisure.\u201d\n\n\u201cThese \u2018artifices of devotion\u2019 are vastly convenient in their way,\u201d I\nobserved.\n\n\u201cAnd yet,\u201d said the father, \u201cnotwithstanding all that, they would go for\nnothing, sir, unless we had proceeded to mollify penance, which, more\nthan anything else, deters people from confession. Now, however, the\nmost squeamish have nothing to dread from it, after what we have\nadvanced in our theses of the College of Clermont, where we hold that\n\u2018if the confessor imposes a suitable penance, and the penitent be\nunwilling to submit himself to it, the latter may go home, waiving both\nthe penance and the absolution.\u2019 Or, as Escobar says, in giving the\nPractice of our Society, \u2018if the penitent declare his willingness to\nhave his penance remitted to the next world, and to suffer in purgatory\nall the pains due to him, the confessor may, for the honor of the\nsacrament, impose a very light penance on him, particularly if he has\nreason to believe that his penitent would object to a heavier one.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI really think,\u201d said I, \u201cthat, if that is the case, we ought no longer\nto call confession the sacrament of penance.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are wrong,\u201d he replied; \u201cfor we always administer something in the\nway of penance, for the form\u2019s sake.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, do you suppose that a man is worthy of receiving\nabsolution, when he will submit to nothing painful to expiate his\noffences? And, in these circumstances, ought you not to retain rather\nthan remit their sins? Are you not aware of the extent of your ministry,\nand that you have the power of binding and loosing? Do you imagine that\nyou are at liberty to give absolution indifferently to all who ask it,\nand without ascertaining beforehand if Jesus Christ looses in heaven\nthose whom you loose on earth?\u201d[209]\n\n\u201cWhat!\u201d cried the father, \u201cdo you suppose that we do not know that \u2018the\nconfessor (as one remarks) ought to sit in judgment on the disposition\nof his penitent, both because he is bound not to dispense the sacraments\nto the unworthy, Jesus Christ having enjoined him to be a faithful\nsteward, and not give that which is holy unto dogs; and because he is a\njudge, and it is the duty of a judge to give righteous judgment, by\nloosing the worthy and binding the unworthy, and he ought not to absolve\nthose whom Jesus Christ condemns.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cWhose words are these, father?\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are the words of our father Filiutius,\u201d he replied.\n\n\u201cYou astonish me,\u201d said I; \u201cI took them to be a quotation from one of\nthe fathers of the Church. At all events, sir, that passage ought to\nmake an impression on the confessors, and render them very circumspect\nin the dispensation of this sacrament, to ascertain whether the regret\nof their penitents is sufficient, and whether their promises of future\namendment are worthy of credit.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is not such a difficult matter,\u201d replied the father; \u201cFiliutius\nhad more sense than to leave confessors in that dilemma, and accordingly\nhe suggests an easy way of getting out of it, in the words immediately\nfollowing: \u2018The confessor may easily set his mind at rest as to the\ndisposition of his penitent; for, if he fail to give sufficient evidence\nof sorrow, the confessor has only to ask him if he does not detest the\nsin in his heart, and if he answers that he does, he is bound to believe\nit. The same thing may be said of resolutions as to the future, unless\nthe case involves an obligation to restitution, or to avoid some\nproximate occasion of sin.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAs to that passage, father, I can easily believe that it is Filiutius\u2019\nown.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are mistaken though,\u201d said the father, \u201cfor he has extracted it,\nword for word, from Suarez.\u201d[210]\n\n\u201cBut, father, that last passage from Filiutius overturns what he had\nlaid down in the former. For confessors can no longer be said to sit as\njudges on the disposition of their penitents, if they are bound to take\nit simply upon their word, in the absence of all satisfying signs of\ncontrition. Are the professions made on such occasions so infallible,\nthat no other sign is needed? I question much if experience has taught\nyour fathers, that all who make fair promises are remarkable for keeping\nthem; I am mistaken if they have not often found the reverse.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo matter,\u201d replied the monk; \u201cconfessors are bound to believe them for\nall that; for Father Bauny, who has probed this question to the bottom,\nhas concluded \u2018that at whatever time those who have fallen into frequent\nrelapses, without giving evidence of amendment, present themselves\nbefore a confessor, expressing their regret for the past, and a good\npurpose for the future, he is bound to believe them on their simple\naverment, although there may be reason to presume that such resolution\nonly came from the teeth outwards. Nay,\u2019 says he, \u2018though they should\nindulge subsequently to greater excess than ever in the same\ndelinquencies, still, in my opinion, they may receive absolution.\u2019[211]\nThere now! that, I am sure, should silence you.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father,\u201d said I, \u201cyou impose a great hardship, I think, on the\nconfessors, by thus obliging them to believe the very reverse of what\nthey see.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou don\u2019t understand it,\u201d returned he; \u201call that is meant is, that they\nare obliged to act and absolve _as if_ they believed that their\npenitents would be true to their engagements, though, in point of fact,\nthey believe no such thing. This is explained, immediately afterwards,\nby Suarez and Filiutius. After having said that \u2018the priest is bound to\nbelieve the penitent on his word,\u2019 they add, \u2018It is not necessary that\nthe confessor should be convinced that the good resolution of his\npenitent will be carried into effect, nor even that he should judge it\nprobable; it is enough that he thinks the person has at the time the\ndesign in general, though he may very shortly after relapse. Such is the\ndoctrine of all our authors\u2014_ita docent omnes autores_.\u2019 Will you\npresume to doubt what has been taught by our authors?\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, sir, what then becomes of what Father Petau[212] himself is\nobliged to own, in the preface to his Public Penance, \u2018that the holy\nfathers, doctors, and councils of the Church agree in holding it as a\nsettled point, that the penance preparatory to the eucharist must be\ngenuine, constant, resolute, and not languid and sluggish, or subject to\nafter-thoughts and relapses?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you observe,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cthat Father Petau is speaking of\nthe _ancient Church_? But all that is now _so little in season_, to use\na common saying of our doctors, that, according to Father Bauny, the\nreverse is the only true view of the matter. \u2018There are some,\u2019 says he,\n\u2018who maintain that absolution ought to be refused to those who fall\nfrequently into the same sins, more especially if, after being often\nabsolved, they evince no signs of amendment; and others hold the\nopposite view. But the only true opinion is, that they ought not to be\nrefused absolution; and though they should be nothing the better of all\nthe advice given them, though they should have broken all their promises\nto lead new lives, and been at no trouble to purify themselves, still it\nis of no consequence; whatever may be said to the contrary, the true\nopinion which ought to be followed is, that even in all these cases,\nthey ought to be absolved.\u2019 And again: \u2018Absolution ought neither to be\ndenied nor delayed in the case of those who live in habitual sins\nagainst the law of God, of nature, and of the Church, although there\nshould be no apparent prospect of future amendment\u2014_etsi emendationis\nfutur\u00e6 nulla spes appareat_.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, father, this certainty of always getting absolution may induce\nsinners\u2014\u201d\n\n\u201cI know what you mean,\u201d interrupted the Jesuit: \u201cbut listen to Father\nBauny, q. 15: \u2018Absolution may be given even to him who candidly avows\nthat the hope of being absolved induced him to sin with more freedom\nthan he would otherwise have done.\u2019 And Father Caussin, defending this\nproposition, says, \u2018that were this not true, confession would be\ninterdicted to the greater part of mankind; and the only resource left\nfor poor sinners would be a branch and a rope!\u2019\u201d[213]\n\n\u201cO father, how these maxims of yours will draw people to your\nconfessionals!\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he replied, \u201cyou would hardly believe what numbers are in the\nhabit of frequenting them; \u2018we are absolutely oppressed and overwhelmed,\nso to speak, under the crowd of our penitents\u2014_penitentium numero\nobruimur_\u2019\u2014as is said in \u2018The Image of the First Century.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI could suggest a very simple method,\u201d said I, \u201cto escape from this\ninconvenient pressure. You have only to oblige sinners to avoid the\nproximate occasions of sin; that single expedient would afford you\nrelief at once.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe have no wish for such a relief,\u201d rejoined the monk; \u201cquite the\nreverse; for, as is observed in the same book, \u2018the great end of our\nSociety is to labor to establish the virtues, to wage war on the vices,\nand to save a great number of souls.\u2019 Now, as there are very few souls\ninclined to quit the proximate occasions of sin, we have been obliged to\ndefine what a proximate occasion is. \u2018That cannot be called a proximate\noccasion,\u2019 says Escobar, \u2018where one sins but rarely, or on a sudden\ntransport\u2014say three or four times a year;\u2019[214] or, as Father Bauny has\nit, \u2018once or twice in a month.\u2019[215] Again, asks this author, \u2018what is\nto be done in the case of masters and servants, or cousins, who, living\nunder the same roof, are by this occasion tempted to sin?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThey ought to be separated,\u201d said I.\n\n\u201cThat is what he says, too, \u2018if their relapses be very frequent: but if\nthe parties offend rarely, and cannot be separated without trouble and\nloss, they may, according to Suarez and other authors, be absolved,\nprovided they promise to sin no more, and are truly sorry for what is\npast.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis required no explanation, for he had already informed me with what\nsort of evidence of contrition the confessor was bound to rest\nsatisfied.\n\n\u201cAnd Father Bauny,\u201d continued the monk, \u201cpermits those who are involved\nin the proximate occasions of sin, \u2018to remain as they are, when they\ncannot avoid them without becoming the common talk of the world, or\nsubjecting themselves to inconvenience.\u2019 \u2018A priest,\u2019 he remarks in\nanother work, \u2018may and ought to absolve a woman who is guilty of living\nwith a paramour, if she cannot put him away honorably, or has some\nreason for keeping him\u2014_si non potest honeste ejicere, aut habeat\naliquam causam retinendi_\u2014provided she promises to act more virtuously\nfor the future.\u2019\u201d[216]\n\n\u201cWell, father,\u201d cried I, \u201cyou have certainly succeeded in relaxing the\nobligation of avoiding the occasions of sin to a very comfortable\nextent, by dispensing with the duty as soon as it becomes inconvenient;\nbut I should think your fathers will at least allow it to be binding\nwhen there is no difficulty in the way of its performance?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said the father, \u201cthough even then the rule is not without\nexceptions. For Father Bauny says, in the same place, \u2018that any one may\nfrequent profligate houses, with the view of converting their\nunfortunate inmates, though the probability should be that he fall into\nsin, having often experienced before that he has yielded to their\nfascinations. Some doctors do not approve of this opinion, and hold that\nno man may voluntarily put his salvation in peril to succor his\nneighbor; yet I decidedly embrace the opinion which they controvert.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cA novel sort of preachers these, father! But where does Father Bauny\nfind any ground for investing them with such a mission?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is upon one of his own principles,\u201d he replied, \u201cwhich he announces\nin the same place after Basil Ponce. I mentioned it to you before, and I\npresume you have not forgotten it. It is, \u2018that one may seek an occasion\nof sin, directly and expressly\u2014_primo et per se_\u2014to promote the temporal\nor spiritual good of himself or his neighbor.\u2019\u201d\n\nOn hearing these passages, I felt so horrified that I was on the point\nof breaking out; but, being resolved to hear him to an end, I restrained\nmyself, and merely inquired: \u201cHow, father, does this doctrine comport\nwith that of the Gospel, which binds us to \u2018pluck out the right eye,\u2019\nand \u2018cut off the right hand,\u2019 when they \u2018offend,\u2019 or prove prejudicial\nto salvation? And how can you suppose that the man who wilfully indulges\nin the occasions of sins, sincerely hates sin? Is it not evident, on the\ncontrary, that he has never been properly touched with a sense of it,\nand that he has not yet experienced that genuine conversion of heart,\nwhich makes a man love God as much as he formerly loved the creature?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed!\u201d cried he, \u201cdo you call that genuine contrition? It seems you\ndo not know that, as Father Pintereau[217] says, \u2018all our fathers teach,\nwith one accord, that it is an error, and almost a heresy, to hold that\n_contrition_ is necessary; or that _attrition_ alone, induced by the\n_sole_ motive, the fear of the pains of hell, which excludes a\ndisposition to offend, is not sufficient with the sacrament?\u2019\u201d[218]\n\n\u201cWhat, father! do you mean to say that it is almost an article of faith,\nthat attrition, induced merely by fear of punishment, is sufficient with\nthe sacrament? That idea, I think, is peculiar to your fathers; for\nthose other doctors who hold that attrition is sufficient along with the\nsacrament, always take care to show that it must be accompanied with\nsome love to God at least. It appears to me, moreover, that even your\nown authors did not always consider this doctrine of yours so certain.\nYour Father Suarez, for instance, speaks of it thus: \u2018Although it is a\nprobable opinion that attrition is sufficient with the sacrament, yet it\nis not certain, and it may be false\u2014_non est certa, et potest esse\nfalsa_. And if it is false, attrition is not sufficient to save a man;\nand he that dies knowingly in this state, wilfully exposes himself to\nthe grave peril of eternal damnation. For this opinion is neither very\nancient nor very common\u2014_nec valde antiqua, nec multum communis_.\u2019\nSanchez was not more prepared to hold it as infallible, when he said in\nhis Summary, that \u2018the sick man and his confessor, who content\nthemselves at the hour of death with attrition and the sacrament, are\nboth chargeable with mortal sin, on account of the great risk of\ndamnation to which the penitent would be exposed, if the opinion that\nattrition is sufficient with the sacrament should not turn out to be\ntrue.\u2019 Comitolus, too, says that \u2018we should not be too sure that\nattrition suffices with the sacrament.\u2019\u201d[219]\n\nHere the worthy father interrupted me. \u201cWhat!\u201d he cried, \u201cyou read our\nauthors then, it seems? That is all very well; but it would be still\nbetter were you never to read them without the precaution of having one\nof _us_ beside you. Do you not see, now, that, from having read them\nalone, you have concluded, in your simplicity, that these passages bear\nhard on those who have more lately supported our doctrine of attrition?\nwhereas it might be shown that nothing could set them off to greater\nadvantage. Only think what a triumph it is for our fathers of the\npresent day to have succeeded in disseminating their opinion in such\nshort time, and to such an extent that, with the exception of\ntheologians, nobody almost would ever suppose but that our modern views\non this subject had been the uniform belief of the faithful in all ages!\nSo that, in fact, when you have shown, from our fathers themselves,\nthat, a few years ago, \u2018this opinion was not certain,\u2019 you have only\nsucceeded in giving our modern authors the whole merit of its\nestablishment!\n\n\u201cAccordingly,\u201d he continued, \u201cour cordial friend Diana, to gratify us,\nno doubt, has recounted the various steps by which the opinion reached\nits present position.[220] \u2018In former days, the ancient schoolmen\nmaintained that contrition was necessary as soon as one had committed a\nmortal sin; since then, however, it has been thought that it is not\nbinding except on festival days; afterwards, only when some great\ncalamity threatened the people: others, again, that it ought not to be\nlong delayed at the approach of death. But our fathers, Hurtado and\nVasquez, have ably refuted all these opinions, and established that one\nis not bound to contrition unless he cannot be absolved in any other\nway, or at the point of death!\u2019 But, to continue the wonderful progress\nof this doctrine, I might add, what our fathers, Fagundez, Granados, and\nEscobar, have decided, \u2018that contrition is not necessary even at death;\nbecause,\u2019 say they, \u2018if attrition with the sacrament did not suffice at\ndeath, it would follow that attrition would not be sufficient with the\nsacrament.\u2019 And the learned Hurtado, cited by Diana and Escobar, goes\nstill further; for he asks, \u2018Is that sorrow for sin which flows solely\nfrom apprehension of its temporal consequences, such as having lost\nhealth or money, sufficient? We must distinguish. If the evil is not\nregarded as sent by the hand of God, such a sorrow does not suffice; but\nif the evil is viewed as sent by God, as, in fact, all evil, says Diana,\nexcept sin, comes from him, that kind of sorrow is sufficient.\u2019[221] Our\nFather Lamy holds the same doctrine.\u201d[222]\n\n\u201cYou surprise me, father; for I see nothing in all that attrition of\nwhich you speak but what is natural; and in this way a sinner may render\nhimself worthy of absolution without supernatural grace at all. Now\neverybody knows that this is a heresy condemned by the Council.\u201d[223]\n\n\u201cI should have thought with you,\u201d he replied; \u201cand yet it seems this\nmust not be the case, for the fathers of our College of Clermont have\nmaintained (in their Theses of the 23rd May and 6th June 1644) \u2018that\nattrition may be holy and sufficient for the sacrament, although it may\nnot be supernatural:\u2019 and (in that of August 1643) \u2018that attrition,\nthough merely natural, is sufficient for the sacrament, provided it is\nhonest.\u2019 I do not see what more could be said on the subject, unless we\nchoose to subjoin an inference, which may be easily drawn from these\nprinciples, namely, that contrition, so far from being necessary to the\nsacrament, is rather prejudicial to it, inasmuch as, by washing away\nsins of itself, it would leave nothing for the sacrament to do at all.\nThat is, indeed, exactly what the celebrated Jesuit Father Valencia\nremarks. (Tom. iv., disp. 7, q. 8, p. 4.) \u2018Contrition,\u2019 says he, \u2018is by\nno means necessary in order to obtain the principal benefit of the\nsacrament; on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle in the way of\nit\u2014_imo obstat potius quominus effectus sequatur_.\u2019 Nobody could well\ndesire more to be said in commendation of attrition.\u201d[224]\n\n\u201cI believe that, father,\u201d said I; \u201cbut you must allow me to tell you my\nopinion, and to show you to what a dreadful length this doctrine leads.\nWhen you say that \u2018attrition, induced by the mere dread of punishment,\u2019\nis sufficient, with the sacrament, to justify sinners, does it not\nfollow that a person may always expiate his sins in this way, and thus\nbe saved without ever having loved God all his lifetime? Would your\nfathers venture to hold that?\u201d\n\n\u201cI perceive,\u201d replied the monk, \u201cfrom the strain of your remarks, that\nyou need some information on the doctrine of our fathers regarding the\nlove of God. This is the last feature of their morality, and the most\nimportant of all. You must have learned something of it from the\npassages about contrition which I have quoted to you. But here are\nothers still more definite on the point of love to God\u2014Don\u2019t interrupt\nme, now; for it is of importance to notice the connection. Attend to\nEscobar, who reports the different opinions of our authors, in his\n\u2018Practice of the Love of God according to our Society.\u2019 The question is:\n\u2018When is one obliged to have an actual affection for God?\u2019 Suarez says,\nit is enough if one loves him before being _articulo mortis_\u2014at the\npoint of death\u2014without determining the exact time. Vasquez, that it is\nsufficient even at the very point of death. Others, when one has\nreceived baptism. Others, again, when one is bound to exercise\ncontrition. And others, on festival days. But our father, Castro Palao,\ncombats all these opinions, and with good reason\u2014_merito_. Hurtado de\nMendoza insists that we are obliged to love God once a-year; and that we\nought to regard it as a great favor that we are not bound to do it\noftener. But our Father Coninck thinks that we are bound to it only once\nin three or four years; Henriquez, once in five years; and Filiutius\nsays that it is _probable_ that we are not strictly bound to it even\nonce in five years. How often, then, do you ask? Why, he refers it to\nthe judgment of the judicious.\u201d\n\nI took no notice of all this badinage, in which the ingenuity of man\nseems to be sporting, in the height of insolence, with the love of God.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d pursued the monk, \u201cour Father Antony Sirmond surpasses all on\nthis point, in his admirable book, \u2018The Defence of Virtue,\u2019[225] where,\nas he tells the reader, \u2018he speaks French in France,\u2019 as follows: \u2018St.\nThomas says that we are obliged to love God as soon as we come to the\nuse of reason: that is rather too soon! Scotus says, every Sunday: pray,\nfor what reason? Others say, when we are sorely tempted: yes, if there\nbe no other way of escaping the temptation. Scotus says, when we have\nreceived a benefit from God: good, in the way of thanking him for it.\nOthers say, at death: rather late! As little do I think it binding at\nthe reception of any sacrament: attrition in such cases is quite enough,\nalong with confession, if convenient. Suarez says that it is binding at\nsome time or another; but at what time?\u2014he leaves you to judge of that\nfor yourself\u2014he does not know; and what that doctor did not know I know\nnot who should know.\u2019 In short, he concludes that we are not strictly\nbound to more than to keep the other commandments, without any affection\nfor God, and without giving him our hearts, provided that we do not hate\nhim. To prove this is the sole object of his second treatise. You will\nfind it in every page; more especially where he says: \u2018God, in\ncommanding us to love him, is satisfied with our obeying him in his\nother commandments. If God had said, Whatever obedience thou yieldest\nme, if thy heart is not given to me, I will destroy thee!\u2014would such a\nmotive, think you, be well fitted to promote the end which God must, and\nonly can, have in view? Hence it is said that we shall love God by doing\nhis will, _as if_ we loved him with affection, as if the motive in this\ncase was real charity. If that is really our motive, so much the better;\nif not, still we are strictly fulfilling the commandment of love, by\nhaving its works, so that (such is the goodness of God!) we are\ncommanded, not so much to love him, as not to hate him.\u2019\n\n\u201cSuch is the way in which our doctors have discharged men from the\n\u2018painful\u2019 obligation of actually loving God. And this doctrine is so\nadvantageous, that our Fathers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and Antony\nSirmond himself, have strenuously defended it when it has been attacked.\nYou have only to consult their answers to the \u2018Moral Theology.\u2019 That of\nFather Pintereau, in particular, will enable you to form some idea of\nthe value of this dispensation, from the price which he tells us that it\ncost, which is no less than the blood of Jesus Christ. This crowns the\nwhole. It appears, that this dispensation from the \u2018painful\u2019 obligation\nto love God, is the privilege of the Evangelical law, in opposition to\nthe Judaical. \u2018It was reasonable,\u2019 he says, \u2018that, under the law of\ngrace in the New Testament, God should relieve us from that troublesome\nand arduous obligation which existed under the law of bondage, to\nexercise an act of perfect contrition, in order to be justified; and\nthat the place of this should be supplied by the sacraments, instituted\nin aid of an easier disposition. Otherwise, indeed, Christians, who are\nthe children, would have no greater facility in gaining the good graces\nof their Father than the Jews, who were the slaves, had in obtaining the\nmercy of their Lord and Master.\u2019\u201d[226]\n\n\u201cO father!\u201d cried I; \u201cno patience can stand this any longer. It is\nimpossible to listen without horror to the sentiments you have now been\nsporting.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are not my sentiments,\u201d said the monk.\n\n\u201cI grant it, sir,\u201d said I; \u201cbut you feel no aversion to them; and, so\nfar from detesting the authors of these maxims, you hold them in esteem.\nAre you not afraid that your consent may involve you in a participation\nof their guilt? and are you not aware that St. Paul judges worthy of\ndeath, not only the authors of evil things, but also \u2018those who have\npleasure in them that do them?\u2019 Was it not enough to have permitted men\nto indulge in so many forbidden things, under the covert of your\npalliations? Was it necessary to go still further, and hold out a bribe\nto them to commit even those crimes which you found it impossible to\nexcuse, by offering them an easy and certain absolution; and for this\npurpose nullifying the power of the priests, and obliging them, more as\nslaves than as judges, to absolve the most inveterate sinners\u2014without\nany amendment of life\u2014without any sign of contrition except promises a\nhundred times broken\u2014without penance \u2018unless they choose to accept of\nit\u2019\u2014and without abandoning the occasions of their vices, \u2018if they should\nthereby be put to any inconvenience?\u2019\n\n\u201cBut your doctors have gone even beyond this; and the license which they\nhave assumed to tamper with the most holy rules of Christian conduct\namount to a total subversion of the law of God. They violate \u2018the great\ncommandment on which hang all the law and the prophets;\u2019 they strike at\nthe very heart of piety; they rob it of the spirit that giveth life;\nthey hold that to love God is not necessary to salvation; and go so far\nas to maintain that \u2018this dispensation from loving God is the privilege\nwhich Jesus Christ has introduced into the world!\u2019 This, sir, is the\nvery climax of impiety. The price of the blood of Jesus Christ paid to\nobtain us a dispensation from loving him! Before the incarnation, it\nseems men were obliged to love God: but since \u2018God has so loved the\nworld as to give his only-begotten Son,\u2019 the world, redeemed by him, is\nreleased from loving him! Strange divinity of our days\u2014to dare to take\noff the \u2018anathema\u2019 which St. Paul denounces on those \u2018that love not the\nLord Jesus!\u2019 To cancel the sentence of St. John: \u2018He that loveth not,\nabideth in death!\u2019 and that of Jesus Christ himself: \u2018He that loveth me\nnot keepeth not my precepts!\u2019 and thus to render those worthy of\nenjoying God through eternity who never loved God all their life![227]\nBehold the Mystery of Iniquity fulfilled! Open your eyes at length, my\ndear father, and if the other aberrations of your casuists have made no\nimpression on you, let these last, by their very extravagance, compel\nyou to abandon them. This is what I desire from the bottom of my heart,\nfor your own sake and for the sake of your doctors; and my prayer to God\nis, that he would vouchsafe to convince them how false the light must be\nthat has guided them to such precipices; and that he would fill their\nhearts with that love of himself from which they have dared to give man\na dispensation!\u201d\n\nAfter some remarks of this nature, I took my leave of the monk, and I\nsee no great likelihood of my repeating my visits to him. This, however,\nneed not occasion you any regret; for, should it be necessary to\ncontinue these communications on their maxims, I have studied their\nbooks sufficiently to tell you as much of their morality, and more,\nperhaps, of their policy, than he could have done himself.\u2014I am, &c.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n See before, p. 116.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n _Imago Primi Seculi_, l. iii., c. 8.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n Esc. tr. 7, a. 4, n. 135; also, Princ., ex. 2, n. 73.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n The practice of auricular confession was about three hundred years old\n before the Reformation, having remained undetermined till the year\n 1150 after Christ. The early fathers were, beyond all question,\n decidedly opposed to it. Chrysostom reasons very differently from the\n text. \u201cBut thou art ashamed to say that thou hast sinned? Confess thy\n faults, then, daily in thy prayer; for do I say, \u2018Confess them to thy\n fellow-servant who may reproach thee therewith?\u2019 No; confess them to\n God who healeth them.\u201d (In Ps. l. hom. 2.) And to whom did Augustine\n make his _Confessions_? Was it not to the same Being to whom David in\n the Psalms and the publican in the Gospel, made theirs? \u201cWhat have I\n to do with men,\u201d says this father, \u201cthat they should hear my\n confessions, as if they were to heal all my diseases!\u201d (Confes., lib.\n x., p. 3.)\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n Princ., ex. 2. n. 39, 41, 61, 62.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n John xx. 23: \u201cReceive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit,\n they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\n retained.\u201d All the ancient fathers, such as Basil, Ambrose, Augustine,\n and Chrysostom, explain this remission of sins as the work of the Holy\n Ghost, and not of the apostles except ministerially, in the use of the\n spiritual keys of doctrine and discipline, of intercessary prayer and\n of the sacraments. (Ussher\u2019s Jesuits\u2019 Challenge, p. 122 &c.) Even the\n schoolmen held that the power of binding and loosing committed to the\n ministers of the Church is not absolute, but must be limited by _clave\n non errante_, or when no error is committed in the use of the keys.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n In 3 part, t. 4, disp. 32, sect. 2, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n Summary of Sins, c. 46, p. 1090, 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n Denis Petau (Dionysius Petavius) a learned Jesuit, was born at Orleans\n in 1593, and died in 1652. The catalogue of his works alone would fill\n a volume. He wrote in elegant Latin, on all subjects, grammar,\n history, chronology, &c., as well as theology. Perrault informs us\n that he had an incredible ardor for the conversion of heretics, and\n had almost succeeded in converting the celebrated Grotius\u2014a very\n unlikely story. (Les Hommes Illustres, p. 19.) His book on Public\n Penance (Paris, 1644) was intended as a refutation of Arnauld\u2019s\n \u201cFrequent Communion;\u201d but is said to have been ill-written and\n unsuccessful. Though he professed the theology of his order, he is\n said to have had a kind of predilection for austere opinions, being\n naturally of a melancholy temper. When invited by the pope to visit\n Rome, he replied, \u201cI am too old to _flit_\u201d\u2014_demenager_. (Dict. Univ.,\n art. _Petau_.)\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n Reply to the Moral Theol., p. 211.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n Esc., Practice of the Society, tr. 7, ex. 4, n. 226.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n P. 1082, 1089\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n Theol. Mor., tr. 4, De P\u0153nit., q. 13 pp. 93, 94.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n The work ascribed to Pintereau was entitled, \u201cLes Impostures et les\n Ignorances du Libelle intitul\u00f3 la Theologie Morale des Jesuites: par\n l\u2019Abb\u00e8 du Boisic.\u201d\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n That is, the sacrament of penance, as it is called. \u201cThat contrition\n is at all times necessarily required for obtaining remission of sins\n and justification, is a matter determined by the fathers of Trent. But\n mark yet the mystery. They equivocate with us in the term\n _contrition_, and make a distinction thereof into perfect and\n imperfect. The former of these is _contrition_ properly; the latter\n they call _attrition_, which howsoever in itself it be no true\n contrition, yet when the priest, with his power of forgiving sins,\n interposes himself in the business, they tell us that attrition, by\n virtue of the keys, is made contrition: that is to say, that a sorrow\n arising from a servile fear of punishment, and such a fruitless\n repentance as the reprobate may carry with them to hell, by virtue of\n the priest\u2019s absolution, is made so fruitful that it shall serve the\n turn for obtaining forgiveness of sins, as if it had been that godly\n sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of. By\n which spiritual cozenage many poor souls are most miserably deluded.\u201d\n (Ussher\u2019s Tracts, p. 153.)\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n These quotations, carefully marked in the original, afford a\n sufficient answer to Father Daniel\u2019s long argument, which consists\n chiefly of citations from Jesuit writers who hold the views above\n given.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n It may be remembered that Diana, though not a Jesuit, was claimed by\n the Society as a favorer of their casuists. This writer was once held\n in such high repute, that he was consulted by people from all parts of\n the world as a perfect oracle in cases of conscience. He is now\n forgotten. His style, like that of most of these scholastics, is\n described as \u201cinsipid, stingy, and crawling.\u201d (Biogr. Univ., Anc. et\n Mod.)\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n Esc. Pratique de notre Soci\u00e9t\u00e9, tr. 7, ex. 4, n. 91.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n Tr. 8, disp. 3, n. 13.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n Of Trent. Nicole attempts to prove that the \u201cimperfect contrition\u201d of\n this Council includes the love of God, and that they condemned as\n heretical the opinion, that \u201cany could prepare himself for grace\n without a movement of the Holy Spirit.\u201d He is more successful in\n showing that the Jesuits were heretical when judged by Augustine and\n the Holy Scriptures. (Note 2, sur la x. Lettre.)\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n The Jesuits are so fond of their \u201cattrition,\u201d or purely natural\n repentance, that one of their own theologians (Cardinal Francis Tolet)\n having condemned it they falsified the passage in a subsequent\n edition, making him speak the opposite sentiment. The forgery was\n exposed; but the worthy fathers, according to custom, allowed it to\n pass without notice, _ad majorem Dei gloriam_. (Nicole, iii. 95.)\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n Tr. 1, ex. 2, n. 21; and tr. 5, ex. 4, n. 8.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n Shocking as these principles are, it might be easy to show that they\n necessarily flow from the Romish doctrine, which substitutes the\n imperfect obedience of the sinner as the meritorious ground of\n justification, in the room of the all-perfect obedience and oblation\n of the Son of God, which renders it necessary to lower the divine\n standard of duty. The attempt of Father Daniel to escape from the\n serious charge in the text under a cloud of metaphysical distinctions\n about _affective_ and _effective_ love, is about as lame as the\n argument he draws from the merciful character of the Gospel, is\n dishonorable to the Saviour, who \u201ccame not to destroy the law and the\n prophets but to fulfil.\u201d But this \u201cconfusion worse confounded\u201d arises\n from putting love to God out of its proper place and representing it\n as the price of our pardon instead of the fruit of faith in pardoning\n mercy. Arnauld was as far wrong on this point as the Jesuits; and it\n is astonishing that he did not discover in their system the radical\n error of his own creed carried out to its proper consequences.\n (Reponse Gen. au Livre de M. Arnauld, par Elie Merlat, p. 30.)\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n \u201cNothing on this point,\u201d says Nicole in a note here, \u201ccan be finer\n than the prosopopeia in which Despr\u00e9aux (Boileau) introduces God as\n judging mankind.\u201d He then quotes a long passage from the Twelfth\n Epistle of that poet, beginning\u2014\n\n \u201cQuand Dieu viendra juger les vivans et les morts,\u201d &c.\n\n Boileau was the personal friend of Arnauld and Pascal, and satirized\n the Jesuits with such pleasant irony that Father la Chaise, the\n confessor of Louis XIV., though himself a Jesuit, is said to have\n taken a pleasure in repeating his verses.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XI.\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.[228]\n\nRIDICULE A FAIR WEAPON WHEN EMPLOYED AGAINST ABSURD OPINIONS\u2014RULES TO BE\n OBSERVED IN THE USE OF THIS WEAPON\u2014THE PROFANE BUFFOONERY OF FATHERS\n LE MOINE AND GARASSE.\n\n\n _August 18, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014I have seen the letters which you are circulating in\nopposition to those which I wrote to one of my friends on your morality;\nand I perceive that one of the principal points of your defence is, that\nI have not spoken of your maxims with sufficient seriousness. This\ncharge you repeat in all your productions, and carry it so far as to\nallege, that I have been \u201cguilty of turning sacred things into\nridicule.\u201d\n\nSuch a charge, fathers, is no less surprising than it is unfounded.\nWhere do you find that I have turned sacred things into ridicule? You\nspecify \u201cthe Mohatra contract, and the story of John d\u2019Alba.\u201d But are\nthese what you call \u201csacred things?\u201d Does it really appear to you that\nthe Mohatra is something so venerable that it would be blasphemy not to\nspeak of it with respect? And the lessons of Father Bauny on larceny,\nwhich led John d\u2019Alba to practise it at your expense, are they so sacred\nas to entitle you to stigmatize all who laugh at them as profane people?\n\nWhat, fathers! must the vagaries of your doctors pass for the verities\nof the Christian faith, and no man be allowed to ridicule Escobar, or\nthe fantastical and unchristian dogmas of your authors, without being\nstigmatized as jesting at religion? Is it possible you can have ventured\nto reiterate so often an idea so utterly unreasonable? Have you no fears\nthat, in blaming me for laughing at your absurdities, you may only\nafford me fresh subject of merriment; that you may make the charge\nrecoil on yourselves, by showing that I have really selected nothing\nfrom your writings as the matter of raillery, but what was truly\nridiculous; and that thus, in making a jest of your morality, I have\nbeen as far from jeering at holy things, as the doctrine of your\ncasuists is far from the holy doctrine of the Gospel?\n\nIndeed, reverend sirs, there is a vast difference between laughing at\nreligion, and laughing at those who profane it by their extravagant\nopinions. It were impiety to be wanting in respect for the verities\nwhich the Spirit of God has revealed; but it were no less impiety of\nanother sort, to be wanting in contempt for the falsities which the\nspirit of man opposes to them.[229]\n\nFor, fathers (since you will force me into this argument), I beseech you\nto consider that, just in proportion as Christian truths are worthy of\nlove and respect, the contrary errors must deserve hatred and contempt;\nthere being two things in the truths of our religion\u2014a divine beauty\nthat renders them lovely, and a sacred majesty that renders them\nvenerable; and two things also about errors\u2014an impiety, that makes them\nhorrible, and an impertinence that renders them ridiculous. For these\nreasons, while the saints have ever cherished towards the truth the\ntwo-fold sentiment of love and fear\u2014the whole of their wisdom being\ncomprised between fear, which is its beginning, and love, which is its\nend\u2014they have, at the same time, entertained towards error the two-fold\nfeeling of hatred and contempt, and their zeal has been at once employed\nto repel, by force of reasoning, the malice of the wicked, and to\nchastise, by the aid of ridicule, their extravagance and folly.\n\nDo not then expect, fathers, to make people believe that it is unworthy\nof a Christian to treat error with derision. Nothing is easier than to\nconvince all who were not aware of it before, that this practice is\nperfectly just\u2014that it is common with the fathers of the Church, and\nthat it is sanctioned by Scripture, by the example of the best of\nsaints, and even by that of God himself.\n\nDo we not find that God at once hates and despises sinners; so that even\nat the hour of death, when their condition is most sad and deplorable,\nDivine Wisdom adds mockery to the vengeance which consigns them to\neternal punishment? \u201c_In interitu vestro ridebo et subsannabo_\u2014I will\nlaugh at your calamity.\u201d The saints, too, influenced by the same\nfeeling, will join in the derision; for, according to David, when they\nwitness the punishment of the wicked, \u201cthey shall fear, and yet laugh at\nit\u2014_videbunt justi et timebunt, et super eum ridebunt_.\u201d And Job says:\n\u201c_Innocens subsannabit eos_\u2014The innocent shall laugh at them.\u201d[230]\n\nIt is worthy of remark here, that the very first words which God\naddressed to man after his fall, contain, in the opinion of the fathers,\n\u201cbitter irony\u201d and mockery. After Adam had disobeyed his Maker, in the\nhope, suggested by the devil, of being like God, it appears from\nScripture that God, as a punishment, subjected him to death; and after\nhaving reduced him to this miserable condition, which was due to his\nsin, he taunted him in that state with the following terms of derision:\n\u201cBehold, the man has become as one of us!\u2014_Ecce, Adam quasi unus ex\nnobis!_\u201d\u2014which, according to St. Jerome[231] and the interpreters, is \u201ca\ngrievous and cutting piece of irony,\u201d with which God \u201cstung him to the\nquick.\u201d \u201cAdam,\u201d says Rupert, \u201cdeserved to be taunted in this manner, and\nhe would be naturally made to feel his folly more acutely by this\nironical expression than by a more serious one.\u201d St. Victor, after\nmaking the same remark, adds, \u201cthat this irony was due to his sottish\ncredulity, and that this species of raillery is an act of justice,\nmerited by him against whom it was directed.\u201d[232]\n\nThus you see, fathers, that ridicule is, in some cases, a very\nappropriate means of reclaiming men from their errors, and that it is\naccordingly an act of justice, because, as Jeremiah says, \u201cthe actions\nof those that err are worthy of derision, because of their vanity\u2014_vana\nsunt et risu digna_.\u201d And so far from its being impious to laugh at\nthem, St. Augustine holds it to be the effect of divine wisdom: \u201cThe\nwise laugh at the foolish, because they are wise, not after their own\nwisdom, but after that divine wisdom which shall laugh at the death of\nthe wicked.\u201d\n\nThe prophets, accordingly, filled with the Spirit of God, have availed\nthemselves of ridicule, as we find from the examples of Daniel and\nElias. In short, examples of it are not wanting in the discourses of\nJesus Christ himself. St. Augustine remarks that, when he would humble\nNicodemus, who deemed himself so expert in his knowledge of the law,\n\u201cperceiving him to be puffed up with pride, from his rank as doctor of\nthe Jews, he first beats down his presumption by the magnitude of his\ndemands, and having reduced him so low that he was unable to answer,\nWhat! says he, you a master in Israel, and not know these things!\u2014as if\nhe had said, Proud ruler, confess that thou knowest nothing.\u201d St.\nChrysostom and St. Cyril likewise observe upon this, that \u201che deserved\nto be ridiculed in this manner.\u201d\n\nYou may learn from this, fathers, that should it so happen, in our day,\nthat persons who enact the part of \u201cmasters\u201d among Christians, as\nNicodemus and the Pharisees did among the Jews, show themselves so\nignorant of the first principles of religion as to maintain, for\nexample, that \u201ca man may be saved who never loved God all his life,\u201d we\nonly follow the example of Jesus Christ, when we laugh at such a\ncombination of ignorance and conceit.\n\nI am sure, fathers, these sacred examples are sufficient to convince\nyou, that to deride the errors and extravagances of man is not\ninconsistent with the practice of the saints; otherwise we must blame\nthat of the greatest doctors of the Church, who have been guilty of\nit\u2014such as St. Jerome, in his letters and writings against Jovinian,\nVigilantius, and the Pelagians; Tertullian, in his Apology against the\nfollies of idolaters; St. Augustine against the monks of Africa, whom he\nstyles \u201cthe hairy men;\u201d St. Iren\u00e6us the Gnostics; St. Bernard and the\nother fathers of the Church, who, having been the imitators of the\napostles, ought to be imitated by the faithful in all time coming; for,\nsay what we will, they are the true models for Christians, even of the\npresent day.\n\nIn following such examples, I conceived that I could not go far wrong;\nand, as I think I have sufficiently established this position, I shall\nonly add, in the admirable words of Tertullian, which give the true\nexplanation of the whole of my proceeding in this matter: \u201cWhat I have\nnow done is only a little sport before the real combat. I have rather\nindicated the wounds that might be given you, than inflicted any. If the\nreader has met with passages which have excited his risibility, he must\nascribe this to the subjects themselves. There are many things which\ndeserve to be held up in this way to ridicule and mockery, lest, by a\nserious refutation, we should attach a weight to them which they do not\ndeserve. Nothing is more due to vanity than laughter; and it is the\nTruth properly that has a right to laugh, because she is cheerful, and\nto make sport of her enemies, because she is sure of the victory. Care\nmust be taken, indeed, that the raillery is not too low, and unworthy of\nthe truth; but, keeping this in view, when ridicule may be employed with\neffect, it is a duty to avail ourselves of it.\u201d Do you not think,\nfathers, that this passage is singularly applicable to our subject? The\nletters which I have hitherto written are \u201cmerely a little sport before\na real combat.\u201d As yet I have been only playing with the foils, and\n\u201crather indicating the wounds that might be given you than inflicting\nany.\u201d I have merely exposed your passages to the light, without making\nalmost a reflection on them. \u201cIf the reader has met with any that have\nexcited his risibility, he must ascribe this to the subjects\nthemselves.\u201d And, indeed, what is more fitted to raise a laugh, than to\nsee a matter so grave as that of Christian morality decked out with\nfancies so grotesque as those in which you have exhibited it? One is apt\nto form such high anticipations of these maxims, from being told that\n\u201cJesus Christ himself has revealed them to the fathers of the Society,\u201d\nthat when one discovers among them such absurdities as \u201cthat a priest\nreceiving money to say mass, may take additional sums from other persons\nby giving up to them his own share in the sacrifice;\u201d \u201cthat a monk is\nnot to be excommunicated for putting off his habit, provided it is to\ndance, swindle, or go incognito into infamous houses;\u201d and \u201cthat the\nduty of hearing mass may be fulfilled by listening to four quarters of a\nmass at once from different priests\u201d\u2014when, I say, one listens to such\ndecisions as these, the surprise is such that it is impossible to\nrefrain from laughing; for nothing is more calculated to produce that\nemotion than a startling contrast between the thing looked for and the\nthing looked at. And why should the greater part of these maxims be\ntreated in any other way? As Tertullian says, \u201cTo treat them seriously\nwould be to sanction them.\u201d\n\nWhat! is it necessary to bring up all the forces of Scripture and\ntradition, in order to prove that running a sword through a man\u2019s body,\ncovertly and behind his back, is to murder him in treachery? or, that to\ngive one money as a motive to resign a benefice, is to purchase the\nbenefice? Yes, there are things which it is duty to despise, and which\n\u201cdeserve only to be laughed at.\u201d In short, the remark of that ancient\nauthor, \u201cthat nothing is more due to vanity than derision,\u201d with what\nfollows, applies to the case before us so justly and so convincingly, as\nto put it beyond all question that we may laugh at errors without\nviolating propriety.\n\nAnd let me add, fathers, that this may be done without any breach of\ncharity either, though this is another of the charges you bring against\nme in your publications. For, according to St. Augustine, \u201ccharity may\nsometimes oblige us to ridicule the errors of men, that they may be\ninduced to laugh at them in their turn, and renounce them\u2014_H\u00e6c tu\nmisericorditer irride, ut eis ridenda ac fugienda commendes_.\u201d And the\nsame charity may also, at other times, bind us to repel them with\nindignation, according to that other saying of St. Gregory of Nazianzen:\n\u201cThe spirit of meekness and charity hath its emotions and its heats.\u201d\nIndeed, as St. Augustine observes, \u201cwho would venture to say that truth\nought to stand disarmed against falsehood, or that the enemies of the\nfaith shall be at liberty to frighten the faithful with hard words, and\njeer at them with lively sallies of wit; while the Catholics ought never\nto write except with a coldness of style enough to set the reader\nasleep?\u201d\n\nIs it not obvious that, by following such a course, a wide door would be\nopened for the introduction of the most extravagant and pernicious\ndogmas into the Church; while none would be allowed to treat them with\ncontempt, through fear of being charged with violating propriety, or to\nconfute them with indignation, from the dread of being taxed with want\nof charity?\n\nIndeed, fathers! shall you be allowed to maintain, \u201cthat it is lawful to\nkill a man to avoid a box on the ear or an affront,\u201d and must nobody be\npermitted publicly to expose a public error of such consequence? Shall\nyou be at liberty to say, \u201cthat a judge may in conscience retain a fee\nreceived for an act of injustice,\u201d and shall no one be at liberty to\ncontradict you? Shall you print, with the privilege and approbation of\nyour doctors, \u201cthat a man may be saved without ever having loved God;\u201d\nand will you shut the mouth of those who defend the true faith, by\ntelling them that they would violate brotherly love by attacking you,\nand Christian modesty by laughing at your maxims? I doubt, fathers, if\nthere be any persons whom you could make believe this; if, however,\nthere be any such, who are really persuaded that, by denouncing your\nmorality, I have been deficient in the charity which I owe to you, I\nwould have them examine, with great jealousy, whence this feeling takes\nits rise within them. They may imagine that it proceeds from a holy\nzeal, which will not allow them to see their neighbor impeached without\nbeing scandalized at it; but I would entreat them to consider, that it\nis not impossible that it may flow from another source, and that it is\neven extremely likely that it may spring from that secret, and often\nself-concealed dissatisfaction, which the unhappy corruption within us\nseldom fails to stir up against those who oppose the relaxation of\nmorals. And to furnish them with a rule which may enable them to\nascertain the real principle from which it proceeds, I will ask them,\nif, while they lament the way in which the religious[233] have been\ntreated, they lament still more the manner in which these religious have\ntreated the truth. If they are incensed, not only against the letters,\nbut still more against the maxims quoted in them, I shall grant it to be\nbarely possible that their resentment proceeds from some zeal, though\nnot of the most enlightened kind; and, in this case, the passages I have\njust cited from the fathers will serve to enlighten them. But if they\nare merely angry at the reprehension, and not at the things reprehended,\ntruly, fathers, I shall never scruple to tell them that they are grossly\nmistaken, and that their zeal is miserably blind.\n\nStrange zeal, indeed! which gets angry at those that censure public\nfaults, and not at those that commit them! Novel charity this, which\ngroans at seeing error confuted, but feels no grief at seeing morality\nsubverted by that error! If these persons were in danger of being\nassassinated, pray, would they be offended at one advertising them of\nthe stratagem that had been laid for them; and instead of turning out of\ntheir way to avoid it, would they trifle away their time in whining\nabout the little charity manifested in discovering to them the criminal\ndesign of the assassins? Do they get waspish when one tells them not to\neat such an article of food, because it is poisoned? or not to enter\nsuch a city, because it has the plague?\n\nWhence comes it, then, that the same persons who set down a man as\nwanting in charity, for exposing maxims hurtful to religion, would, on\nthe contrary, think him equally deficient in that grace were he not to\ndisclose matters hurtful to health and life, unless it be from this,\nthat their fondness for life induces them to take in good part every\nhint that contributes to its preservation, while their indifference to\ntruth leads them, not only to take no share in its defence, but even to\nview with pain the efforts made for the extirpation of falsehood?\n\nLet them seriously ponder, as in the sight of God, how shameful, and how\nprejudicial to the Church, is the morality which your casuists are in\nthe habit of propagating; the scandalous and unmeasured license which\nthey are introducing into public manners; the obstinate and violent\nhardihood with which you support them. And if they do not think it full\ntime to rise against such disorders, their blindness is as much to be\npitied as yours, fathers; and you and they have equal reason to dread\nthat saying of St. Augustine, founded on the words of Jesus Christ, in\nthe Gospel: \u201cWoe to the blind leaders! woe to the blind followers!\u2014_V\u00e6\nc\u00e6cis ducentibus! v\u00e6 c\u00e6cis sequentibus!_\u201d\n\nBut to leave you no room in future, either to create such impressions on\nthe minds of others, or to harbor them in your own, I shall tell you,\nfathers (and I am ashamed I should have to teach you what I should have\nrather learnt from you), the marks which the fathers of the Church have\ngiven for judging when our animadversions flow from a principle of piety\nand charity, and when from a spirit of malice and impiety.\n\nThe first of these rules is, that the spirit of piety always prompts us\nto speak with sincerity and truthfulness; whereas malice and envy make\nuse of falsehood and calumny. \u201c_Splendentia et vehementia, sed rebus\nveris_\u2014Splendid and vehement in words, but true in things,\u201d as St.\nAugustine says. The dealer in falsehood is an agent of the devil. No\ndirection of the intention can sanctify slander; and though the\nconversion of the whole earth should depend on it, no man may\nwarrantably calumniate the innocent: because none may do the least evil,\nin order to accomplish the greatest good; and, as the Scripture says,\n\u201cthe truth of God stands in no need of our lie.\u201d St. Hilary observes,\nthat \u201cit is the bounden duty of the advocates of truth, to advance\nnothing in its support but true things.\u201d Now, fathers, I can declare\nbefore God, that there is nothing that I detest more than the slightest\npossible deviation from the truth, and that I have ever taken the\ngreatest care, not only not to falsify (which would be horrible), but\nnot to alter or wrest, in the slightest possible degree, the sense of a\nsingle passage. So closely have I adhered to this rule, that if I may\npresume to apply them to the present case, I may safely say, in the\nwords of the same St. Hilary: \u201cIf we advance things that are false, let\nour statements be branded with infamy; but if we can show that they are\npublic and notorious, it is no breach of apostolic modesty or liberty to\nexpose them.\u201d\n\nIt is not enough, however, to tell nothing but the truth; we must not\nalways tell everything that is true; we should publish only those things\nwhich it is useful to disclose, and not those which can only hurt,\nwithout doing any good. And, therefore, as the first rule is to speak\nwith truth, the second is to speak with discretion. \u201cThe wicked,\u201d says\nSt. Augustine, \u201cin persecuting the good, blindly follow the dictates of\ntheir passion; but the good, in their prosecution of the wicked, are\nguided by a wise discretion, even as the surgeon warily considers where\nhe is cutting, while the murderer cares not where he strikes.\u201d You must\nbe sensible, fathers, that in selecting from the maxims of your authors,\nI have refrained from quoting those which would have galled you most,\nthough I might have done it, and that without sinning against\ndiscretion, as others who were both learned and catholic writers, have\ndone before me. All who have read your authors know how far I have\nspared you in this respect.[234] Besides, I have taken no notice\nwhatever of what might be brought against individual characters among\nyou; and I would have been extremely sorry to have said a word about\nsecret and personal failings, whatever evidence I might have of them,\nbeing persuaded that this is the distinguishing property of malice, and\na practice which ought never to be resorted to, unless where it is\nurgently demanded for the good of the Church. It is obvious, therefore,\nthat in what I have been compelled to advance against your moral maxims,\nI have been by no means wanting in due consideration: and that you have\nmore reason to congratulate yourself on my moderation than to complain\nof my indiscretion.\n\nThe third rule, fathers, is: That when there is need to employ a little\nraillery, the spirit of piety will take care to employ it against error\nonly, and not against things holy; whereas the spirit of buffoonery,\nimpiety, and heresy, mocks at all that is most sacred. I have already\nvindicated myself on that score; and indeed there is no great danger of\nfalling into that vice so long as I confine my remarks to the opinions\nwhich I have quoted from your authors.\n\nIn short, fathers, to abridge these rules, I shall only mention another,\nwhich is the essence and the end of all the rest: That the spirit of\ncharity prompts us to cherish in the heart a desire for the salvation of\nthose against whom we dispute, and to address our prayers to God while\nwe direct our accusations to men. \u201cWe ought ever,\u201d says St. Augustine,\n\u201cto preserve charity in the heart, even while we are obliged to pursue a\nline of external conduct which to man has the appearance of harshness;\nwe ought to smite them with a sharpness, severe but kindly, remembering\nthat their advantage is more to be studied than their gratification.\u201d I\nam sure, fathers, that there is nothing in my letters, from which it can\nbe inferred that I have not cherished such a desire towards you; and as\nyou can find nothing to the contrary in them, charity obliges you to\nbelieve that I have been really actuated by it. It appears, then, that\nyou cannot prove that I have offended against this rule, or against any\nof the other rules which charity inculcates; and you have no right to\nsay, therefore, that I have violated it.\n\nBut, fathers, if you should now like to have the pleasure of seeing,\nwithin a short compass, a course of conduct directly at variance with\neach of these rules, and bearing the genuine stamp of the spirit of\nbuffoonery, envy, and hatred, I shall give you a few examples of it; and\nthat they may be of the sort best known and most familiar to you, I\nshall extract them from your own writings.\n\nTo begin, then, with the unworthy manner in which your authors speak of\nholy things, whether in their sportive and gallant effusions, or in\ntheir more serious pieces, do you think that the parcel of ridiculous\nstories, which your father Binet has introduced into his \u201cConsolation to\nthe Sick,\u201d are exactly suitable to his professed object, which is that\nof imparting Christian consolation to those whom God has chastened with\naffliction? Will you pretend to say, that the profane, foppish style in\nwhich your Father Le Moine has talked of piety in his \u201cDevotion made\nEasy,\u201d is more fitted to inspire respect than contempt for the picture\nthat he draws of Christian virtue? What else does his whole book of\n\u201cMoral Pictures\u201d breathe, both in its prose and poetry, but a spirit\nfull of vanity, and the follies of this world? Take, for example, that\node in his seventh book, entitled, \u201cEulogy on Bashfulness, showing that\nall beautiful things are red, or inclined to redden.\u201d Call you that a\nproduction worthy of a priest? The ode is intended to comfort a lady,\ncalled Delphina, who was sadly addicted to blushing. Each stanza is\ndevoted to show that certain red things are the best of things, such as\nroses, pomegranates, the mouth, the tongue; and it is in the midst of\nthis badinage, so disgraceful in a clergyman, that he has the effrontery\nto introduce those blessed spirits that minister before God, and of whom\nno Christian should speak without reverence:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe cherubim\u2014those glorious choirs\u2014\n Composed of head and plumes,\n Whom God with his own Spirit inspires,\n And with his eyes illumes.\n These splendid faces, as they fly,\n Are ever red and burning high,\n With fire angelic or divine;\n And while their mutual flames combine,\n The waving of their wings supplies\n A fan to cool their extacies!\n But redness shines with better grace,\n Delphina, on thy beauteous face,\n Where modesty sits revelling\u2014\n Arrayed in purple, like a king,\u201d &c.\n\nWhat think you of this, fathers? Does this preference of the blushes of\nDelphina to the ardor of those spirits, which is neither more nor less\nthan the ardor of divine love, and this simile of the fan applied to\ntheir mysterious wings, strike you as being very Christian-like in the\nlips which consecrate the adorable body of Jesus Christ? I am quite\naware that he speaks only in the character of a gallant, and to raise a\nsmile; but this is precisely what is called laughing at things holy. And\nis it not certain, that, were he to get full justice, he could not save\nhimself from incurring a censure? although, to shield himself from this,\nhe pleads an excuse which is hardly less censurable than the offence,\n\u201cthat the Sorbonne has no jurisdiction over Parnassus, and that the\nerrors of that land are subject neither to censure nor the\nInquisition;\u201d\u2014as if one could act the blasphemer and profane fellow only\nin prose! There is another passage, however, in the preface, where even\nthis excuse fails him, when he says, \u201cthat the water of the river, on\nwhose banks he composes his verses, is so apt to make poets, that,\nthough it were converted into _holy water_, it would not chase away the\ndemon of poesy.\u201d To match this, I may add the following flight of your\nFather Garasse, in his \u201cSummary of the Capital Truths in Religion,\u201d\nwhere, speaking of the sacred mystery of the incarnation, he mixes up\nblasphemy and heresy in this fashion: \u201cThe human personality was\ngrafted, as it were, or _set on horseback_, upon the personality of the\nWord!\u201d[235] And omitting many others, I might mention another passage\nfrom the same author, who, speaking on the subject of the name of Jesus,\nordinarily written thus,\n\n \u271d\n I. H. S.\n\nobserves that \u201csome have taken away the cross from the top of it,\nleaving the characters barely thus, I. H. S.\u2014which,\u201d says he, \u201cis a\nstripped Jesus!\u201d\n\nSuch is the indecency with which you treat the truths of religion, in\nthe face of the inviolable law which binds us always to speak of them\nwith reverence. But you have sinned no less flagrantly against the rule\nwhich obliges us to speak of them with truth and discretion. What is\nmore common in your writings than calumny? Can those of Father\nBrisacier[236] be called sincere? Does he speak with truth when he says,\nthat \u201cthe nuns of Port-Royal do not pray to the saints, and have no\nimages in their church?\u201d Are not these most outrageous falsehoods, when\nthe contrary appears before the eyes of all Paris? And can he be said to\nspeak with discretion, when he stabs the fair reputation of these\nvirgins, who lead a life so pure and austere, representing them as\n\u201cimpenitent, unsacramentalists, uncommunicants, foolish virgins,\nvisionaries, Calagans, desperate creatures, and anything you please,\u201d\nloading them with many other slanders, which have justly incurred the\ncensure of the late Archbishop of Paris? or when he calumniates priests\nof the most irreproachable morals,[237] by asserting \u201cthat they practise\nnovelties in confession, to entrap handsome innocent females, and that\nhe would be horrified to tell the abominable crimes which they commit.\u201d\nIs it not a piece of intolerable assurance, to advance slanders so black\nand base, not merely without proof, but without the slightest shadow, or\nthe most distant semblance of truth? I shall not enlarge on this topic,\nbut defer it to a future occasion, for I have something more to say to\nyou about it; but what I have now produced is enough to show that you\nhave sinned at once against truth and discretion.\n\nBut it may be said, perhaps, that you have not offended against the last\nrule at least, which binds you to desire the salvation of those whom you\ndenounce, and that none can charge you with this, except by unlocking\nthe secrets of your breasts, which are only known to God. It is strange,\nfathers, but true, nevertheless, that we can convict you even of this\noffence; that while your hatred to your opponents has carried you so far\nas to wish their eternal perdition, your infatuation has driven you to\ndiscover the abominable wish; that so far from cherishing in secret\ndesires for their salvation, you have offered up prayers in public for\ntheir damnation; and that, after having given utterance to that hideous\nvow in the city of Caen, to the scandal of the whole Church, you have\nsince then ventured, in Paris, to vindicate, in your printed books, the\ndiabolical transaction. After such gross offences against piety, first\nridiculing and speaking lightly of things the most sacred; next falsely\nand scandalously calumniating priests and virgins; and lastly, forming\ndesires and prayers for their damnation, it would be difficult to add\nanything worse. I cannot conceive, fathers, how you can fail to be\nashamed of yourselves, or how you could have thought for an instant of\ncharging me with a want of charity, who have acted all along with so\nmuch truth and moderation, without reflecting on your own horrid\nviolations of charity, manifested in those deplorable exhibitions, which\nmake the charge recoil against yourselves.\n\nIn fine, fathers, to conclude with another charge which you bring\nagainst me, I see you complain that among the vast number of your maxims\nwhich I quote, there are some which have been objected to already, and\nthat I \u201csay over again, what others have said before me.\u201d To this I\nreply, that it is just because you have not profited by what has been\nsaid before, that I say it over again. Tell me now what fruit has\nappeared from all the castigations you have received in all the books\nwritten by learned doctors, and even the whole university? What more\nhave your fathers Annat, Caussin, Pintereau, and Le Moine done, in the\nreplies they have put forth, except loading with reproaches those who\nhad given them salutary admonitions? Have you suppressed the books in\nwhich these nefarious maxims are taught?[238] Have you restrained the\nauthors of these maxims? Have you become more circumspect in regard to\nthem? On the contrary, is it not the fact, that since that time Escobar\nhas been repeatedly reprinted in France and in the Low Countries, and\nthat your fathers Cellot, Bagot, Bauny, Lamy, Le Moine, and others,\npersist in publishing daily the same maxims over again, or new ones as\nlicentious as ever? Let us hear no more complaints, then, fathers,\neither because I have charged you with maxims which you have not\ndisavowed, or because I have objected to some new ones against you, or\nbecause I have laughed equally at them all. You have only to sit down\nand look at them, to see at once your own confusion and my defence. Who\ncan look without laughing at the decision of Bauny, respecting the\nperson who employs another to set fire to his neighbor\u2019s barn; that of\nCellot on restitution; the rule of Sanchez in favor of sorcerers; the\nplan of Hurtado for avoiding the sin of duelling by taking a walk\nthrough a field, and waiting for a man; the compliments of Bauny for\nescaping usury; the way of avoiding simony by a detour of the intention,\nand keeping clear of falsehood by speaking high and low; and such other\nopinions of your most grave and reverend doctors? Is there anything more\nnecessary, fathers, for my vindication? and as Tertullian says, \u201ccan\nanything be more justly due to the vanity and weakness of these opinions\nthan laughter?\u201d But, fathers, the corruption of manners to which your\nmaxims lead deserves another sort of consideration; and it becomes us to\nask, with the same ancient writer, \u201cWhether ought we to laugh at their\nfolly, or deplore their blindness?\u2014_Rideam vanitatem, an exprobrem\nc\u00e6citatem_?\u201d My humble opinion is, that one may either laugh at them or\nweep over them, as one is in the humor. _H\u00e6c tolerabilius vel ridentur,\nvel flentur_, as St. Augustine says. The Scripture tells us that \u201cthere\nis a time to laugh, and a time to weep;\u201d and my hope is, fathers, that I\nmay not find verified, in your case, these words in the Proverbs: \u201cIf a\nwise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there\nis no rest.\u201d[239]\n\n * * * * *\n\n_P. S._\u2014On finishing this letter, there was put in my hands one of your\npublications, in which you accuse me of falsification, in the case of\nsix of your maxims quoted by me, and also with being in correspondence\nwith heretics. You will shortly receive, I trust, a suitable reply;\nafter which, fathers, I rather think you will not feel very anxious to\ncontinue this species of warfare.[240]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n In this and the following letters, Pascal changes his style, from that\n of dialogue to that of direct address, and from that of the liveliest\n irony to that of serious invective and poignant satire.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n \u201cReligion, they tell us, ought not to be ridiculed; and they tell us\n truth: yet surely the corruptions in it may; for we are taught by the\n tritest maxim in the world, that religion being the best of things,\n its corruptions are likely to be the worst.\u201d (Swift\u2019s Apology for a\n Tale of a Tub.)\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Prov. i. 26; Ps. lii. 6; Job xxii. 19. In the first passage, the\n figure is evidently what theologians call _anthropopathic_, or\n speaking of God after the manner of men, and denotes his total\n disregard of the wicked in the day of their calamity.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n In most of the editions, it is \u201cSt. Chrysostom,\u201d but I have followed\n that of Nicole.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n We may be permitted to question the correctness of this\n interpretation, and the propriety of introducing it in the present\n connection. For the former, the fathers, not Pascal, are responsible;\n as to the latter, it was certainly superfluous, and not very happy, to\n have recourse to such an example, to justify the use of ridicule as a\n weapon against religious follies. Among other writers, the Abb\u00e9\n D\u2019Artigny is very severe against our author on this score, and quotes\n with approbation the following censure on him: \u201cIs it possible that a\n man of such genius and erudition could justify the most criminal\n excesses by such respectable examples? Not content with making witty\n old fellows of the prophets and the holy fathers, nothing will serve\n him but to make us believe that the Almighty himself has furnished us\n with precedents for the most bitter slanders and pleasantries\u2014an\n evident proof that there is nothing that an author will not seek to\n justify when he follows his own passion.\u201d (Nouveaux M\u00e9moires\n D\u2019Artigny, ii. 185.) How solemnly and eloquently will a man write down\n all such satires, when the jest is pointed against himself and his\n party! D\u2019Artigny quotes, within a few pages, with evident relish, a\n bitter satire against a Protestant minister.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n \u201cReligious,\u201d is a general term, applied in the Romish Church to all\n who are in holy orders.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n \u201cSo far,\u201d says Nicole, \u201cfrom his having told all that he might against\n the Jesuits, he has spared them on points so essential and important,\n that all who have a complete knowledge of their maxims have admired\n his moderation.\u201d \u201cWhat would have been the case,\u201d asks another writer,\n \u201chad Pascal exposed the late infamous things put out by their\n miserable casuists, and unfolded the chain and succession of their\n regicide authors?\u201d (Dissertation sur la foi due au Pascal, &c., p.\n 14.)\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n The apologists of the Jesuits attempted to justify this extraordinary\n illustration, by referring to the use which Augustine and other\n fathers make of the parable of the good Samaritan who \u201cset on his own\n beast\u201d the wounded traveller. But Nicole has shown that fanciful as\n these ancient interpreters often were, it is doing them injustice to\n _father_ on them the absurdity of Father Garasse. (Nicole\u2019s Notes,\n iii. 340.)\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n Brisacier, who became rector of the College of Rouen, was a bitter\n enemy of the Port-Royalists. His defamatory libel against the nuns of\n Port-Royal, entitled \u201cLe Jansenisme Confondu,\u201d published in 1651, was\n censured by the Archbishop of Paris, and vigorously assailed by M.\n Arnauld.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n The priests of Port-Royal.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n This is the real question, which brings the matter to a point, and\n serves to answer all the evasions of the Jesuits. They boast of their\n unity as a society and their blind obedience to their head. Have they,\n then, ever, _as a society_, disclaimed these maxims?\u2014have they even,\n _as such_, condemned the sentiments their fathers Becan, Mariana, and\n others, on the duty of dethroning and assassinating heretical kings?\n They have not; and till this is done, they must be held, _as Jesuits_,\n responsible for the sentiments which they refuse to disavow.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n Prov. xxix. 9.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n This postscript, which appeared in the earlier editions, is dropt in\n that of Nicole and others.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XII.\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.\n\n REFUTATION OF THEIR CHICANERIES REGARDING ALMS-GIVING AND SIMONY.\n\n\n _September 9, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014I was prepared to write you on the subject of the\nabuse with which you have for some time past been assailing me in your\npublications, in which you salute me with such epithets as \u201creprobate,\u201d\n\u201cbuffoon,\u201d \u201cblockhead,\u201d \u201cmerry-Andrew,\u201d \u201cimpostor,\u201d \u201cslanderer,\u201d\n\u201ccheat,\u201d \u201cheretic,\u201d \u201cCalvinist in disguise,\u201d \u201cdisciple of Du\nMoulin,\u201d[241] \u201cpossessed with a legion of devils,\u201d and everything else\nyou can think of. As I should be sorry to have all this believed of me,\nI was anxious to show the public why you treated me in this manner; and\nI had resolved to complain of your calumnies and falsifications, when I\nmet with your Answers, in which you bring these same charges against\nmyself. This will compel me to alter my plan; though it will not prevent\nme from prosecuting it in some sort, for I hope, while defending myself,\nto convict you of impostures more genuine than the imaginary ones which\nyou have ascribed to me. Indeed, fathers, the suspicion of foul play is\nmuch more sure to rest on you than on me. It is not very likely,\nstanding as I do, alone, without power or any human defence, against\nsuch a large body, and having no support but truth and integrity, that I\nwould expose myself to lose everything, by laying myself open to be\nconvicted of imposture. It is too easy to discover falsifications in\nmatters of fact such as the present. In such a case there would have\nbeen no want of persons to accuse me, nor would justice have been denied\nthem. With you, fathers, the case is very different; you may say as much\nas you please against me, while I may look in vain for any to complain\nto. With such a wide difference between our positions, though there had\nbeen no other consideration to restrain me, it became me to study no\nlittle caution. By treating me, however, as a common slanderer, you\ncompel me to assume the defensive, and you must be aware that this\ncannot be done without entering into a fresh exposition, and even into a\nfuller disclosure of the points of your morality. In provoking this\ndiscussion, I fear you are not acting as good politicians. The war must\nbe waged within your own camp, and at your own expense; and although you\nimagine that, by embroiling the questions with scholastic terms, the\nanswers will be so tedious, thorny, and obscure, that people will lose\nall relish for the controversy, this may not, perhaps, turn out to be\nexactly the case; I shall use my best endeavors to tax your patience as\nlittle as possible with that sort of writing. Your maxims have something\ndiverting about them, which keeps up the good humor of people to the\nlast. At all events, remember that it is you that oblige me to enter\nupon this eclaircissement, and let us see which of us comes off best in\ndefending themselves.\n\nThe first of your Impostures, as you call them, is on the opinion of\nVasquez upon alms-giving. To avoid all ambiguity, then, allow me to give\na simple explanation of the matter in dispute. It is well known,\nfathers, that according to the mind of the Church, there are two\nprecepts touching alms\u2014_1st_, \u201cTo give out of our superfluity in the\ncase of the ordinary necessities of the poor;\u201d and _2dly_, \u201cTo give even\nout of our necessaries, according to our circumstances, in cases of\nextreme necessity.\u201d Thus says Cajetan, after St. Thomas; so that, to get\nat the mind of Vasquez on this subject, we must consider the rules he\nlays down, both in regard to necessaries and superfluities.\n\nWith regard to superfluity, which is the most common source of relief to\nthe poor, it is entirely set aside by that single maxim which I have\nquoted in my Letters: \u201cThat what the men of the world keep with the view\nof improving their own condition and that of their relatives, is not\nproperly superfluity; so that, such a thing as superfluity is rarely to\nbe met with among men of the world, not even excepting kings.\u201d It is\nvery easy to see, fathers, that according to this definition, none can\nhave superfluity, provided they have ambition; and thus, so far as the\ngreater part of the world is concerned, alms-giving is annihilated. But\neven though a man should happen to have superfluity, he would be under\nno obligation, according to Vasquez, to give it away in the case of\nordinary necessity; for he protests against those who would thus bind\nthe rich. Here are his own words: \u201cCorduba,\u201d says he, \u201cteaches, that\nwhen we have a superfluity we are bound to give out of it in cases of\nordinary necessity; but _this does not please me_\u2014_sed hoc non\nplacet_\u2014for we have demonstrated the contrary against Cajetan and\nNavarre.\u201d So, fathers, the obligation to this kind of alms is wholly set\naside, according to the good pleasure of Vasquez.\n\nWith regard to necessaries, out of which we are bound to give in cases\nof extreme and urgent necessity, it must be obvious, from the conditions\nby which he has limited the obligation, that the richest man in all\nParis may not come within its reach once in a lifetime. I shall only\nrefer to two of these. The first is, That \u201c_we must know_ that the poor\nman cannot be relieved from any other quarter\u2014_h\u00e6c intelligo et c\u00e6tera\nomnia, quando SCIO nullum alium opem laturum_.\u201d What say you to this,\nfathers? Is it likely to happen frequently in Paris, where there are so\nmany charitable people, that I _must know_ that there is not another\nsoul but myself to relieve the poor wretch who begs an alms from me? And\nyet, according to Vasquez, if I have not ascertained that fact, I may\nsend him away with nothing. The second condition is, That the poor man\nbe reduced to such straits \u201cthat he is menaced with some fatal accident,\nor the ruin of his character\u201d\u2014none of them very common occurrences. But\nwhat marks still more the rarity of the cases in which one is bound to\ngive charity, is his remark, in another passage, that the poor man must\nbe so ill off, \u201cthat he may conscientiously rob the rich man!\u201d This must\nsurely be a very extraordinary case, unless he will insist that a man\nmay be ordinarily allowed to commit robbery. And so, after having\ncancelled the obligation to give alms out of our superfluities, he\nobliges the rich to relieve the poor only in those cases when he would\nallow the poor to rifle the rich! Such is the doctrine of Vasquez, to\nwhom you refer your readers for their edification!\n\nI now come to your pretended Impostures. You begin by enlarging on the\nobligation to alms-giving which Vasquez imposes on ecclesiastics. But on\nthis point I have said nothing; and I am prepared to take it up whenever\nyou choose. This, then, has nothing to do with the present question. As\nfor laymen, who are the only persons with whom we have now to do, you\nare apparently anxious to have it understood that, in the passage which\nI quoted, Vasquez is giving not his own judgment, but that of Cajetan.\nBut as nothing could be more false than this, and as you have not said\nit in so many terms, I am willing to believe, for the sake of your\ncharacter, that you did not intend to say it.\n\nYou next loudly complain that, after quoting that maxim of Vasquez,\n\u201cSuch a thing as superfluity is rarely if ever to be met with among men\nof the world, not excepting kings,\u201d _I have inferred_ from it, \u201cthat the\nrich are rarely, if ever, bound to give alms out of their superfluity.\u201d\nBut what do you mean to say, fathers? If it be true that the rich have\nalmost never superfluity, is it not obvious that they will almost never\nbe bound to give alms out of their superfluity? I might have put it into\nthe form of a syllogism for you, if Diana, who has such an esteem for\nVasquez that he calls him \u201cthe ph\u0153nix of genius,\u201d had not drawn the same\nconclusion from the same premises; for, after quoting the maxim of\nVasquez, he concludes, \u201cthat, with regard to the question, whether the\nrich are obliged to give alms out of their superfluity, though the\naffirmation were true, it would seldom, or almost never, happen to be\nobligatory in practice.\u201d I have followed this language word for word.\nWhat, then, are we to make of this, fathers? When Diana quotes with\napprobation the sentiments of Vasquez\u2014when he finds them probable, and\n\u201cvery convenient for rich people,\u201d as he says in the same place, he is\nno slanderer, no falsifier, and we hear no complaints of misrepresenting\nhis author; whereas, when I cite the same sentiments of Vasquez, though\nwithout holding him up as a ph\u0153nix, I am a slanderer, a fabricator, a\ncorrupter of his maxims. Truly, fathers, you have some reason to be\napprehensive, lest your very different treatment of those who agree in\ntheir representation, and differ only in their estimate of your\ndoctrine, discover the real secret of your hearts, and provoke the\nconclusion, that the main object you have in view is to maintain the\ncredit and glory of your Company. It appears that, provided your\naccommodating theology is treated as judicious complaisance, you never\ndisavow those that publish it, but laud them as contributing to your\ndesign; but let it be held forth as pernicious laxity, and the same\ninterest of your Society prompts you to disclaim the maxims which would\ninjure you in public estimation. And thus you recognize or renounce\nthem, not according to the truth, which never changes, but according to\nthe shifting exigencies of the times, acting on that motto of one of the\nancients, \u201c_Omnia pro tempore, nihil pro veritate_\u2014Anything for the\ntimes, nothing for the truth.\u201d Beware of this, fathers; and that you may\nnever have it in your power again to say that I drew from the principle\nof Vasquez a conclusion which he had disavowed, I beg to inform you that\nhe has drawn it himself: \u201cAccording to the opinion of Cajetan, and\naccording to MY OWN\u2014_et secundum_ _nostram_\u2014(he says, chap, i., no. 27),\none is hardly obliged to give alms at all, when one is only obliged to\ngive them out of one\u2019s superfluity.\u201d Confess then, fathers, on the\ntestimony of Vasquez himself, that I have exactly copied his sentiment;\nand think how you could have the conscience to say, that \u201cthe reader, on\nconsulting the original, would see to his astonishment, that he there\nteaches the very reverse!\u201d\n\nIn fine, you insist, above all, that if Vasquez does not bind the rich\nto give alms out of their superfluity, he obliges them to atone for this\nby giving out of the necessaries of life. But you have forgotten to\nmention the list of conditions which he declares to be essential to\nconstitute that obligation, which I have quoted, and which restrict it\nin such a way as almost entirely to annihilate it. In place of giving\nthis honest statement of his doctrine, you tell us, in general terms,\nthat he obliges the rich to give even what is necessary to their\ncondition. This is proving too much, fathers; the rule of the Gospel\ndoes not go so far; and it would be an error, into which Vasquez is very\nfar, indeed, from having fallen. To cover his laxity, you attribute to\nhim an excess of severity which would be reprehensible; and thus you\nlose all credit as faithful reporters of his sentiments. But the truth\nis, Vasquez is quite free from any such suspicion; for he has\nmaintained, as I have shown, that the rich are not bound, either in\njustice or in charity, to give of their superfluities, and still less of\ntheir necessaries, to relieve the ordinary wants of the poor; and that\nthey are not obliged to give of the necessaries, except in cases so rare\nthat they almost never happen.\n\nHaving disposed of your objections against me on this head, it only\nremains to show the falsehood of your assertion, that Vasquez is more\nsevere than Cajetan. This will be very easily done. That cardinal\nteaches \u201cthat we are bound in justice to give alms out of our\nsuperfluity, even in the ordinary wants of the poor; because, according\nto the holy fathers, the rich are merely the dispensers of their\nsuperfluity, which they are to give to whom they please, among those who\nhave need of it.\u201d And accordingly, unlike Diana, who says of the maxims\nof Vasquez, that they will be \u201cvery convenient and agreeable to the rich\nand their confessors,\u201d the cardinal, who has no such consolation to\nafford them, declares that he has nothing to say to the rich but these\nwords of Jesus Christ: \u201cIt is easier for a camel to go through the eye\nof a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven;\u201d and to their\nconfessors: \u201cIf the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the\nditch.\u201d[242] So indispensable did he deem this obligation! This, too, is\nwhat the fathers and all the saints have laid down as a certain truth.\n\u201cThere are two cases,\u201d says St. Thomas, \u201cin which we are bound to give\nalms as a matter of justice\u2014_ex debito legali_: one, when the poor are\nin danger; the other, when we possess superfluous property.\u201d And again:\n\u201cThe three tenths which the Jews were bound to eat with the poor, have\nbeen augmented under the new law; for Jesus Christ wills that we give to\nthe poor, not the tenth only, but the whole of our superfluity.\u201d And yet\nit does not seem good to Vasquez that we should be obliged to give even\na fragment of our superfluity; such is his complaisance to the rich,\nsuch his hardness to the poor, such his contrariety to those feelings of\ncharity which teach us to relish the truth contained in the following\nwords of St. Gregory, harsh as it may sound to the rich of this world:\n\u201cWhen we give the poor what is necessary to them, we are not so much\nbestowing on them what is our property, as rendering to them what is\ntheir own; and it may be said to be an act of justice, rather than a\nwork of mercy.\u201d\n\nIt is thus that the saints recommend the rich to share with the poor the\ngood things of this earth, if they would expect to possess with them the\ngood things of heaven. While you make it your business to foster in the\nbreasts of men that ambition which leaves no superfluity to dispose of,\nand that avarice which refuses to part with it, the saints have labored\nto induce the rich to give up their superfluity, and to convince them\nthat they would have abundance of it, provided they measured it, not by\nthe standard of covetousness, which knows no bounds to its cravings, but\nby that of piety, which is ingenious in retrenchments, so as to have\nwherewith to diffuse itself in the exercise of charity. \u201cWe will have a\ngreat deal of superfluity,\u201d says St. Augustine, \u201cif we keep only what is\nnecessary: but if we seek after vanities, we will never have enough.\nSeek, brethren, what is sufficient for the work of God\u201d\u2014that is, for\nnature\u2014\u201cand not for what is sufficient for your covetousness,\u201d which is\nthe work of the devil: \u201cand remember that the superfluities of the rich\nare the necessaries of the poor.\u201d\n\nI would fondly trust, fathers, that what I have now said to you may\nserve, not only for my vindication\u2014that were a small matter\u2014but also to\nmake you feel and detest what is corrupt in the maxims of your casuists,\nand thus unite us sincerely under the sacred rules of the Gospel,\naccording to which we must all be judged.\n\nAs to the second point, which regards simony, before proceeding to\nanswer the charges you have advanced against me, I shall begin by\nillustrating your doctrine on this subject. Finding yourselves placed in\nan awkward dilemma, between the canons of the Church, which impose\ndreadful penalties upon simoniacs, on the one hand, and the avarice of\nmany who pursue this infamous traffic on the other, you have recourse to\nyour ordinary method, which is to yield to men what they desire, and\ngive the Almighty only words and shows. For what else does the simoniac\nwant, but money, in return for his benefice? And yet this is what you\nexempt from the charge of simony. And as the name of simony must still\nremain standing, and a subject to which it may be ascribed, you have\nsubstituted, in the place of this, an imaginary idea, which never yet\ncrossed the brain of a simoniac, and would not serve him much though it\ndid\u2014the idea, namely, that simony lies in estimating the money\nconsidered in itself as highly as the spiritual gift or office\nconsidered in itself. Who would ever take it into his head to compare\nthings so utterly disproportionate and heterogeneous? And yet, provided\nthis metaphysical comparison be not drawn, any one may, according to\nyour authors, give away a benefice, and receive money in return for it,\nwithout being guilty of simony.\n\nSuch is the way in which you sport with religion, in order to gratify\nthe worst passions of men; and yet only see with what gravity your\nFather Valentia delivers his rhapsodies in the passage cited in my\nletters. He says: \u201cOne may give a spiritual for a temporal good in two\nways\u2014first, in the way of prizing the temporal more than the spiritual,\nand that would be simony; secondly, in the way of taking the temporal as\nthe motive and end inducing one to give away the spiritual, but without\nprizing the temporal more than the spiritual, and then it is not simony.\nAnd the reason is, that simony consists in receiving something temporal,\nas the just price of what is spiritual. If, therefore, the temporal is\nsought\u2014_si petatur temporale_\u2014not as the _price_, but only as the\n_motive_ determining us to part with the spiritual, it is by no means\nsimony, even although the possession of the temporal may be principally\nintended and expected\u2014_minime erit simonia, etiamsi temporale\nprincipaliter intendatur et expectetur_.\u201d Your redoubtable Sanchez has\nbeen favored with a similar revelation; Escobar quotes him thus: \u201cIf one\ngive a spiritual for a temporal good, not as the _price_, but as a\n_motive_ to induce the collator to give it, or as an _acknowledgment_ if\nthe benefice has been actually received, is that simony? Sanchez assures\nus that it is not.\u201d In your Caen Theses of 1644, you say: \u201cIt is a\nprobable opinion, taught by many Catholics, that it is not simony to\nexchange a temporal for a spiritual good, when the former is not given\nas a price.\u201d And as to Tanner, here is his doctrine, exactly the same\nwith that of Valentia; and I quote it again to show you how far wrong it\nis in you to complain of me for saying that it does not agree with that\nof St. Thomas, for he avows it himself in the very passage which I\nquoted in my letter: \u201cThere is properly and truly no simony,\u201d says he,\n\u201cunless when a temporal good is taken as the price of a spiritual; but\nwhen taken merely as the motive for giving the spiritual, or as an\nacknowledgment for having received it, this is not simony, at least in\npoint of conscience.\u201d And again: \u201cThe same thing may be said although\nthe temporal should be regarded as the principal end, and even preferred\nto the spiritual; although St. Thomas and others appear to hold the\nreverse, inasmuch as they maintain it to be downright simony to exchange\na spiritual for a temporal good, when the temporal is the end of the\ntransaction.\u201d\n\nSuch, then, being your doctrine on simony, as taught by your best\nauthors, who follow each other very closely in this point, it only\nremains now to reply to your charges of misrepresentation. You have\ntaken no notice of Valentia\u2019s opinion, so that his doctrine stands as it\nwas before. But you fix on that of Tanner, maintaining that he has\nmerely decided it to be no simony by divine right; and you would have it\nto be believed that, in quoting the passage, I have suppressed these\nwords, _divine right_. This, fathers, is a most unconscionable trick;\nfor these words, _divine right_, never existed in that passage. You add\nthat Tanner declares it to be simony according to _positive right_. But\nyou are mistaken; he does not say that generally, but only of particular\ncases, or, as he expresses it, _in casibus a jure expressis_, by which\nhe makes an exception to the general rule he had laid down in that\npassage, \u201cthat it is not simony in point of conscience,\u201d which must\nimply that it is not so in point of positive right, unless you would\nhave Tanner made so impious as to maintain that simony, in point of\npositive right, is not simony in point of conscience. But it is easy to\nsee your drift in mustering up such terms as \u201cdivine right, positive\nright, natural right, internal and external tribunal, expressed cases,\noutward presumption,\u201d and others equally little known; you mean to\nescape under this obscurity of language, and make us lose sight of your\naberrations. But, fathers, you shall not escape by these vain artifices;\nfor I shall put some questions to you so simple, that they will not\nadmit of coming under your _distinguo_.[243]\n\nI ask you, then, without speaking of \u201cpositive rights,\u201d of \u201coutward\npresumptions,\u201d or \u201cexternal tribunals\u201d\u2014I ask if, according to your\nauthors, a beneficiary would be simoniacal, were he to give a benefice\nworth four thousand livres of yearly rent, and to receive ten thousand\nfrancs ready money, not as the price of the benefice, but merely as a\nmotive inducing him to give it? Answer me plainly, fathers: What must we\nmake of such a case as this according to your authors? Will not Tanner\ntell us decidedly that \u201cthis is not simony in point of conscience,\nseeing that the temporal good is not the price of the benefice, but only\nthe motive inducing to dispose of it?\u201d Will not Valentia, will not your\nown Theses of Caen, will not Sanchez and Escobar agree in the same\ndecision, and give the same reason for it? Is anything more necessary to\nexculpate that beneficiary from simony? And, whatever might be your\nprivate opinion of the case, durst you deal with that man as a simonist\nin your confessionals, when he would be entitled to stop your mouth by\ntelling you that he acted according to the advice of so many grave\ndoctors? Confess candidly, then, that, according to your views, that man\nwould be no simonist; and, having done so, defend the doctrine as you\nbest can.\n\nSuch, fathers, is the true mode of treating questions, in order to\nunravel, instead of perplexing them, either by scholastic terms, or, as\nyou have done in your last charge against me here, by altering the state\nof the question. Tanner, you say, has, at any rate, declared that such\nan exchange is a great sin; and you blame me for having maliciously\nsuppressed this circumstance, which, you maintain, \u201c_completely\njustifies him_.\u201d But you are wrong again, and that in more ways than\none. For, first, though what you say had been true, it would be nothing\nto the point, the question in the passage to which I referred being, not\nif it was _sin_, but if it was _simony_. Now, these are two very\ndifferent questions. Sin, according to your maxims, obliges only to\nconfession\u2014simony obliges to restitution; and there are people to whom\nthese may appear two very different things. You have found expedients\nfor making confession a very easy affair; but you have not fallen upon\nways and means to make restitution an agreeable one. Allow me to add,\nthat the case which Tanner charges with sin, is not simply that in which\na spiritual good is exchanged for a temporal, the latter being the\nprincipal end in view, but that in which the party \u201cprizes the temporal\nabove the spiritual,\u201d which is the imaginary case already spoken of. And\nit must be allowed he could not go far wrong in charging such a case as\nthat with sin, since that man must be either very wicked or very stupid\nwho, when permitted to exchange the one thing for the other, would not\navoid the sin of the transaction by such a simple process as that of\nabstaining from comparing the two things together. Besides, Valentia, in\nthe place quoted, when treating the question, if it be sinful to give a\nspiritual good for a temporal, the latter being the main consideration,\nand after producing the reasons given for the affirmative, adds, \u201c_Sed\nhoc non videtur mihi satis certum_\u2014But this does not appear to my mind\nsufficiently certain.\u201d\n\nSince that time, however, your father, Erade Bille, professor of cases\nof conscience at Caen, has decided that there is no sin at all in the\ncase supposed; for probable opinions, you know, are always in the way of\nadvancing to maturity.[244] This opinion he maintains in his writings of\n1644, against which M. Dupre, doctor and professor at Caen, delivered\nthat excellent oration, since printed and well known. For though this\nErade Bille confesses that Valentia\u2019s doctrine, adopted by Father\nMilhard, and condemned by the Sorbonne, \u201cis contrary to the common\nopinion, suspected of simony, and punishable at law when discovered in\npractice,\u201d he does not scruple to say that it is a probable opinion, and\nconsequently sure in point of conscience, and that there is neither\nsimony nor sin in it. \u201cIt is a probable opinion,\u201d he says, \u201ctaught by\nmany Catholic doctors, that there is neither any simony _nor any sin_ in\ngiving money, or any other temporal thing, for a benefice, either in the\nway of acknowledgment, or as a motive, without which it would not be\ngiven, provided it is not given as a price equal to the benefice.\u201d This\nis all that could possibly be desired. In fact, according to these\nmaxims of yours, simony would be so exceedingly rare; that we might\nexempt from this sin even Simon Magus himself, who desired to purchase\nthe Holy Spirit, and is the emblem of those simonists that buy spiritual\nthings; and Gehazi, who took money for a miracle, and may be regarded as\nthe prototype of the simonists that sell them. There can be no doubt\nthat when Simon, as we read in the Acts, \u201coffered the apostles money,\nsaying, Give me also this power;\u201d he said nothing about buying or\nselling, or fixing the price; he did no more than offer the money as a\nmotive to induce them to give him that spiritual gift; which being,\naccording to you, no simony at all, he might, had he but been instructed\nin your maxims, have escaped the anathema of St. Peter. The same unhappy\nignorance was a great loss to Gehazi, when he was struck with leprosy by\nElisha; for, as he accepted the money from the prince who had been\nmiraculously cured, simply as an acknowledgment, and not as a price\nequivalent to the divine virtue which had effected the miracle, he might\nhave insisted on the prophet healing him again on pain of mortal sin;\nseeing, on this supposition, he would have acted according to the advice\nof your grave doctors, who, in such cases, oblige confessors to absolve\ntheir penitents, and to wash them from that spiritual leprosy of which\nthe bodily disease is the type.\n\nSeriously, fathers, it would be extremely easy to hold you up to\nridicule in this matter, and I am at a loss to know why you expose\nyourselves to such treatment. To produce this effect, I have nothing\nmore to do than simply to quote Escobar, in his \u201cPractice of Simony\naccording to the Society of Jesus;\u201d \u201cIs it simony when two Churchmen\nbecome mutually pledged thus: Give me your vote for my election as\nprovincial, and I shall give you mine for your election as prior? By no\nmeans.\u201d Or take another: \u201cIt is not simony to get possession of a\nbenefice by promising a sum of money, when one has no intention of\nactually paying the money; for this is merely making a show of simony,\nand is as far from being real simony as counterfeit gold is from the\ngenuine.\u201d By this quirk of conscience, he has contrived means, in the\nway of adding swindling to simony, for obtaining benefices without\nsimony and without money.\n\nBut I have no time to dwell longer on the subject, for I must say a word\nor two in reply to your third accusation, which refers to the subject of\nbankrupts. Nothing can be more gross than the manner in which you have\nmanaged this charge. You rail at me as a libeller in reference to a\nsentiment of Lessius, which I did not quote myself, but took from a\npassage in Escobar; and therefore, though it were true that Lessius does\nnot hold the opinion ascribed to him by Escobar, what can be more unfair\nthan to charge me with the misrepresentation? When I quote Lessius or\nothers of your authors myself, I am quite prepared to answer for it; but\nas Escobar has collected the opinions of twenty-four of your writers, I\nbeg to ask, if I am bound to guarantee anything beyond the correctness\nof my citations from his book? or if I must, in addition, answer for the\nfidelity of all his quotations of which I may avail myself? This would\nbe hardly reasonable; and yet this is precisely the case in the question\nbefore us. I produced in my letter the following passage from Escobar,\nand you do not object to the fidelity of my translation: \u201cMay the\nbankrupt, with a good conscience, retain as much of his property as is\nnecessary to afford him an honorable maintenance\u2014_ne indecore vivat_? I\nanswer, with Lessius, that he may\u2014_cum Lessio assero posse_.\u201d You tell\nme that Lessius does not hold that opinion. But just consider for a\nmoment the predicament in which you involve yourselves. If it turns out\nthat he does hold that opinion, you will be set down as impostors for\nhaving asserted the contrary; and if it is proved that he does not hold\nit, Escobar will be the impostor; so it must now of necessity follow,\nthat one or other of the Society will be convicted of imposture. Only\nthink what a scandal! You cannot, it would appear, foresee the\nconsequences of things. You seem to imagine that you have nothing more\nto do than to cast aspersions upon people, without considering on whom\nthey may recoil. Why did you not acquaint Escobar with your objection\nbefore venturing to publish it? He might have given you satisfaction. It\nis not so very troublesome to get word from Valladolid, where he is\nliving in perfect health, and completing his grand work on Moral\nTheology, in six volumes, on the first of which I mean to say a few\nwords by-and-by. They have sent him the first ten letters; you might as\neasily have sent him your objection, and I am sure he would have soon\nreturned you an answer, for he has doubtless seen in Lessius the passage\nfrom which he took the _ne indecore vivat_. Read him yourselves,\nfathers, and you will find it word for word, as I have done. Here it is:\n\u201cThe same thing is apparent from the authorities cited, particularly in\nregard to that property which he acquires after his failure, out of\nwhich even the delinquent debtor may retain as much as is necessary for\nhis honorable maintenance, according to his station of life\u2014_ut non\nindecore vivat_. Do you ask if this rule applies to goods which he\npossessed at the time of his failure? Such seems to be the judgment of\nthe doctors.\u201d\n\nI shall not stop here to show how Lessius, to sanction his maxim,\nperverts the law that allows bankrupts nothing more than a mere\nlivelihood, and that makes no provision for \u201chonorable maintenance.\u201d It\nis enough to have vindicated Escobar from such an accusation\u2014it is more,\nindeed, than what I was in duty bound to do. But you, fathers, have not\ndone your duty. It still remains for you to answer the passage of\nEscobar, whose decisions, by the way, have this advantage, that being\nentirely independent of the context, and condensed in little articles,\nthey are not liable to your distinctions. I quoted the whole of the\npassage, in which \u201cbankrupts are permitted to keep their goods, though\nunjustly acquired, to provide an honorable maintenance for their\nfamilies\u201d\u2014commenting on which in my letters, I exclaim: \u201cIndeed, father!\nby what strange kind of charity would you have the ill-gotten property\nof a bankrupt appropriated to his own use, instead of that of his lawful\ncreditors?\u201d[245] This is the question which must be answered; but it is\none that involves you in a sad dilemma, and from which you in vain seek\nto escape by altering the state of the question, and quoting other\npassages from Lessius, which have no connection with the subject. I ask\nyou, then, May this maxim of Escobar be followed by bankrupts with a\nsafe conscience, or no? And take care what you say. If you answer, No,\nwhat becomes of your doctor, and your doctrine of probability? If you\nsay, Yes\u2014I delate you to the Parliament.[246]\n\nIn this predicament I must now leave you, fathers; for my limits will\nnot permit me to overtake your next accusation, which respects homicide.\nThis will serve for my next letter, and the rest will follow.\n\nIn the mean while, I shall make no remarks on the advertisements which\nyou have tagged to the end of each of your charges, filled as they are\nwith scandalous falsehoods. I mean to answer all these in a separate\nletter, in which I hope to show the weight due to your calumnies. I am\nsorry fathers, that you should have recourse to such desperate\nresources. The abusive terms which you heap on me will not clear up our\ndisputes, nor will your manifold threats hinder me from defending\nmyself. You think you have power and impunity on your side; and I think\nthat I have truth and innocence on mine. It is a strange and tedious\nwar, when violence attempts to vanquish truth. All the efforts of\nviolence cannot weaken truth, and only serve to give it fresh vigor. All\nthe lights of truth cannot arrest violence, and only serve to exasperate\nit. When force meets force, the weaker must succumb to the stronger;\nwhen argument is opposed to argument, the solid and the convincing\ntriumphs over the empty and the false; but violence and verity can make\nno impression on each other. Let none suppose, however, that the two\nare, therefore, equal to each other; for there is this vast difference\nbetween them, that violence has only a certain course to run, limited by\nthe appointment of Heaven, which overrules its effects to the glory of\nthe truth which it assails; whereas verity endures forever, and\neventually triumphs over its enemies, being eternal and almighty as God\nhimself.[247]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n Pierre du Moulin is termed by Bayle \u201cone of the most celebrated\n ministers which the Reformed Church in France ever had to boast of.\u201d\n He was born in 1568, and was for some time settled in Paris; but\n having incurred the resentment of Louis XIII., he retired to Sedan in\n 1623, where he became a professor in the Protestant University, and\n died, in the ninetieth year of his age, in 1658, two years after the\n time when Pascal wrote. Of his numerous writings, few are known in\n this country, excepting his \u201cBuckler of the Faith,\u201d and his \u201cAnatomy\n of the Mass,\u201d which were translated into English. (Quick\u2019s Synodicon,\n ii., 105.)\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n De Eleemosyna, c. 6.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n See before, page 73.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n See before, page 140.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n See before, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n \u201cThe Parliament of Paris was originally the court of the kings of\n France, to which they committed the supreme administration of\n justice.\u201d (Robertson\u2019s Charles V., vol. i. 171.)\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n In most of the French editions, another letter is inserted after this,\n being a refutation of a reply which appeared at the time to Letter\n xii. But as this letter, though well written, was not written by\n Pascal, and as it does not contain anything that would now be\n interesting to the reader, we omit it. Suffice it to say, that the\n reply of the Jesuits consisted, as usual, of the most barefaced\n attempts to fix the charge of misrepresentation on their opponent,\n accusing him of omitting to quote passages from his authors which they\n never wrote, of not answering objections which were never brought\n against him, of not adverting to cases which neither he nor his\n authors dreamt of\u2014in short, like all Jesuitical answers, it is\n anything and everything but a refutation of the charges which have\n been substantiated against them.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XIII.\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF LESSIUS ON HOMICIDE THE SAME WITH THAT OF VALENTIA\u2014HOW\n EASY IT IS TO PASS FROM SPECULATION TO PRACTICE\u2014WHY THE JESUITS HAVE\n RECOURSE TO THIS DISTINCTION, AND HOW LITTLE IT SERVES FOR THEIR\n VINDICATION.\n\n\n _September 30, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014I have just seen your last production, in which you\nhave continued your list of Impostures up to the twentieth, and intimate\nthat you mean to conclude with this the first part of your accusations\nagainst me, and to proceed to the second, in which you are to adopt a\nnew mode of defence, by showing that there are other casuists besides\nthose of your Society who are as lax as yourselves. I now see the\nprecise number of charges to which I have to reply; and as the fourth,\nto which we have now come, relates to homicide, it may be proper, in\nanswering it, to include the 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and\n18th, which refer to the same subject.\n\nIn the present letter, therefore, my object shall be to vindicate the\ncorrectness of my quotations from the charges of falsity which you bring\nagainst me. But as you have ventured, in your pamphlets, to assert that\n\u201cthe sentiments of your authors on murder are agreeable to the decisions\nof popes and ecclesiastical laws,\u201d you will compel me, in my next\nletter, to confute a statement at once so unfounded and so injurious to\nthe Church. It is of some importance to show that she is innocent of\nyour corruptions, in order that heretics may be prevented from taking\nadvantage of your aberrations, to draw conclusions tending to her\ndishonor.[248] And thus, viewing on the one hand your pernicious maxims,\nand on the other the canons of the Church which have uniformly condemned\nthem, people will see, at one glance, what they should shun and what\nthey should follow.\n\nYour fourth charge turns on a maxim relating to murder, which you say I\nhave falsely ascribed to Lessius. It is as follows: \u201cThat if a man has\nreceived a buffet, he may immediately pursue his enemy, and even return\nthe blow with the sword, not to avenge himself, but to retrieve his\nhonor.\u201d This, you say, is the opinion of the casuist Victoria. But this\nis nothing to the point. There is no inconsistency in saying, that it is\nat once the opinion of Victoria and of Lessius; for Lessius himself says\nthat it is also held by Navarre and Henriquez, who teach identically the\nsame doctrine. The only question, then, is, if Lessius holds this view\nas well as his brother casuists. You maintain \u201cthat Lessius quotes this\nopinion solely for the purpose of refuting it, and that I therefore\nattribute to him a sentiment which he produces only to overthrow\u2014the\nbasest and most disgraceful act of which a writer can be guilty.\u201d Now I\nmaintain, fathers, that he quotes the opinion solely for the purpose of\nsupporting it. Here is a question of fact, which it will be very easy to\nsettle. Let us see, then, how you prove your allegation, and you will\nsee afterwards how I prove mine.\n\nTo show that Lessius is not of that opinion, you tell us that he\ncondemns the practice of it; and in proof of this, you quote one passage\nof his (l. 2, c. 9, n. 92), in which he says, in so many words, \u201cI\ncondemn the practice of it.\u201d I grant that, on looking for these words,\nat number 92, to which you refer, they will be found there. But what\nwill people say, fathers, when they discover, at the same time, that he\nis treating in that place of a question totally different from that of\nwhich we are speaking, and that the opinion of which he there says that\nhe condemns the practice, has no connection with that now in dispute,\nbut is quite distinct? And yet to be convinced that this is the fact, we\nhave only to open the book to which you refer, and there we find the\nwhole subject in its connection as follows: At number 79 he treats the\nquestion, \u201cIf it is lawful to kill for a buffet?\u201d and at number 80 he\nfinishes this matter without a single word of condemnation. Having\ndisposed of _this_ question, he opens a new one at art. 81, namely, \u201cIf\nit is lawful to kill for slanders?\u201d and it is when speaking of this\nquestion that he employs the words you have quoted\u2014\u201cI condemn the\npractice of it.\u201d\n\nIs it not shameful, fathers, that you should venture to produce these\nwords to make it be believed that Lessius condemns the opinion that it\nis lawful to kill for a buffet? and that, on the ground of this single\nproof, you should chuckle over it, as you have done, by saying: \u201cMany\npersons of honor in Paris have already discovered this notorious\nfalsehood by consulting Lessius, and have thus ascertained the degree of\ncredit due to that slanderer?\u201d Indeed! and is it thus that you abuse the\nconfidence which those persons of honor repose in you? To show them that\nLessius does not hold a certain opinion, you open the book to them at a\nplace where he is condemning another opinion; and these persons not\nhaving begun to mistrust your good faith, and never thinking of\nexamining whether the author speaks in that place of the subject in\ndispute, you impose on their credulity. I make no doubt, fathers, that\nto shelter yourselves from the guilt of such a scandalous lie, you had\nrecourse to your doctrine of equivocations; and that, having read the\npassage _in a loud voice_, you would say, _in a lower key_, that the\nauthor was speaking there of something else. But I am not so sure\nwhether this saving clause, which is quite enough to satisfy your\nconsciences, will be a very satisfactory answer to the just complaint of\nthose \u201chonorable persons,\u201d when they shall discover that you have\nhoodwinked them in this style.\n\nTake care, then, fathers, to prevent them by all means from seeing my\nletters; for this is the only method now left you to preserve your\ncredit for a short time longer. This is not the way in which I deal with\nyour writings: I send them to all my friends: I wish everybody to see\nthem. And I verily believe that both of us are in the right for our own\ninterests; for after having published with such parade this fourth\nImposture, were it once discovered that you have made it up by foisting\nin one passage for another, you would be instantly denounced. It will be\neasily seen, that if you could have found what you wanted in the passage\nwhere Lessius treated of this matter, you would not have searched for it\nelsewhere, and that you had recourse to such a trick only because you\ncould find nothing in that passage favorable to your purpose.\n\nYou would have us believe that we may find in Lessius what you assert,\n\u201cthat he does _not_ allow that this opinion (that a man may be lawfully\nkilled for a buffet) is probable in theory;\u201d whereas Lessius distinctly\ndeclares, at number 80: \u201cThis opinion, that a man may kill for a buffet,\n_is_ probable in theory.\u201d Is not this, word for word, the reverse of\nyour assertion? And can we sufficiently admire the hardihood with which\nyou have advanced, in set phrase, the very reverse of a matter of fact!\nTo your conclusion, from a fabricated passage, that Lessius was _not_ of\nthat opinion, we have only to place Lessius himself, who, in the genuine\npassage, declares that he is of that opinion.\n\nAgain, you would have Lessius to say \u201cthat he condemns the practice of\nit;\u201d and, as I have just observed, there is not in the original a single\nword of condemnation; all that he says is: \u201cIt appears that it ought not\nto be EASILY permitted in practice\u2014_In praxi non videtur FACILE\npermittenda_.\u201d Is that, fathers, the language of a man who _condemns_ a\nmaxim? Would you say that adultery and incest ought not to be _easily\npermitted_ in practice? Must we not, on the contrary, conclude, that as\nLessius says no more than that the practice ought not to be easily\npermitted, his opinion is, that it may be permitted sometimes, though\nrarely? And, as if he had been anxious to apprize everybody when it\nmight be permitted, and to relieve those who have received affronts from\nbeing troubled with unreasonable scruples, from not knowing on what\noccasions they might lawfully kill in practice, he has been at pains to\ninform them what they ought to avoid in order to practise the doctrine\nwith a safe conscience. Mark his words: \u201cIt seems,\u201d says he, \u201cthat it\nought not to be easily permitted, _because_ of the danger that persons\nmay act in this matter out of hatred or revenge, or with excess, or that\nthis may occasion too many murders.\u201d From this it appears that murder is\nfreely permitted by Lessius, if one avoids the inconveniences referred\nto\u2014in other words, if one can act without hatred or revenge, and in\ncircumstances that may not open the door to a great many murders. To\nillustrate the matter, I may give you an example of recent\noccurrence\u2014the case of the buffet of Compi\u00e8gne.[249] You will grant that\nthe person who received the blow on that occasion has shown by the way\nin which he has acted, that he was sufficiently master of the passions\nof hatred and revenge. It only remained for him, therefore, to see that\nhe did not give occasion to too many murders; and you need hardly be\ntold, fathers, it is such a rare spectacle to find Jesuits bestowing\nbuffets on the officers of the royal household, that he had no great\nreason to fear that a murder committed on this occasion would be likely\nto draw many others in its train. You cannot, accordingly, deny that the\nJesuit who figured on that occasion was _killable_ with a safe\nconscience, and that the offended party might have converted him into a\npractical illustration of the doctrine of Lessius. And very likely,\nfathers, this might have been the result had he been educated in your\nschool, and learnt from Escobar that the man who has received a buffet\nis held to be disgraced until he has taken the life of him who insulted\nhim. But there is ground to believe, that the very different\ninstructions which he received from a curate, who is no great favorite\nof yours, have contributed not a little in this case to save the life of\na Jesuit.\n\nTell us no more, then, of inconveniences which may, in many instances,\nbe so easily got over, and in the absence of which, according to\nLessius, murder is permissible even in practice. This is frankly avowed\nby your authors, as quoted by Escobar, in his \u201cPractice of Homicide,\naccording to your Society.\u201d \u201cIs it allowable,\u201d asks this casuist, \u201cto\nkill him who has given me a buffet? Lessius says it is permissible in\nspeculation, though not to be followed in practice\u2014_non consulendum in\npraxi_\u2014on account of the risk of hatred, or of murders prejudicial to\nthe State. Others, however, have judged that, BY AVOIDING THESE\nINCONVENIENCES, THIS IS PERMISSIBLE AND SAFE IN PRACTICE\u2014_in praxi\nprobabilem et tutam judicarunt Henriquez_,\u201d &c. See how your opinions\nmount up, by little and little, to the climax of probabilism! The\npresent one you have at last elevated to this position, by permitting\nmurder without any distinction between speculation and practice, in the\nfollowing terms: \u201cIt is lawful, when one has received a buffet, to\nreturn the blow immediately with the sword, not to avenge one\u2019s self,\nbut to preserve one\u2019s honor.\u201d Such is the decision of your fathers of\nCaen in 1644, embodied in their publications produced by the university\nbefore parliament, when they presented their third remonstrance against\nyour doctrine of homicide, as shown in the book then emitted by them, at\npage 339.\n\nMark, then, fathers, that your own authors have themselves demolished\nthis absurd distinction between speculative and practical murder\u2014a\ndistinction which the university treated with ridicule, and the\ninvention of which is a secret of your policy, which it may now be worth\nwhile to explain. The knowledge of it, besides being necessary to the\nright understanding of your 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th charges, is well\ncalculated, in general, to open up, by little and little, the principles\nof that mysterious policy.\n\nIn attempting, as you have done, to decide cases of conscience in the\nmost agreeable and accommodating manner, while you met with some\nquestions in which religion alone was concerned\u2014such as those of\ncontrition, penance, love to God, and others only affecting the inner\ncourt of conscience\u2014you encountered another class of cases in which\ncivil society was interested as well as religion\u2014such as those relating\nto usury, bankruptcy, homicide, and the like. And it is truly\ndistressing to all that love the Church, to observe that, in a vast\nnumber of instances, in which you had only Religion to contend with, you\nhave violated her laws without reservation, without distinction, and\nwithout compunction; because you knew that it is not here that God\nvisibly administers his justice. But in those cases in which the State\nis interested as well as Religion, your apprehension of man\u2019s justice\nhas induced you to divide your decisions into two shares. To the first\nof these you give the name of _speculation_; under which category\ncrimes, considered in themselves, without regard to society, but merely\nto the law of God, you have permitted, without the least scruple, and in\nthe way of trampling on the divine law which condemns them. The second\nyou rank under the denomination of _practice_; and here, considering the\ninjury which may be done to society, and the presence of magistrates who\nlook after the public peace, you take care, in order to keep yourselves\non the safe side of the law, not to approve always in practice the\nmurders and other crimes which you have sanctioned in speculation. Thus,\nfor example, on the question, \u201cIf it be lawful to kill for slanders?\u201d\nyour authors, Filiutius, Reginald, and others, reply: \u201cThis is permitted\nin speculation\u2014_ex probabile opinione licet_; but is not to be approved\nin _practice_, on account of the great number of murders which might\nensue, and which might injure the State, if all slanderers were to be\nkilled, _and also because one might be punished in a court of justice\nfor having killed another for that matter_.\u201d Such is the style in which\nyour opinions begin to develop themselves, under the shelter of this\ndistinction, in virtue of which, without doing any sensible injury to\nsociety, you only ruin religion. In acting thus, you consider yourselves\nquite safe. You suppose that, on the one hand, the influence you have in\nthe Church will effectually shield from punishment your assaults on\ntruth; and that, on the other, the precautions you have taken against\ntoo easily reducing your permissions to practice will save you on the\npart of the civil powers, who, not being judges in cases of conscience,\nare properly concerned only with the outward practice. Thus an opinion\nwhich would be condemned under the name of practice, comes out quite\nsafe under the name of speculation. But this basis once established, it\nis not difficult to erect on it the rest of your maxims. There is an\ninfinite distance between God\u2019s prohibition of murder, and your\nspeculative permission of the crime; but between that permission and the\npractice the distance is very small indeed. It only remains to show,\nthat what is allowable in speculation is also so in practice; and there\ncan be no want of reasons for this. You have contrived to find them in\nfar more difficult cases. Would you like to see, fathers, how this may\nbe managed? I refer you to the reasoning of Escobar, who has distinctly\ndecided the point in the first of the six volumes of his grand Moral\nTheology, of which I have already spoken\u2014a work in which he shows quite\nanother spirit from that which appears in his former compilation from\nyour four-and-twenty elders. At that time he thought that there might be\nopinions probable in speculation, which might not be safe in practice;\nbut he has now come to form an opposite judgment, and has, in this, his\nlatest work, confirmed it. Such is the wonderful growth attained by the\ndoctrine of probability in general, as well as by every probable opinion\nin particular, in the course of time. Attend, then, to what he says: \u201cI\ncannot see how it can be that an action which seems allowable in\nspeculation should not be so likewise in practice; because what may be\ndone in practice depends on what is found to be lawful in speculation,\nand the things differ from each other only as cause and effect.\nSpeculation is that which determines to action. WHENCE IT FOLLOWS THAT\nOPINIONS PROBABLE IN SPECULATION MAY BE FOLLOWED WITH A SAFE CONSCIENCE\nIN PRACTICE, and that even with more safety than those which have not\nbeen so well examined as matters of speculation.\u201d[250]\n\nVerily, fathers, your friend Escobar reasons uncommonly well sometimes;\nand, in point of fact, there is such a close connection between\nspeculation and practice, that when the former has once taken root, you\nhave no difficulty in permitting the latter, without any disguise. A\ngood illustration of this we have in the permission \u201cto kill for a\nbuffet,\u201d which, from being a point of simple speculation, was boldly\nraised by Lessius into a practice \u201cwhich ought not easily to be\nallowed;\u201d from that promoted by Escobar to the character of \u201can easy\npractice;\u201d and from thence elevated by your fathers of Caen, as we have\nseen, without any distinction between theory and practice, into a full\npermission. Thus you bring your opinions to their full growth very\ngradually. Were they presented all at once in their finished\nextravagance, they would beget horror; but this slow imperceptible\nprogress gradually habituates men to the sight of them, and hides their\noffensiveness. And in this way the permission to murder, in itself so\nodious both to Church and State, creeps first into the Church, and then\nfrom the Church into the State.\n\nA similar success has attended the opinion of \u201ckilling for slander,\u201d\nwhich has now reached the climax of a permission without any\ndistinction. I should not have stopped to quote my authorities on this\npoint from your writings, had it not been necessary in order to put down\nthe effrontery with which you have asserted, twice over, in your\nfifteenth Imposture, \u201cthat there never was a Jesuit who permitted\nkilling for slander.\u201d Before making this statement, fathers, you should\nhave taken care to prevent it from coming under my notice, seeing that\nit is so easy for me to answer it. For, not to mention that your fathers\nReginald, Filiutius, and others, have permitted it in speculation, as I\nhave already shown, and that the principle laid down by Escobar leads us\nsafely on to the practice, I have to tell you that you have authors who\nhave permitted it in so many words, and among others Father Hereau in\nhis public lectures, on the conclusion of which the king put him under\narrest in your house, for having taught, among other errors, that when a\nperson who has slandered us in the presence of men of honor, continues\nto do so after being warned to desist, it is allowable to kill him, not\npublicly, indeed, for fear of scandal, but IN A PRIVATE WAY\u2014_sed clam_.\n\nI have had occasion already to mention Father Lamy, and you do not need\nto be informed that his doctrine on this subject was censured in 1649 by\nthe University of Louvain.[251] And yet two months have not elapsed\nsince your Father Des Bois maintained this very censured doctrine of\nFather Lamy, and taught that \u201cit was allowable for a monk to defend the\nhonor which he acquired by his virtue, EVEN BY KILLING the person who\nassails his reputation\u2014_etiam cum morte invasoris_;\u201d which has raised\nsuch a scandal in that town, that the whole of the cur\u00e9s united to\nimpose silence on him, and to oblige him, by a canonical process, to\nretract his doctrine. The case is now pending in the Episcopal court.\n\nWhat say you now, fathers? Why attempt, after that, to maintain that \u201cno\nJesuit ever held that it was lawful to kill for slander?\u201d Is anything\nmore necessary to convince you of this than the very opinions of your\nfathers which you quote, since they do not condemn murder in\nspeculation, but only in practice, and that, too, \u201con account of the\ninjury that might thereby accrue to the State?\u201d And here I would just\nbeg to ask, whether the whole matter in dispute between us is not simply\nand solely to ascertain if you have or have not subverted the law of God\nwhich condemns murder? The point in question is, not whether you have\ninjured the commonwealth, but whether you have injured religion. What\npurpose, then, can it serve, in a dispute of this kind, to show that you\nhave spared the State, when you make it apparent, at the same time, that\nyou have destroyed the faith? Is this not evident from your saying that\nthe meaning of Reginald, on the question of killing for slanders, is,\n\u201cthat a private individual has a right to employ that mode of defence,\nviewing it simply _in itself_?\u201d I desire nothing beyond this concession\nto confute you. \u201cA private individual,\u201d you say, \u201chas a right to employ\nthat mode of defence\u201d (that is, killing for slanders), \u201cviewing the\nthing in itself;\u201d and, consequently, fathers, the law of God, which\nforbids us to kill, is nullified by that decision.\n\nIt serves no purpose to add, as you have done, \u201cthat such a mode is\nunlawful and criminal, even according to the law of God, on account of\nthe murders and disorders which would follow in society, because the law\nof God obliges us to have regard to the good of society.\u201d This is to\nevade the question: for there are two laws to be observed\u2014one forbidding\nus to kill, and another forbidding us to harm society. Reginald has not,\nperhaps, broken the law which forbids us to do harm to society; but he\nhas most certainly violated that which forbids us to kill. Now this is\nthe only point with which we have to do. I might have shown, besides,\nthat your other writers, who have permitted these murders in practice,\nhave subverted the one law as well as the other. But, to proceed, we\nhave seen that you _sometimes_ forbid doing harm to the State; and you\nallege that your design in that is to fulfil the law of God, which\nobliges us to consult the interests of society. That may be true, though\nit is far from being certain, as you might do the same thing purely from\nfear of the civil magistrate. With your permission, then, we shall\nscrutinize the real secret of this movement.\n\nIs it not certain, fathers, that if you had really any regard to God,\nand if the observance of his law had been the prime and principal object\nin your thoughts, this respect would have invariably predominated in all\nyour leading decisions, and would have engaged you at all times on the\nside of religion? But if it turns out, on the contrary, that you\nviolate, in innumerable instances, the most sacred commands that God has\nlaid upon men, and that, as in the instances before us, you annihilate\nthe law of God, which forbids these actions as criminal in themselves,\nand that you only scruple to approve of them in practice, from bodily\nfear of the civil magistrate, do you not afford us ground to conclude\nthat you have no respect to God in your apprehensions, and that if you\nyield an apparent obedience to his law, in so far as regards the\nobligation to do no harm to the State, this is not done out of any\nregard to the law itself, but to compass your own ends, as has ever been\nthe way with politicians of no religion?\n\nWhat, fathers! will you tell us that, looking simply to the law of God,\nwhich says, \u201cThou shalt not kill,\u201d we have a right to kill for slanders?\nAnd after having thus trampled on the eternal law of God, do you imagine\nthat you atone for the scandal you have caused, and can persuade us of\nyour reverence for him, by adding that you prohibit the practice for\nState reasons, and from dread of the civil arm? Is not this, on the\ncontrary, to raise a fresh scandal?\u2014I mean not by the respect which you\ntestify for the magistrate; that is not my charge against you, and it is\nridiculous in you to banter, as you have done, on this matter. I blame\nyou, not for fearing the magistrate, but for fearing none but the\nmagistrate. And I blame you for this, because it is making God less the\nenemy of vice than man. Had you said that to kill for slander was\nallowable according to men, but not according to God, that might have\nbeen something more endurable; but when you maintain, that what is too\ncriminal to be tolerated among men, may yet be innocent and right in the\neyes of that Being who is righteousness itself, what is this but to\ndeclare before the whole world, by a subversion of principle as shocking\nin itself as it is alien to the spirit of the saints, that while you can\nbe braggarts before God, you are cowards before men?\n\nHad you really been anxious to condemn these homicides, you would have\nallowed the commandment of God which forbids them to remain intact; and\nhad you dared at once to permit them, you would have permitted them\nopenly, in spite of the laws of God and men. But your object being to\npermit them imperceptibly, and to cheat the magistrate, who watches over\nthe public safety, you have gone craftily to work. You separate your\nmaxims into two portions. On the one side, you hold out \u201cthat it is\nlawful in speculation to kill a man for slander;\u201d\u2014and nobody thinks of\nhindering you from taking a speculative view of matters. On the other\nside, you come out with this detached axiom, \u201cthat what is permitted in\nspeculation is also permissible in practice;\u201d\u2014and what concern does\nsociety seem to have in this general and metaphysical-looking\nproposition? And thus these two principles, so little suspected, being\nembraced in their separate form, the vigilance of the magistrate is\neluded; while it is only necessary to combine the two together, to draw\nfrom them the conclusion which you aim at\u2014namely, that it is lawful in\npractice to put a man to death for a simple slander.\n\nIt is, indeed, fathers, one of the most subtle tricks of your policy, to\nscatter through your publications the maxims which you club together in\nyour decisions. It is partly in this way that you establish your\ndoctrine of probabilities, which I have frequently had occasion to\nexplain. That general principle once established, you advance\npropositions harmless enough when viewed apart, but which, when taken in\nconnection with that pernicious dogma, become positively horrible. An\nexample of this, which demands an answer, may be found in the 11th page\nof your \u201cImpostures,\u201d where you allege that \u201cseveral famous theologians\nhave decided that it is lawful to kill a man for a box on the ear.\u201d Now,\nit is certain, that if that had been said by a person who did not hold\nprobabilism, there would be nothing to find fault with in it; it would\nin this case amount to no more than a harmless statement, and nothing\ncould be elicited from it. But you, fathers, and all who hold that\ndangerous tenet, \u201cthat whatever has been approved by celebrated authors\nis probable and safe in conscience,\u201d when _you_ add to this \u201cthat\nseveral celebrated authors are of opinion that it is lawful to kill a\nman for a box on the ear,\u201d what is this but to put a dagger into the\nhand of all Christians, for the purpose of plunging it into the heart of\nthe first person that insults them, and to assure them that, having the\njudgment of so many grave authors on their side, they may do so with a\nperfectly safe conscience?\n\nWhat monstrous species of language is this, which, in announcing that\ncertain authors hold a detestable opinion, is at the same time giving a\ndecision in favor of that opinion\u2014which solemnly teaches whatever it\nsimply tells! We have learnt, fathers, to understand this peculiar\ndialect of the Jesuitical school; and it is astonishing that you have\nthe hardihood to speak it out so freely, for it betrays your sentiments\nsomewhat too broadly. It convicts you of permitting murder for a buffet,\nas often as you repeat that many celebrated authors have maintained that\nopinion.\n\nThis charge, fathers, you will never be able to repel; nor will you be\nmuch helped out by those passages from Vasquez and Suarez that you\nadduce against me, in which they condemn the murders which their\nassociates have approved. These testimonies, disjoined from the rest of\nyour doctrine, may hoodwink those who know little about it; but we, who\nknow better, put your principles and maxims together. You say, then,\nthat Vasquez condemns murders; but what say you on the other side of the\nquestion, my reverend fathers? Why, \u201cthat the probability of one\nsentiment does not hinder the probability of the opposite sentiment; and\nthat it is warrantable to follow the less probable and less safe\nopinion, giving up the more probable and more safe one.\u201d What follows\nfrom all this taken in connection, but that we have perfect freedom of\nconscience to adopt any one of these conflicting judgments which pleases\nus best? And what becomes of all the effect which you fondly anticipate\nfrom your quotations? It evaporates in smoke, for we have no more to do\nthan to conjoin for your condemnation the maxims which you have\ndisjoined for your exculpation. Why, then, produce those passages of\nyour authors which I have not quoted, to qualify those which I have\nquoted, as if the one could excuse the other? What right does that give\nyou to call me an \u201cimpostor?\u201d Have I said that all your fathers are\nimplicated in the same corruptions? Have I not, on the contrary, been at\npains to show that your interest lay in having them of all different\nminds, in order to suit all your purposes? Do you wish to kill your\nman?\u2014here is Lessius for you. Are you inclined to spare him?\u2014here is\nVasquez. Nobody need go away in ill humor\u2014nobody without the authority\nof a grave doctor. Lessius will talk to you like a Heathen on homicide,\nand like a Christian, it may be, on charity. Vasquez, again, will\ndescant like a Heathen on charity, and like a Christian on homicide. But\nby means of probabilism, which is held both by Vasquez and Lessius, and\nwhich renders all your opinions common property, they will lend their\nopinions to one another, and each will be held bound to absolve those\nwho have acted according to opinions which each of them has condemned.\nIt is this very variety, then, that confounds you. Uniformity, even in\nevil, would be better than this. Nothing is more contrary to the orders\nof St. Ignatius[252] and the first generals of your Society, than this\nconfused medley of all sorts of opinions, good and bad. I may, perhaps,\nenter on this topic at some future period; and it will astonish many to\nsee how far you have degenerated from the original spirit of your\ninstitution, and that your own generals have foreseen that the\ncorruption of your doctrine on morals might prove fatal, not only to\nyour Society, but to the Church universal.[253]\n\nMeanwhile, I repeat that you can derive no advantage from the doctrine\nof Vasquez. It would be strange, indeed, if, out of all the Jesuits that\nhave written on morals, one or two could not be found who may have hit\nupon a truth which has been confessed by all Christians. There is no\nglory in maintaining the truth, according to the Gospel, that it is\nunlawful to kill a man for smiting us on the face; but it is foul shame\nto deny it. So far, indeed, from justifying you, nothing tells more\nfatally against you than the fact that, having doctors among you who\nhave told you the truth, you abide not in the truth, but love the\ndarkness rather than the light. You have been taught by Vasquez that it\nis a heathen, and not a Christian, opinion to hold that we may knock\ndown a man for a blow on the cheek; and that it is subversive both of\nthe Gospel and of the decalogue to say that we may kill for such a\nmatter. The most profligate of men will acknowledge as much. And yet you\nhave allowed Lessius, Escobar, and others, to decide, in the face of\nthese well-known truths, and in spite of all the laws of God against\nmanslaughter, that it is quite allowable to kill a man for a buffet!\n\nWhat purpose, then, can it serve to set this passage of Vasquez over\nagainst the sentiment of Lessius, unless you mean to show that, in the\nopinion of Vasquez, Lessius is a \u201cheathen\u201d and a \u201cprofligate?\u201d and that,\nfathers, is more than I durst have said myself. What else can be deduced\nfrom it than that Lessius \u201csubverts both the Gospel and the decalogue;\u201d\nthat, at the last day, Vasquez will condemn Lessius on this point, as\nLessius will condemn Vasquez on another; and that all your fathers will\nrise up in judgment one against another, mutually condemning each other\nfor their sad outrages on the law of Jesus Christ?\n\nTo this conclusion, then, reverend fathers, must we come at length, that\nas your probabilism renders the good opinions of some of your authors\nuseless to the Church, and useful only to your policy, they merely serve\nto betray, by their contrariety, the duplicity of your hearts. This you\nhave completely unfolded, by telling us, on the one hand, that Vasquez\nand Suarez are against homicide, and on the other hand, that many\ncelebrated authors are for homicide; thus presenting two roads to our\nchoice, and destroying the simplicity of the Spirit of God, who\ndenounces his anathema on the deceitful and the double-hearted: \u201c_V\u00e6\nduplici corde, et ingredienti duabus viis!_\u2014Woe be to the double hearts,\nand the sinner that goeth two ways!\u201d[254]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n The Church of Rome has not left those whom she terms heretics so\n doubtfully to \u201ctake advantage\u201d of Jesuitical aberrations. She has done\n everything in her power to _give_ them this advantage. By identifying\n herself, at various times, with the Jesuits, she has virtually stamped\n their doctrines with her approbation.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n The reference here is to an affray which made a considerable noise at\n the time, between Father Borin, a Jesuit, and M. Guille, one of the\n officers of the royal kitchen, in the College of Compi\u00e8gne. A quarrel\n having taken place, the enraged Jesuit struck the royal cook in the\n face while he was in the act of preparing dinner, by his majesty\u2019s\n order, for Christina, queen of Sweden, in honor, perhaps, of her\n conversion to the Romish faith. (Nicole, iv. 37)\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n In Pr\u00e6log., n. 15.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n The doctrines advanced by Lamy are too gross for repetition. Suffice\n it to say, that they sanctioned the murder not only of the slanderer,\n but of the person who might tell tales against a religious order, of\n one who might stand in the way of another enjoying a legacy or a\n benefice, and even of one whom a priest might have robbed of her\n honor, if she threatened to rob him of his. These horrid maxims were\n condemned by civil tribunals and theological faculties; but the\n Jesuits persisted in justifying them. (Nicole, Notes, iv. 41, &c.)\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n It is very sad to see Pascal reduced to the necessity of saluting the\n founder of the sect which he held up to the scorn of the world, as\n _Saint Ignatius_! Ignatius Loyola was a native of Spain, and born in\n 1491. At first a soldier of fortune, he was disabled from service by a\n wound in the leg at the siege of Pampeluna, and his brain having\n become heated by reading romances and legendary tales, he took it into\n his head to become the Don Quixote of the Virgin, and wage war against\n all heretics and infidels. By indomitable perseverance he succeeded in\n establishing the sect calling itself \u201cthe Society of Jesus.\u201d This\n ignorant fanatic, who, in more enlightened times, would have been\n consigned to a mad-house, was beatified by one pope, and canonized, or\n put into the list of saints, by another! Jansenius, in his\n correspondence with St. Cyran, indignantly complains of pope Gregory\n XV. for having canonized Ignatius and Xavier. (Leydecker, Hist.\n Jansen. 23.)\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n This is rather a singular fact, and applies only to one of the\n Society\u2019s generals, viz., Vitelleschi, who, in a circular letter,\n addressed, January 1617, to the Company, much to his own honor,\n strongly recommended a purer morality, and denounced probabilism. But,\n says Nicole, the Jesuits did not profit by his good advice. (Nicole,\n iv., p. 33.) It is true, however, that the Jesuits, during this\n century, had lost sight of the original design of their order, and of\n all the ascetic rules of their founders, Ignatius and Aquaviva. \u201cThe\n spirit which once animated them had fallen before the temptations of\n the world, and their sole endeavor now was to make themselves\n necessary to mankind, let the means be what they might.\u201d (Ranke\u2019s\n Hist. of the Popes, iii. 139.)\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n Ecclesiasticus (Apocrypha), ii. 12.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XIV.\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.\n\nIN WHICH THE MAXIMS OF THE JESUITS ON MURDER ARE REFUTED FROM THE\n FATHERS\u2014SOME OF THEIR CALUMNIES ANSWERED BY THE WAY\u2014AND THEIR\n DOCTRINE COMPARED WITH THE FORMS OBSERVED IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.\n\n\n _October 23, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014If I had merely to reply to the three remaining\ncharges on the subject of homicide, there would be no need for a long\ndiscourse, and you will see them refuted presently in a few words; but\nas I think it of much more importance to inspire the public with a\nhorror at your opinions on this subject, than to justify the fidelity of\nmy quotations, I shall be obliged to devote the greater part of this\nletter to the refutation of your maxims, to show you how far you have\ndeparted from the sentiments of the Church, and even of nature itself.\nThe permissions of murder, which you have granted in such a variety of\ncases, render it very apparent, that you have so far forgotten the law\nof God, and quenched the light of nature, as to require to be remanded\nto the simplest principles of religion and of common sense.\n\nWhat can be a plainer dictate of nature than that \u201cno private individual\nhas a right to take away the life of another?\u201d \u201cSo well are we taught\nthis of ourselves,\u201d says St. Chrysostom, \u201cthat God, in giving the\ncommandment not to kill, did not add as a reason that homicide was an\nevil; because,\u201d says that father, \u201cthe law supposes that nature has\ntaught us that truth already.\u201d Accordingly, this commandment has been\nbinding on men in all ages. The Gospel has confirmed the requirement of\nthe law; and the decalogue only renewed the command which man had\nreceived from God before the law, in the person of Noah, from whom all\nmen are descended. On that renovation of the world, God said to the\npatriarch: \u201cAt the hand of man, and at the hand of every man\u2019s brother,\nwill I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man\u2019s blood, by man shall\nhis blood be shed; for man is made in the image of God.\u201d (Gen. ix. 5,\n6.) This general prohibition deprives man of all power over the life of\nman. And so exclusively has the Almighty reserved this prerogative in\nhis own hand, that, in accordance with Christianity, which is at utter\nvariance with the false maxims of Paganism, man has no power even over\nhis own life. But, as it has seemed good to his providence to take human\nsociety under his protection, and to punish the evil-doers that give it\ndisturbance, he has himself established laws for depriving criminals of\nlife; and thus those executions which, without his sanction, would be\npunishable outrages, become, by virtue of his authority, which is the\nrule of justice, praiseworthy penalties. St. Augustine takes an\nadmirable view of this subject. \u201cGod,\u201d he says, \u201chas himself qualified\nthis general prohibition against manslaughter, both by the laws which he\nhas instituted for the capital punishment of malefactors, and by the\nspecial orders which he has sometimes issued to put to death certain\nindividuals. And when death is inflicted in such cases, it is not man\nthat kills, but God, of whom man may be considered as only the\ninstrument, in the same way as a sword in the hand of him that wields\nit. But, these instances excepted, whosoever kills incurs the guilt of\nmurder.\u201d[255]\n\nIt appears, then, fathers, that the right of taking away the life of man\nis the sole prerogative of God, and that having ordained laws for\nexecuting death on criminals, he has deputed kings or commonwealths as\nthe depositaries of that power\u2014a truth which St. Paul teaches us, when,\nspeaking of the right which sovereigns possess over the lives of their\nsubjects, he deduces it from Heaven in these words: \u201cHe beareth not the\nsword in vain; for he is the minister of God to execute wrath upon him\nthat doeth evil.\u201d (Rom. xiii. 4.) But as it is God who has put this\npower into their hands, so he requires them to exercise it in the same\nmanner as he does himself; in other words, with perfect justice;\naccording to what St. Paul observes in the same passage: \u201cRulers are not\na terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid\nof the power? Do that which is good: for he is the minister of God to\nthee for good.\u201d And this restriction, so far from lowering their\nprerogative, exalts it, on the contrary, more than ever; for it is thus\nassimilated to that of God, who has no power to do evil, but is\nall-powerful to do good; and it is thus distinguished from that of\ndevils, who are impotent in that which is good, and powerful only for\nevil. There is this difference only to be observed betwixt the King of\nHeaven and earthly sovereigns, that God, being justice and wisdom\nitself, may inflict death instantaneously on whomsoever and in\nwhatsoever manner he pleases; for, besides his being the sovereign Lord\nof human life, it is certain that he never takes it away either without\ncause or without judgment, because he is as incapable of injustice as he\nis of error. Earthly potentates, however, are not at liberty to act in\nthis manner; for, though the ministers of God, still they are but men,\nand not gods. They may be misguided by evil counsels, irritated by false\nsuspicions, transported by passion, and hence they find themselves\nobliged to have recourse, in their turn also, to human agency, and\nappoint magistrates in their dominions, to whom they delegate their\npower, that the authority which God has bestowed on them may be employed\nsolely for the purpose for which they received it.\n\nI hope you understand, then, fathers, that to avoid the crime of murder,\nwe must act at once by the authority of God, and according to the\njustice of God; and that when these two conditions are not united, sin\nis contracted; whether it be by taking away life with his authority, but\nwithout his justice; or by taking it away with justice, but without his\nauthority. From this indispensable connection it follows, according to\nSt. Augustine, \u201cthat he who, without proper authority, kills a criminal,\nbecomes a criminal himself, chiefly for this reason, that he usurps an\nauthority which God has not given him;\u201d and on the other hand,\nmagistrates, though they possess this authority, are nevertheless\nchargeable with murder, if, contrary to the laws which they are bound to\nfollow, they inflict death on an innocent man.\n\nSuch are the principles of public safety and tranquillity which have\nbeen admitted at all times and in all places, and on the basis of which\nall legislators, sacred and profane, from the beginning of the world,\nhave founded their laws. Even Heathens have never ventured to make an\nexception to this rule, unless in cases where there was no other way of\nescaping the loss of chastity or life, when they conceived, as Cicero\ntells us, \u201cthat the law itself seemed to put its weapons into the hands\nof those who were placed in such an emergency.\u201d\n\nBut with this single exception, which has nothing to do with my present\npurpose, that such a law was ever enacted, authorizing or tolerating, as\nyou have done, the practice of putting a man to death, to atone for an\ninsult, or to avoid the loss of honor or property, where life is not in\ndanger at the same time; that, fathers, is what I deny was ever done,\neven by infidels. They have, on the contrary, most expressly forbidden\nthe practice. The law of the Twelve Tables of Rome bore, \u201cthat it is\nunlawful to kill a robber in the day-time, when he does not defend\nhimself with arms;\u201d which, indeed, had been prohibited long before in\nthe 22d chapter of Exodus. And the law _Furem_, in the _Lex Cornelia_,\nwhich is borrowed from Ulpian, forbids the killing of robbers even by\nnight, if they do not put us in danger of our lives.[256]\n\nTell us now, fathers, what authority you have to permit what all laws,\nhuman as well as divine, have forbidden; and who gave Lessius a right to\nuse the following language? \u201cThe book of Exodus forbids the killing of\nthieves by day, when they do not employ arms in their defence; and in a\ncourt of justice, punishment is inflicted on those who kill under these\ncircumstances. _In conscience_, however, no blame can be attached to\nthis practice, when a person is not sure of being able otherwise to\nrecover his stolen goods, or entertains a doubt on the subject, as Sotus\nexpresses it; for he is not obliged to run the risk of losing any part\nof his property merely to save the life of a robber. The same privilege\nextends even to clergymen.\u201d[257] Such extraordinary assurance! The law\nof Moses punishes those who kill a thief when he does not threaten our\nlives, and the law of the Gospel, according to you, will absolve them!\nWhat, fathers! has Jesus Christ come to destroy the law, and not to\nfulfil it? \u201cThe civil judge,\u201d says Lessius, \u201cwould inflict punishment on\nthose who should kill under such circumstances; but no blame can be\nattached to the deed in conscience.\u201d Must we conclude, then, that the\nmorality of Jesus Christ is more sanguinary, and less the enemy of\nmurder, than that of Pagans, from whom our judges have borrowed their\ncivil laws which condemn that crime? Do Christians make more account of\nthe good things of this earth, and less account of human life, than\ninfidels and idolaters? On what principle do you proceed, fathers?\nAssuredly not upon any law that ever was enacted either by God or man\u2014on\nnothing, indeed, but this extraordinary reasoning: \u201cThe laws,\u201d say you,\n\u201cpermit us to defend ourselves against robbers, and to repel force by\nforce; self-defence, therefore, being permitted, it follows that murder,\nwithout which self-defence is often impracticable, may be considered as\npermitted also.\u201d\n\nIt is false, fathers, that because self-defence is allowed, murder may\nbe allowed also. This barbarous method of self-vindication lies at the\nroot of all your errors, and has been justly stigmatized by the Faculty\nof Louvain, in their censure of the doctrine of your friend Father Lamy,\nas \u201c_a murderous defence_\u2014_defensio occisiva_.\u201d I maintain that the laws\nrecognize such a wide difference between murder and self-defence, that\nin those very cases in which the latter is sanctioned, they have made a\nprovision against murder, when the person is in no danger of his life.\nRead the words, fathers, as they run in the same passage of Cujas: \u201cIt\nis lawful to repulse the person who comes to invade our property; but\n_we are not permitted to kill him_.\u201d And again: \u201cIf any should threaten\nto strike us, and not to deprive us of life, it is quite allowable to\nrepulse him; but _it is against all law to put him to death_.\u201d\n\nWho, then, has given you a right to say, as Molina, Reginald, Filiutius,\nEscobar, Lessius, and others among you, have said, \u201cthat it is lawful to\nkill the man who offers to strike us a blow?\u201d or, \u201cthat it is lawful to\ntake the life of one who means to insult us, by the common consent of\nall the casuists,\u201d as Lessius says. By what authority do you, who are\nmere private individuals, confer upon other private individuals, not\nexcepting clergymen, this right of killing and slaying? And how dare you\nusurp the power of life and death, which belongs essentially to none but\nGod, and which is the most glorious mark of sovereign authority? These\nare the points that demand explanation; and yet you conceive that you\nhave furnished a triumphant reply to the whole, by simply remarking, in\nyour thirteenth Imposture, \u201cthat the value for which Molina permits us\nto kill a thief, who flies without having done us any violence, is not\nso small as I have said, and that it must be a much larger sum than six\nducats!\u201d How extremely silly! Pray, fathers, where would you have the\nprice to be fixed? At fifteen or sixteen ducats? Do not suppose that\nthis will produce any abatement in my accusations. At all events, you\ncannot make it exceed the value of a horse; for Lessius is clearly of\nopinion, \u201cthat we may lawfully kill the thief that runs off with our\nhorse.\u201d[258] But I must tell you, moreover, that I was perfectly correct\nwhen I said that Molina estimates the value of the thief\u2019s life at six\nducats; and, if you will not take it upon my word, we shall refer it to\nan umpire, to whom you cannot object. The person whom I fix upon for\nthis office is your own Father Reginald, who, in his explanation of the\nsame passage of Molina (l. 28, n. 68), declares that \u201cMolina there\nDETERMINES the sum for which it is not allowable to kill at three, or\nfour, or five ducats.\u201d And thus, fathers, I shall have Reginald in\naddition to Molina, to bear me out.\n\nIt will be equally easy for me to refute your fourteenth Imposture,\ntouching Molina\u2019s permission to \u201ckill a thief who offers to rob us of a\ncrown.\u201d This palpable fact is attested by Escobar, who tells us \u201cthat\nMolina has regularly determined the sum for which it is lawful to take\naway life, at one crown.\u201d[259] And all you have to lay to my charge in\nthe fourteenth imposture is, that I have suppressed the last words of\nthis passage, namely, \u201cthat in this matter every one ought to study the\nmoderation of a just self-defence.\u201d Why do you not complain that Escobar\nhas also omitted to mention these words? But how little tact you have\nabout you! You imagine that nobody understands what you mean by\nself-defence. Don\u2019t we know that it is to employ \u201c_a murderous\ndefence_?\u201d You would persuade us that Molina meant to say, that if a\nperson, in defending his crown, finds himself in danger of his life, he\nis then at liberty to kill his assailant, in self-preservation. If that\nwere true, fathers, why should Molina say in the same place, that \u201cin\nthis matter he was of a contrary judgment from Carrer and Bald,\u201d who\ngive permission to kill in self-preservation? I repeat, therefore, that\nhis plain meaning is, that provided the person can save his crown\nwithout killing the thief, he ought not to kill him; but that, if he\ncannot secure his object without shedding blood, even though he should\nrun no risk of his own life, as in the case of the robber being unarmed,\nhe is permitted to take up arms and kill the man, in order to save his\ncrown; and in so doing, according to him, the person does not transgress\n\u201cthe moderation of a just defence.\u201d To show you that I am in the right,\njust allow him to explain himself: \u201cOne does not exceed the moderation\nof a just defence,\u201d says he, \u201cwhen he takes up arms against a thief who\nhas none, or employs weapons which give him the advantage over his\nassailant. I know there are some who are of a contrary judgment; but I\ndo not approve of their opinion, even in the external tribunal.\u201d[260]\n\nThus, fathers, it is unquestionable that your authors have given\npermission to kill in defence of property and honor, though life should\nbe perfectly free from danger. And it is upon the same principle that\nthey authorize duelling, as I have shown by a great variety of passages\nfrom their writings, to which you have made no reply. You have\nanimadverted in your writings only on a single passage taken from Father\nLayman, who sanctions the above practice, \u201cwhen otherwise a person would\nbe in danger of sacrificing his fortune or his honor;\u201d and here you\naccuse me with having suppressed what he adds, \u201cthat such a case happens\nvery rarely.\u201d You astonish me, fathers: these are really curious\nimpostures you charge me withal. You talk as if the question were,\nWhether that is a rare case? when the real question is, If, in such a\ncase, duelling is lawful? These are two very different questions.\nLayman, in the quality of a casuist, ought to judge whether duelling is\nlawful in the case supposed; and he declares that it is. We can judge\nwithout his assistance, whether the case be a rare one; and we can tell\nhim that it is a very ordinary one. Or, if you prefer the testimony of\nyour good friend Diana, he will tell you that \u201cthe case is exceedingly\ncommon.\u201d[261] But be it rare or not, and let it be granted that Layman\nfollows in this the example of Navarre, a circumstance on which you lay\nso much stress, is it not shameful that he should consent to such an\nopinion as that, to preserve a false honor, it is lawful in conscience\nto accept of a challenge, in the face of the edicts of all Christian\nstates, and of all the canons of the Church, while, in support of these\ndiabolical maxims, you can produce neither laws, nor canons, nor\nauthorities from Scripture, or from the fathers, nor the example of a\nsingle saint, nor, in short, anything but the following impious\nsyllogism: \u201cHonor is more than life: it is allowable to kill in defence\nof life; therefore it is allowable to kill in defence of honor!\u201d What,\nfathers! because the depravity of men disposes them to prefer that\nfactitious honor before the life which God hath given them to be devoted\nto his service, must they be permitted to murder one another for its\npreservation? To love that honor more than life, is in itself a heinous\nevil; and yet this vicious passion, which, when proposed as the end of\nour conduct, is enough to tarnish the holiest of actions, is considered\nby you capable of sanctifying the most criminal of them!\n\nWhat a subversion of all principle is here, fathers! And who does not\nsee to what atrocious excesses it may lead? It is obvious, indeed, that\nit will ultimately lead to the commission of murder for the most\ntrifling things imaginable, when one\u2019s honor is considered to be staked\nfor their preservation\u2014murder, I venture to say, even _for an apple_!\nYou might complain of me, fathers, for drawing sanguinary inferences\nfrom your doctrine with a malicious intent, were I not fortunately\nsupported by the authority of the grave Lessius, who makes the following\nobservation, in number 68: \u201cIt is not allowable to take life for an\narticle of small value, such as for a crown or _for an apple_\u2014_aut pro\npomo_\u2014unless it would be deemed dishonorable to lose it. In this case,\none may recover the article, and even, if necessary, _kill the\naggressor_; for this is not so much defending one\u2019s property as\nretrieving one\u2019s honor.\u201d This is plain speaking, fathers; and, just to\ncrown your doctrine with a maxim which includes all the rest, allow me\nto quote the following from Father Hereau, who has taken it from\nLessius: \u201cThe right of self-defence extends to whatever is necessary to\nprotect ourselves from all injury.\u201d\n\nWhat strange consequences does this inhuman principle involve! and how\nimperative is the obligation laid upon all, and especially upon those in\npublic stations, to set their face against it! Not the general good\nalone, but their own personal interest should engage them to see well to\nit; for the casuists of your school whom I have cited in my letters,\nextend their permissions to kill far enough to reach even them. Factious\nmen, who dread the punishment of their outrages, which never appear to\nthem in a criminal light, easily persuade themselves that they are the\nvictims of violent oppression, and will be led to believe at the same\ntime, \u201cthat the right of self-defence extends to whatever is necessary\nto protect themselves from all injury.\u201d And thus, relieved from\ncontending against the checks of conscience, which stifle the greater\nnumber of crimes at their birth, their only anxiety will be to surmount\nexternal obstacles.\n\nI shall say no more on this subject, fathers; nor shall I dwell on the\nother murders, still more odious and important to governments, which you\nsanction, and of which Lessius, in common with many others of your\nauthors, treats in the most unreserved manner.[262] It was to be wished\nthat these horrible maxims had never found their way out of hell; and\nthat the devil, who is their original author, had never discovered men\nsufficiently devoted to his will to publish them among Christians.[263]\n\nFrom all that I have hitherto said, it is easy to judge what a\ncontrariety there is betwixt the licentiousness of your opinions and the\nseverity of civil laws, not even excepting those of heathens. How much\nmore apparent must the contrast be with ecclesiastical laws, which must\nbe incomparably more holy than any other, since it is the Church alone\nthat knows and possesses the true holiness! Accordingly, this chaste\nspouse of the Son of God, who, in imitation of her heavenly husband, can\nshed her own blood for others, but never the blood of others for\nherself, entertains a horror at the crime of murder altogether singular,\nand proportioned to the peculiar illumination which God has vouchsafed\nto bestow upon her. She views man, not simply as man, but as the image\nof the God whom she adores. She feels for every one of the race a holy\nrespect, which imparts to him, in her eyes, a venerable character, as\nredeemed by an infinite price, to be made the temple of the living God.\nAnd therefore she considers the death of a man, slain without the\nauthority of his Maker, not as murder only, but as sacrilege, by which\nshe is deprived of one of her members; for whether he be a believer or\nan unbeliever, she uniformly looks upon him, if not as one, at least as\ncapable of becoming one, of her own children.[264]\n\nSuch, fathers, are the holy reasons which, ever since the time that God\nbecame man for the redemption of men, have rendered their condition an\nobject of such consequence to the Church, that she uniformly punishes\nthe crime of homicide, not only as destructive to them, but as one of\nthe grossest outrages that can possibly be perpetrated against God. In\nproof of this I shall quote some examples, not from the idea that all\nthe severities to which I refer ought to be kept up (for I am aware that\nthe Church may alter the arrangement of such exterior discipline), but\nto demonstrate her immutable spirit upon this subject. The penances\nwhich she ordains for murder may differ according to the diversity of\nthe times, but no change of time can ever effect an alteration of the\nhorror with which she regards the crime itself.\n\nFor a long time the Church refused to be reconciled, till the very hour\nof death, to those who had been guilty of wilful murder, as those are to\nwhom you give your sanction. The celebrated Council of Ancyra adjudged\nthem to penance during their whole lifetime; and, subsequently, the\nChurch deemed it an act of sufficient indulgence to reduce that term to\na great many years. But, still more effectually to deter Christians from\nwilful murder, she has visited with most severe punishment even those\nacts which have been committed through inadvertence, as may be seen in\nSt. Basil, in St. Gregory of Nyssen, and in the decretals of Popes\nZachary and Alexander II. The canons quoted by Isaac, bishop of Langres\n(tr. 2. 13), \u201cordain seven years of penance for having killed another in\nself-defence.\u201d And we find St. Hildebert, bishop of Mans, replying to\nYves de Chartres, \u201cthat he was right in interdicting for life a priest\nwho had, in self-defence, killed a robber with a stone.\u201d\n\nAfter this, you cannot have the assurance to persist in saying that your\ndecisions are agreeable to the spirit or the canons of the Church. I\ndefy you to show one of them that permits us to kill solely in defence\nof our property (for I speak not of cases in which one may be called\nupon to defend his life\u2014_se suaqae liberando_): your own authors, and,\namong the rest, Father Lamy, confess that no such canon can be found.\n\u201cThere is no authority,\u201d he says, \u201chuman or divine, which gives an\nexpress permission to kill a robber who makes no resistance.\u201d And yet\nthis is what you permit most expressly. I defy you to show one of them\nthat permits us to kill in vindication of honor, for a buffet, for an\naffront, or for a slander. I defy you to show one of them that permits\nthe killing of witnesses, judges, or magistrates, whatever injustice we\nmay apprehend from them. The spirit of the church is diametrically\nopposite to these seditious maxims, opening the door to insurrections to\nwhich the mob is naturally prone enough already. She has invariably\ntaught her children that they ought not to render evil for evil; that\nthey ought to give place unto wrath; to make no resistance to violence;\nto give unto every one his due\u2014honor, tribute, submission; to obey\nmagistrates and superiors, even though they should be unjust, because we\nought always to respect in them the power of that God who has placed\nthem over us. She forbids them, still more strongly than is done by the\ncivil law, to take justice into their own hands; and it is in her spirit\nthat Christian kings decline doing so in cases of high treason, and\nremit the criminals charged with this grave offence into the hands of\nthe judges, that they may be punished according to the laws and the\nforms of justice, which in this matter exhibit a contrast to your mode\nof management, so striking and complete that it may well make you blush\nfor shame.\n\nAs my discourse has taken this turn, I beg you to follow the comparison\nwhich I shall now draw between the style in which you would dispose of\nyour enemies, and that in which the judges of the land dispose of\ncriminals. Everybody knows, fathers, that no private individual has a\nright to demand the death of another individual; and that though a man\nshould have ruined us, maimed our body, burnt our house, murdered our\nfather, and was prepared, moreover, to assassinate ourselves, or ruin\nour character, our private demand for the death of that person would not\nbe listened to in a court of justice. Public officers have been\nappointed for that purpose, who make the demand in the name of the king,\nor rather, I would say, in the name of God. Now, do you conceive,\nfathers, that Christian legislators have established this regulation out\nof mere show and grimace? Is it not evident that their object was to\nharmonize the laws of the state with those of the Church, and thus\nprevent the external practice of justice from clashing with the\nsentiments which all Christians are bound to cherish in their hearts? It\nis easy to see how this, which forms the commencement of a civil\nprocess, must stagger you; its subsequent procedure absolutely\noverwhelms you.\n\nSuppose, then, fathers, that these official persons have demanded the\ndeath of the man who has committed all the above mentioned crimes, what\nis to be done next? Will they instantly plunge a dagger in his breast?\nNo, fathers; the life of man is too important to be thus disposed of;\nthey go to work with more decency; the laws have committed it, not to\nall sorts of persons, but exclusively to the judges, whose probity and\ncompetency have been duly tried. And is one judge sufficient to condemn\na man to death? No; it requires seven at the very least; and of these\nseven there must not be one who has been injured by the criminal, lest\nhis judgment should be warped or corrupted by passion. You are aware\nalso, fathers, that the more effectually to secure the purity of their\nminds, they devote the hours of the morning to these functions. Such is\nthe care taken to prepare them for the solemn action of devoting a\nfellow-creature to death; in performing which they occupy the place of\nGod, whose ministers they are, appointed to condemn such only as have\nincurred his condemnation.\n\nFor the same reason, to act as faithful administrators of the divine\npower of taking away human life, they are bound to form their judgment\nsolely according to the depositions of the witnesses, and according to\nall the other forms prescribed to them; after which they can pronounce\nconscientiously only according to law, and can judge worthy of death\nthose only whom the law condemns to that penalty. And then, fathers, if\nthe command of God obliges them to deliver over to punishment the bodies\nof the unhappy culprits, the same divine statute binds them to look\nafter the interests of their guilty souls, and binds them the more to\nthis just because they are guilty; so that they are not delivered up to\nexecution till after they have been afforded the means of providing for\ntheir consciences.[265] All this is quite fair and innocent; and yet,\nsuch is the abhorrence of the Church to blood, that she judges those to\nbe incapable of ministering at her altars who have borne any share in\npassing or executing a sentence of death, accompanied though it be with\nthese religious circumstances; from which we may easily conceive what\nidea the Church entertains of murder.\n\nSuch, then, being the manner in which human life is disposed of by the\nlegal forms of justice, let us now see how you dispose of it. According\nto your modern system of legislation, there is but one judge, and that\njudge is no other than the offended party. He is at once the judge, the\nparty, and the executioner. He himself demands from himself the death of\nhis enemy; he condemns him, he executes him on the spot; and, without\nthe least respect either for the soul or the body of his brother, he\nmurders and damns him for whom Jesus Christ died; and all this for the\nsake of avoiding a blow on the cheek, or a slander, or an offensive\nword, or some other offence of a similar nature, for which, if a\nmagistrate, in the exercise of legitimate authority, were condemning any\nto die, he would himself be impeached; for, in such cases, the laws are\nvery far indeed from condemning any to death. In one word, to crown the\nwhole of this extravagance, the person who kills his neighbor in this\nstyle, without authority, and in the face of all law, contracts no sin\nand commits no disorder, though he should be religious, and even a\npriest! Where are we, fathers? Are these really religious, and priests,\nwho talk in this manner? Are they Christians? are they Turks? are they\nmen? or are they demons? And are these \u201cthe mysteries revealed by the\nLamb to his Society?\u201d or are they not rather abominations suggested by\nthe Dragon to those who take part with him?\n\nTo come to the point with you, fathers, whom do you wish to be taken\nfor?\u2014for the children of the Gospel, or for the enemies of the Gospel?\nYou must be ranged either on the one side or on the other; for there is\nno medium here. \u201cHe that is not with Jesus Christ is against him.\u201d Into\nthese two classes all mankind are divided. There are, according to St.\nAugustine, two peoples and two worlds, scattered abroad over the earth.\nThere is the world of the children of God, who form one body, of which\nJesus Christ is the king and the head; and there is the world at enmity\nwith God, of which the devil is the king and the head. Hence Jesus\nChrist is called the King and God of the world, because he has\neverywhere his subjects and worshippers; and hence the devil is also\ntermed in Scripture the prince of this world, and the god of this world,\nbecause he has everywhere his agents and his slaves. Jesus Christ has\nimposed upon the Church, which is his empire, such laws as he, in his\neternal wisdom, was pleased to ordain; and the devil has imposed on the\nworld, which is his kingdom, such laws as he chose to establish. Jesus\nChrist has associated honor with suffering; the devil with not\nsuffering. Jesus Christ has told those who are smitten on the one cheek\nto turn the other also; and the devil has told those who are threatened\nwith a buffet to kill the man that would do them such an injury. Jesus\nChrist pronounces those happy who share in his reproach; and the devil\ndeclares those to be unhappy who lie under ignominy. Jesus Christ says,\nWoe unto you when men shall speak well of you! and the devil says, Woe\nunto those of whom the world does not speak with esteem!\n\nJudge then, fathers, to which of these kingdoms you belong. You have\nheard the language of the city of peace, the mystical Jerusalem; and you\nhave heard the language of the city of confusion, which Scripture terms\n\u201cthe spiritual Sodom.\u201d Which of these two languages do you understand?\nwhich of them do you speak? Those who are on the side of Jesus Christ\nhave, as St. Paul teaches us, the same mind which was also in him; and\nthose who are the children of the devil\u2014_ex patre diabolo_\u2014who has been\na murderer from the beginning, according to the saying of Jesus Christ,\nfollow the maxims of the devil. Let us hear, therefore, the language of\nyour school. I put this question to your doctors: When a person has\ngiven me a blow on the cheek, ought I rather to submit to the injury\nthan kill the offender? or may I not kill the man in order to escape the\naffront? Kill him by all means\u2014it is quite lawful! exclaim, in one\nbreath, Lessius, Molina, Escobar, Reginald, Filiutius, Baldelle, and\nother Jesuits. Is that the language of Jesus Christ? One question more:\nWould I lose my honor by tolerating a box on the ear, without killing\nthe person that gave it? \u201cCan there be a doubt,\u201d cries Escobar, \u201cthat so\nlong as a man suffers another to live who has given him a buffet, that\nman remains without honor?\u201d Yes, fathers, without that honor which the\ndevil transfuses, from his own proud spirit into that of his proud\nchildren. This is the honor which has ever been the idol of\nworldly-minded men. For the preservation of this false glory, of which\nthe god of this world is the appropriate dispenser, they sacrifice their\nlives by yielding to the madness of duelling; their honor, by exposing\nthemselves to ignominious punishments; and their salvation, by involving\nthemselves in the peril of damnation\u2014a peril which, according to the\ncanons of the Church, deprives them even of Christian burial. We have\nreason to thank God, however, for having enlightened the mind of our\nmonarch with ideas much purer than those of your theology. His edicts\nbearing so severely on this subject, have not made duelling a crime\u2014they\nonly punish the crime which is inseparable from duelling. He has\nchecked, by the dread of his rigid justice, those who were not\nrestrained by the fear of the justice of God; and his piety has taught\nhim that the honor of Christians consists in their observance of the\nmandates of Heaven and the rules of Christianity, and not in the pursuit\nof that phantom which, airy and unsubstantial as it is, you hold to be a\nlegitimate apology for murder. Your murderous decisions being thus\nuniversally detested, it is highly advisable that you should now change\nyour sentiments, if not from religious principle, at least from motives\nof policy. Prevent, fathers, by a spontaneous condemnation of these\ninhuman dogmas, the melancholy consequences which may result from them,\nand for which you will be responsible. And to impress your minds with a\ndeeper horror at homicide, remember that the first crime of fallen man\nwas a murder, committed on the person of the first holy man; that the\ngreatest crime was a murder, perpetrated on the person of the King of\nsaints; and that of all crimes, murder is the only one which involves in\na common destruction the Church and the state, nature and religion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have just seen the answer of your apologist to my Thirteenth Letter;\nbut if he has nothing better to produce in the shape of a reply to that\nletter, which obviates the greater part of his objections, he will not\ndeserve a rejoinder. I am sorry to see him perpetually digressing from\nhis subject, to indulge in rancorous abuse both of the living and the\ndead. But, in order to gain some credit to the stories with which you\nhave furnished him, you should not have made him publicly disavow a fact\nso notorious as that of the buffet of Compi\u00e8gne.[266] Certain it is,\nfathers, from the deposition of the injured party, that he received upon\nhis cheek a blow from the hand of a Jesuit; and all that your friends\nhave been able to do for you has been to raise a doubt whether he\nreceived the blow with the back or the palm of the hand, and to discuss\nthe question whether a stroke on the cheek with the back of the hand can\nbe properly denominated a buffet. I know not to what tribunal it belongs\nto decide this point; but shall content myself, in the mean time, with\nbelieving that it was, to say the very least, _a probable buffet_. This\ngets me off with a safe conscience.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n City of God, book i. ch. 28.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n See Cujas, tit. dig. de just. et jur. ad l. 3.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n L. 2, c. 9, n. 66, 72.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n L. ii., c. 9, n. 74.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n Treat. i., examp. 7, n. 44.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n In casuistical divinity, a distinction is drawn between the internal\n and the external tribunal, or _forum_, as it is called. The internal\n tribunal, or the _forum poli_, is that of conscience or the judgment\n formed of actions according to the law of God. The external tribunal,\n or the _forum soli_, is that of human society, or the judgment of\n actions in the estimation of men, and according to civil law. (Voet.\n Disp. Theol., iv. 62.)\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n Part. 5, tr. 19, misc. 2, resol. 99.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Doubts 4th and 10th.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n \u201cI am happy,\u201d says Nicole, in a note, \u201cto state here an important\n fact, which confers the highest honor on M. Arnauld. A work of\n considerable size was sent him before going to press, in which there\n was a collection of all the authorities, from Jesuit writers,\n prejudicial to the life of kings and princes. That celebrated doctor\n prevented the impression of the work, on the ground that it was\n dangerous for the life of monarchs and for the honor of the Jesuits\n that it should ever see the light; and, in fact, the work was never\n printed. Some other writer, less delicate than M. Arnauld, has\n published something similar, in a work entitled _Recueil de Pieces\n concernant l\u2019 Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, par le P. Jouvenci_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n Surely Pascal is here describing the Church of Christ as she ought to\n be, and not the Church of Rome as she existed in 1656, at the very\n time when she was urging, sanctioning, and exulting in the bloody\n barbarities perpetrated in her name on the poor Piedmontese; or the\n same Church as she appeared in 1572, when one of her popes ordered a\n medal to be struck in honor of the Bartholomew massacre, with the\n inscription, \u201c_Strages Hugonotarum_\u2014The massacre of the Hugunots!\u201d Of\n what Church, if not the Romish, can it be said with truth, that, \u201cin\n her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that\n were slain on the earth?\u201d\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n _Providing for their consciences_\u2014that is, for the relief of\n conscience, by confessing to a priest, and receiving absolution.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n See Letter xiii., p. 264.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XV.[267]\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.\n\nSHOWING THAT THE JESUITS FIRST EXCLUDE CALUMNY FROM THEIR CATALOGUE OF\n CRIMES, AND THEN EMPLOY IT IN DENOUNCING THEIR OPPONENTS.\n\n\n _November 25, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014As your scurrilities are daily increasing, and as you\nare employing them in the merciless abuse of all pious persons opposed\nto your errors, I feel myself obliged, for their sake and that of the\nChurch, to bring out that grand secret of your policy, which I promised\nto disclose some time ago, in order that all may know, through means of\nyour own maxims, what degree of credit is due to your calumnious\naccusations.\n\nI am aware that those who are not very well acquainted with you, are at\na great loss what to think on this subject, as they find themselves\nunder the painful necessity, either of believing the incredible crimes\nwith which you charge your opponents, or (what is equally incredible) of\nsetting you down as slanderers. \u201cIndeed!\u201d they exclaim, \u201cwere these\nthings not true, would clergymen publish them to the world\u2014would they\ndebauch their consciences and damn themselves by venting such libels?\u201d\nSuch is their way of reasoning, and thus it is that the palpable proof\nof your falsifications coming into collision with their opinion of your\nhonesty, their minds hang in a state of suspense between the evidence of\ntruth which they cannot gainsay, and the demands of charity which they\nwould not violate. It follows, that since their high esteem for you is\nthe only thing that prevents them from discrediting your calumnies, if\nwe can succeed in convincing them that you have quite a different idea\nof calumny from that which they suppose you to have, and that you\nactually believe that in blackening and defaming your adversaries you\nare working out your own salvation, there can be little question that\nthe weight of truth will determine them immediately to pay no regard to\nyour accusations. This, fathers, will be the subject of the present\nletter.\n\nMy design is, not simply to show that your writings are full of\ncalumnies: I mean to go a step beyond this. It is quite possible for a\nperson to say a number of false things believing them to be true; but\nthe character of a liar implies the intention to tell lies. Now I\nundertake to prove, fathers, that it is your deliberate intention to\ntell lies, and that it is both knowingly and purposely that you load\nyour opponents with crimes of which you know them to be innocent,\nbecause you believe that you may do so without falling from a state of\ngrace. Though you doubtless know this point of your morality as well as\nI do, this need not prevent me from telling you about it; which I shall\ndo, were it for no other purpose than to convince all men of its\nexistence, by showing them that I can maintain it to your face, while\nyou cannot have the assurance to disavow it, without confirming, by that\nvery disavowment, the charge which I bring against you.\n\nThe doctrine to which I allude is so common in your schools, that you\nhave maintained it not only in your books, but, such is your assurance,\neven in your public theses; as, for example, in those delivered at\nLouvain in the year 1645, where it occurs in the following terms: \u201cWhat\nis it but a venial sin to calumniate and forge false accusations to ruin\nthe credit of those who speak evil of us?\u201d[268] So settled is this point\namong you, that if any one dare to oppose it, you treat him as a\nblockhead and a hare-brained idiot. Such was the way in which you\ntreated Father Quiroga, the German Capuchin, when he was so unfortunate\nas to impugn the doctrine. The poor man was instantly attacked by\nDicastille, one of your fraternity; and the following is a specimen of\nthe manner in which he manages the dispute: \u201cA certain rueful-visaged,\nbare-footed, cowled friar\u2014_cucullatus gymnopoda_\u2014whom I do not choose to\nname, had the boldness to denounce this opinion, among some women and\nignorant people, and to allege that it was scandalous and pernicious\nagainst all good manners, hostile to the peace of states and societies,\nand, in short, contrary to the judgment not only of all Catholic\ndoctors, but of all true Catholics. But in opposition to him I\nmaintained, as I do still, that calumny, when employed against a\ncalumniator, though it should be a falsehood, is not a mortal sin,\neither against justice or charity: and to prove the point, I referred\nhim to the whole body of our fathers, and to whole universities,\nexclusively composed of them, whom I had consulted on the subject; and\namong others the reverend Father John Gans, confessor to the emperor;\nthe reverend Father Daniel Bastele, confessor to the archduke Leopold;\nFather Henri, who was preceptor to these two princes; all the public and\nordinary professors of the university of Vienna\u201d (wholly composed of\nJesuits); \u201call the professors of the university of Gratz\u201d (all Jesuits);\n\u201call the professors of the university of Prague\u201d (where Jesuits are the\nmasters);\u2014\u201cfrom all of whom I have in my possession approbations of my\nopinions, written and signed with their own hands; besides having on my\nside the reverend Father Panalossa, a Jesuit, preacher to the emperor\nand the king of Spain; Father Pilliceroli, a Jesuit, and many others,\nwho had all judged this opinion to be probable, before our dispute\nbegan.\u201d[269] You perceive, fathers, that there are few of your opinions\nwhich you have been at more pains to establish than the present, as\nindeed there were few of them of which you stood more in need. For this\nreason, doubtless, you have authenticated it so well, that the casuists\nappeal to it as an indubitable principle. \u201cThere can be no doubt,\u201d says\nCaramuel, \u201cthat it is a probable opinion that we contract no mortal sin\nby calumniating another, in order to preserve our own reputation. For it\nis maintained by more than twenty grave doctors, by Gaspard Hurtado, and\nDicastille, Jesuits, &c.; so that, were this doctrine not probable, it\nwould be difficult to find any one such in the whole compass of\ntheology.\u201d\n\nWretched indeed must that theology be, and rotten to the very core,\nwhich, unless it has been decided to be safe in conscience to defame our\nneighbor\u2019s character to preserve our own, can hardly boast of a safe\ndecision on any other point! How natural is it, fathers, that those who\nhold this principle should occasionally put it in practice! The corrupt\npropensity of mankind leans so strongly in that direction of itself,\nthat the obstacle of conscience once being removed, it would be folly to\nsuppose that it will not burst forth with all its native impetuosity. If\nyou desire an example of this, Caramuel will furnish you with one that\noccurs in the same passage: \u201cThis maxim of Father Dicastille,\u201d he says,\n\u201chaving been communicated by a German countess to the daughters of the\nempress, the belief thus impressed on their minds that calumny was only\na venial sin, gave rise in the course of a few days to such an immense\nnumber of false and scandalous tales, that the whole court was thrown\ninto a flame and filled with alarm. It is easy, indeed, to conceive what\na fine use these ladies would make of the new light they had acquired.\nMatters proceeded to such a length, that it was found necessary to call\nin the assistance of a worthy Capuchin friar, a man of exemplary life,\ncalled Father Quiroga\u201d (the very man whom Dicastille rails at so\nbitterly), \u201cwho assured them that the maxim was most pernicious,\nespecially among women, and was at the greatest pains to prevail upon\nthe empress to abolish the practice of it entirely.\u201d We have no reason,\ntherefore, to be surprised at the bad effects of this doctrine; on the\ncontrary, the wonder would be, if it had failed to produce them.\nSelf-love is always ready enough to whisper in our ear, when we are\nattacked, that we suffer wrongfully; and more particularly in your case,\nfathers, whom vanity has blinded so egregiously as to make you believe\nthat to wound the honor of your Society, is to wound that of the Church.\nThere would have been good ground to look on it as something miraculous,\nif you had _not_ reduced this maxim to practice. Those who do not know\nyou are ready to say, How could these good fathers slander their\nenemies, when they cannot do so but at the expense of their own\nsalvation? But if they knew you better, the question would be, How could\nthese good fathers forego the advantage of decrying their enemies, when\nthey have it in their power to do so without hazarding their salvation?\nLet none, therefore, henceforth be surprised to find the Jesuits\ncalumniators; they can exercise this vocation with a safe conscience;\nthere is no obstacle in heaven or on earth to prevent them. In virtue of\nthe credit they have acquired in the world, they can practise defamation\nwithout dreading the justice of mortals; and, on the strength of their\nself-assumed authority in matters of conscience, they have invented\nmaxims for enabling them to do it without any fear of the justice of\nGod.\n\nThis, fathers, is the fertile source of your base slanders. On this\nprinciple was Father Brisacier led to scatter his calumnies about him,\nwith such zeal as to draw down on his head the censure of the late\nArchbishop of Paris. Actuated by the same motives, Father D\u2019Anjou\nlaunched his invectives from the pulpit of the Church of St. Benedict in\nParis, on the 8th of March, 1655, against those honorable gentlemen who\nwere intrusted with the charitable funds raised for the poor of Picardy\nand Champagne, to which they themselves had largely contributed; and,\nuttering a base falsehood, calculated (if your slanders had been\nconsidered worthy of any credit) to dry up the stream of that charity,\nhe had the assurance to say, \u201cthat he knew, from good authority, that\ncertain persons had diverted that money from its proper use, to employ\nit against the Church and the State;\u201d a calumny which obliged the curate\nof the parish, who is a doctor of the Sorbonne, to mount the pulpit the\nvery next day, in order to give it the lie direct. To the same source\nmust be traced the conduct of your Father Crasset, who preached calumny\nat such a furious rate in Orleans that the archbishop of that place was\nunder the necessity of interdicting him as a public slanderer. In his\nmandate, dated the 9th of September last, his lordship declares, \u201cThat\nwhereas he had been informed that Brother Jean Crasset, priest of the\nSociety of Jesus, had delivered from the pulpit a discourse filled with\nfalsehoods and calumnies against the ecclesiastics of this city, falsely\nand maliciously charging them with maintaining impious and heretical\npropositions, such as, That the commandments of God are impracticable;\nthat internal grace is irresistible; that Jesus Christ did not die for\nall men; and others of a similar kind, condemned by Innocent X.: he\ntherefore hereby interdicts the aforesaid Crasset from preaching in his\ndiocese, and forbids all his people to hear him, on pain of mortal\ndisobedience.\u201d The above, fathers, is your ordinary accusation, and\ngenerally among the first that you bring against all whom it is your\ninterest to denounce. And although you should find it as impossible to\nsubstantiate the charge against any of them, as Father Crasset did in\nthe case of the clergy of Orleans, your peace of conscience will not be\nin the least disturbed on that account; for you believe that this mode\nof calumniating your adversaries is permitted you with such certainty,\nthat you have no scruple to avow it in the most public manner, and in\nthe face of a whole city.\n\nA remarkable proof of this may be seen in the dispute you had with M.\nPuys, curate of St. Nisier at Lyons; and the story exhibits so complete\nan illustration of your spirit, that I shall take the liberty of\nrelating some of its leading circumstances. You know, fathers, that, in\nthe year 1649, M. Puys translated into French an excellent book, written\nby another Capuchin friar, \u201cOn the duty which Christians owe to their\nown parishes, against those that would lead them away from them,\u201d\nwithout using a single invective, or pointing to any monk or any order\nof monks in particular. Your fathers, however, were pleased to put the\ncap on their own heads; and without any respect to an aged pastor, a\njudge in the Primacy of France, and a man who was held in the highest\nesteem by the whole city, Father Alby wrote a furious tract against him,\nwhich you sold in your own church upon Assumption-day; in which book,\namong other various charges, he accused him of having \u201cmade himself\nscandalous by his gallantries,\u201d described him as suspected of having no\nreligion, as a heretic, excommunicated, and, in short, worthy of the\nstake. To this M. Puys made a reply; and Father Alby, in a second\npublication, supported his former allegations. Now, fathers, is it not a\nclear point, either that you were calumniators, or that you believed all\nthat you alleged against that worthy priest to be true; and that, on\nthis latter assumption, it became you to see him purified from all these\nabominations before judging him worthy of your friendship? Let us see,\nthen, what happened at the accommodation of the dispute, which took\nplace in the presence of a great number of the principal inhabitants of\nthe town, whose names will be found at the foot of the page,[270]\nexactly as they are set down in the instrument drawn up on the 25th of\nSeptember, 1650. Before all these witnesses M. Puys made a declaration,\nwhich was neither more nor less than this: \u201cThat what he had written was\nnot directed against the fathers of the Society of Jesus; that he had\nspoken in general of those who alienated the faithful from their\nparishes, without meaning by that to attack the Society; and that so far\nfrom having such an intention, the Society was the object of his esteem\nand affection.\u201d By virtue of these words alone, without either\nretractation or absolution, M. Puys recovered, all at once, from his\napostasy, his scandals, and his excommunication; and Father Alby\nimmediately thereafter addressed him in the following express terms:\n\u201cSir, it was in consequence of my believing that you meant to attack the\nSociety to which I have the honor to belong, that I was induced to take\nup the pen in its defence; and I considered that the mode of reply which\nI adopted was _such as I was permitted to employ_. But, on a better\nunderstanding of your intention, I am now free to declare, that _there\nis nothing in your work_ to prevent me from regarding you as a man of\ngenius, enlightened in judgment, profound and _orthodox_ in doctrine,\nand _irreproachable_ in manners; in one word, as a pastor worthy of your\nChurch. It is with much pleasure that I make this declaration, and I beg\nthese gentlemen to remember what I have now said.\u201d\n\nThey do remember it, fathers; and, allow me to add, they were more\nscandalized by the reconciliation than by the quarrel. For who can fail\nto admire this speech of Father Alby? He does not say that he retracts,\nin consequence of having learnt that a change had taken place in the\nfaith and manners of M. Puys, but solely because, _having understood\nthat he had no intention of attacking your Society_, there was nothing\nfurther to prevent him from regarding the author as a good Catholic. He\ndid not then believe him to be actually a heretic! And yet, after\nhaving, contrary to his conviction, accused him of this crime, he will\nnot acknowledge he was in the wrong, but has the hardihood to say, that\nhe considered the method he adopted to be \u201csuch as he was _permitted_ to\nemploy!\u201d\n\nWhat can you possibly mean, fathers, by so publicly avowing the fact,\nthat you measure the faith and the virtue of men only by the sentiments\nthey entertain towards your Society? Had you no apprehension of making\nyourselves pass, by your own acknowledgment, as a band of swindlers and\nslanderers? What, fathers! must the same individual, without undergoing\nany personal transformation, but simply according as you judge him to\nhave honored or assailed your community, be \u201cpious\u201d or \u201cimpious,\u201d\n\u201cirreproachable\u201d or \u201cexcommunicated,\u201d \u201ca pastor worthy of the Church\u201d or\n\u201cworthy of the stake;\u201d in short, \u201ca Catholic\u201d or \u201ca heretic?\u201d To attack\nyour Society and to be a heretic, are, therefore, in your language,\nconvertible terms! An odd sort of heresy this, fathers! And so it would\nappear, that when we see many good Catholics branded, in your writings,\nby the name of heretics, it means nothing more than that _you think they\nattack you_! It is well, fathers, that we understand this strange\ndialect, according to which there can be no doubt that I must be a great\nheretic. It is in _this_ sense, then, that you so often favor me with\nthis appellation! Your sole reason for cutting me off from the Church\nis, because you conceive that my letters have done you harm; and,\naccordingly, all that I have to do, in order to become a good Catholic,\nis either to approve of your extravagant morality, or to convince you\nthat my sole aim in exposing it has been your advantage. The former I\ncould not do without renouncing every sentiment of piety that I ever\npossessed; and the latter you will be slow to acknowledge till you are\nwell cured of your errors. Thus am I involved in heresy, after a very\nsingular fashion; for, the purity of my faith being of no avail for my\nexculpation, I have no means of escaping from the charge, except either\nby turning traitor to my own conscience, or by reforming yours. Till one\nor other of these events happen, I must remain a reprobate and a\nslanderer; and, let me be ever so faithful in my citations from your\nwritings, you will go about crying everywhere, \u201cWhat an instrument of\nthe devil must that man be, to impute to us things of which there is not\nthe least mark or vestige to be found in our books!\u201d And, by doing so,\nyou will only be acting in conformity with your fixed maxim and your\nordinary practice: to such latitude does your privilege of telling lies\nextend! Allow me to give you an example of this, which I select on\npurpose: it will give me an opportunity of replying, at the same time,\nto your ninth Imposture: for, in truth, they only deserve to be refuted\nin passing.\n\nAbout ten or twelve years ago, you were accused of holding that maxim of\nFather Bauny, \u201cthat it is permissible to seek directly (_primo et per\nse_) a proximate occasion of sin, for the spiritual or temporal good of\nourselves or our neighbor\u201d (tr. 4, q. 14); as an example of which, he\nobserves, \u201cIt is allowable to visit infamous places, for the purpose of\nconverting abandoned females, even although the practice should be very\nlikely to lead into sin, as in the case of one who has found from\nexperience that he has frequently yielded to their temptations.\u201d What\nanswer did your Father Caussin give to this charge in the year 1644?\n\u201cJust let any one look at the passage in Father Bauny,\u201d said he, \u201clet\nhim peruse the page, the margins, the preface, the appendix, in short,\nthe whole book from beginning to end, and he will not discover the\nslightest vestige of such a sentence, which could only enter into the\nmind of a man totally devoid of conscience, and could hardly have been\nforged by any other but an instrument of Satan.\u201d[271] Father Pintereau\ntalks in the same style: \u201cThat man must be lost to all conscience who\nwould teach so detestable a doctrine; but he must be worse than a devil\nwho attributes it to Father Bauny. Reader, there is not a single trace\nor vestige of it in the whole of his book.\u201d[272] Who would not believe\nthat persons talking in this tone have good reason to complain, and that\nFather Bauny has, in very deed, been misrepresented? Have you ever\nasserted anything against me in stronger terms? And, after such a solemn\nasseveration, that \u201cthere was not a single trace or vestige of it in the\nwhole book,\u201d who would imagine that the passage is to be found, word for\nword, in the place referred to?\n\nTruly, fathers, if this be the means of securing your reputation, so\nlong as you remain unanswered, it is also, unfortunately, the means of\ndestroying it forever, so soon as an answer makes its appearance. For so\ncertain is it that you told a lie at the period before mentioned, that\nyou make no scruple of acknowledging, in your apologies of the present\nday, that the maxim in question is to be found in the very place which\nhad been quoted; and what is most extraordinary, the same maxim which,\ntwelve years ago, was \u201cdetestable,\u201d has now become so innocent, that in\nyour ninth Imposture (p. 10) you accuse me of \u201cignorance and malice, in\nquarrelling with Father Bauny for an opinion which has not been rejected\nin the School.\u201d What an advantage it is, fathers, to have to do with\npeople that deal in contradictions! I need not the aid of any but\nyourselves to confute you; for I have only two things to show\u2014first,\nThat the maxim in dispute is a worthless one; and, secondly, That it\nbelongs to Father Bauny; and I can prove both by your own confession. In\n1644, you confessed that it was \u201cdetestable;\u201d and, in 1656, you avow\nthat it is Father Bauny\u2019s. This double acknowledgment completely\njustifies me, fathers; but it does more, it discovers the spirit of your\npolicy. For, tell me, pray, what is the end you propose to yourselves in\nyour writings? Is it to speak with honesty? No, fathers; that cannot be,\nsince your defences destroy each other. Is it to follow the truth of the\nfaith? As little can this be your end; since, according to your own\nshowing, you authorize a \u201cdetestable\u201d maxim. But, be it observed, that\nwhile you said the maxim was \u201cdetestable,\u201d you denied, at the same time,\nthat it was the property of Father Bauny, and so he was innocent; and\nwhen you now acknowledge it to be his, you maintain, at the same time,\nthat it is a good maxim, and so he is innocent still. The innocence of\nthis monk, therefore, being the only thing common to your two answers,\nit is obvious that this was the sole end which you aimed at in putting\nthem forth; and that, when you say of one and the same maxim, that it is\nin a certain book, and that it is not; that it is a good maxim, and that\nit is a bad one; your sole object is to white-wash some one or other of\nyour fraternity; judging in the matter, not according to the truth,\nwhich never changes, but according to your own interest, which is\nvarying every hour. Can I say more than this? You perceive that it\namounts to a demonstration; but it is far from being a singular\ninstance; and, to omit a multitude of examples of the same thing, I\nbelieve you will be contented with my quoting only one more.\n\nYou have been charged, at different times, with another proposition of\nthe same Father Bauny, namely, \u201cThat absolution ought to be neither\ndenied nor deferred in the case of those who live in the habits of sin\nagainst the law of God, of nature, and of the Church, although there\nshould be no apparent prospect of future amendment\u2014_etsi emendationis\nfutur\u00e6 spes nulla appareat_.\u201d[273] Now, with regard to this maxim, I beg\nyou to tell me, fathers, which of the apologies that have been made for\nit is most to your liking; whether that of Father Pintereau, or that of\nFather Brisacier, both of your Society, who have defended Father Bauny,\nin your _two different_ modes\u2014the one by condemning the proposition, but\ndisavowing it to be Father Bauny\u2019s; the other by allowing it to be\nFather Bauny\u2019s, but vindicating the proposition? Listen, then, to their\nrespective deliverances. Here comes that of Father Pintereau (p. 8): \u201cI\nknow not what can be called a transgression of all the bounds of\nmodesty, a step beyond all ordinary impudence, if the imputation to\nFather Bauny of so damnable a doctrine is not worthy of that\ndesignation. Judge, reader, of the baseness of that calumny; see what\nsort of creatures the Jesuits have to deal with; and say, if the author\nof so foul a slander does not deserve to be regarded from henceforth as\nthe interpreter of the father of lies.\u201d Now for Father Brisacier: \u201cIt is\ntrue, Father Bauny says what you allege.\u201d (That gives the lie direct to\nFather Pintereau, plain enough.) \u201cBut,\u201d adds he, in defence of Father\nBauny, \u201cif you who find so much fault with this sentiment, wait, when a\npenitent lies at your feet, till his guardian angel find security for\nhis rights in the inheritance of heaven; if you wait till God the\nFather, swear by himself that David told a lie, when he said, by the\nHoly Ghost, that \u2018all men are liars,\u2019 fallible and perfidious; if you\nwait till the penitent be no longer a liar, no longer frail and\nchangeable, no longer a sinner, like other men; if you wait, I say, till\nthen, you will never apply the blood of Jesus Christ to a single\nsoul.\u201d[274]\n\nWhat do you really think now, fathers, of these impious and extravagant\nexpressions? According to them, if we would wait \u201ctill there be some\nhope of amendment\u201d in sinners before granting their absolution, we must\nwait \u201ctill God the Father swear by himself,\u201d that they will never fall\ninto sin any more! What, fathers! is no distinction to be made between\n_hope_ and _certainty_? How injurious is it to the grace of Jesus\nChrist, to maintain that it is so impossible for Christians ever to\nescape from crimes against the laws of God, nature, and the Church, that\nsuch a thing cannot be looked for, without supposing \u201cthat the Holy\nGhost has told a lie;\u201d and if absolution is not granted to those who\ngive no hope of amendment, the blood of Jesus Christ will be useless,\nforsooth, and \u201cwould never be applied to a single soul!\u201d To what a sad\npass have you come, fathers, by this extravagant desire of upholding the\nglory of your authors, when you can find only two ways of justifying\nthem\u2014by imposture or by impiety; and when the most innocent mode by\nwhich you can extricate yourselves, is by the barefaced denial of facts\nas patient as the light of day!\n\nThis may perhaps account for your having recourse so frequently to that\nvery convenient practice. But this does not complete the sum of your\naccomplishments in the art of self-defence. To render your opponents\nodious, you have had recourse to the forging of documents, such as that\n_Letter of a Minister to M. Arnauld_, which you circulated through all\nParis, to induce the belief that the work on Frequent Communion, which\nhad been approved by so many bishops and doctors, but which, to say the\ntruth, was rather against you, had been concocted through secret\nintelligence with the ministers of Charenton.[275] At other times, you\nattribute to your adversaries writings full of impiety, such as the\n_Circular Letter of the Jansenists_, the absurd style of which renders\nthe fraud too gross to be swallowed, and palpably betrays the malice of\nyour Father Meynier, who has the impudence to make use of it for\nsupporting his foulest slanders. Sometimes, again, you will quote books\nwhich were never in existence, such as _The Constitution of the Holy\nSacrament_, from which you extract passages, fabricated at pleasure, and\ncalculated to make the hair on the heads of certain good simple people,\nwho have no idea of the effrontery with which you can invent and\npropagate falsehoods, actually to bristle with horror. There is not,\nindeed, a single species of calumny which you have not put into\nrequisition; nor is it possible that the maxim which excuses the vice\ncould have been lodged in better hands.\n\nBut those sorts of slander to which we have adverted are rather too\neasily discredited; and, accordingly, you have others of a more subtle\ncharacter, in which you abstain from specifying particulars, in order to\npreclude your opponents from getting any hold, or finding any means of\nreply; as, for example, when Father Brisacier says that \u201chis enemies are\nguilty of abominable crimes, _which he does not choose to mention_.\u201d\nWould you not think it were impossible to prove a charge so vague as\nthis to be a calumny? An able man, however, has found out the secret of\nit; and it is a Capuchin again, fathers. You are unlucky in Capuchins,\nas times now go; and I foresee that you may be equally so some other\ntime in Benedictines. The name of this Capuchin is Father Valerien, of\nthe house of the Counts of Magnis. You shall hear, by this brief\nnarrative, how he answered your calumnies. He had happily succeeded in\nconverting Prince Ernest, the Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinsfelt.[276] Your\nfathers, however, seized, as it would appear, with some chagrin at\nseeing a sovereign prince converted without their having had any hand in\nit, immediately wrote a book against the friar (for good men are\neverywhere the objects of your persecution), in which, by falsifying one\nof his passages, they ascribed to him an heretical doctrine. They also\ncirculated a letter against him, in which they said: \u201cAh, we have such\nthings to disclose\u201d (without mentioning what) \u201cas will gall you to the\nquick! If you don\u2019t take care, we shall be forced to inform the pope and\nthe cardinals about it.\u201d This man\u0153uvre was pretty well executed; and I\ndoubt not, fathers, but you may speak in the same style of me; but take\nwarning from the manner in which the friar answered in his book, which\nwas printed last year at Prague (p. 112, &c.): \u201cWhat shall I do,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cto counteract these vague and indefinite insinuations? How shall\nI refute charges which have never been specified? Here, however, is my\nplan. I declare, loudly and publicly, to those who have threatened me,\nthat they are notorious slanderers, and most impudent liars, if they do\nnot discover these crimes before the whole world. Come forth, then, mine\naccusers! and publish your lies upon the house tops, in place of telling\nthem in the ear, and keeping yourselves out of harm\u2019s way by telling\nthem in the ear. Some may think this a scandalous way of managing the\ndispute. It was scandalous, I grant, to impute to me such a crime as\nheresy, and to fix upon me the suspicion of many others besides; but, by\nasserting my innocence, I am merely applying the proper remedy to the\nscandal already in existence.\u201d\n\nTruly, fathers, never were your reverences more roughly handled, and\nnever was a poor man more completely vindicated. Since you have made no\nreply to such a peremptory challenge, it must be concluded that you are\nunable to discover the slightest shadow of criminality against him. You\nhave had very awkward scrapes to get through occasionally; but\nexperience has made you nothing the wiser. For, some time after this\nhappened, you attacked the same individual in a similar strain, upon\nanother subject; and he defended himself after the same spirited manner,\nas follows: \u201cThis class of men, who have become an intolerable nuisance\nto the whole of Christendom, aspire, under the pretext of good works, to\ndignities and domination, by perverting to their own ends almost all\nlaws, human and divine, natural and revealed. They gain over to their\nside, by their doctrine, by the force of fear, or of persuasion, the\ngreat ones of the earth, whose authority they abuse for the purpose of\naccomplishing their detestable intrigues. Meanwhile their enterprises,\ncriminal as they are, are neither punished nor suppressed; on the\ncontrary, they are rewarded; and the villains go about them with as\nlittle fear or remorse as if they were doing God service. Everybody is\naware of the fact I have now stated; everybody speaks of it with\nexecration; but few are found capable of opposing a despotism so\npowerful. This, however, is what I have done. I have already curbed\ntheir insolence; and, by the same means, I shall curb it again. I\ndeclare, then, that _they are most impudent liars_\u2014MENTIRIS\nIMPUDENTISSIME. If the charges they have brought against me be true, let\nthem prove it; otherwise, they stand convicted of falsehood, aggravated\nby the grossest effrontery. Their procedure in this case will show who\nhas the right upon his side. I desire all men to take a particular\nobservation of it; and beg to remark, in the mean time, that this\nprecious cabal, who will not suffer the most trifling charge which they\ncan possibly repel to lie upon them, made a show of enduring, with great\npatience, those from which they cannot vindicate themselves, and\nconceal, under a counterfeit virtue, their real impotency. My object,\ntherefore, in provoking their modesty, by this sharp retort, is to let\nthe plainest people understand, that if my enemies hold their peace,\ntheir forbearance must be ascribed, not to the meekness of their\nnatures, but to the power of a guilty conscience.\u201d He concludes with the\nfollowing sentence: \u201cThese gentry, whose history is well known\nthroughout the whole world, are so glaringly iniquitous in their\nmeasures, and have become so insolent in their impunity, that if I did\nnot detest their conduct, and publicly express my detestation too, not\nmerely for my own vindication, but to guard the simple against its\nseducing influence, I must have renounced my allegiance to Jesus Christ\nand his Church.\u201d\n\nReverend fathers, there is no room for tergiversation. You must pass for\nconvicted slanderers, and take comfort in your old maxim, that calumny\nis no crime. This honest friar has discovered the secret of shutting\nyour mouths; and it must be employed on all occasions when you accuse\npeople without proof. We have only to reply to each slander as it\nappears, in the words of the Capuchin, _Mentiris impudentissime_\u2014\u201cYou\nare most impudent liars.\u201d For instance, what better answer does Father\nBrisacier deserve when he says of his opponents that they are \u201cthe gates\nof hell; the devil\u2019s bishops; persons devoid of faith, hope, and\ncharity; the builders of Antichrist\u2019s exchequer;\u201d adding, \u201cI say this of\nhim, not by way of insult, but from deep conviction of its truth?\u201d Who\nwould be at the pains to demonstrate that he is not \u201ca gate of hell,\u201d\nand that he has no concern with \u201cthe building up of Antichrist\u2019s\nexchequer?\u201d\n\nIn like manner, what reply is due to all the vague speeches of this sort\nwhich are to be found in your books and advertisements on my letters;\nsuch as the following, for example: \u201cThat restitutions have been\nconverted to private uses, and thereby creditors have been reduced to\nbeggary; that bags of money have been offered to learned monks, who\ndeclined the bribe; that benefices are conferred for the purpose of\ndisseminating heresies against the faith; that pensioners are kept in\nthe houses of the most eminent churchmen, and in the courts of\nsovereigns; that I also am a pensioner of Port-Royal; and that, before\nwriting my letters, I had composed _romances_\u201d\u2014I, who never read one in\nmy life, and who do not know so much as the names of those which your\napologist has published? What can be said in reply to all this, fathers,\nif you do not mention the names of all these persons you refer to, their\nwords, the time, and the place, except\u2014_Mentiris impudentissime_? You\nshould either be silent altogether, or relate and prove all the\ncircumstances, as I did when I told you the anecdotes of Father Alby and\nJohn d\u2019Alba. Otherwise, you will hurt none but yourselves. Your numerous\nfables might, perhaps, have done you some service, before your\nprinciples were known; but now that the whole has been brought to light,\nwhen you begin to whisper as usual, \u201cA man of honor, who desired us to\nconceal his name, has told us some horrible stories of these same\npeople\u201d\u2014you will be cut short at once, and reminded of the Capuchin\u2019s\n_Mentiris impudentissime_. Too long by far have you been permitted to\ndeceive the world, and to abuse the confidence which men were ready to\nplace in your calumnious accusations. It is high time to redeem the\nreputation of the multitudes whom you have defamed. For what innocence\ncan be so generally known, as not to suffer some injury from the daring\naspersions of a body of men scattered over the face of the earth, and\nwho, under religious habits, conceal minds so utterly irreligious, that\nthey perpetrate crimes like calumny, not in opposition to, but in strict\naccordance with, their moral maxims? I cannot, therefore, be blamed for\ndestroying the credit which might have been awarded you; seeing it must\nbe allowed to be a much greater act of justice to restore to the victims\nof your obloquy the character which they did not deserve to lose, than\nto leave you in the possession of a reputation for sincerity which you\ndo not deserve to enjoy. And as the one could not be done without the\nother, how important was it to show you up to the world as you really\nare! In this letter I have commenced the exhibition; but it will require\nsome time to complete it. Published it shall be, fathers, and all your\npolicy will be inadequate to save you from the disgrace; for the efforts\nwhich you may make to avert the blow, will only serve to convince the\nmost obtuse observers that you were terrified out of your wits, and\nthat, your consciences anticipating the charges I had to bring against\nyou, you have put every oar in the water to prevent the discovery.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n Pascal was assisted by M. Arnauld in the preparation of this letter.\n (Nicole, iv. 162.)\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n Quidni non nisi veniale sit, detrahentes autoritatem magnam, tibi\n noxiam, falso crimine elidere?\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n Dicastillus, De Just., l. 2, tr. 2, disp. 12, n. 404.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n M. De Ville, Vicar-General of M., the Cardinal of Lyons; M. Scarron,\n Canon and Curate of St. Paul; M. Margat, Chanter; MM. Bouvand, Seve,\n Aubert, and Dervien, Canons of St. Nisier; M. de Gu\u00e9, President of the\n Treasurers of France; M. Groslier, Provost of the Merchants; M. de\n Fl\u00e8chre, President and Lieutenant-General; MM. De Boissart, De St.\n Romain, and De Bartoly, gentlemen; M. Bourgeois, the King\u2019s First\n Advocate in the Court of the Treasurers of France; MM. De Cotton,\n father and son; and M. Boniel; who have all signed the original copy\n of the Declaration, along with M. Puys and Father Alby.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Apology for the Society of Jesus, p. 128.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n First Part, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n Tr. 4, q. 22, p. 100.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Part. 4, p. 21\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n That is, the Protestant ministers of Paris, who are called \u201cthe\n ministers of Charenton,\u201d from the village of that name near Paris,\n where they had their place of worship. The Protestants of Paris were\n forbidden to hold meetings in the city, and were compelled to travel\n five leagues to a place of worship, till 1606, when they were\n _graciously_ permitted to erect their temple at Charenton, about two\n leagues from the city! (Benoit, Hist. de l\u2019Edit. de Nantes, i. 435.)\n Even there they were harassed by the bigoted populace, and at last\n \u201cthe ministers of Charenton,\u201d among whom were the famous Claude and\n Daill\u00e9, were driven from their homes, their chapel burnt to the\n ground, and their people scattered abroad.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n In the first edition it was said to be the Landgrave of Darmstat, by\n mistake, as shown in a note by Nicole.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XVI.[277]\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.\n\n SHAMEFUL CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS AGAINST PIOUS CLERGYMEN AND INNOCENT\n NUNS.\n\n\n _December 4, 1656._\n\nREVEREND FATHERS,\u2014I now come to consider the rest of your calumnies, and\nshall begin with those contained in your advertisements, which remain to\nbe noticed. As all your other writings, however, are equally well\nstocked with slander, they will furnish me with abundant materials for\nentertaining you on this topic as long as I may judge expedient. In the\nfirst place, then, with regard to the fable which you have propagated in\nall your writings against the Bishop of Ypres,[278] I beg leave to say,\nin one word, that you have maliciously wrested the meaning of some\nambiguous expressions in one of his letters, which being capable of a\ngood sense, ought, according to the spirit of the Gospel, to have been\ntaken in good part, and could only be taken otherwise according to the\nspirit of your Society. For example, when he says to a friend, \u201cGive\nyourself no concern about your nephew; I will furnish him with what he\nrequires from the money that lies in my hands,\u201d what reason have you to\ninterpret this to mean, that he would take that money without restoring\nit, and not that he merely advanced it with the purpose of replacing it?\nAnd how extremely imprudent was it for you to furnish a refutation of\nyour own lie, by printing the other letters of the Bishop of Ypres,\nwhich clearly show that, in point of fact, it was merely _advanced_\nmoney, which he was bound to refund. This appears, to your confusion,\nfrom the following terms in the letter, to which you give the date of\nJuly 30, 1619: \u201cBe not uneasy about the money _advanced_; he shall want\nfor nothing so long as he is here;\u201d and likewise from another, dated\nJanuary 6, 1620, where he says: \u201cYou are in too great haste; when the\naccount shall become due, I have no fear but that the little credit\nwhich I have in this place will bring me as much money as I require.\u201d\n\nIf you are convicted slanderers on this subject, you are no less so in\nregard to the ridiculous story about the charity-box of St. Merri. What\nadvantage, pray, can you hope to derive from the accusation which one of\nyour worthy friends has trumped up against that ecclesiastic? Are we to\nconclude that a man is guilty, because he is accused? No, fathers. Men\nof piety, like him, may expect to be perpetually accused, so long as the\nworld contains calumniators like you. We must judge of him, therefore,\nnot from the accusation, but from the sentence; and the sentence\npronounced on the case (February 23, 1656) justifies him completely.\nMoreover, the person who had the temerity to involve himself in that\niniquitous process, was disavowed by his colleagues, and himself\ncompelled to retract his charge. And as to what you allege, in the same\nplace, about \u201cthat famous director, who pocketed at once nine hundred\nthousand livres,\u201d I need only refer you to Messieurs the cur\u00e9s of St.\nRoch and St. Paul, who will bear witness, before the whole city of\nParis, to his perfect disinterestedness in the affair, and to your\ninexcusable malice in that piece of imposition.\n\nEnough, however, for such paltry falsities. These are but the first raw\nattempts of your novices, and not the master-strokes of your \u201cgrand\nprofessed.\u201d[279] To these do I now come, fathers; I come to a calumny\nwhich is certainly one of the basest that ever issued from the spirit of\nyour Society. I refer to the insufferable audacity with which you have\nimputed to holy nuns, and to their directors, the charge of\n\u201cdisbelieving the mystery of transubstantiation, and the real presence\nof Jesus Christ in the eucharist.\u201d Here, fathers, is a slander worthy of\nyourselves. Here is a crime which God alone is capable of punishing, as\nyou alone were capable of committing it. To endure it with patience,\nwould require an humility as great as that of these calumniated ladies;\nto give it credit would demand a degree of wickedness equal to that of\ntheir wretched defamers. I propose not, therefore, to vindicate them;\nthey are beyond suspicion. Had they stood in need of defence, they might\nhave commanded abler advocates than me. My object in what I say here is\nto show, not their innocence, but your malignity. I merely intend to\nmake you ashamed of yourselves, and to let the whole world understand\nthat, after this, there is nothing of which you are not capable.\n\nYou will not fail, I am certain, notwithstanding all this, to say that I\nbelong to Port-Royal; for this is the first thing you say to every one\nwho combats your errors: as if it were only at Port-Royal that persons\ncould be found possessed of sufficient zeal to defend, against your\nattacks, the purity of Christian morality. I know, fathers, the work of\nthe pious recluses who have retired to that monastery, and how much the\nChurch is indebted to their truly solid and edifying labors. I know the\nexcellence of their piety and their learning. For, though I have never\nhad the honor to belong to their establishment, as you, without knowing\nwho or what I am, would fain have it believed, nevertheless, I do know\nsome of them, and honor the virtue of them all. But God has not confined\nwithin the precincts of that society all whom he means to raise up in\nopposition to your corruptions. I hope, with his assistance, fathers, to\nmake you feel this; and if he vouchsafe to sustain me in the design he\nhas led me to form, of employing in his service all the resources I have\nreceived from him, I shall speak to you in such a strain as will,\nperhaps, give you reason to regret that you have _not_ had to do with a\nman of Port-Royal. And to convince you of this, fathers, I must tell you\nthat, while those whom you have abused with this notorious slander\ncontent themselves with lifting up their groans to Heaven to obtain your\nforgiveness for the outrage, I feel myself obliged, not being in the\nleast affected by your slander, to make you blush in the face of the\nwhole Church, and so bring you to that wholesome shame of which the\nScripture speaks, and which is almost the only remedy for a hardness of\nheart like yours: \u201c_Imple facies eorum ignomini\u00e2, et qu\u00e6rent nomen tuum,\nDomine_\u2014Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O\nLord.\u201d[280]\n\nA stop must be put to this insolence, which does not spare the most\nsacred retreats. For who can be safe after a calumny of this nature? For\nshame, fathers! to publish in Paris such a scandalous book, with the\nname of your Father Meynier on its front, and under this infamous title,\n\u201cPort-Royal and Geneva in concert against the most holy Sacrament of the\nAltar,\u201d in which you accuse of this apostasy, not only Monsieur the abb\u00e9\nof St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also Mother Agnes, his sister, and all\nthe nuns of that monastery, alleging that \u201ctheir faith, in regard to the\neucharist, is as suspicious as that of M. Arnauld,\u201d whom you maintain to\nbe \u201ca downright Calvinist.\u201d[281] I here ask the whole world if there be\nany class of persons within the pale of the Church, on whom you could\nhave advanced such an abominable charge with less semblance of truth.\nFor tell me, fathers, if these nuns and their directors, had been \u201cin\nconcert with Geneva against the most holy sacrament of the altar\u201d (the\nvery thought of which is shocking), how they should have come to select\nas the principal object of their piety that very sacrament which they\nheld in abomination? How should they have assumed the habit of the holy\nsacrament? taken the name of the Daughters of the Holy Sacrament? called\ntheir church the Church of the Holy Sacrament? How should they have\nrequested and obtained from Rome the confirmation of that institution,\nand the right of saying every Thursday the office of the holy sacrament,\nin which the faith of the Church is so perfectly expressed, if they had\nconspired with Geneva to banish that faith from the Church? Why would\nthey have bound themselves, by a particular devotion, also sanctioned by\nthe pope, to have some of their sisterhood, night and day without\nintermission, in presence of the sacred host, to compensate, by their\nperpetual adorations towards that perpetual sacrifice, for the impiety\nof the heresy that aims at its annihilation? Tell me, fathers, if you\ncan, why, of all the mysteries of our religion, they should have passed\nby those in which they believed, to fix upon that in which they believed\nnot? and how they should have devoted themselves, so fully and entirely,\nto that mystery of our faith, if they took it, as the heretics do, for\nthe mystery of iniquity? And what answer do you give to these clear\nevidences, embodied not in words only, but in actions; and not in some\nparticular actions, but in the whole tenor of a life expressly dedicated\nto the adoration of Jesus Christ, dwelling on our altars? What answer,\nagain, do you give to the books which you ascribe to Port-Royal, all of\nwhich are full of the most precise terms employed by the fathers and the\ncouncils to mark the essence of that mystery? It is at once ridiculous\nand disgusting to hear you replying to these, as you have done\nthroughout your libel. M. Arnauld, say you, talks very well about\ntransubstantiation; but he understands, perhaps, only \u201ca significative\ntransubstantiation.\u201d True, he professes to believe in \u201cthe real\npresence;\u201d who can tell, however, but he means nothing more than \u201ca true\nand real figure?\u201d How now, fathers! whom, pray, will you not make pass\nfor a Calvinist whenever you please, if you are to be allowed the\nliberty of perverting the most canonical and sacred expressions by the\nwicked subtilties of your modern equivocations? Who ever thought of\nusing any other terms than those in question, especially in simple\ndiscourses of devotion, where no controversies are handled? And yet the\nlove and the reverence in which they hold this sacred mystery, have\ninduced them to give it such a prominence in all their writings, that I\ndefy you, fathers, with all your cunning, to detect in them either the\nleast appearance of ambiguity, or the slightest correspondence with the\nsentiments of Geneva.\n\nEverybody knows, fathers, that the essence of the Genevan heresy\nconsists, as it does according to your own showing, in their believing\nthat Jesus Christ is not contained (_enferm\u00e9_), in this sacrament; that\nit is impossible he can be in many places at once; that he is, properly\nspeaking, only in heaven, and that it is as there alone that he ought to\nbe adored, and not on the altar;[282] that the substance of the bread\nremains; that the body of Jesus Christ does not enter into the mouth or\nthe stomach; that he can only be eaten by faith, and accordingly wicked\nmen do not eat him at all; and that the mass is not a sacrifice, but an\nabomination. Let us now hear, then, in what way \u201cPort-Royal is in\nconcert with Geneva.\u201d In the writings of the former we read, to your\nconfusion, the following statement: That \u201cthe flesh and blood of Jesus\nChrist are contained under the species of bread and wine;\u201d[283] that\n\u201cthe Holy of Holies is present in the sanctuary, and that there he ought\nto be adored;\u201d[284] that \u201cJesus Christ dwells in the sinners who\ncommunicate, by the real and veritable presence of his body in their\nstomach, although not by the presence of his Spirit in their\nhearts;\u201d[285] that \u201cthe dead ashes of the bodies of the saints derive\ntheir principal dignity from that seed of life which they retain from\nthe touch of the immortal and vivifying flesh of Jesus Christ;\u201d[286]\nthat \u201cit is not owing to any natural power, but to the almighty power of\nGod, to whom nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ is\ncomprehended under the host, and under the smallest portion of every\nhost;\u201d[287] that \u201cthe divine virtue is present to produce the effect\nwhich the words of consecration signify;\u201d[288] that \u201cJesus Christ, while\nhe is lowered (_rabaiss\u00e9_), and hidden upon the altar, is, at the same\ntime, elevated in his glory; that he subsists, of himself and by his own\nordinary power, in divers places at the same time\u2014in the midst of the\nChurch triumphant, and in the midst of the Church militant and\ntravelling;\u201d[289] that \u201cthe sacramental species remain suspended, and\nsubsist extraordinarily, without being upheld by any subject; and that\nthe body of Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, and that\nit does not depend upon these, as substances depend upon\naccidents;\u201d[290] that \u201cthe substance of the bread is changed, the\nimmutable accidents remaining the same;\u201d[291] that \u201cJesus Christ reposes\nin the eucharist with the same glory that he has in heaven;\u201d[292] that\n\u201chis glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of the Church, under\nthe species of bread, which forms its visible covering; and that,\nknowing the grossness of our natures, he conducts us to the adoration of\nhis divinity, which is present in all places, by the adoring of his\nhumanity, which is present in a particular place;\u201d[293] that \u201cwe receive\nthe body of Jesus Christ upon the tongue, which is sanctified by its\ndivine touch;\u201d[294] \u201cthat it enters into the mouth of the priest;\u201d[295]\nthat \u201calthough Jesus Christ has made himself accessible in the holy\nsacrament, by an act of his love and graciousness, he preserves,\nnevertheless, in that ordinance, his inaccessibility, as an inseparable\ncondition of his divine nature; because, although the body alone and the\nblood alone are there, by virtue of the words _vi verborum_, as the\nschoolmen say, his whole divinity may, notwithstanding, be there also,\nas well as his whole humanity, by a necessary conjunction.\u201d[296] In\nfine, that \u201cthe eucharist is at the same time sacrament and\nsacrifice;\u201d[297] and that \u201calthough this sacrifice is a commemoration of\nthat of the cross, yet there is this difference between them, that the\nsacrifice of the mass is offered for the Church only, and for the\nfaithful in her communion; whereas that of the cross has been offered\nfor all the world, as the Scripture testifies.\u201d[298]\n\nI have quoted enough, fathers, to make it evident that there was never,\nperhaps, a more imprudent thing attempted than what you have done. But I\nwill go a step farther, and make you pronounce this sentence against\nyourselves. For what do you require from a man, in order to remove all\nsuspicion of his being in concert and correspondence with Geneva? \u201cIf M.\nArnauld,\u201d says your Father Meynier, p. 93, \u201chad said that in this\nadorable mystery, there is no substance of the bread under the species,\nbut only the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ, I should have\nconfessed that he had declared himself absolutely against Geneva.\u201d\nConfess it, then, ye revilers! and make him a public apology. How often\nhave you seen this declaration made in the passages I have just cited?\nBesides this, however, the Familiar Theology of M. de St. Cyran having\nbeen approved by M. Arnauld, it contains the sentiments of both. Read,\nthen, the whole of lesson 15th, and particularly article 2d, and you\nwill there find the words you desiderate, even more formally stated than\nyou have done yourselves. \u201cIs there any bread in the host, or any wine\nin the chalice? No: for all the substance of the bread and the wine is\ntaken away, to give place to that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ,\nthe which substance alone remains therein, covered by the qualities and\nspecies of bread and wine.\u201d\n\nHow now, fathers! will you still say that Port-Royal teaches \u201cnothing\nthat Geneva does not receive,\u201d and that M. Arnauld has said nothing in\nhis second letter \u201cwhich might not have been said by a minister of\nCharenton?\u201d See if you can persuade Mestrezat[299] to speak as M.\nArnauld does in that letter, at page 237? Make him say, that it is an\ninfamous calumny to accuse him of denying transubstantiation; that he\ntakes for the fundamental principle of his writings the truth of the\nreal presence of the Son of God, in opposition to the heresy of the\nCalvinists; and that he accounts himself happy for living in a place\nwhere the Holy of Holies is continually adored in the sanctuary\u2014a\nsentiment which is still more opposed to the belief of the Calvinists\nthan the real presence itself; for as Cardinal Richelieu observes in his\nControversies (page 536): \u201cThe new ministers of France having agreed\nwith the Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus Christ in the\neucharist; they have declared that they remain in a state of separation\nfrom the Church on the point of this mystery, only on account of the\nadoration which Catholics render to the eucharist.\u201d[300] Get all the\npassages which I have extracted from the books of Port-Royal subscribed\nat Geneva, and not the isolated passages merely, but the entire\ntreatises regarding this mystery, such as the Book of Frequent\nCommunion, the Explication of the Ceremonies of the Mass, the Exercise\nduring Mass, the Reasons of the Suspension of the Holy Sacrament, the\nTranslation of the Hymns in the Hours of Port-Royal, &c.; in one word,\nprevail upon them to establish at Charenton that holy institution of\nadoring, without intermission, Jesus Christ contained in the eucharist,\nas is done at Port-Royal, and it will be the most signal service which\nyou could render to the Church; for in this case it will turn out, not\nthat Port-Royal is in concert with Geneva, but that Geneva is in concert\nwith Port-Royal, and with the whole Church.\n\nCertainly, fathers, you could not have been more unfortunate than in\nselecting Port-Royal as the object of attack for not believing in the\neucharist; but I will show what led you to fix upon it. You know I have\npicked up some small acquaintance with your policy; in this instance you\nhave acted upon its maxims to admiration. If Monsieur the abb\u00e9 of St.\nCyran, and M. Arnauld, had only spoken of what ought to be believed with\ngreat respect to this mystery, and said nothing about what ought to be\ndone in the way of preparation for its reception, they might have been\nthe best Catholics alive; and no equivocations would have been\ndiscovered in their use of the terms \u201creal presence\u201d and\n\u201ctransubstantiation.\u201d But since all who combat your licentious\nprinciples must needs be heretics, and heretics too, in the very point\nin which they condemn your laxity, how could M. Arnauld escape falling\nunder this charge on the subject of the eucharist, after having\npublished a book expressly against your profanations of that sacrament?\nWhat! must he be allowed to say, with impunity, that \u201cthe body of Jesus\nChrist ought not to be given to those who habitually lapse into the same\ncrimes, and who have no prospect of amendment; and that such persons\nought to be excluded, for some time, from the altar, to purify\nthemselves by sincere penitence, that they may approach it afterwards\nwith benefit?\u201d Suffer no one to talk in this strain, fathers, or you\nwill find that fewer people will come to your confessionals. Father\nBrisacier says, that \u201cwere you to adopt this course, you would never\napply the blood of Jesus Christ to a single individual.\u201d It would be\ninfinitely more for your interest were every one to adopt the views of\nyour Society, as set forth by your Father Mascarenhas, in a book\napproved by your doctors, and even by your reverend Father-General,\nnamely, \u201cThat persons of every description, and even priests, may\nreceive the body of Jesus Christ on the very day they have polluted\nthemselves with odious crimes; that so far from such communions implying\nirreverence, persons who partake of them in this manner act a\ncommendable part; that confessors ought not to keep them back from the\nordinance, but, on the contrary, ought to advise those who have recently\ncommitted such crimes to communicate immediately; because, although the\nChurch has forbidden it, this prohibition is annulled by the universal\npractice in all places of the earth.\u201d[301]\n\nSee what it is, fathers, to have Jesuits in all places of the earth!\nBehold the universal practice which you have introduced, and which you\nare anxious everywhere to maintain! It matters nothing that the tables\nof Jesus Christ are filled with abominations, provided that your\nchurches are crowded with people. Be sure, therefore, cost what it may,\nto set down all that dare to say a word against your practice, as\nheretics on the holy sacrament. But how can you do this, after the\nirrefragable testimonies which they have given of their faith? Are you\nnot afraid of my coming out with the four grand proofs of their heresy\nwhich you have adduced? You ought, at least, to be so, fathers, and I\nought not to spare your blushing. Let us, then, proceed to examine proof\nthe first.\n\n\u201cM. de St. Cyran,\u201d says Father Meynier, \u201cconsoling one of his friends\nupon the death of his mother (tom. i., let. 14), says that the most\nacceptable sacrifice that can be offered up to God on such occasions, is\nthat of patience; therefore he is a Calvinist.\u201d This is marvellously\nshrewd reasoning, fathers; and I doubt if anybody will be able to\ndiscover the precise point of it. Let us learn it, then, from his own\nmouth. \u201cBecause,\u201d says this mighty controversialist, \u201cit is obvious that\nhe does not believe in the sacrifice of the mass; for this is, of all\nother sacrifices, the most acceptable unto God.\u201d Who will venture to say\nnow that the Jesuits do not know how to reason? Why, they know the art\nto such perfection, that they will extract heresy out of anything you\nchoose to mention, not even excepting the Holy Scripture itself! For\nexample, might it not be heretical to say, with the wise man in\nEcclesiasticus, \u201cThere is nothing worse than to love money;\u201d[302] as if\nadultery, murder, or idolatry, were not far greater crimes? Where is the\nman who is not in the habit of using similar expressions every day? May\nwe not say, for instance, that the most acceptable of all sacrifices in\nthe eyes of God is that of a contrite and humbled heart; just because,\nin discourses of this nature, we simply mean to compare certain internal\nvirtues with one another, and not with the sacrifice of the mass, which\nis of a totally different order, and infinitely more exalted? Is this\nnot enough to make you ridiculous, fathers? And is it necessary, to\ncomplete your discomfiture, that I should quote the passages of that\nletter in which M. de St. Cyran speaks of the sacrifice of the mass, as\n\u201cthe most excellent\u201d of all others, in the following terms? \u201cLet there\nbe presented to God, daily and in all places, the sacrifice of the body\nof his Son, who could not find _a more excellent way_ than that by which\nhe might honor his Father.\u201d And afterwards: \u201cJesus Christ has enjoined\nus to take, when we are dying, his sacrificed body, to render more\nacceptable to God the sacrifice of our own, and to join himself with us\nat the hour of dissolution; to the end that he may strengthen us for the\nstruggle, sanctifying, by his presence, the last sacrifice which we make\nto God of our life and our body?\u201d Pretend to take no notice of all this,\nfathers, and persist in maintaining, as you do in page 39, that he\nrefused to take the communion on his death-bed, and that he did not\nbelieve in the sacrifice of the mass. Nothing can be too gross for\ncalumniators by profession.\n\nYour second proof furnishes an excellent illustration of this. To make a\nCalvinist of M. de St. Cyran, to whom you ascribe the book of _Petrus\nAurelius_, you take advantage of a passage (page 80) in which Aurelius\nexplains in what manner the Church acts towards priests, and even\nbishops, whom she wishes to degrade or depose. \u201cThe Church,\u201d he says,\n\u201cbeing incapable of depriving them of the power of the order, the\ncharacter of which is indelible, she does all that she can do;\u2014she\nbanishes from her memory the character which she cannot banish from the\nsouls of the individuals who have been once invested with it; she\nregards them in the same light as if they were not bishops or priests;\nso that, according to the ordinary language of the Church, it may be\nsaid they are no longer such, although they always remain such, in as\nfar as the character is concerned\u2014_ob indelebilitatem characteris_.\u201d You\nperceive, fathers, that this author, who has been approved by three\ngeneral assemblies of the clergy of France, plainly declares that the\ncharacter of the priesthood is indelible; and yet you make him say, on\nthe contrary, in the very same passage, that \u201cthe character of the\npriesthood is _not_ indelible.\u201d This is what I would call a notorious\nslander; in other words, according to your nomenclature, a small venial\nsin. And the reason is, this book has done you some harm, by refuting\nthe heresies of your brethren in England touching the Episcopal\nauthority. But the folly of the charge is equally remarkable; for, after\nhaving taken it for granted, without any foundation, that M. de St.\nCyran holds the priestly character to be not indelible, you conclude\nfrom this that he does not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ\nin the eucharist.\n\nDo not expect me to answer this, fathers. If you have got no common\nsense, I am not able to furnish you with it. All who possess any share\nof it will enjoy a hearty laugh at your expense. Nor will they treat\nwith greater respect your third proof, which rests upon the following\nwords, taken from the Book of Frequent Communion: \u201cIn the eucharist God\nvouchsafes us _the same food_ that he bestows on the saints in heaven,\nwith this difference only, that here he withholds from us its sensible\nsight and taste, reserving both of these for the heavenly world.\u201d[303]\nThese words express the sense of the Church so distinctly, that I am\nconstantly forgetting what reason you have for picking a quarrel with\nthem, in order to turn them to a bad use; for I can see nothing more in\nthem but what the Council of Trent teaches (sess. xiii., c. 8), namely,\nthat there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the eucharist and\nJesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled, and there he is\nnot. M. Arnauld does not say that there is no difference in the manner\nof receiving Jesus Christ, but only that there is no difference in Jesus\nChrist who is received. And yet you would, in the face of all reason,\ninterpret his language in this passage to mean, that Jesus Christ is no\nmore eaten with the mouth in this world than he is in heaven; upon which\nyou ground the charge of heresy against him.\n\nYou really make me sorry for you, fathers. Must we explain this further\nto you? Why do you confound that divine nourishment with the manner of\nreceiving it? There is but one point of difference, as I have just\nobserved, betwixt that nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is,\nthat here it is hidden under veils which deprive us of its sensible\nsight and taste; but there are various points of dissimilarity in the\nmanner of receiving it here and there, the principal of which is, as M.\nArnauld expresses it (p. 3, ch. 16), \u201cthat here it enters into the mouth\nand the breast both of the good and of the wicked,\u201d which is not the\ncase in heaven.\n\nAnd if you require to be told the reason of this diversity, I may inform\nyou, fathers, that the cause of God\u2019s ordaining these different modes of\nreceiving the same food, is the difference that exists betwixt the state\nof Christians in this life and that of the blessed in heaven. The state\nof the Christian, as Cardinal Perron observes after the fathers, holds a\nmiddle place between the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews.\nThe spirits in bliss possess Jesus Christ really, without veil or\nfigure. The Jews possessed Jesus Christ only in figures and veils, such\nas the manna and the paschal lamb. And Christians possess Jesus Christ\nin the eucharist really and truly, although still concealed under veils.\n\u201cGod,\u201d says St. Eucher, \u201chas made three tabernacles\u2014the synagogue, which\nhad the shadows only, without the truth; the Church, which has the truth\nand shadows together; and heaven, where there is no shadow, but the\ntruth alone.\u201d It would be a departure from our present state, which is\nthe state of faith, opposed by St. Paul alike to the law and to open\nvision, did we possess the figures only, without Jesus Christ; for it is\nthe property of the law to have the mere figure, and not the substance\nof things. And it would be equally a departure from our present state if\nwe possessed him visibly; because faith, according to the same apostle,\ndeals not with things that are seen. And thus the eucharist, from its\nincluding Jesus Christ truly, though under a veil, is in perfect\naccordance with our state of faith. It follows, that this state would be\ndestroyed, if, as the heretics maintain, Jesus Christ were not really\nunder the species of bread and wine; and it would be equally destroyed\nif we received him openly, as they do in heaven: since, on these\nsuppositions, our state would be confounded, either with the state of\nJudaism or with that of glory.\n\nSuch, fathers, is the mysterious and divine reason of this most divine\nmystery. This it is that fills us with abhorrence at the Calvinists, who\nwould reduce us to the condition of the Jews; and this it is that makes\nus aspire to the glory of the beatified, where we shall be introduced to\nthe full and eternal enjoyment of Jesus Christ. From hence you must see\nthat there are several points of difference between the manner in which\nhe communicates himself to Christians and to the blessed; and that,\namongst others, he is in this world received by the mouth, and not so in\nheaven; but that they all depend solely on the distinction between our\nstate of faith and their state of immediate vision. And this is\nprecisely, fathers, what M. Arnauld has expressed, with great plainness,\nin the following terms: \u201cThere can be no other difference between the\npurity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the eucharist and that of\nthe blessed, than what exists between faith and the open vision of God,\nupon which alone depends the different manner in which he is eaten upon\nearth and in heaven.\u201d You were bound in duty, fathers, to have revered\nin these words the sacred truths they express, instead of wresting them\nfor the purpose of detecting an heretical meaning which they never\ncontained, nor could possibly contain, namely, that Jesus Christ is\neaten by faith only, and not by the mouth; the malicious perversion of\nyour Fathers Annat and Meynier, which forms the capital count of their\nindictment.\n\nConscious, however, of the wretched deficiency of your proofs, you have\nhad recourse to a new artifice, which is nothing less than to falsify\nthe Council of Trent, in order to convict M. Arnauld of nonconformity\nwith it; so vast is your store of methods for making people heretics.\nThis feat has been achieved by Father Meynier, in fifty different places\nof his book, and about eight or ten times in the space of a single page\n(the 54th), wherein he insists that to speak like a true Catholic, it is\nnot enough to say, \u201cI believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the\neucharist,\u201d but we must say, \u201cI believe, _with the council_, that he is\npresent by a true _local presence_, or locally.\u201d And in proof of this,\nhe cites the council, session xiii., canon 3d, canon 4th, and canon 6th.\nWho would not suppose, upon seeing the term _local presence_ quoted from\nthree canons of a universal council, that the phrase was actually to be\nfound in them? This might have served your turn very well, before the\nappearance of my fifteenth letter; but as matters now stand, fathers,\nthe trick has become too stale for us. We go our way and consult the\ncouncil, and discover only that you are falsifiers. Such terms as _local\npresence_, _locally_, and _locality_, never existed in the passages to\nwhich you refer; and let me tell you further, they are not to be found\nin any other canon of that council, nor in any other previous council,\nnor in any father of the Church. Allow me, then, to ask you, fathers, if\nyou mean to cast the suspicion of Calvinism upon all that have not made\nuse of that peculiar phrase? If this be the case, the Council of Trent\nmust be suspected of heresy, and all the holy fathers without exception.\nHave you no other way of making M. Arnauld heretical, without abusing so\nmany other people who never did you any harm, and among the rest, St.\nThomas, who is one of the greatest champions of the eucharist, and who,\nso far from employing that term, has expressly rejected it\u2014\u201c_Nullo modo\ncorpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter?_\u2014By no means is the body\nof Christ in this sacrament _locally_?\u201d Who are you, then, fathers, to\npretend, on your authority, to impose new terms, and ordain them to be\nused by all for rightly expressing their faith; as if the profession of\nthe faith, drawn up by the popes according to the plan of the council,\nin which this term has no place, were defective, and left an ambiguity\nin the creed of the faithful, which you had the sole merit of\ndiscovering? Such a piece of arrogance, to prescribe these terms, even\nto learned doctors! such a piece of forgery, to attribute them to\ngeneral councils! and such ignorance, not to know the objections which\nthe most enlightened saints have made to their reception! \u201cBe ashamed of\nthe error of your ignorance,\u201d[304] as the Scripture says of ignorant\nimpostors like you\u2014_De mendacio ineruditionis tu\u00e6 confundere_.\n\nGive up all further attempts, then, to act the masters; you have neither\ncharacter nor capacity for the part. If, however, you would bring\nforward your propositions with a little more modesty, they might obtain\na hearing. For although this phrase, _local presence_, has been\nrejected, as you have seen, by St. Thomas, on the ground that the body\nof Jesus Christ is not in the eucharist, in the ordinary extension of\nbodies in their places, the expression has, nevertheless, been adopted\nby some modern controversial writers, who understand it simply to mean\nthat the body of Jesus Christ is truly under the species, which being in\na particular place, the body of Jesus Christ is there also. And in this\nsense M. Arnauld will make no scruple to admit the term, as M. de St.\nCyran[305] and he have repeatedly declared that Jesus Christ in the\neucharist is truly in a particular place, and miraculously in many\nplaces at the same time. Thus all your subtleties fall to the ground;\nand you have failed to give the slightest semblance of plausibility to\nan accusation, which ought not to have been allowed to show its face,\nwithout being supported by the most unanswerable proofs.\n\nBut what avails it, fathers, to oppose their innocence to your\ncalumnies? You impute these errors to them, not in the belief that they\nmaintain heresy, but from the idea that they have done you injury. That\nis enough, according to your theology, to warrant you to calumniate them\nwithout criminality; and you can, without either penance or confession,\nsay mass, at the very time that you charge priests, who say it every\nday, with holding it to be pure idolatry; which, were it true, would\namount to sacrilege no less revolting than that of your own Father\nJarrige, whom you yourselves ordered to be hanged in effigy, for having\nsaid mass \u201cat the time he was in agreement with Geneva.\u201d[306]\n\nWhat surprises me, therefore, is not the little scrupulosity with which\nyou load them with crimes of the foulest and falsest description, but\nthe little prudence you display, by fixing on them charges so destitute\nof plausibility. You dispose of sins, it is true, at your pleasure; but\ndo you mean to dispose of men\u2019s beliefs too? Verily, fathers, if the\nsuspicion of Calvinism must needs fall either on them or on you, you\nwould stand, I fear, on very ticklish ground. Their language is as\nCatholic as yours; but their conduct confirms their faith, and your\nconduct belies it. For if you believe, as well as they do, that the\nbread is really changed into the body of Jesus Christ, why do you not\nrequire, as they do, from those whom you advise to approach the altar,\nthat the heart of stone and ice should be sincerely changed into a heart\nof flesh and of love? If you believe that Jesus Christ is in that\nsacrament in a state of death, teaching those that approach it to die to\nthe world, to sin, and to themselves, why do you suffer those to profane\nit in whose breasts evil passions continue to reign in all their life\nand vigor? And how do you come to judge those worthy to eat the bread of\nheaven, who are not worthy to eat that of earth?\n\nPrecious votaries, truly, whose zeal is expended in persecuting those\nwho honor this sacred mystery by so many holy communions, and in\nflattering those who dishonor it by so many sacrilegious desecrations!\nHow comely is it in these champions of a sacrifice so pure and so\nvenerable, to collect around the table of Jesus Christ a crowd of\nhardened profligates, reeking from their debaucheries; and to plant in\nthe midst of them a priest, whom his own confessor has hurried from his\nobscenities to the altar; there, in the place of Jesus Christ, to offer\nup that most holy victim to the God of holiness, and convey it, with his\npolluted hands, into mouths as thoroughly polluted as his own! How well\ndoes it become those who pursue this course \u201cin all parts of the world,\u201d\nin conformity with maxims sanctioned by their own general, to impute to\nthe author of Frequent Communion, and to the Sisters of the Holy\nSacrament, the crime of not believing in that sacrament!\n\nEven this, however, does not satisfy them. Nothing less will satiate\ntheir rage than to accuse their opponents of having renounced Jesus\nChrist and their baptism. This is no air-built fable, like those of your\ninvention; it is a fact, and denotes a delirious frenzy, which marks the\nfatal consummation of your calumnies. Such a notorious falsehood as this\nwould not have been in hands worthy to support it, had it remained in\nthose of your good friend Filleau, through whom you ushered it into the\nworld: your Society has openly adopted it; and your Father Meynier\nmaintained it the other day to be \u201c_a certain truth_,\u201d that Port-Royal\nhas, for the space of thirty-five years, been forming a secret plot, of\nwhich M. de St. Cyran and M. D\u2019Ypres have been the ring-leaders, \u201cto\nruin the mystery of the incarnation\u2014to make the Gospel pass for an\napocryphal fable\u2014to exterminate the Christian religion, and to erect\nDeism upon the ruins of Christianity.\u201d Is this enough, fathers? Will you\nbe satisfied if all this be believed of the objects of your hate? Would\nyour animosity be glutted at length, if you could but succeed in making\nthem odious, not only to all within the Church, by the charge of\n\u201c_consenting with Geneva_,\u201d of which you accuse them, but even to all\nwho believe in Jesus Christ, though beyond the pale of the Church, by\nthe imputation of _Deism_?\n\nBut whom do you expect to convince, upon your simple asseveration,\nwithout the slightest shadow of proof, and in the face of every\nimaginable contradiction, that priests who preach nothing but the grace\nof Jesus Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the obligations of\nbaptism, have renounced at once their baptism, the Gospel, and Jesus\nChrist? Who will believe it, fathers? Wretched as you are,[307] do you\nbelieve it yourselves? What a sad predicament is yours, when you must\neither prove that they do not believe in Jesus Christ, or must pass for\nthe most abandoned calumniators. Prove it, then, fathers. Name that\n\u201c_worthy clergyman_,\u201d who, you say, attended that assembly at\nBourg-Fontaine[308] in 1621, and discovered to Brother Filleau the\ndesign there concerted of overturning the Christian religion. Name these\nsix persons who you allege to have formed that conspiracy. Name the\n_individual who is designated by the letters A. A._, who you say \u201c_was\nnot Antony Arnauld_\u201d (because he convinced you that he was at that time\nonly nine years of age), \u201c_but another person, who you say is still in\nlife, but too good a friend of M. Arnauld not to be known to him_.\u201d You\nknow him, then, fathers; and consequently, if you are not destitute of\nreligion yourselves, you are bound to delate that impious wretch to the\nking and parliament, that he may be punished according to his deserts.\nYou must speak out, fathers; you must name the person, or submit to the\ndisgrace of being henceforth regarded in no other light than as common\nliars, unworthy of being ever credited again. Good Father Valerien has\ntaught us that this is the way in which such characters should be \u201cput\nto the rack,\u201d and brought to their senses. Your silence upon the present\nchallenge will furnish a full and satisfactory confirmation of this\ndiabolical calumny. Your blindest admirers will be constrained to admit,\nthat it will be \u201cthe result, not of your goodness, but your impotency;\u201d\nand to wonder how you could be so wicked as to extend your hatred even\nto the nuns of Port-Royal, and to say, as you do in page 14, that _The\nSecret Chaplet of the Holy Sacrament_,[309] composed by one of their\nnumber, was the first-fruit of that conspiracy against Jesus Christ; or,\nas in page 95, that \u201cthey have imbibed all the detestable principles of\nthat work;\u201d which is, according to your account, \u201ca lesson in Deism.\u201d\nYour falsehoods regarding that book have already been triumphantly\nrefuted, in the defence of the censure of the late Archbishop of Paris\nagainst Father Brisacier. That publication you are incapable of\nanswering; and yet you do not scruple to abuse it in a more shameful\nmanner than ever, for the purpose of charging women, whose piety is\nuniversally known, with the vilest blasphemy.\n\nCruel, cowardly persecutors! Must, then, the most retired cloisters\nafford no retreat from your calumnies? While these consecrated virgins\nare employed, night and day, according to their institution, in adoring\nJesus Christ in the holy sacrament, you cease not, night nor day, to\npublish abroad that they do not believe that he is either in the\neucharist or even at the right hand of his Father; and you are publicly\nexcommunicating them from the Church, at the very time when they are in\nsecret praying for the whole Church, and for you! You blacken with your\nslanders those who have neither ears to hear nor mouths to answer you!\nBut Jesus Christ, in whom they are now hidden, not to appear till one\nday together with him, hears you, and answers for them. At the moment I\nam now writing, that holy and terrible voice is heard which confounds\nnature and consoles the Church.[310] And I fear, fathers, that those who\nnow harden their hearts, and refuse with obstinacy to hear him, while he\nspeaks in the character of God, will one day be compelled to hear him\nwith terror, when he speaks to them in the character of a Judge. What\naccount, indeed, fathers, will you be able to render to him of the many\ncalumnies you have uttered, seeing that he will examine them, in that\nday, not according to the fantasies of Fathers Dicastille, Gans, and\nPennalossa, who justify them, but according to the eternal laws of\ntruth, and the sacred ordinances of his own Church, which, so far from\nattempting to vindicate that crime, abhors it to such a degree that she\nvisits it with the same penalty as wilful murder? By the first and\nsecond Councils of Arles she has decided that the communion shall be\ndenied to slanderers as well as murderers, till the approach of death.\nThe Council of Lateran has judged those unworthy of admission into the\necclesiastical state who have been convicted of the crime, even though\nthey may have reformed. The popes have even threatened to deprive of the\ncommunion at death those who have calumniated bishops, priests, or\ndeacons. And the authors of a defamatory libel, who fail to prove what\nthey have advanced, are condemned by Pope Adrian _to be whipped_;\u2014yes,\nreverend fathers, _flagellentur_ is the word. So strong has been the\nrepugnance of the Church at all times to the errors of your Society\u2014a\nSociety so thoroughly depraved as to invent excuses for the grossest of\ncrimes, such as calumny, chiefly that it may enjoy the greater freedom\nin perpetrating them itself. There can be no doubt, fathers, that you\nwould be capable of producing abundance of mischief in this way, had God\nnot permitted you to furnish with your own hands the means of preventing\nthe evil, and of rendering your slanders perfectly innocuous; for, to\ndeprive you of all credibility, it was quite enough to publish the\nstrange maxim, that it is no crime to calumniate. Calumny is nothing, if\nnot associated with a high reputation for honesty. The defamer can make\nno impression, unless he has the character of one that abhors\ndefamation, as a crime of which he is incapable. And thus, fathers, you\nare betrayed by your own principle. You established the doctrine to\nsecure yourselves a safe conscience, that you might slander without risk\nof damnation, and be ranked with those \u201cpious and holy calumniators\u201d of\nwhom St. Athanasius speaks. To save yourselves from hell, you have\nembraced a maxim which promises you this security on the faith of your\ndoctors; but this same maxim, while it guarantees you, according to\ntheir idea, against the evils you dread in the future world, deprives\nyou of all the advantage you may have expected to reap from it in the\npresent; so that, in attempting to escape the guilt, you have lost the\nbenefit of calumny. Such is the self-contrariety of evil, and so\ncompletely does it confound and destroy itself by its own intrinsic\nmalignity.\n\nYou might have slandered, therefore, much more advantageously for\nyourselves, had you professed to hold, with St. Paul, that evil speakers\nare not worthy to see God; for in this case, though you would indeed\nhave been condemning yourselves, your slanders would at least have stood\na better chance of being believed. But by maintaining, as you have done,\nthat calumny against your enemies is no crime, your slanders will be\ndiscredited, and you yourselves damned into the bargain; for two things\nare certain, fathers\u2014first, That it will never be in the power of your\ngrave doctors to annihilate the justice of God; and, secondly, That you\ncould not give more certain evidence that you are not of the Truth than\nby your resorting to falsehood. If the Truth were on your side, she\nwould fight for you\u2014she would conquer for you; and whatever enemies you\nmight have to encounter, \u201cthe Truth would set you free\u201d from them,\naccording to her promise. But you have had recourse to falsehood, for no\nother design than to support the errors with which you flatter the\nsinful children of this world, and to bolster up the calumnies with\nwhich you persecute every man of piety who sets his face against these\ndelusions. The truth being diametrically opposed to your ends, it\nbehooved you, to use the language of the prophet, \u201cto put your\nconfidence in lies.\u201d You have said, \u201cThe scourges which afflict mankind\nshall not come nigh unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under\nfalsehood have we hid ourselves.\u201d[311] But what says the prophet in\nreply to such? \u201cForasmuch,\u201d says he, \u201cas ye have put your trust in\ncalumny and tumult\u2014_sperastis in calumnia et in tumultu_\u2014this iniquity\nand your ruin shall be like that of a high wall whose breaking cometh\nsuddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the\npotter\u2019s vessel that is shivered in pieces\u201d\u2014with such violence that\n\u201cthere shall not be found in the bursting of it a shred to take fire\nfrom the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit.\u201d[312]\n\u201cBecause,\u201d as another prophet says, \u201cye have made the heart of the\nrighteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and ye have flattered and\nstrengthened the malice of the wicked; I will therefore deliver my\npeople out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am their Lord and\nyours.\u201d[313]\n\nYes, fathers, it is to be hoped that if you do not repent, God will\ndeliver out of your hands those whom you have so long deluded, either by\nflattering them in their evil courses with your licentious maxims, or by\npoisoning their minds with your slanders. He will convince the former\nthat the false rules of your casuists will not screen them from his\nindignation; and he will impress on the minds of the latter the just\ndread of losing their souls by listening and yielding credit to your\nslanders, as you lose yours by hatching these slanders and disseminating\nthem through the world. Let no man be deceived; God is not mocked; none\nmay violate with impunity the commandment which he has given us in the\nGospel, not to condemn our neighbor without being well assured of his\nguilt. And, consequently, what profession soever of piety those may make\nwho lend a willing ear to your lying devices, and under what pretence\nsoever of devotion they may entertain them, they have reason to\napprehend exclusion from the kingdom of God, solely for having imputed\ncrimes of such a dark complexion as heresy and schism to Catholic\npriests and holy nuns, upon no better evidence than such vile\nfabrications as yours. \u201cThe devil,\u201d says M. de Geneve,[314] \u201cis on the\ntongue of him that slanders, and in the ear of him that listens to the\nslanderer.\u201d \u201cAnd evil speaking,\u201d says St. Bernard, \u201cis a poison that\nextinguishes charity in both of the parties; so that a single calumny\nmay prove mortal to an infinite number of souls, killing not only those\nwho publish it, but all those besides by whom it is not\nrepudiated.\u201d[315]\n\nReverend fathers, my letters were not wont either to be so prolix, or to\nfollow so closely on one another. Want of time must plead my excuse for\nboth of these faults. The present letter is a very long one, simply\nbecause I had no leisure to make it shorter. You know the reason of this\nhaste better than I do. You have been unlucky in your answers. You have\ndone well, therefore, to change your plan; but I am afraid that you will\nget no credit for it, and that people will say it was done for fear of\nthe Benedictines.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have just come to learn that the person who was generally reported to\nbe the author of your Apologies, disclaims them, and is annoyed at their\nhaving been ascribed to him. He has good reason; and I was wrong to have\nsuspected him of any such thing; for, in spite of the assurances which I\nreceived, I ought to have considered that he was a man of too much good\nsense to believe your accusations, and of too much honor to publish them\nif he did not believe them. There are few people in the world capable of\nyour extravagances; they are peculiar to yourselves, and mark your\ncharacter too plainly to admit of any excuse for having failed to\nrecognize your hand in their concoction. I was led away by the common\nreport; but this apology, which would be too good for you, is not\nsufficient for me, who profess to advance nothing without certain proof.\nIn no other instance have I been guilty of departing from this rule. I\nam sorry for what I said. I retract it; and I only wish that you may\nprofit by my example.[316]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n The plan and materials of this letter were furnished by M. Nicole.\n (Nicole, iv. 243.)\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n Jansenius, who was made Bishop of Ipres or Ypres, in 1636. The letters\n to which Pascal refers were printed at that time by the Jesuits\n themselves, who retained the originals in their possession; these\n having come into their hands in consequence of the arrest of M. De St.\n Cyran.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n The Jesuits must pass through a long novitiate, before they are\n admitted as \u201cprofessed\u201d members of the Society.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n Ps. lxxxiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n Pp. 96, 4.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n It is hardly necessary to observe, that in this passage the Protestant\n faith on the supper is not fairly represented. The Reformers did not\n deny that Christ was really present in that sacrament. They held that\n he was present spiritually, though not corporeally. Some of them\n expressed themselves strongly in opposition to those who spoke of the\n supper as a mere or bare sign. Calvin says: \u201cThere are two things in\n the sacrament\u2014corporeal symbols, by which things invisible are\n proposed to the senses; and a spiritual truth, which is represented\n and sealed by the symbols. In the mystery of the supper, Christ is\n _truly_ exhibited to us, and therefore his body and blood.\u201d (Inst.,\n lib. iv., cap. 17, 11.) \u201cThe body of Christ,\u201d says Peter Martyr (Loc.\n Com., iv. 10), \u201cis not _substantially_ present anywhere but in heaven.\n I do not, however, deny that his true body and true blood, which were\n offered for human redemption on the cross, are _spiritually_ partaken\n of by believers in the holy supper.\u201d This is the general sentiment of\n Protestant divines. (De Moor, in Marck, Compend. Theol., p. v. 679,\n &c.)\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n Second letter of M. Arnauld, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n Ibid., p. 243.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Frequent Communion, 3d part, ch. 16. _Poitrine_\u2014that is, the bodily\n breast or stomach, in opposition to _c\u0153ur_\u2014the heart or soul.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n Ibid., 1st part, ch. 40.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n Theolog. Fam., lec. 15.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Ibid.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n De la Suspension. Rais. 21.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n Ibid., p. 23.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Hours of the Holy Sacrament, in Prose.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n Letters of M. de St. Cyran, tom. i., let. 93.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Ibid.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Letter 32.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n Letter 72.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n Defence of the Chaplet of the H. Sacrament, p. 217.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Theol. Famil., lec. 15.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n Ibid., p. 153.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n _John Mestrezat_, Protestant minister of Paris, was born at Geneva in\n 1592 and died in May 1657. His Sermons on the Epistle to the Hebrews\n and other discourses, published after his death, are truly excellent.\n This learned and eloquent divine frequently engaged in controversy\n with the Romanists, and on one occasion managed the debate with such\n spirit that Cardinal Richelieu, taking hold of his shoulder,\n exclaimed: \u201cThis is the boldest minister in France.\u201d (Bayle, Dict.,\n art. _Mestrezat_.)\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n The statement of the Protestant faith, given in a preceding note, may\n suffice to show that it differs, _toto c\u0153lo_, from that of Rome, as\n this is explained in the text. The leading fallacy of the Romish creed\n on this subject is the monstrous dogma of transubstantiation; the\n adoration of the host is merely a corollary. Calvinists and Lutherans\n though differing in their views of the ordinance, always agreed in\n acknowledging the _real_ presence of Christ in the eucharist, though\n they consider the sense in which Romanists interpret that term to be\n chargeable with blasphemy and absurdity.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n Mascar., tr. 4, disp. 5, n. 284.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Ecclesiasticus (Apocrypha).\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n Freq. Com., 3 part, ch. 11.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n Eccles. iv. 25 (Apocrypha).\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n _Jean du Verger de Hauranne, the Abb\u00e9 de Saint Cyran_ was born at\n Bayonne in 1581. He was the intimate friend of Jansenius and a man of\n great piety and talents, but was seized as a heretic, and thrown by\n Cardinal Richelieu into the dungeon of Vincennes. After five years\u2019\n imprisonment he was released, but died shortly after, October, 11,\n 1643. By his followers, M. de Saint Cyran was reverenced as a saint\n and a martyr.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n This Father Jarrige was a famous Jesuit, who became a Protestant, and\n published, after his separation from Rome, a book, entitled \u201c_Le\n Jesuite sur l\u2019Echaffaut_\u2014The Jesuit on the Scaffold,\u201d in which he\n treats his old friends with no mercy.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n _Mis\u00e9rables que vous \u00eates_\u2014one of the bitterest expressions which\n Pascal has applied to his opponents and one which they have deeply\n felt, but the full force of which can hardly be rendered into English.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n With regard to this famous assembly at Bourg-Fontaine, in which it was\n alleged a conspiracy was formed by the Jansenists against the\n Christian religion, the curious reader may consult the work of M.\n Arnauld entitled _Morale Pratique des Jesuites_, vol. viii., where\n there is a detailed account of the whole proceedings. (Nicole, iv.\n 283.)\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n _The Secret Chaplet of the most Holy Sacrament._\u2014Such was the title of\n a very harmless piece of mystic devotion of three or four pages, the\n production of a nun of Port-Royal, called Sister Agn\u00e8s de Saint Paul,\n which appeared in 1628. It excited the jealousy of the Archbishop of\n Sens\u2014set the doctors of Paris and those of Louvain by the\n ears\u2014occasioned a war of pamphlets and was finally carried by appeal\n to the Court of Rome, by which it was suppressed. (Nicole, iv. 302.)\n Agn\u00e8s de St. Paul was the younger sister of the M\u00e8re Ang\u00e9lique\n Arnauld, and both of them were sisters of the celebrated M. Arnauld.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n This refers to the celebrated miracles of \u201cthe Holy Thorn,\u201d the first\n of which, said to have lately taken place in Port-Royal, was then\n creating much sensation. The facts are briefly these: A thorn, said to\n have belonged to the crown of thorns worn by our Saviour, having been\n presented, in March 1656, to the Monastery of Port-Royal, the nuns and\n their young pupils were permitted, each in turn, to kiss the relic.\n One of the latter, Margaret Perier, the niece of Pascal, a girl of\n about ten or eleven years of age, had been long troubled with a\n disease in the eye (_fistula lachrymalis_), which had baffled the\n skill of all the physicians of Paris. On approaching the holy thorn,\n she applied it to the diseased organ, and shortly thereafter\n exclaimed, to the surprise and delight of all the sisters, that her\n eye was completely cured. A certificate, signed by some of the most\n celebrated physicians, attested the cure as, in their opinion a\n miraculous one. The friends of Port-Royal, and none more than Pascal,\n were overjoyed at this interposition, which, being followed by other\n extraordinary cures, they regarded as a voice from heaven in favor of\n that institution. The Jesuits alone rejected it with ridicule, and\n published a piece, entitled \u201c_Rabat-joie_, &c.\u2014A Damper: or,\n Observations on what has lately happened at Port-Royal as to the\n affair of the Holy Thorn.\u201d This was answered in November 1656, in a\n tract supposed to have been written by M. de Pont Ch\u00e2teau, who was\n called \u201cthe Clerk of the Holy Thorn,\u201d assisted by Pascal. (Recueil de\n Pieces, &c. de Port-Royal, pp. 283\u2013448.) It has been well observed,\n \u201cthat many laborious and voluminous discussions might have been saved,\n if the simple and very reasonable rule had been adopted of waiving\n investigation into the credibility of any narrative of supernatural or\n pretended supernatural events said to have taken place _upon\n consecrated ground, or under sacred roofs_.\u201d (Natural Hist. of\n Enthusiasm, p. 236.) \u201cIt is well known,\u201d says Mosheim, \u201cthat the\n Jansenists and Augustinians have long pretended to confirm their\n doctrine by miracles; and they even acknowledge that these miracles\n have saved them when their affairs have been reduced to a desperate\n situation.\u201d (Mosh. Eccl. Hist., cent. xvii., sect. 2.)\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n Isa. xxviii. 15.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n Isa. xxx. 12\u201314.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n Ezek. xiii. 23. Pascal does not, either here or elsewhere, when\n quoting from Scripture, adhere very closely to the original, nor even\n to the Vulgate version.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n This was the name given to St. Francis de Sales, bishop and prince of\n Geneva, previously to his canonization, which took place in 1665.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n Serm. 24 in Cantic.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n These two postscripts have been often admired\u2014the former for the\n author\u2019s elegant excuse for the length of his letter; the latter for\n the adroitness with which he turns his apology for an undesigned\n mistake into a stroke at the disingenuousness of his opponents.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XVII.[317]\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT.[318]\n\nTHE AUTHOR OF THE LETTERS VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF HERESY\u2014AN\n HERETICAL PHANTOM\u2014POPES AND GENERAL COUNCILS NOT INFALLIBLE IN\n QUESTIONS OF FACT.\n\n\n _January 23, 1657._\n\nREVEREND FATHER,\u2014Your former behavior had induced me to believe that you\nwere anxious for a truce in our hostilities; and I was quite disposed to\nagree that it should be so. Of late, however, you have poured forth such\na volley of pamphlets, in such rapid succession, as to make it apparent\nthat peace rests on a very precarious footing when it depends on the\nsilence of Jesuits. I know not if this rupture will prove very\nadvantageous to you; but, for my part, I am far from regretting the\nopportunity which it affords me of rebutting that stale charge of heresy\nwith which your writings abound.\n\nIt is full time, indeed, that I should, once for all, put a stop to the\nliberty you have taken to treat me as a heretic\u2014a piece of gratuitous\nimpertinence which seems to increase by indulgence, and which is\nexhibited in your last book in a style of such intolerable assurance,\nthat were I not to answer the charge as it deserves, I might lay myself\nopen to the suspicion of being actually guilty. So long as the insult\nwas confined to your associates I despised it, as I did a thousand\nothers with which they interlarded their productions. To these my\nfifteenth letter was a sufficient reply. But you now repeat the charge\nwith a different air: you make it the main point of your vindication. It\nis, in fact, almost the only thing in the shape of argument that you\nemploy. You say that, \u201cas a complete answer to my fifteen letters, it is\nenough to say fifteen times that I am a heretic; and having been\npronounced such, I deserve no credit.\u201d In short, you make no question of\nmy apostasy, but assume it as a settled point, on which you may build\nwith all confidence. You are serious then, father, it would seem, in\ndeeming me a heretic. I shall be equally serious in replying to the\ncharge.\n\nYou are well aware, sir, that heresy is a charge of so grave a\ncharacter, that it is an act of high presumption to advance, without\nbeing prepared to substantiate it. I now demand your proofs. When was I\nseen at Charenton? When did I fail in my presence at mass, or in my\nChristian duty to my parish church? What act of union with heretics, or\nof schism with the Church, can you lay to my charge? What council have I\ncontradicted? What papal constitution have I violated? You _must_\nanswer, father, else\u2014\u2014You know what I mean.[319] And what _do_ you\nanswer? I beseech all to observe it: First of all, you assume \u201cthat the\nauthor of the letters is a Port-Royalist;\u201d then you tell us \u201cthat\nPort-Royal is declared to be heretical;\u201d and, therefore, you conclude,\n\u201cthe author of the letters must be a heretic.\u201d It is not on me, then,\nfather, that the weight of this indictment falls, but on Port-Royal; and\nI am only involved in the crime because you suppose me to belong to that\nestablishment; so that it will be no difficult matter for me to\nexculpate myself from the charge. I have no more to say than that I am\nnot a member of that community; and to refer you to my letters, in which\nI have declared that \u201cI am a private individual;\u201d and again in so many\nwords, that \u201cI am not of Port-Royal,\u201d as I said in my sixteenth letter,\nwhich preceded your publication.\n\nYou must fall on some other way, then, to prove me a heretic, otherwise\nthe whole world will be convinced that it is beyond your power to make\ngood your accusation. Prove from my writings that I do not receive the\nconstitution.[320] My letters are not very voluminous\u2014there are but\nsixteen of them\u2014and I defy you or anybody else to detect in them the\nslightest foundation for such a charge. I shall, however, with your\npermission, produce something out of them to prove the reverse. When,\nfor example, I say in the fourteenth that, \u201cby killing our brethren in\nmortal sin, according to your maxims, we are damning those for whom\nJesus Christ died,\u201d do I not plainly acknowledge that Jesus Christ died\nfor those who may be damned, and, consequently, declare it to be false\n\u201cthat he died only for the predestinated,\u201d which is the error condemned\nin the fifth proposition? Certain it is, father, that I have not said a\nword in behalf of these impious propositions, which I detest with all my\nheart.[321] And even though Port-Royal should hold them, I protest\nagainst your drawing any conclusion from this against me, as, thank God,\nI have no sort of connection with any community except the Catholic,\nApostolic and Roman Church, in the bosom of which I desire to live and\ndie, in communion with the pope, the head of the Church, and beyond the\npale of which I am persuaded there is no salvation.\n\nHow are you to get at a person who talks in this way, father? On what\nquarter will you assail me, since neither my words nor my writings\nafford the slightest handle to your accusations, and the obscurity in\nwhich my person is enveloped forms my protection against your\nthreatenings? You feel yourselves smitten by an invisible hand\u2014a hand,\nhowever, which makes your delinquencies visible to all; and in vain do\nyou try to strike at me in the dark, through the sides of those with\nwhom you suppose me to be associated. I fear you not, either on my own\naccount or on that of any other, being bound by no tie either to a\ncommunity or to any individual whatsoever.[322] All the influence which\nyour Society possesses can be of no avail in my case. From this world I\nhave nothing to hope, nothing to dread, nothing to desire. Through the\ngoodness of God, I have no need of any man\u2019s money or any man\u2019s\npatronage. Thus, father, I elude all your attempts to catch hold of me.\nYou may touch Port-Royal if you choose, but you shall not touch me. You\nmay turn people out of the Sorbonne, but that will not turn me out of my\ndomicile. You may hatch plots against priests and doctors, but not\nagainst me, for I am neither the one nor the other. And thus, father,\nyou never perhaps had to do, in the whole course of your experience,\nwith a person so completely beyond your reach, and therefore so\nadmirably qualified for dealing with your errors\u2014one perfectly free\u2014one\nwithout engagement, entanglement, relationship, or business of any\nkind\u2014one, too, who is pretty well versed in your maxims, and determined,\nas God shall give him light, to discuss them, without permitting any\nearthly consideration to arrest or slacken his endeavors.\n\nSince, then, you can do nothing against me, what good purpose can it\nserve to publish so many calumnies, as you and your brethren are doing,\nagainst a class of persons who are in no way implicated in our disputes?\nYou shall not escape under these subterfuges: you shall be made to feel\nthe force of the truth in spite of them. How does the case stand? I tell\nyou that you are ruining Christian morality by divorcing it from the\nlove of God, and dispensing with its obligation; and you talk about \u201cthe\ndeath of Father Mester\u201d\u2014a person whom I never saw in my life. I tell you\nthat your authors permit a man to kill another for the sake of an apple,\nwhen it would be dishonorable to lose it; and you reply by informing me\nthat somebody \u201chas broken into the poor\u2019s box at St. Merri!\u201d Again, what\ncan you possibly mean by mixing me up perpetually with the book \u201cOn the\nHoly Virginity,\u201d written by some father of the Oratory, whom I never\nsaw, any more than his book?[323] It is rather extraordinary, father,\nthat you should thus regard all that are opposed to you as if they were\none person. Your hatred would grasp them all at once, and would hold\nthem as a body of reprobates, every one of whom is responsible for all\nthe rest.\n\nThere is a vast difference between Jesuits and all their opponents.\nThere can be no doubt that you compose one body, united under one head;\nand your regulations, as I have shown, prohibit you from printing\nanything without the approbation of your superiors, who are responsible\nfor all the errors of individual writers, and who \u201ccannot excuse\nthemselves by saying that they did not observe the errors in any\npublication, for they ought to have observed them.\u201d So say your\nordinances, and so say the letters of your generals, Aquaviva,\nVitelleschi, &c. We have good reason, therefore, for charging upon you\nthe errors of your associates, when we find they are sanctioned by your\nsuperiors and the divines of your Society. With me, however, father, the\ncase stands otherwise. I have not subscribed the book of the Holy\nVirginity. All the alms-boxes in Paris may be broken into, and yet I am\nnot the less a good Catholic for all that. In short, I beg to inform\nyou, in the plainest terms, that nobody is responsible for my letters\nbut myself, and that I am responsible for nothing but my letters.\n\nHere, father, I might fairly enough have brought our dispute to an\nissue, without saying a word about those other persons whom you\nstigmatize as heretics, in order to comprehend me under that\ncondemnation. But as I have been the occasion of their ill treatment, I\nconsider myself bound in some sort to improve the occasion, and I shall\ntake advantage of it in three particulars. One advantage, not\ninconsiderable in its way, is that it will enable me to vindicate the\ninnocence of so many calumniated individuals. Another, not inappropriate\nto my subject, will be to disclose, at the same time, the artifices of\nyour policy in this accusation. But the advantage which I prize most of\nall this, that it affords me an opportunity of apprizing the world of\nthe falsehood of that scandalous report which you have been so busily\ndisseminating, namely, \u201cthat the Church is divided by a new heresy.\u201d And\nas you are deceiving multitudes into the belief that the points on which\nyou are raising such a storm are essential to the faith, I consider it\nof the last importance to quash these unfounded impressions, and\ndistinctly to explain here what these points are, so as to show that, in\npoint of fact, there are no heretics in the Church.\n\nI presume, then, that were the question to be asked, Wherein consists\nthe heresy of those called Jansenists? the immediate reply would be,\n\u201cThese people hold that the commandments of God are impracticable to\nmen\u2014that grace is irresistible\u2014that we have not free will to do either\ngood or evil\u2014that Jesus Christ did not die for all men, but only for the\nelect; in short, they maintain the five propositions condemned by the\npope.\u201d Do you not give it out to all that this is the ground on which\nyou persecute your opponents? Have you not said as much in your books,\nin your conversations, in your catechisms? A specimen of this you gave\nat the late Christmas festival at St. Louis. One of your little\nshepherdesses was questioned thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cFor whom did Jesus Christ come into the world, my dear?\u201d\n\n\u201cFor all men, father.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, my child; so you are not one of those new heretics who say that\nhe came only for the elect?\u201d\n\nThus children are led to believe you, and many others beside children;\nfor you entertain people with the same stuff in your sermons, as Father\nCrasset did at Orleans, before he was laid under an interdict. And I\nfrankly own that, at one time, I believed you myself. You had given me\nprecisely the same idea of these good people; so that when you pressed\nthem on these propositions, I narrowly watched their answer, determined\nnever to see them more, if they did not renounce them as palpable\nimpieties.\n\nThis, however, they have done in the most unequivocal way. M. de\nSainte-Beuve,[324] king\u2019s professor in the Sorbonne, censured these\npropositions in his published writings long before the pope; and other\nAugustinian doctors, in various publications, and, among others, in a\nwork \u201cOn Victorious Grace,\u201d[325] reject the same articles as both\nheretical and strange doctrines. In the preface to that work they say\nthat these propositions are \u201cheretical and Lutheran, forged and\nfabricated at pleasure, and are neither to be found in Jansenius, nor in\nhis defenders.\u201d They complain of being charged with such sentiments, and\naddress you in the words of St. Prosper, the first disciple of St.\nAugustine their master, to whom the semi-Pelagians of France had\nascribed similar opinions, with the view of bringing him into disgrace:\n\u201cThere are persons who denounce us, so blinded by passion that they have\nadopted means for doing so which ruin their own reputation. They have,\nfor this purpose, fabricated propositions of the most impious and\nblasphemous character, which they industriously circulate, to make\npeople believe that we maintain them in the wicked sense which they are\npleased to attach to them. But our reply will show at once our\ninnocence, and the malignity of these persons who have ascribed to us a\nset of impious tenets, of which they are themselves the sole inventors.\u201d\n\nTruly, father, when I found that they had spoken in this way before the\nappearance of the papal constitution\u2014when I saw that they afterwards\nreceived that decree with all possible respect, that they offered to\nsubscribe it, and that M. Arnauld had declared all this in his second\nletter, in stronger terms than I can report him, I should have\nconsidered it a sin to doubt their soundness in the faith. And, in fact,\nthose who were formerly disposed to refuse absolution to M. Arnauld\u2019s\nfriends, have since declared, that after his explicit disclaimer of the\nerrors imputed to him, there was no reason left for cutting off either\nhim or them from the communion of the Church. Your associates, however,\nhave acted very differently; and it was this that made me begin to\nsuspect that you were actuated by prejudice.\n\nYou threatened first to compel them to sign that constitution, so long\nas you thought they would resist it; but no sooner did you see them\nquite ready of their own accord to submit to it, than we heard no more\nabout this. Still, however, though one might suppose this ought to have\nsatisfied you, you persisted in calling them heretics, \u201cbecause,\u201d said\nyou, \u201ctheir heart belies their hand; they are Catholics outwardly, but\ninwardly they are heretics.\u201d[326]\n\nThis, father, struck me as very strange reasoning; for where is the\nperson of whom as much may not be said at any time? And what endless\ntrouble and confusion would ensue, were it allowed to go on! \u201cIf,\u201d says\nPope St. Gregory, \u201cwe refuse to believe a confession of faith made in\nconformity to the sentiments of the Church, we cast a doubt over the\nfaith of all Catholics whatsoever.\u201d I am afraid, father, to use the\nwords of the same pontiff, when speaking of a similar dispute in his\ntime, \u201cthat your object is to make these persons heretics in spite of\nthemselves; because to refuse to credit those who testify by their\nconfession that they are in the true faith, is not to purge heresy, but\nto create it\u2014_hoc non est h\u00e6resim purgare, sed facere_\u201d. But what\nconfirmed me in my persuasion that there was indeed no heretic in the\nChurch, was finding that our so-called heretics had vindicated\nthemselves so successfully, that you were unable to accuse them of a\nsingle error in the faith, and that you were reduced to the necessity of\nassailing them on questions of _fact_ only, touching Jansenius, which\ncould not possibly be construed into heresy. You insist, it now appears,\non their being compelled to acknowledge \u201cthat these propositions are\ncontained in Jansenius, word for word, every one of them, in so many\nterms,\u201d or, as you express it, _Singulares, individu\u00e6, totidem verbis\napud Jansenium content\u00e6_.\n\nThenceforth your dispute became, in my eyes, perfectly indifferent. So\nlong as I believed that you were debating the truth or falsehood of the\npropositions, I was all attention, for that quarrel touched the faith;\nbut when I discovered that the bone of contention was whether they were\nto be found, word for word, in Jansenius or not, as religion ceased to\nbe interested in the controversy, I ceased to be interested in it also.\nNot but that there was some presumption that you were speaking the\ntruth; because to say that such and such expressions are to be found,\nword for word, in an author, is a matter in which there can be no\nmistake. I do not wonder, therefore, that so many people, both in France\nand at Rome, should have been led to believe, on the authority of a\nphrase so little liable to suspicion, that Jansenius has actually taught\nthese obnoxious tenets. And for the same reason, I was not a little\nsurprised to learn that this same point of fact, which you had\npropounded as so certain and so important, was false; and that after\nbeing challenged to quote the pages of Jansenius, in which you had found\nthese propositions \u201cword for word,\u201d you have not been able to point them\nout to this day.\n\nI am the more particular in giving this statement, because, in my\nopinion, it discovers, in a very striking light, the spirit of your\nSociety in the whole of this affair; and because some people will be\nastonished to find that, notwithstanding all the facts above mentioned,\nyou have not ceased to publish that they are heretics still. But you\nhave only altered the heresy to suit the time; for no sooner had they\nfreed themselves from one charge than your fathers, determined that they\nshould never want an accusation, substituted another in its place. Thus,\nin 1653, their heresy lay in the _quality_ of the propositions; then\ncame the _word for word_ heresy; after that, we had the _heart_ heresy.\nAnd now we hear nothing of any of these, and they must be heretics,\nforsooth, unless they sign a declaration to the effect, \u201c_that the sense\nof the doctrine of Jansenius is contained in the sense of the five\npropositions_.\u201d\n\nSuch is your present dispute. It is not enough for you that they condemn\nthe five propositions, and everything in Jansenius that bears any\nresemblance to them, or is contrary to St. Augustine; for all that they\nhave done already. The point at issue is not, for example, if Jesus\nChrist died for the elect only\u2014they condemn that as much as you do; but,\nis Jansenius of that opinion, or not? And here I declare, more strongly\nthan ever, that your quarrel affects me as little as it affects the\nChurch. For although I am no doctor, any more than you, father, I can\neasily see, nevertheless, that it has no connection with the faith. The\nonly question is, to ascertain what is the sense of Jansenius. Did they\nbelieve that his doctrine corresponded to the proper and literal sense\nof these propositions, they would condemn it; and they refuse to do so,\nbecause they are convinced it is quite the reverse; so that although\nthey should misunderstand it, still they would not be heretics, seeing\nthey understand it only in a Catholic sense.\n\nTo illustrate this by an example, I may refer to the conflicting\nsentiments of St. Basil and St. Athanasius, regarding the writings of\nSt. Denis of Alexandria, which St. Basil, conceiving that he found in\nthem the sense of Arius against the equality of the Father and the Son,\ncondemned as heretical, but which St. Athanasius, on the other hand,\njudging them to contain the genuine sense of the Church, maintained to\nbe perfectly orthodox. Think you, then, father, that St. Basil, who held\nthese writings to be Arian, had a right to brand St. Athanasius as a\nheretic, because he defended them? And what ground would he have had for\nso doing, seeing that it was not Arianism that his brother defended, but\nthe true faith which he considered these writings to contain? Had these\ntwo saints agreed about the true sense of these writings, and had both\nrecognized this heresy in them, unquestionably St. Athanasius could not\nhave approved of them, without being guilty of heresy; but as they were\nat variance respecting the sense of the passages, St. Athanasius was\northodox in vindicating them, even though he may have understood them\nwrong; because in that case it would have been merely an error in a\nmatter of fact, and because what he defended was really the Catholic\nfaith, which he supposed to be contained in these writings.\n\nI apply this to you, father. Suppose you were agreed upon the sense of\nJansenius, and your adversaries were ready to admit with you that he\nheld, for example, _that grace cannot be resisted_; those who refused to\ncondemn him would be heretical. But as your dispute turns upon the\nmeaning of that author, and they believe that, according to his\ndoctrine, _grace may be resisted_, whatever heresy you may be pleased to\nattribute to him, you have no ground to brand them as heretics, seeing\nthey condemn the sense which you put on Jansenius, and you dare not\ncondemn the sense which they put on him. If, therefore, you mean to\nconvict them, show that the sense which they ascribe to Jansenius is\nheretical; for then they will be heretical themselves. But how could you\naccomplish this, since it is certain, according to your own showing,\nthat the meaning which they give to his language has never been\ncondemned?\n\nTo elucidate the point still further, I shall assume as a principle,\nwhat you yourselves acknowledge\u2014_that the doctrine of efficacious grace\nhas never been condemned, and that the pope has not touched it by his\nconstitution_. And, in fact, when he proposed to pass judgment on the\nfive propositions, the question of efficacious grace was protected\nagainst all censure. This is perfectly evident from the judgments of the\nconsulters,[327] to whom the pope committed them for examination. These\njudgments I have in my possession, in common with many other persons in\nParis, and, among the rest, the Bishop of Montpelier,[328] who brought\nthem from Rome. It appears from this document, that they were divided in\ntheir sentiments; that the chief persons among them, such as the Master\nof the Sacred Palace, the Commissary of the Holy Office, the General of\nthe Augustinians, and others, conceiving that these propositions might\nbe understood in the sense of _efficacious grace_, were of opinion that\nthey ought not to be censured; whereas the rest, while they agreed that\nthe propositions would not have merited condemnation, had they borne\nthat sense, judged that they ought to be censured, because, as they\ncontended, this was very far from being their proper and natural sense.\nThe pope, accordingly, condemned them; and all parties have acquiesced\nin his judgment.\n\nIt is certain, then, father, that efficacious grace has not been\ncondemned. Indeed, it is so powerfully supported by St. Augustine, by\nSt. Thomas, and all his school, by a great many popes and councils, and\nby all tradition, that to tax it with heresy would be an act of impiety.\nNow, all those whom you condemn as heretics declare that they find\nnothing in Jansenius, but this doctrine of efficacious grace. And this\nwas the only point which they maintained at Rome. You have acknowledged\nthis yourself, when you declare that, \u201cwhen pleading before the pope,\nthey did not say a single word about the propositions, but occupied the\nwhole time in talking about efficacious grace.\u201d[329] So that whether\nthey be right or wrong in this supposition, it is undeniable, at least,\nthat what they suppose to be the sense is not heretical sense; and that,\nconsequently, they are no heretics: for, to state the matter in two\nwords, either Jansenius has merely taught the doctrine of efficacious\ngrace, and in this case he has no errors; or he has taught some other\nthing, and in this case he has no defenders. The whole question turns on\nascertaining whether Jansenius has actually maintained something\ndifferent from efficacious grace; and should it be found that he has,\nyou will have the honor of having better understood him, but they will\nnot have the misfortune of having erred from the faith.\n\nIt is matter of thankfulness to God, then, father, that there is in\nreality no heresy in the Church. The question relates entirely to a\npoint of fact, of which no heresy can be made; for the Church, with\ndivine authority, decides the points of _faith_, and cuts off from her\nbody all who refuse to receive them. But she does not act in the same\nmanner in regard to matters of _fact_. And the reason is, that our\nsalvation is attached to the faith which has been revealed to us, and\nwhich is preserved in the Church by tradition, but that it has no\ndependence on facts which have not been revealed by God. Thus we are\nbound to believe that the commandments of God are not impracticable; but\nwe are under no obligation to know what Jansenius has said upon that\nsubject. In the determination of points of faith God guides the Church\nby the aid of his unerring Spirit; whereas in matters of fact, he leaves\nher to the direction of reason and the senses, which are the natural\njudges of such matters. None but God was able to instruct the Church in\nthe faith; but to learn whether this or that proposition is contained in\nJansenius, all we require to do is to read his book. And from hence it\nfollows, that while it is heresy to resist the decisions of the faith,\nbecause this amounts to an opposing of our own spirit to the Spirit of\nGod, it is no heresy, though it may be an act of presumption, to\ndisbelieve certain particular facts, because this is no more than\nopposing reason\u2014it may be enlightened reason\u2014to an authority which is\ngreat indeed, but in this matter not infallible.\n\nWhat I have now advanced is admitted by all theologians, as appears from\nthe following axiom of Cardinal Bellarmine, a member of your Society:\n\u201cGeneral and lawful councils are incapable of error in defining the\ndogmas of faith; but they may err in questions of fact.\u201d In another\nplace he says: \u201cThe pope, as pope, and even as the head of a universal\ncouncil, may err in particular controversies of fact, which depend\nprincipally on the information and testimony of men.\u201d Cardinal Baronius\nspeaks in the same manner: \u201cImplicit submission is due to the decisions\nof councils in points of faith; but, in so far as persons and their\nwritings are concerned, the censures which have been pronounced against\nthem have not been so rigorously observed, because there is none who may\nnot chance to be deceived in such matters.\u201d I may add that, to prove\nthis point, the Archbishop of Toulouse[330] has deduced the following\nrule from the letters of two great popes\u2014St. Leon and Pelagius II.:\n\u201cThat the proper object of councils is the faith; and whatsoever is\ndetermined by them, independently of the faith, may be reviewed and\nexamined anew: whereas nothing ought to be re-examined that has been\ndecided in a matter of faith; because, as Tertullian observes, the rule\nof faith alone is immovable and irrevocable.\u201d\n\nHence it has been seen that, while general and lawful councils have\nnever contradicted one another in points of faith, because, as M. de\nToulouse has said, \u201cit is not allowable to examine _de novo_ decisions\nin matters of faith;\u201d several instances have occurred in which these\nsame councils have disagreed in points of fact, where the discussion\nturned upon the sense of an author; because, as the same prelate\nobserves, quoting the popes as his authorities, \u201ceverything determined\nin councils, not referring to the faith, may be reviewed and examined\n_de novo_.\u201d An example of this contrariety was furnished by the fourth\nand fifth councils, which differed in their interpretation of the same\nauthors. The same thing happened in the case of two popes, about a\nproposition maintained by certain monks of Scythia. Pope Hormisdas,\nunderstanding it in a bad sense, had condemned it; but Pope John II.,\nhis successor, upon re-examining the doctrine, understood it in a good\nsense, approved it, and pronounced it to be orthodox. Would you say that\nfor this reason one of these popes was a heretic? And must you not,\nconsequently, acknowledge that, provided a person condemn the heretical\nsense which a pope may have ascribed to a book, he is no heretic because\nhe declines condemning that book, while he understands it in a sense\nwhich it is certain the pope has not condemned? If this cannot be\nadmitted, one of these popes must have fallen into error.\n\nI have been anxious to familiarize you with these discrepancies among\nCatholics regarding questions of fact, which involve the understanding\nof the sense of a writer, showing you father against father, pope\nagainst pope, and council against council, to lead you from these to\nother examples of opposition, similar in their nature, but somewhat more\ndisproportioned in respect of the parties concerned. For, in the\ninstances I am now to adduce, you will see councils and popes ranged on\none side, and Jesuits on the other; and yet you have never charged your\nbrethren, for this opposition, even with presumption, much less with\nheresy.\n\nYou are well aware, father, that the writings of Origen were condemned\nby a great many popes and councils, and particularly by the fifth\ngeneral council, as chargeable with certain heresies, and, among others,\nthat of _the reconciliation of the devils at the day of judgment_. Do\nyou suppose that, after this, it became absolutely imperative, as a test\nof Catholicism, to confess that Origen actually maintained these errors,\nand that it is not enough to condemn them, without attributing them to\nhim? If this were true, what would become of your worthy Father Halloix,\nwho has asserted the purity of Origen\u2019s faith, as well as many other\nCatholics, who have attempted the same thing, such as Pico Mirandola,\nand Genebrard, doctor of the Sorbonne? Is it not, moreover, a certain\nfact, that the same fifth general council condemned the writings of\nTheodoret against St. Cyril, describing them as impious, \u201ccontrary to\nthe true faith, and tainted with the Nestorian heresy?\u201d[331] And yet\nthis has not prevented Father Sirmond,[332] a Jesuit, from defending\nhim, or from saying, in his life of that father, that \u201chis writings are\nentirely free from the heresy of Nestorius.\u201d\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that as the Church, in condemning a book,\nassumes that the error which she condemns is contained in that book, it\nis a point of faith to hold that error as condemned; but it is not a\npoint of faith to hold that the book, in fact, contains the error which\nthe Church supposes it does. Enough has been said, I think, to prove\nthis; I shall, therefore, conclude my examples by referring to that of\nPope Honorius, the history of which is so well known. At the\ncommencement of the seventh century, the Church being troubled by the\nheresy of the Monothelites,[333] that pope, with the view of terminating\nthe controversy, passed a decree which seemed favorable to these\nheretics, at which many took offence. The affair, nevertheless, passed\nover without making much disturbance during his pontificate; but fifty\nyears after, the Church being assembled in the sixth general council, in\nwhich Pope Agathon presided by his legates, this decree was impeached,\nand, after being read and examined, was condemned as containing the\nheresy of the Monothelites, and under that character burnt, in open\ncourt, along with the other writings of these heretics. Such was the\nrespect paid to this decision, and such the unanimity with which it was\nreceived throughout the whole Church, that it was afterwards ratified by\ntwo other general councils, and likewise by two popes, Leon II. and\nAdrian II., the latter of whom lived two hundred years after it had\npassed; and this universal and harmonious agreement remained undisturbed\nfor seven or eight centuries. Of late years, however, some authors, and\namong the rest Cardinal Bellarmine, without seeming to dread the\nimputation of heresy, have stoutly maintained, against all this array of\npopes and councils, that the writings of Honorius are free from the\nerror which had been ascribed to them; \u201cbecause,\u201d says the cardinal,\n\u201cgeneral councils being liable to err in questions of fact, we have the\nbest grounds for asserting that the sixth council was mistaken with\nregard to the fact now under consideration; and that, misconceiving the\nsense of the Letters of Honorius, it has placed this pope most unjustly\nin the ranks of heretics.\u201d Observe, then, I pray you, father, that a man\nis not heretical for saying that Pope Honorius was not a heretic; even\nthough a great many popes and councils, after examining his writings,\nshould have declared that he was so.\n\nI now come to the question before us, and shall allow you to state your\ncase as favorably as you can. What will you then say, father, in order\nto stamp your opponents as heretics? That \u201cPope Innocent X. has declared\nthat the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?\u201d I\ngrant you that; what inference do you draw from it? That \u201cit is\nheretical to deny that the error of the five propositions is to be found\nin Jansenius?\u201d How so, father? have we not here a question of fact,\nexactly similar to the preceding examples? The pope has declared that\nthe error of the five propositions is contained in Jansenius, in the\nsame way as his predecessors decided that the errors of the Nestorians\nand the Monothelites polluted the pages of Theodoret and Honorius. In\nthe latter case, your writers hesitate not to say, that while they\ncondemn the heresies, they do not allow that these authors actually\nmaintained them; and, in like manner, your opponents now say, that they\ncondemn the five propositions, but cannot admit that Jansenius has\ntaught them. Truly, the two cases are as like as they could well be; and\nif there be any disparity between them, it is easy to see how far it\nmust go in favor of the present question, by a comparison of many\nparticular circumstances, which, as they are self-evident, I do not\nspecify. How comes it to pass, then, that when placed in precisely the\nsame predicament, your friends are Catholics and your opponents\nheretics? On what strange principle of exception do you deprive the\nlatter of a liberty which you freely award to all the rest of the\nfaithful? What answer will you make to this, father? Will you say, \u201cThe\npope has confirmed his constitution by a brief.\u201d To this I would reply,\nthat two general councils and two popes confirmed the condemnation of\nthe Letters of Honorius. But what argument do you found upon the\nlanguage of that brief, in which all that the pope says is, that \u201che has\ncondemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions?\u201d What\ndoes that add to the constitution, or what more can you infer from it?\nNothing certainly, except that as the sixth council condemned the\ndoctrine of Honorius, in the belief that it was the same with that of\nthe Monothelites, so the pope has said that he has condemned the\ndoctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions, because he was led to\nsuppose it was the same with that of the five propositions. And how\ncould he do otherwise than suppose it? Your Society published nothing\nelse; and you, yourself, father, who have asserted that the said\npropositions were in that author \u201cword for word,\u201d happened to be in Rome\n(for I know all your motions) at the time when the censure was passed.\nWas he to distrust the sincerity or the competence of so many grave\nministers of religion? And how could he help being convinced of the\nfact, after the assurance which you had given him that the propositions\nwere in that author \u201cword for word?\u201d It is evident, therefore, that in\nthe event of its being found that Jansenius has not supported these\ndoctrines, it would be wrong to say, as your writers have done in the\ncases before mentioned, that the pope has deceived himself in this point\nof fact, which it is painful and offensive to publish at any time; the\nproper phrase is, that you have deceived the pope, which, as you are now\npretty well known, will create no scandal.\n\nDetermined, however, to have a heresy made out, let it cost what it may,\nyou have attempted, by the following man\u0153uvre, to shift the question\nfrom the point of fact, and make it bear upon a point of faith. \u201cThe\npope,\u201d say you, \u201cdeclares that he has condemned the doctrine of\nJansenius in these five propositions; therefore it is essential to the\nfaith to hold that the doctrine of Jansenius touching these five\npropositions is heretical, _let it be what it may_.\u201d Here is a strange\npoint of faith, that a doctrine is heretical _be what it may_. What! if\nJansenius should happen to maintain that \u201c_we are capable of resisting\ninternal grace_,\u201d and that \u201c_it is false to say that Jesus Christ died\nfor the elect only_,\u201d would this doctrine be condemned just because it\nis his doctrine? Will the proposition, that \u201c_man has a freedom of will\nto do good or evil_,\u201d be true when found in the pope\u2019s constitution, and\nfalse when discovered in Jansenius? By what fatality must he be reduced\nto such a predicament, that truth, when admitted into his book, becomes\nheresy? You must confess, then, that he is only heretical on the\nsupposition that he is friendly to the errors condemned, seeing that the\nconstitution of the pope is the rule which we must apply to Jansenius,\nto judge if his character answer the description there given of him;\nand, accordingly, the question, _Is his doctrine heretical?_ must be\nresolved by another question of fact, _Does it correspond to the natural\nsense of these propositions?_ as it must necessarily be heretical if it\ndoes correspond to that sense, and must necessarily be orthodox if it be\nof an opposite character. For, in one word, since, according to the pope\nand the bishops, \u201cthe propositions are condemned _in their proper and\nnatural sense_,\u201d they cannot possibly be condemned in the sense of\nJansenius, except on the understanding that the sense of Jansenius is\nthe same with the proper and natural sense of these propositions; and\nthis I maintain to be purely a question of fact.\n\nThe question, then, still rests upon the point of fact, and cannot\npossibly be tortured into one affecting the faith. But though incapable\nof twisting it into a matter of heresy, you have it in your power to\nmake it a pretext for persecution, and might, perhaps, succeed in this,\nwere there not good reason to hope that nobody will be found so blindly\ndevoted to your interests as to countenance such a disgraceful\nproceeding, or inclined to compel people, as you wish to do, to sign a\ndeclaration _that they condemn these propositions in the sense of\nJansenius_, without explaining what the sense of Jansenius is. Few\npeople are disposed to sign a blank confession of faith. Now this would\nreally be to sign one of that description, leaving you to fill up the\nblank afterwards with whatsoever you pleased, as you would be at liberty\nto interpret according to your own taste the unexplained sense of\nJansenius. Let it be explained, then, beforehand, otherwise we shall\nhave, I fear, another version of your proximate power, without any sense\nat all\u2014_abstrahendo ab omni sensu_.[334] This mode of proceeding, you\nmust be aware, does not take with the world. Men in general detest all\nambiguity, especially in the matter of religion, where it is highly\nreasonable that one should know at least what one is asked to condemn.\nAnd how is it possible for doctors, who are persuaded that Jansenius can\nbear no other sense than that of efficacious grace, to consent to\ndeclare that they condemn his doctrine without explaining it, since,\nwith their present convictions, which no means are used to alter, this\nwould be neither more nor less than to condemn efficacious grace, which\ncannot be condemned without sin? Would it not, therefore, be a piece of\nmonstrous tyranny to place them in such an unhappy dilemma, that they\nmust either bring guilt upon their souls in the sight of God, by signing\nthat condemnation against their consciences, or be denounced as heretics\nfor refusing to sign it?[335]\n\nBut there is a mystery under all this. You Jesuits cannot move a step\nwithout a stratagem. It remains for me to explain why you do not explain\nthe sense of Jansenius. The sole purpose of my writing is to discover\nyour designs, and, by discovering, to frustrate them. I must, therefore,\ninform those who are not already aware of the fact, that your great\nconcern in this dispute being to uphold the _sufficient grace_ of your\nMolina, you could not effect this without destroying the _efficacious\ngrace_ which stands directly opposed to it. Perceiving, however, that\nthe latter was now sanctioned at Rome, and by all the learned in the\nChurch, and unable to combat the doctrine on its own merits, you\nresolved to attack it in a clandestine way, under the name of the\ndoctrine of Jansenius. You were resolved, accordingly, to get Jansenius\ncondemned without explanation; and, to gain your purpose, gave out that\nhis doctrine was not that of efficacious grace, so that every one might\nthink he was at liberty to condemn the one without denying the other.\nHence your efforts, in the present day, to impress this idea upon the\nminds of such as have no acquaintance with that author; an object which\nyou yourself, father, have attempted, by means of the following\ningenious syllogism: \u201cThe pope has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius;\nbut the pope has not condemned efficacious grace: therefore, the\ndoctrine of efficacious grace must be different from that of\nJansenius.\u201d[336] If this mode of reasoning were conclusive, it might be\ndemonstrated in the same way that Honorius and all his defenders are\nheretics of the same kind. \u201cThe sixth council has condemned the doctrine\nof Honorius; but the council has not condemned the doctrine of the\nChurch: therefore the doctrine of Honorius is different from that of the\nChurch; and therefore all who defend him are heretics.\u201d It is obvious\nthat no conclusion can be drawn from this; for the pope has done no more\nthan condemned the doctrine of the five propositions, which was\nrepresented to him as the doctrine of Jansenius.\n\nBut it matters not; you have no intention to make use of this logic for\nany length of time. Poor as it is, it will last sufficiently long to\nserve your present turn. All that you wish to effect by it, in the mean\ntime, is to induce those who are unwilling to condemn efficacious grace\nto condemn Jansenius with the less scruple. When this object has been\naccomplished, your argument will soon be forgotten, and their signatures\nremaining as an eternal testimony in condemnation of Jansenius, will\nfurnish you with an occasion to make a direct attack upon efficacious\ngrace, by another mode of reasoning much more solid than the former,\nwhich shall be forthcoming in proper time. \u201cThe doctrine of Jansenius,\u201d\nyou will argue, \u201chas been condemned by the universal subscriptions of\nthe Church. Now this doctrine is manifestly that of efficacious grace\u201d\n(and it will be easy for you to prove that); \u201ctherefore the doctrine of\nefficacious grace is condemned even by the confession of his defenders.\u201d\n\nBehold your reason for proposing to sign the condemnation of a doctrine\nwithout giving an explanation of it! Behold the advantage you expect to\ngain from subscriptions thus procured! Should your opponents, however,\nrefuse to subscribe, you have another trap laid for them. Having\ndexterously combined the question of faith with that of fact, and not\nallowing them to separate between them, nor to sign the one without the\nother, the consequence will be, that, because they could not subscribe\nthe two together, you will publish it in all directions that they have\nrefused the two together. And thus though, in point of fact, they simply\ndecline acknowledging that Jansenius has maintained the propositions\nwhich they condemn, which cannot be called heresy, you will boldly\nassert that they have refused to condemn the propositions themselves,\nand that it is this that constitutes their heresy.\n\nSuch is the fruit which you expect to reap from their refusal, and which\nwill be no less useful to you than what you might have gained from their\nconsent. So that, in the event of these signatures being exacted, they\nwill fall into your snares, whether they sign or not, and in both cases\nyou will gain your point; such is your dexterity in uniformly putting\nmatters into a train for your own advantage, whatever bias they may\nhappen to take in their course!\n\nHow well I know you, father! and how grieved am I to see that God has\nabandoned you so far as to allow you such happy success in such an\nunhappy course! Your good fortune deserves commiseration, and can excite\nenvy only in the breasts of those who know not what truly good fortune\nis. It is an act of charity to thwart the success you aim at in the\nwhole of this proceeding, seeing that you can only reach it by the aid\nof falsehood, and by procuring credit to one of two lies\u2014either that the\nChurch has condemned efficacious grace, or that those who defend that\ndoctrine maintain the five condemned errors.\n\nThe world must, therefore, be apprized of two facts: First, That, by\nyour own confession, efficacious grace has not been condemned; and\nsecondly, That nobody supports these errors. So that it may be known\nthat those who may refuse to sign what you are so anxious to exact from\nthem, refuse merely in consideration of the question of _fact_; and\nthat, being quite ready to subscribe that of _faith_, they cannot be\ndeemed heretical on that account; because, to repeat it once more,\nthough it be matter of faith to believe these propositions to be\nheretical, it will never be matter of faith to hold that they are to be\nfound in the pages of Jansenius. They are innocent of all error; that is\nenough. It may be that they interpret Jansenius too favorably; but it\nmay be also that you do not interpret him favorably enough. I do not\nenter upon this question. All that I know is, that, according to your\nmaxims, you believe that you may, without sin, publish him to be a\nheretic contrary to your own knowledge; whereas, according to their\nmaxims, they cannot, without sin, declare him to be a Catholic, unless\nthey are persuaded that he is one. They are, therefore, more honest than\nyou, father; they have examined Jansenius more faithfully than you; they\nare no less intelligent than you; they are, therefore, no less credible\nwitnesses than you. But come what may of this point of fact, they are\ncertainly Catholics; for, in order to be so, it is not necessary to\ndeclare that another man is not a Catholic; it is enough, in all\nconscience, if a person, without charging error upon anybody else,\nsucceed in discharging himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nReverend father,\u2014If you have found any difficulty in deciphering this\nletter, which is certainly not printed in the best possible type, blame\nnobody but yourself. Privileges are not so easily granted to me as they\nare to you. You can procure them even for the purpose of combating\nmiracles; I cannot have them even to defend myself. The printing-houses\nare perpetually haunted. In such circumstances, you yourself would not\nadvise me to write you any more letters for it is really a sad annoyance\nto be obliged to have recourse to an Osnabruck impression.[337]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n M. Nicole furnished the materials for this letter. (Nicole, iv. 324.)\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n _Francis Annat_, the same person formerly referred to at p. 102. He\n became French provincial of the Jesuits, and confessor to Louis XIV.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n A threat, evidently, of administering to him the _Mentiris\n impudentissime_ of the Capuchin, mentioned at p. 310.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n _The constitution_\u2014that is, the bull of Pope Alexander VII., issued in\n October 1656, in which he not only condemned the Five Propositions,\n but, in compliance with the solicitations of the Jesuits, added an\n express clause, to the effect that these had been faithfully extracted\n from Jansenius, and were heretical in the sense in which he\n (Jansenius) employed them. This was a more stringent constitution than\n the first; but the Jansenists were ready to meet him on this point;\n they replied that a declaration of this nature overstepped the limits\n of the papal authority, and that the pope\u2019s infallibility did not\n extend to a judgment of _facts_.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n _The Five Propositions._\u2014A brief view of these celebrated Propositions\n may be here given, as necessary to the understanding of the text. They\n were as follows:\u2014I. That some commandments of God are impracticable\n even to the righteous, who desire to keep them, according to their\n present strength. II. That grace is irresistible. III. That moral\n freedom consists, not in exemption from necessity, but from\n constraint. IV. That to assert that the will may resist or obey the\n motions of converting grace as it pleased, was a heresy of the\n semi-Pelagians. V. That to assert that Jesus Christ died for all men,\n without exception, is an error of the semi-Pelagians. For a fuller\n explication of the controversy, the reader must be referred to the\n Introduction.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n Pascal might say this with truth, for his only relatives being nuns,\n the tie of earthly relationship was considered by him as no longer\n existing; and beyond personal friendship, he had really no connection\n with Port-Royal. There is as little truth as force, therefore, in the\n taunt of a late advocate of the Jesuits, who says, in reference to\n this passage, \u201cPascal was intimately connected with Port-Royal, he was\n even numbered among its recluses; and yet, in the act of unmasking the\n presumed duplicity of the Jesuits, the sublime writer did not scruple\n to imitate it.\u201d (Hist. de la Comp. de J\u00e9sus, par J. Cretineau-Joly,\n tom. iv. p. 54. Paris, 1845.)\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n \u201cThis book of the _Holy Virginity_ was a translation from St.\n Augustine, made by Father Seguenot, priest of the Oratory. So far, all\n was right; but the priest had added to the original text some odd and\n peculiar remarks of his own, which merited censure. As the publication\n came from the Oratory, a community always attached to the doctrine of\n St. Augustine, an attempt was made to throw the blame on those called\n Jansenists.\u201d (Note by Nicole, iv. 332.)\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n \u201cM. Jacques de Sainte-Beuve, one of the ablest divines of his age,\n preferred to relinquish his chair in the Sorbonne rather than concur\n in the censure of M. Arnauld, whose orthodoxy he regarded as beyond\n suspicion. He died in 1677.\u201d (Note by Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n This work was entitled \u201cOn the Victorious Grace of Jesus Christ; or,\n Molina and his followers convicted of the error of the Pelagians and\n Semi-Pelagians. By the Sieur de Bonlieu. Paris, 1651.\u201d The real author\n was the celebrated M. de la Lane, well known in that controversy.\n (Note by Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n R\u00e9ponse a quelques demandes, pp. 27, 47.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n These judgments, or _Vota Consultorum_, as they were called, have been\n often printed, and particularly at the end of the _Journal de M. de\n St. Amour_\u2014a book essentially necessary to the right understanding of\n all the intrigues employed in the condemnation of Jansenius. (Note by\n Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n This was _Francis du Bosquet_, who, from being Bishop of Lodeve, was\n made Bishop of Montpelier in 1655, and died in 1676. He was one of the\n most learned bishops of his time in ecclesiastical matters. (Note by\n Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Cavill, p. 35.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n M. de Marca, an illustrious prelate, who was Archbishop of Toulouse,\n before he was nominated to the see of Paris, of which he was only\n prevented by death from taking possession. (Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n _Nestorian heresy_\u2014so called from Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople,\n in the fifth century, who was accused of dividing Christ into _two\n persons_; in other words, representing his human nature a distinct\n person from his divine. There is some reason to think, however, that\n he was quite sound in the faith, and that his real offence was his\n opposition to the use of the phrase, which then came into vogue, _the\n Mother of God_, as applied to the Virgin, whom he called, in\n preference, _the Mother of Christ_.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n This was James Sirmond (the uncle of Anthony, formerly mentioned), a\n learned Jesuit, and confessor to Louis XIII. He was distinguished as\n an ecclesiastical historian. (Tableau de la Litt. Fran., iv. 202.)\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n _The Monothelites_, who arose in the seventh century, were so called\n from holding that there was but _one will_ in Christ, his human will\n being absorbed, as it were, in the divine.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n See Letter i., p. 74.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n The persecution here supposed was soon lamentably realized, and\n exactly in the way which our author seemed to think impossible.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n Cavill, p. 23.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n This postscript, which is wanting in the ordinary editions, appeared\n in the first edition at the close of this letter. From this it appears\n that, in consequence of the extreme desire of the Jesuits to discover\n the author, and their increasing resentment against him, he was\n compelled to send this letter to Osnabruck, an obscure place in\n Germany, where it was printed in a very small and indistinct\n character. The _privileges_ referred to were official licenses to\n print books, which, at this time, when the Jesuits were in power, it\n was difficult for their opponents to obtain. Annat had published\n against the miracles of Port-Royal. Pascal was not permitted to\n publish in self-defence. At the same period, no Protestant books could\n be printed at Paris; they were generally sent to Geneva or the Low\n Countries for this purpose, or published furtively under fictitious\n names.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XVIII.\n\n TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT.\n\nSHOWING STILL MORE PLAINLY, ON THE AUTHORITY OF FATHER ANNAT HIMSELF,\n THAT THERE IS REALLY NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH, AND THAT IN QUESTIONS\n OF FACT WE MUST BE GUIDED BY OUR SENSES, AND NOT BY AUTHORITY EVEN OF\n THE POPES.\n\n\n _March 24, 1657._\n\nREVEREND FATHER,\u2014Long have you labored to discover some error in the\ncreed or conduct of your opponents; but I rather think you will have to\nconfess, in the end, that it is a more difficult task than you imagined\nto make heretics of people who are not only no heretics, but who hate\nnothing in the world so much as heresy. In my last letter I succeeded in\nshowing that you accuse them of one heresy after another, without being\nable to stand by one of the charges for any length of time; so that all\nthat remained for you was to fix on their refusal to condemn \u201cthe sense\nof Jansenius,\u201d which you insist on their doing without explanation. You\nmust have been sadly in want of heresies to brand them with, when you\nwere reduced to this. For, who ever heard of a heresy which nobody could\nexplain? The answer was ready, therefore, that if Jansenius has no\nerrors, it is wrong to condemn him; and if he has, you were bound to\npoint them out, that we might know at least what we were condemning.\nThis, however, you have never yet been pleased to do; but you have\nattempted to fortify your position by decrees,[338] which made nothing\nin your favor, as they gave no sort of explanation of the sense of\nJansenius, said to have been condemned in the five propositions. This\nwas not the way to terminate the dispute. Had you mutually agreed as to\nthe genuine sense of Jansenius, and had the only difference between you\nbeen as to whether that sense was heretical or not, in that case the\ndecisions which might pronounce it to be heretical, would have touched\nthe real question in dispute. But the great dispute being about the\nsense of Jansenius, the one party saying that they could see nothing in\nit inconsistent with the sense of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and the\nother party asserting that they saw in it an heretical sense which they\nwould not express. It is clear that a constitution[339] which does not\nsay a word about this difference of opinion, and which only condemns in\ngeneral and without explanation the sense of Jansenius, leaves the point\nin dispute quite undecided.\n\nYou have accordingly been repeatedly told, that as your discussion turns\non a matter of fact, you would never be able to bring it to a conclusion\nwithout declaring what you understand by the sense of Jansenius. But, as\nyou continued obstinate in your refusal to make this explanation, I\nendeavored, as a last resource, to extort it from you, by hinting, in my\nlast letter, that there was some mystery under the efforts you were\nmaking to procure the condemnation of this sense without explaining it,\nand that your design was to make this indefinite censure recoil, some\nday or other, upon the doctrine of efficacious grace, by showing, as you\ncould easily do, that this was exactly the doctrine of Jansenius. This\nhas reduced you to the necessity of making a reply; for, had you\npertinaciously refused, after such an insinuation, to explain your views\nof that sense, it would have been apparent, to persons of the smallest\npenetration, that you condemned it in the sense of efficacious grace\u2014a\nconclusion which, considering the veneration in which the Church holds\nthat holy doctrine, would have overwhelmed you with disgrace.\n\nYou have, therefore, been forced to speak out your mind; and we find it\nexpressed in your reply to that part of my letter in which I remarked,\nthat \u201cif Jansenius was capable of any other sense than that of\nefficacious grace, he had no defenders; but if his writings bore no\nother sense, he had no errors to defend.\u201d You found it impossible to\ndeny this position, father; but you have attempted to parry it by the\nfollowing distinction: \u201cIt is not sufficient,\u201d say you, \u201cfor the\nvindication of Jansenius, to allege that he merely holds the doctrine of\nefficacious grace, for that may be held in two ways\u2014the one heretical,\naccording to Calvin, which consists in maintaining that the will, when\nunder the influence of grace, has not the power of resisting it; the\nother orthodox, according to the Thomists and the Sorbonists, which is\nfounded on the principles established by the councils, and which is,\nthat efficacious grace of itself governs the will in such a way that it\nstill has the power of resisting it.\u201d\n\nAll this we grant, father; but you conclude by adding: \u201cJansenius would\nbe orthodox, if he defended efficacious grace in the sense of the\nThomists; but he is heretical, because he opposes the Thomists, and\njoins issue with Calvin, who denies the power of resisting grace.\u201d I do\nnot here enter upon the question of fact, whether Jansenius really\nagrees with Calvin. It is enough for my purpose that you assert that he\ndoes, and that you now inform me that by the sense of Jansenius you have\nall along understood nothing more than the sense of Calvin. Was this all\nyou meant, then, father? Was it only the error of Calvin that you were\nso anxious to get condemned, under the name of \u201cthe sense of Jansenius?\u201d\nWhy did you not tell us this sooner? You might have saved yourself a\nworld of trouble; for we were all ready, without the aid of bulls or\nbriefs, to join with you in condemning that error. What urgent necessity\nthere was for such an explanation! What a host of difficulties has it\nremoved! We were quite at a loss, my dear father, to know what error the\npopes and bishops meant to condemn, under the name of \u201cthe sense of\nJansenius.\u201d The whole Church was in the utmost perplexity about it, and\nnot a soul would relieve us by an explanation. This, however, has now\nbeen done by you, father\u2014you whom the whole of your party regard as the\nchief and prime mover of all their councils, and who are acquainted with\nthe whole secret of this proceeding. You, then, have told us that the\nsense of Jansenius is neither more nor less than the sense of Calvin,\nwhich has been condemned by the council.[340] Why, this explains\neverything. We know now that the error which they intended to condemn,\nunder these terms\u2014_the sense of Jansenius_\u2014is neither more nor less than\nthe sense of Calvin; and that, consequently, we, by joining with them in\nthe condemnation of Calvin\u2019s doctrine, have yielded all due obedience to\nthese decrees. We are no longer surprised at the zeal which the popes\nand some bishops manifested against \u201cthe sense of Jansenius.\u201d How,\nindeed, could they be otherwise than zealous against it, believing as\nthey did the declarations of those who publicly affirmed that it was\nidentically the same with that of Calvin?\n\nI must maintain, then, father, that you have no further reason to\nquarrel with your adversaries; for they detest that doctrine as heartily\nas you do. I am only astonished to see that you are ignorant of this\nfact, and that you have such an imperfect acquaintance with their\nsentiments on this point, which they have so repeatedly expressed in\ntheir published works. I flatter myself that, were you more intimate\nwith these writings, you would deeply regret your not having made\nyourself acquainted sooner, in the spirit of peace, with a doctrine\nwhich is in every respect so holy and so Christian, but which passion,\nin the absence of knowledge, now prompts you to oppose. You would find,\nfather, that they not only hold that an effective resistance may be made\nto those feebler graces which go under the name of _exciting_ or\n_inefficacious_, from their not terminating in the good with which they\ninspire us; but that they are, moreover, as firm in maintaining, in\nopposition to Calvin, the power which the will has to resist even\nefficacious and victorious grace, as they are in contending against\nMolina for the power of this grace over the will, and fully as jealous\nfor the one of these truths as they are for the other. They know too\nwell that man, of his own nature, has always the power of sinning and of\nresisting grace; and that, since he became corrupt, he unhappily carries\nin his breast a fount of concupiscence which infinitely augments that\npower; but that, notwithstanding this, when it pleases God to visit him\nwith his mercy, he makes the soul do what he wills, and in the manner he\nwills it to be done, while, at the same time, the infallibility of the\ndivine operation does not in any way destroy the natural liberty of man,\nin consequence of the secret and wonderful ways by which God operates\nthis change. This has been most admirably explained by St. Augustine, in\nsuch a way as to dissipate all those imaginary inconsistencies which the\nopponents of efficacious grace suppose to exist between the sovereign\npower of grace over the free-will and the power which the free-will has\nto resist grace. For, according to this great saint, whom the popes and\nthe Church have held to be a standard authority on this subject, God\ntransforms the heart of man, by shedding abroad in it a heavenly\nsweetness, which, surmounting the delights of the flesh, and inducing\nhim to feel, on the one hand, his own mortality and nothingness, and to\ndiscover, on the other hand, the majesty and eternity of God, makes him\nconceive a distaste for the pleasures of sin, which interpose between\nhim and incorruptible happiness. Finding his chiefest joy in the God who\ncharms him, his soul is drawn towards him infallibly, but of its own\naccord, by a motion perfectly free, spontaneous, love-impelled; so that\nit would be its torment and punishment to be separated from him. Not but\nthat the person has always the power of forsaking his God, and that he\nmay not actually forsake him, provided he choose to do it. But how\n_could_ he choose such a course, seeing that the will always inclines to\nthat which is most agreeable to it, and that in the case we now suppose\nnothing can be more agreeable than the possession of that _one good_,\nwhich comprises in itself all other good things. \u201c_Quod enim_ (says St.\nAugustine) _amplius nos delectat, secundum_ _operemur necesse est_\u2014Our\nactions are necessarily determined by that which affords us the greatest\npleasure.\u201d\n\nSuch is the manner in which God regulates the free will of man without\nencroaching on its freedom, and in which the free will, which always\nmay, but never will, resist his grace, turns to God with a movement as\nvoluntary as it is irresistible, whensoever he is pleased to draw it to\nhimself by the sweet constraint of his efficacious inspirations.[341]\n\nThese, father, are the divine principles of St. Augustine and St.\nThomas, according to which it is equally true that _we have the power of\nresisting grace_, contrary to Calvin\u2019s opinion, and that, nevertheless,\nto employ the language of Pope Clement VIII., in his paper addressed to\nthe Congregation _de Auxiliis_, \u201cGod forms within us the motion of our\nwill, and effectually disposes of our hearts, by virtue of that empire\nwhich his supreme majesty has over the volitions of men, as well as over\nthe other creatures under heaven, according to St. Augustine.\u201d\n\nOn the same principle, it follows that we act of ourselves, and thus, in\nopposition to another error of Calvin, that we have merits which are\ntruly and properly _ours_; and yet, as God is the first principle of our\nactions, and as, in the language of St. Paul, he \u201cworketh in us that\nwhich is pleasing in his sight;\u201d \u201cour merits are the gifts of God,\u201d as\nthe Council of Trent says.\n\nBy means of this distinction we demolish the profane sentiment of\nLuther, condemned by that Council, namely, that \u201cwe co-operate in no way\nwhatever towards our salvation, any more than inanimate things;\u201d[342]\nand, by the same mode of reasoning, we overthrow the equally profane\nsentiment of the school of Molina, who will not allow that it is by the\nstrength of divine grace that we are enabled to co-operate with it in\nthe work of our salvation, and who thereby comes into hostile collision\nwith that principle of faith established by St. Paul, \u201cThat it is God\nwho worketh in us both to will and to do.\u201d\n\nIn fine, in this way we reconcile all those passages of Scripture which\nseem quite inconsistent with each other, such as the following: \u201cTurn ye\nunto God\u201d\u2014\u201cTurn thou us, and we shall be turned\u201d\u2014\u201cCast away iniquity\nfrom you\u201d\u2014\u201cIt is God who taketh away iniquity from his people\u201d\u2014\u201cBring\nforth works meet for repentance\u201d\u2014\u201cLord, thou hast wrought all our works\nin us\u201d\u2014\u201cMake ye a new heart and a new spirit\u201d\u2014\u201cA new spirit will I give\nyou, and a new heart will I create within you,\u201d &c.\n\nThe only way of reconciling these apparent contrarieties, which ascribe\nour good actions at one time to God, and at another time to ourselves,\nis to keep in view the distinction, as stated by St. Augustine, that\n\u201cour actions are ours in respect of the free will which produces them;\nbut that they are also of God, in respect of his grace which enables our\nfree will to produce them;\u201d and that, as the same writer elsewhere\nremarks, \u201cGod enables us to do what is pleasing in his sight, by making\nus will to do even what we might have been unwilling to do.\u201d\n\nIt thus appears, father, that your opponents are perfectly at one with\nthe modern Thomists, for the Thomists hold, with them, both the power of\nresisting grace, and the infallibility of the effect of grace; of which\nlatter doctrine they profess themselves the most strenuous advocates, if\nwe may judge from a common maxim of their theology, which Alvarez,[343]\none of the leading men among them, repeats so often in his book, and\nexpresses in the following terms (disp. 72, n. 4): \u201cWhen efficacious\ngrace moves the free will, it infallibly consents; because the effect of\ngrace is such, that, although the will has the power of withholding its\nconsent, it nevertheless consents in effect.\u201d He corroborates this by a\nquotation from his master, St. Thomas: \u201cThe will of God cannot fail to\nbe accomplished; and, accordingly, when it is his pleasure that a man\nshould consent to the influence of grace, he consents infallibly, and\neven necessarily, not by an absolute necessity, but by a necessity of\ninfallibility.\u201d In effecting this, divine grace does not trench upon\n\u201cthe power which man has to resist it, if he wishes to do so;\u201d it merely\nprevents him from wishing to resist it. This has been acknowledged by\nyour Father Petau, in the following passage (tom. i. p. 602): \u201cThe grace\nof Jesus Christ insures infallible perseverance in piety, though not by\nnecessity; for a person may refuse to yield his consent to grace, if he\nbe so inclined, as the council states; but that same grace provides that\nhe shall never be so inclined.\u201d\n\nThis, father, is the uniform doctrine of St. Augustine, of St. Prosper,\nof the fathers who followed them, of the councils, of St. Thomas, and of\nall the Thomists in general. It is likewise, whatever you may think of\nit, the doctrine of your opponents. And let me add, it is the doctrine\nwhich you yourself have lately sealed with your approbation. I shall\nquote your own words: \u201cThe doctrine of efficacious grace, which admits\nthat we have a power of resisting it, is orthodox, founded on the\ncouncils, and supported by the Thomists and Sorbonists.\u201d Now, tell us\nthe plain truth, father; if you had known that your opponents really\nheld this doctrine, the interests of your Society might perhaps have\nmade you scruple before pronouncing this public approval of it; but,\nacting on the supposition that they were hostile to the doctrine, the\nsame powerful motive has induced you to authorize sentiments which you\nknow in your heart to be contrary to those of your Society; and by this\nblunder, in your anxiety to ruin their principles, you have yourself\ncompletely confirmed them. So that, by a kind of prodigy, we now behold\nthe advocates of efficacious grace vindicated by the advocates of\nMolina\u2014an admirable instance of the wisdom of God in making all things\nconcur to advance the glory of the truth.\n\nLet the whole world observe, then, that by your own admission, the truth\nof this efficacious grace, which is so essential to all the acts of\npiety, which is so dear to the Church, and which is the purchase of her\nSaviour\u2019s blood, is so indisputably Catholic, that there is not a single\nCatholic, not even among the Jesuits, who would not acknowledge its\northodoxy. And let it be noticed, at the same time, that, according to\nyour own confession, not the slightest suspicion of error can fall on\nthose whom you have so often stigmatized with it. For so long as you\ncharged them with clandestine heresies, without choosing to specify them\nby name, it was as difficult for them to defend themselves as it was\neasy for you to bring such accusations. But now, when you have come to\ndeclare that the error which constrains you to oppose them, is the\nheresy of Calvin which you supposed them to hold, it must be apparent to\nevery one that they are innocent of all error; for so decidedly hostile\nare they to this, the only error you charge upon them, that they\nprotest, by their discourses, by their books, by every mode, in short,\nin which they can testify their sentiments, that they condemn that\nheresy with their whole heart, and in the same manner as it has been\ncondemned by the Thomists, whom you acknowledge, without scruple, to be\nCatholics, and who have never been suspected to be anything else.\n\nWhat will you say against them now, father? Will you say that they are\nheretics still, because, although they do not adopt the sense of Calvin,\nthey will not allow that the sense of Jansenius is the same with that of\nCalvin? Will you presume to say that this is matter of heresy? Is it not\na pure question of fact, with which heresy has nothing to do? It would\nbe heretical to say that we have not the power of resisting efficacious\ngrace; but would it be so to doubt that Jansenius held that doctrine? Is\nthis a revealed truth? Is it an article of faith which must be believed,\non pain of damnation? or is it not, in spite of you, a point of fact, on\naccount of which it would be ridiculous to hold that there were heretics\nin the Church.\n\nDrop this epithet, then, father, and give them some other name, more\nsuited to the nature of your dispute. Tell them, they are ignorant and\nstupid\u2014that they misunderstand Jansenius. These would be charges in\nkeeping with your controversy; but it is quite irrelevant to call them\nheretics. As this, however, is the only charge from which I am anxious\nto defend them, I shall not give myself much trouble to show that they\nrightly understand Jansenius. All I shall say on the point, father, is,\nthat it appears to me that were he to be judged according to your own\nrules, it would be difficult to prove him not to be a good Catholic. We\nshall try him by the test you have proposed. \u201cTo know,\u201d say you,\n\u201cwhether Jansenius is sound or not, we must inquire whether he defends\nefficacious grace in the manner of Calvin, who denies that man has the\npower of resisting it\u2014in which case he would be heretical; or in the\nmanner of the Thomists, who admit that it may be resisted\u2014for then he\nwould be Catholic.\u201d Judge, then, father, whether he holds that grace may\nbe resisted, when he says, \u201cThat we have always a power to resist grace,\naccording to the council; that free will may always act or not act, will\nor not will, consent or not consent, do good or do evil; and that man,\nin this life, has always these two liberties, which may be called by\nsome contradictions.\u201d[344] Judge, likewise, if he be not opposed to the\nerror of Calvin, as you have described it, when he occupies a whole\nchapter (21st) in showing \u201cthat the Church has condemned that heretic\nwho denies that efficacious grace acts on the free will in the manner\nwhich has been so long believed in the Church, so as to leave it in the\npower of free will to consent or not to consent; whereas, according to\nSt. Augustine and the council, we have always the power of withholding\nour consent if we choose; and according to St. Prosper, God bestows even\nupon his elect the will to persevere, in such a way as not to deprive\nthem of the power to will the contrary.\u201d And, in one word, judge if he\ndo not agree with the Thomists, from the following declaration in\nchapter 4th: \u201cThat all that the Thomists have written with the view of\nreconciling the efficaciousness of grace with the power of resisting it,\nso entirely coincides with his judgment, that to ascertain his\nsentiments on this subject, we have only to consult their writings.\u201d\n\nSuch being the language he holds on these heads, my opinion is, that he\nbelieves in the power of resisting grace; that he differs from Calvin,\nand agrees with the Thomists, because he has said so; and that he is,\ntherefore, according to your own showing, a Catholic. If you have any\nmeans of knowing the sense of an author otherwise than by his\nexpressions; and if, without quoting any of his passages, you are\ndisposed to maintain, in direct opposition to his own words, that he\ndenies this power of resistance, and that he is for Calvin and against\nthe Thomists, do not be afraid, father, that I will accuse you of heresy\nfor that. I shall only say, that you do not seem properly to understand\nJansenius; but we shall not be the less on that account children of the\nsame Church.\n\nHow comes it, then, father, that you manage this dispute in such a\npassionate spirit, and that you treat as your most cruel enemies, and as\nthe most pestilent of heretics, a class of persons whom you cannot\naccuse of any error, nor of anything whatever, except that they do not\nunderstand Jansenius as you do? For what else in the world do you\ndispute about, except the sense of that author? You would have them to\ncondemn it. They ask what you mean them to condemn. You reply, that you\nmean the error of Calvin. They rejoin that they condemn that error; and\nwith this acknowledgment (unless it is syllables you wish to condemn,\nand not the thing which they signify), you ought to rest satisfied. If\nthey refuse to say that they condemn the sense of Jansenius, it is\nbecause they believe it to be that of St. Thomas, and thus this unhappy\nphrase has a very equivocal meaning betwixt you. In your mouth it\nsignifies the sense of Calvin; in theirs the sense of St. Thomas. Your\ndissensions arise entirely from the different ideas which you attach to\nthe same term. Were I made umpire in the quarrel, I would interdict the\nuse of the word Jansenius, on both sides; and thus, by obliging you\nmerely to express what you understand by it, it would be seen that you\nask nothing more than the condemnation of Calvin, to which they\nwillingly agree; and that they ask nothing more than the vindication of\nthe sense of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, in which you again perfectly\ncoincide.\n\nI declare, then, father, that for my part I shall continue to regard\nthem as good Catholics, whether they condemn Jansenius, on finding him\nerroneous, or refuse to condemn him, from finding that he maintains\nnothing more than what you yourself acknowledge to be orthodox; and that\nI shall say to them what St. Jerome said to John, bishop of Jerusalem,\nwho was accused of holding the eight propositions of Origen: \u201cEither\ncondemn Origen, if you acknowledge that he has maintained these errors,\nor else deny that he has maintained them\u2014_Aut nega hoc dixisse eum qui\narguitur; aut si locutus est talia, eum damna qui dixerit_.\u201d\n\nSee, father, how these persons acted, whose sole concern was with\nprinciples, and not with persons; whereas you who aim at persons more\nthan principles, consider it a matter of no consequence to condemn\nerrors, unless you procure the condemnation of the individuals to whom\nyou choose to impute them.\n\nHow ridiculously violent your conduct is, father! and how ill calculated\nto insure success! I told you before, and I repeat it, violence and\nverity can make no impression on each other. Never were your accusations\nmore outrageous, and never was the innocence of your opponents more\ndiscernible: never has efficacious grace been attacked with greater\nsubtility, and never has it been more triumphantly established. You have\nmade the most desperate efforts to convince people that your disputes\ninvolved points of faith; and never was it more apparent that the whole\ncontroversy turned upon a mere point of fact. In fine, you have moved\nheaven and earth to make it appear that this point of fact is founded on\ntruth; and never were people more disposed to call it in question. And\nthe obvious reason of this is, that you do not take the natural course\nto make them believe a point of fact, which is to convince their senses,\nand point out to them in a book the words which you allege are to be\nfound in it. The means you have adopted are so far removed from this\nstraightforward course, that the most obtuse minds are unavoidably\nstruck by observing it. Why did you not take the plan which I followed\nin bringing to light the wicked maxims of your authors\u2014which was to cite\nfaithfully the passages of their writings from which they were\nextracted? This was the mode followed by the cur\u00e9s of Paris, and it\nnever fails to produce conviction. But, when you were charged by them\nwith holding, for example, the proposition of Father Lamy, that a \u201cmonk\nmay kill a person who threatens to publish calumnies against himself or\nhis order, when he cannot otherwise prevent the publication,\u201d\u2014what would\nyou have thought, and what would the public have said, if they had not\nquoted the place where that sentiment is literally to be found? or if,\nafter having been repeatedly demanded to quote their authority, they\nstill obstinately refused to do it? or if, instead of acceding to this,\nthey had gone off to Rome, and procured a bull, ordaining all men to\nacknowledge the truth of their statement? Would it not be undoubtedly\nconcluded that they had surprised the pope, and that they would never\nhave had recourse to this extraordinary method, but for want of the\nnatural means of substantiating the truth, which matters of fact furnish\nto all who undertake to prove them? Accordingly, they had no more to do\nthan to tell us that Father Lamy teaches this doctrine _in tome 5, disp.\n36, n. 118, page 544, of the Douay edition_; and by this means everybody\nwho wished to see it found it out, and nobody could doubt about it any\nlonger. This appears to be a very easy and prompt way of putting an end\nto controversies of fact, when one has got the right side of the\nquestion.\n\nHow comes it, then, father, that you do not follow this plan? You said,\nin your book, that the five propositions are in Jansenius, word for\nword, in the identical terms\u2014_iisdem verbis_. You were told they were\nnot. What had you to do after this, but either to cite the page, if you\nhad really found the words, or to acknowledge that you were mistaken.\nBut you have done neither the one nor the other. In place of this, on\nfinding that all the passages from Jansenius, which you sometimes adduce\nfor the purpose of hoodwinking the people, are not \u201cthe condemned\npropositions in their individual identity,\u201d as you had engaged to show\nus, you present us with Constitutions from Rome, which, without\nspecifying any particular place, declare that the propositions have been\nextracted from his book.\n\nI am sensible, father, of the respect which Christians owe to the Holy\nSee, and your antagonists give sufficient evidence of their resolution\never to abide by its decisions. Do not imagine that it implied any\ndeficiency in this due deference on their part, that they represented to\nthe pope, with all the submission which children owe to their father,\nand members to their head, that it was possible he might be deceived on\nthis point of fact\u2014that he had not caused it to be investigated during\nhis pontificate; and that his predecessor, Innocent X., had merely\nexamined into the heretical character of the propositions, and not into\nthe fact of their connection with Jansenius. This they stated to the\ncommissary of the Holy Office, one of the principal examinators,\nstating, that they could not be censured, according to the sense of any\nauthor, because they had been presented for examination on their own\nmerits, and without considering to what author they might belong:\nfurther, that upwards of sixty doctors, and a vast number of other\npersons of learning and piety, had read that book carefully over,\nwithout ever having encountered the proscribed propositions, and that\nthey have found some of a quite opposite description: that those who had\nproduced that impression on the mind of the pope, might be reasonably\npresumed to have abused the confidence he reposed in them, inasmuch as\nthey had an interest in decrying that author, who has convicted Molina\nof upwards of fifty errors:[345] that what renders this supposition\nstill more probable is, that they have a certain maxim among them, one\nof the best authenticated in their whole system of theology, which is,\n\u201cthat they may, without criminality, calumniate those by whom they\nconceive themselves to be unjustly attacked:\u201d and that, accordingly,\ntheir testimony being so suspicious, and the testimony of the other\nparty so respectable, they had some ground for supplicating his\nholiness, with the most profound humility, that he would ordain an\ninvestigation to be made into this fact, in the presence of doctors\nbelonging to both parties, in order that a solemn and regular decision\nmight be formed on the point in dispute. \u201cLet there be a convocation of\nable judges (says St. Basil on a similar occasion, Ep. 75); let each of\nthem be left at perfect freedom; let them examine my writings; let them\njudge if they contain errors against the faith; let them read the\nobjections and the replies; that so a judgment may be given in due form,\nand with proper knowledge of the case, and not a defamatory libel\nwithout examination.\u201d\n\nIt is quite vain for you, father, to represent those who would act in\nthe manner I have now supposed as deficient in proper subjection to the\nHoly See. The popes are very far from being disposed to treat Christians\nwith that imperiousness which some would fain exercise under their name.\n\u201cThe Church,\u201d says Pope St. Gregory,[346] \u201cwhich has been trained in the\nschool of humility, does not command with authority, but persuades by\nreason, her children whom she believes to be in error, to obey what she\nhas taught them.\u201d And so far from deeming it a disgrace to review a\njudgment into which they may have been surprised, we have the testimony\nof St. Bernard for saying that they glory in acknowledging the mistake.\n\u201cThe Apostolic See (he says, Ep. 180) can boast of this recommendation,\nthat it never stands on the point of honor, but willingly revokes a\ndecision that has been gained from it by surprise; indeed, it is highly\njust to prevent any from profiting by an act of injustice, and more\nespecially before the Holy See.\u201d\n\nSuch, father, are the proper sentiments with which the popes ought to be\ninspired; for all divines are agreed that they may be surprised,[347]\nand that their supreme character, so far from warranting them against\nmistakes, exposes them the more readily to fall into them, on account of\nthe vast number of cares which claim their attention. This is what the\nsame St. Gregory says to some persons who were astonished at the\ncircumstance of another pope having suffered himself to be deluded: \u201cWhy\ndo you wonder,\u201d says he, \u201cthat we should be deceived, we who are but\nmen? Have you not read that David, a king who had the spirit of\nprophecy, was induced, by giving credit to the falsehoods of Ziba, to\npronounce an unjust judgment against the son of Jonathan? Who will think\nit strange, then, that we, who are not prophets, should sometimes be\nimposed upon by deceivers? A multiplicity of affairs presses on us, and\nour minds, which, by being obliged to attend to so many things at once,\napply themselves less closely to each in particular, are the more easily\nliable to be imposed upon in individual cases.\u201d[348] Truly, father, I\nshould suppose that the popes know better than you whether they may be\ndeceived or not. They themselves tell us that popes, as well as the\ngreatest princes, are more exposed to deception than individuals who are\nless occupied with important avocations. This must be believed on their\ntestimony. And it is easy to imagine by what means they come to be thus\nover-reached. St. Bernard, in the letter which he wrote to Innocent II.,\ngives us the following description of the process: \u201cIt is no wonder, and\nno novelty, that the human mind may be deceived, and is deceived. You\nare surrounded by monks who come to you in the spirit of lying and\ndeceit. They have filled your ears with stories against a bishop, whose\nlife has been most exemplary, but who is the object of their hatred.\nThese persons bite like dogs, and strive to make good appear evil.\nMeanwhile, most holy father, you put yourself into a rage against your\nown son. Why have you afforded matter of joy to his enemies? Believe not\nevery spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. I trust that,\nwhen you have ascertained the truth, all this delusion, which rests on a\nfalse report, will be dissipated. I pray the Spirit of truth to grant\nyou the grace to separate light from darkness, and to favor the good by\nrejecting the evil.\u201d You see then, father, that the eminent rank of the\npopes does not exempt them from the influence of delusion; and I may now\nadd, that it only serves to render their mistakes more dangerous and\nimportant than those of other men. This is the light in which St.\nBernard represents them to Pope Eugenius: \u201cThere is another fault, so\ncommon among the great of this world, that I never met one of them who\nwas free from it; and that is, holy father, an excessive credulity, the\nsource of numerous disorders. From this proceed violent persecutions\nagainst the innocent, unfounded prejudices against the absent, and\ntremendous storms about nothing (_pro nihilo_). This, holy father, is a\nuniversal evil, from the influence of which, if you are exempt, I shall\nonly say, you are the only individual among all your compeers who can\nboast of that privilege.\u201d[349]\n\nI imagine, father, that the proofs I have brought are beginning to\nconvince you that the popes are liable to be surprised. But, to complete\nyour conversion, I shall merely remind you of some examples, which you\nyourself have quoted in your book, of popes and emperors whom heretics\nhave actually deceived. You will remember, then, that you have told us\nthat Apollinarius surprised Pope Damasius, in the same way that\nCelestius surprised Zozimus. You inform us, besides, that one called\nAthanasius deceived the Emperor Heraclius, and prevailed on him to\npersecute the Catholics. And lastly, that Sergius obtained from Honorius\nthat infamous decretal which was burned at the sixth council, \u201cby\nplaying the busy-body,\u201d as you say, \u201cabout the person of that pope.\u201d\n\nIt appears, then, father, by your own confession, that those who act\nthis part about the persons of kings and popes, do sometimes artfully\nentice them to persecute the faithful defenders of the truth, under the\npersuasion that they are persecuting heretics. And hence the popes, who\nhold nothing in greater horror than these surprisals, have, by a letter\nof Alexander III., enacted an ecclesiastical statute, which is inserted\nin the canonical law, to permit the suspension of the execution of their\nbulls and decretals, when there is ground to suspect that they have been\nimposed upon. \u201cIf,\u201d says that pope to the Archbishop of Ravenna, \u201cwe\nsometimes send decretals to your fraternity which are opposed to your\nsentiments, give yourselves no distress on that account. We shall expect\nyou either to carry them respectfully into execution, or to send us the\nreason why you conceive they ought not to be executed; for we deem it\nright that you should not execute a decree, which may have been procured\nfrom us by artifice and surprise.\u201d Such has been the course pursued by\nthe popes, whose sole object is to settle the disputes of Christians,\nand not to follow the passionate counsels of those who strive to involve\nthem in trouble and perplexity. Following the advice of St. Peter and\nSt. Paul, who in this followed the commandment of Jesus Christ, they\navoid domination. The spirit which appears in their whole conduct is\nthat of peace and truth.[350] In this spirit they ordinarily insert in\ntheir letters this clause, which is tacitly understood in them all\u2014\u201c_Si\nita est\u2014si preces veritate nilantur_\u2014If it be so as we have heard it\u2014if\nthe facts be true.\u201d It is quite clear, if the popes themselves give no\nforce to their bulls, except in so far as they are founded on genuine\nfacts, that it is not the bulls alone that prove the truth of the facts,\nbut that, on the contrary, even according to the canonists, it is the\ntruth of the facts which renders the bulls lawfully admissible.\n\nIn what way, then, are we to learn the truth of facts? It must be by the\neyes, father, which are the legitimate judges of such matters, as reason\nis the proper judge of things natural and intelligible, and faith of\nthings supernatural and revealed. For, since you will force me into this\ndiscussion, you must allow me to tell you, that, according to the\nsentiments of the two greatest doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and\nSt. Thomas, these three principles of our knowledge, the senses, reason,\nand faith, have each their separate objects, and their own degrees of\ncertainty. And as God has been pleased to employ the intervention of the\nsenses to give entrance to faith (for \u201cfaith cometh by hearing\u201d), it\nfollows, that so far from faith destroying the certainty of the senses,\nto call in question the faithful report of the senses, would lead to the\ndestruction of faith. It is on this principle that St. Thomas explicitly\nstates that God has been pleased that the sensible accidents should\nsubsist in the eucharist, in order that the senses, which judge only of\nthese accidents, might not be deceived.\n\nWe conclude, therefore, from this, that whatever the proposition may be\nthat is submitted to our examination, we must first determine its\nnature, to ascertain to which of those three principles it ought to be\nreferred. If it relate to a supernatural truth, we must judge of it\nneither by the senses nor by reason, but by Scripture and the decisions\nof the Church. Should it concern an unrevealed truth, and something\nwithin the reach of natural reason, reason must be its proper judge. And\nif it embrace a point of fact, we must yield to the testimony of the\nsenses, to which it naturally belongs to take cognizance of such\nmatters.\n\nSo general is this rule, that, according to St. Augustine and St.\nThomas, when we meet with a passage even in the Scripture, the literal\nmeaning of which, at first sight, appears contrary to what the senses or\nreason are certainly persuaded of, we must not attempt to reject their\ntestimony in this case, and yield them up to the authority of that\napparent sense of the Scripture, but we must interpret the Scripture,\nand seek out therein another sense agreeable to that sensible truth;\nbecause, the Word of God being infallible in the facts which it records,\nand the information of the senses and of reason, acting in their sphere,\nbeing certain also, it follows that there must be an agreement between\nthese two sources of knowledge. And as Scripture may be interpreted in\ndifferent ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must\nin these matters adopt as the true interpretation of Scripture that view\nwhich corresponds with the faithful report of the senses. \u201cTwo things,\u201d\nsays St. Thomas, \u201cmust be observed, according to the doctrine of St.\nAugustine: first, That Scripture has always one true sense; and\nsecondly, That as it may receive various senses, when we have discovered\none which reason plainly teaches to be false, we must not persist in\nmaintaining that this is the natural sense, but search out another with\nwhich reason will agree.\u201d[351]\n\nSt. Thomas explains his meaning by the example of a passage in Genesis,\nwhere it is written that \u201cGod created two great lights, the sun and the\nmoon, and also the stars,\u201d in which the Scripture appears to say that\nthe moon is greater than all the stars; but as it is evident, from\nunquestionable demonstration, that this is false, it is not our duty,\nsays that saint, obstinately to defend the literal sense of that\npassage; another meaning must be sought, consistent with the truth of\nthe fact, such as the following, \u201cThat the phrase _great light_, as\napplied to the moon, denotes the greatness of that luminary merely as it\nappears in our eyes, and not the magnitude of its body considered in\nitself.\u201d\n\nAn opposite mode of treatment, so far from procuring respect to the\nScripture, would only expose it to the contempt of infidels; because, as\nSt. Augustine says, \u201cwhen they found that we believed, on the authority\nof Scripture, in things which they assuredly knew to be false, they\nwould laugh at our credulity with regard to its more recondite truths,\nsuch as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.\u201d \u201cAnd by this\nmeans,\u201d adds St. Thomas, \u201cwe should render our religion contemptible in\ntheir eyes, and shut up its entrance into their minds.\u201d\n\nAnd let me add, father, that it would in the same manner be the\nlikeliest means to shut up the entrance of Scripture into the minds of\nheretics, and to render the pope\u2019s authority contemptible in their eyes,\nto refuse all those the name of Catholics who would not believe that\ncertain words were in a certain book, where they are not to be found,\nmerely because a pope by mistake has declared that they are. It is only\nby examining a book that we can ascertain what words it contains.\nMatters of fact can only be proved by the senses. If the position which\nyou maintain be true, show it, or else ask no man to believe it\u2014that\nwould be to no purpose. Not all the powers on earth can, by the force of\nauthority, persuade us of a point of fact, any more than they can alter\nit; for nothing can make that to be not which really is.\n\nIt was to no purpose, for example, that the monks of Ratisbon procured\nfrom Pope St. Leo IX. a solemn decree, by which he declared that the\nbody of St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris, who is generally held to\nhave been the Areopagite, had been transported out of France, and\nconveyed into the chapel of their monastery. It is not the less true,\nfor all this, that the body of that saint always lay, and lies to this\nhour, in the celebrated abbey which bears his name, and within the walls\nof which you would find it no easy matter to obtain a cordial reception\nto this bull, although the pope has therein assured us that he has\nexamined the affair \u201cwith all possible diligence (_diligentissim\u00e8_), and\nwith the advice of many bishops and prelates; so that he strictly\nenjoins all the French (_districte pr\u00e6cipientes_) to own and confess\nthat these holy relics are no longer in their country.\u201d The French,\nhowever, who knew that fact to be untrue, by the evidence of their own\neyes, and who, upon opening the shrine, found all those relics entire,\nas the historians of that period inform us, believed then, as they have\nalways believed since, the reverse of what that holy pope had enjoined\nthem to believe, well knowing that even saints and prophets are liable\nto be imposed upon.\n\nIt was to equally little purpose that you obtained against Galileo a\ndecree from Rome, condemning his opinion respecting the motion of the\nearth. It will never be proved by such an argument as this that the\nearth remains stationary; and if it can be demonstrated by sure\nobservation that it is the earth and not the sun that revolves, the\nefforts and arguments of all mankind put together will not hinder our\nplanet from revolving, nor hinder themselves from revolving along with\nher.\n\nAgain, you must not imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary,\nexcommunicating St. Virgilius for maintaining the existence of the\nantipodes, have annihilated the New World; nor must you suppose that,\nalthough he declared that opinion to be a most dangerous heresy, the\nking of Spain was wrong in giving more credence to Christopher Columbus,\nwho came from the place, than to the judgment of the pope, who had never\nbeen there, or that the Church has not derived a vast benefit from the\ndiscovery, inasmuch as it has brought the knowledge of the Gospel to a\ngreat multitude of souls, who might otherwise have perished in their\ninfidelity.\n\nYou see, then, father, what is the nature of matters of fact, and on\nwhat principles they are to be determined; from all which, to recur to\nour subject, it is easy to conclude, that if the five propositions are\nnot in Jansenius, it is impossible that they can have been extracted\nfrom him; and that the only way to form a judgment on the matter, and to\nproduce universal conviction, is to examine that book in a regular\nconference, as you have been desired to do long ago. Until that be done,\nyou have no right to charge your opponents with contumacy; for they are\nas blameless in regard to the point of fact as they are of errors in\npoint of faith\u2014Catholics in doctrine, reasonable in fact, and innocent\nin both.\n\nWho can help feeling astonishment, then, father, to see on the one side\na vindication so complete, and on the other accusations so outrageous!\nWho would suppose that the only question between you relates to a single\nfact of no importance, which the one party wishes the other to believe\nwithout showing it to them! And who would ever imagine that such a noise\nshould have been made in the Church for nothing (_pro nihilo_), as good\nSt. Bernard says! But this is just one of the principal tricks of your\npolicy, to make people believe that everything is at stake, when, in\nreality, there is nothing at stake; and to represent to those\ninfluential persons who listen to you, that the most pernicious errors\nof Calvin, and the most vital principles of the faith, are involved in\nyour disputes, with the view of inducing them, under this conviction, to\nemploy all their zeal and all their authority against your opponents, as\nif the safety of the Catholic religion depended upon it; whereas, if\nthey came to know that the whole dispute was about this paltry point of\nfact, they would give themselves no concern about it, but would, on the\ncontrary, regret extremely that, to gratify your private passions, they\nhad made such exertions in an affair of no consequence to the Church.\nFor, in fine, to take the worst view of the matter, even though it\nshould be true that Jansenius maintained these propositions, what great\nmisfortune would accrue from some persons doubting of the fact, provided\nthey detested the propositions, as they have publicly declared that they\ndo? Is it not enough that they are condemned by everybody, without\nexception, and that, too, in the sense in which you have explained that\nyou wish them to be condemned? Would they be more severely censured by\nsaying that Jansenius maintained them? What purpose, then, would be\nserved by exacting this acknowledgment, except that of disgracing a\ndoctor and bishop, who died in the communion of the Church? I cannot see\nhow that should be accounted so great a blessing as to deserve to be\npurchased at the expense of so many disturbances. What interest has the\nstate, or the pope, or bishops, or doctors, or the Church at large, in\nthis conclusion? It does not affect them in any way whatever, father; it\ncan affect none but your Society, which would certainly enjoy some\npleasure from the defamation of an author who has done you some little\ninjury. Meanwhile everything is in confusion, because you have made\npeople believe that everything is in danger. This is the secret spring\ngiving impulse to all those mighty commotions, which would cease\nimmediately were the real state of the controversy once known. And\ntherefore, as the peace of the Church depended on this explanation, it\nwas, I conceive, of the utmost importance that it should be given, that,\nby exposing all your disguises, it might be manifest to the whole world\nthat your accusations were without foundation, your opponents without\nerror, and the Church without heresy.\n\nSuch, father, is the end which it has been my desire to accomplish; an\nend which appears to me, in every point of view, so deeply important to\nreligion, that I am at a loss to conceive how those to whom you furnish\nso much occasion for speaking can contrive to remain in silence.\nGranting that they are not affected with the personal wrongs which you\nhave committed against them, those which the Church suffers ought, in my\nopinion, to have forced them to complain. Besides, I am not altogether\nsure if ecclesiastics ought to make a sacrifice of their reputation to\ncalumny, especially in the matter of religion. They allow you,\nnevertheless, to say whatever you please; so that, had it not been for\nthe opportunity which, by mere accident, you afforded me of taking their\npart, the scandalous impressions which you are circulating against them\nin all quarters would, in all probability, have gone forth without\ncontradiction. Their patience, I confess, astonishes me; and the more\nso, that I cannot suspect it of proceeding either from timidity or from\nincapacity, being well assured that they want neither arguments for\ntheir own vindication, nor zeal for the truth. And yet I see them\nreligiously bent on silence, to a degree which appears to me altogether\nunjustifiable. For my part, father, I do not believe that I can possibly\nfollow their example. Leave the Church in peace, and I shall leave you\nas you are, with all my heart; but so long as you make it your sole\nbusiness to keep her in confusion, doubt not but that there shall always\nbe found within her bosom children of peace, who will consider\nthemselves bound to employ all their endeavors to preserve her\ntranquillity.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n Decrees of the pope.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n The papal constitution formerly referred to.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n The Council of Trent is meant, when Pascal speaks of _the council_,\n without any other specification.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n The reader may well be at a loss to see the difference between this\n and the Reformed doctrine. Some explanations will be found in the\n Historical Introduction.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n This sentiment was falsely ascribed to Luther by the Council.\n (Leydeck, De Dogm. Jan. 275.)\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n Diego (or Didacus) Alvarez was one of the most celebrated theologians\n of the order of St. Dominick; he flourished in the sixteenth and\n seventeenth centuries, and died in 1635. He was brought from Spain to\n Rome, to advocate there, along with Father Thomas Lemos the cause of\n the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Jesuit Molina weakened, and\n indeed annihilated. He shone greatly in the famous Congregation _de\n Auxiliis_. (Nicole\u2019s Note.)\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n His Treatise _passim_, and particularly tom. 3, l. 8, c. 20.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n \u201cIt may be proper here to give an explanation of the hatred of the\n Jesuits against Jansenius. When the _Augustinus_ of that author was\n printed in 1640, Libertus Fromond, the celebrated professor of\n Louvain, resolved to insert in the end of the book of his friend, who\n had died two years before, a parallel between the doctrine of the\n Jesuits on grace, and the errors of the Marseillois or demi-Pelagians.\n This was quite enough to raise the rancor of the Jesuits against\n Jansenius whom they erroneously supposed was the author of that\n parallel. And as these fathers have long since erased from their code\n of morals the duty of the forgiveness of injuries, they commenced\n their campaign against the book of Jansenius in the Low Countries, by\n a large volume of Theological Theses (in folio, 1641), which are very\n singular productions.\u201d (Note by Nicole.)\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n On the Book of Job, lib. viii., cap. 1.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n _Surprise_ is the word used to denote the case of the pope when taken\n at unawares or deceived by false accounts.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n Lib. i., in Dial.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n De Consid. lib. ii., c. ult.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Alas! alas!\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n I. p. q. 68, a. l.\n\n\n\n\n LETTER XIX.\n\n FRAGMENT OF A NINETEENTH PROVINCIAL LETTER, ADDRESSED TO PERE ANNAT.\n\n\nREVEREND SIR,\u2014If I have caused you some dissatisfaction, in former\nLetters, by my endeavors to establish the innocence of those whom you\nwere laboring to asperse, I shall afford you pleasure in the present, by\nmaking you acquainted with the sufferings which you have inflicted upon\nthem. Be comforted, my good father, the objects of your enmity are in\ndistress! And if the Reverend the Bishops should be induced to carry\nout, in their respective dioceses, the advice you have given them, to\ncause to be subscribed and sworn a certain matter of fact, which is, in\nitself, not credible, and which it cannot be obligatory upon any one to\nbelieve\u2014you will indeed succeed in plunging your opponents to the depth\nof sorrow, at witnessing the Church brought into so abject a condition.\n\nYes, sir, I have seen them; and it was with a satisfaction\ninexpressible! I have seen these holy men; and this was the attitude in\nwhich they were found. They were not wrapt up in a philosophic\nmagnanimity; they did not affect to exhibit that indiscriminate firmness\nwhich urges implicit obedience to every momentary impulsive duty; nor\nyet were they in a frame of weakness and timidity, which would prevent\nthem from either discerning the truth, or following it when discerned.\nBut I found them with minds pious, composed, and unshaken; impressed\nwith a meek deference for ecclesiastical authority; with tenderness of\nspirit, zeal for truth, and a desire to ascertain and obey her dictates:\nfilled with a salutary suspicion of themselves, distrusting their own\ninfirmity, and regretting that it should be thus exposed to trial yet\nwithal, sustained by a modest hope that their Lord will deign to\ninstruct them by his illuminations, and sustain them by his power; and\nbelieving, that that peace of their Saviour, whose sacred influences it\nis their endeavor to maintain, and for whose cause they are brought into\nsuffering, will be, at once, their guide and their support! I have, in\nfine, seen them maintaining a character of Christian piety, whose\npower....\n\n * * * * *\n\nI found them surrounded by their friends, who had hastened to impart\nthose counsels which they deemed the most fitting in their present\nexigency. I have heard those counsels; I have observed the manner in\nwhich they were received, and the answers given: and truly, my father,\nhad you yourself been present, I think you would have acknowledged that,\nin their whole procedure, there was the entire absence of a spirit of\ninsubordination and schism; and that their only desire and aim was, to\npreserve inviolate two things\u2014to them infinitely precious\u2014peace and\ntruth.\n\nFor, after due representations had been made to them of the penalties\nthey would draw upon themselves by their refusal to sign the\nConstitution, and the scandal it might cause in the Church, their reply\nwas....\n\n * * * * *\n\n THE END\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n CARTERS\u2019 CATALOGUE.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n REMOVAL.\n\n_Robert Carter & Brothers have removed from No. 285, to No. 530\nBroadway, corner of Spring-street._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n 530 Broadway, New York,\n August, 1856.\n\n\n ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS\u2019\n New Publications.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n The Gospel in Ezekiel,\n By Thomas Guthrie, D.D. 12mo. $1 00.\n\n Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation.\n By James McCosh, LL.D., and Dr. Dickie. 8vo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cThose who have read McCosh\u2019s great work on the Divine Government, will\n not wait for any favorable testimony to any thing that comes from his\n pen, but will regard his name on the title-page as a sufficient voucher\n for all that is to follow. The present work fulfills any expectations,\n even the highest, that could have been awakened by the preceding one.\n It is alike comprehensive in its range, accurate and minute in its\n details, original in its structure, and devout and spirited in its tone\n and tendency. It illustrates and carries out the great principle of\n analogy in the Divine plans and works, far more minutely and\n satisfactorily than it has been done before; and while it presents the\n results of the most profound scientific research, it presents them in\n their higher and spiritual relations.\u201d\u2014_Argus._\n\n Dr. Williams\u2019s Sermon on Missions.\n 18mo, cloth, gilt edge. 25 cents.\n\n Dr. Rice\u2019s Sermon on Preaching.\n 18mo, cloth, gilt edge. 25 cents.\n\n Caird\u2019s Sermon before the Queen.\n 18mo, cloth, gilt edge. 25 cents.\n\n The Theology of Inventions; or, Manifestations of Deity in the works of\n Art.\n By the Rev. John Blakely. 12mo. 75 cents.\n\n Emblems from Eden.\n By James Hamilton, D.D. 18mo. 30 cents.\n\n The Christian\u2019s Great Interest.\n By the Rev. William Guthrie, with Introd. by Dr. Chalmers. 50 cts.\n\n\n Evening Incense.\n By the author of the \u201cMorning and Night Watches.\u201d 40 cents.\n\n Lectures to Young Men Delivered, in London for 1856. $1 00.\n\n Evenings with the Romanists.\n By Rev. Hobart Seymour. 12mo. $1 00.\n\n Dr. Sprague\u2019s great work.\n The Annals of the American Pulpit.\n By W. B. Sprague, D.D. Vols. 1 and 2, CONGREGATIONALISTS. 8vo.\n\n The first volume commences with John Robinson, the first New England\n Pastor, and extends to 1770; and the second volume from this period to\n the close of 1855.\n\n These volumes contain sketches of about three hundred Congregational\n ministers, including every one who has been considerably distinguished,\n with contributions by a large proportion of the most prominent\n clergymen of different denominations, as well as from many of the most\n distinguished statesmen now on the stage. In all cases in which there\n is any person living to testify concerning the character, there are\n original letters of personal recollection; and in all other cases the\n author has appropriated what has been written and published by the\n cotemporaries of the subjects who could speak from actual knowledge.\n These volumes contain the most complete, as well as most interesting\n history of this branch of the Christian Church that has yet been\n published.\n\n The Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the\n Constitution of the Human Soul,\n A Course of Lectures by R. S. Storrs, D.D. 8vo.\n\n Africa\u2019s Mountain Valley.\n By the author of \u201cMinistering Children.\u201d 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n The Christian Philosopher.\n By Thomas Dick, D.D. Re-written and enlarged, with 170 illustrations.\n\n Trade and Letters.\n Three Lectures by W. A. Scott, D.D. 16mo.\n\n Lee on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 8vo. $\n\n Essays; Theological and Miscellaneous.\n By Charles Hodge, D.D. 8vo.\n\n Sacred Classics.\n\nA series of the choicest productions of the great Divines of the\n seventeenth century, such as Jeremy Taylor, Bates, Beveridge, Bishop\n Hall, Butler, Howe, Baxter, Leighton, and others. The volumes will be\n in neat 12mo form, large type, and uniformly bound in cloth.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n NEW JUVENILE BOOKS.\n\n Edward Clifford; or, Memories of Childhood,\n With six illustrations. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cFrom the first page to the last, we read this beautiful and impressive\n story with increasing interest, and do not hesitate to commend it to\n every family and Sunday-school library in our land. It bears internal\n evidence of being the work of a finished writer, who, endowed with a\n sensitive temperament, and bereft in early infancy of a dear mother\u2019s\n tender sympathies and care, felt deeply the cold indifference of those\n who could not appreciate the chords of a mind so delicately\n strung.\u201d\u2014_Christian Observer._\n\n Tales of Sweden and the Norsemen.\n Illustrated. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n These sketches interest the mind with historic truth made winning and\n lively by a style of beautiful simplicity.\n\n Tales from English History.\n By the same. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cPrepared for young readers, and admirably done. In simple, yet\n appropriate style, some of the more prominent and romantic episodes are\n detailed, in a way at once to convey valuable information, and to\n excite a desire for further acquaintance with history. When truth is so\n attractive, and there is so much of it, there is but little need to\n resort to fiction for the instruction of the young.\u201d\u2014_Evangelist._\n\n Tales from Travelers.\n By Maria Hack. Illustrated. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cThe contents of this volume will prove more attractive to ingenuous\n youth than stories of giants and castles, and more wonderful than\n fiction.\u201d\u2014_Observer._\n\n The Adopted Son, and other Tales.\n By the author of the \u201cClaremont Tales.\u201d 18mo. 50 cents.\n\n Aunt Edith; or, Love to God the Best Motive.\n By the author of \u201cFlorence Egerton.\u201d 18mo. 50 cents.\n\n New Editions, in cheaper form, of\n\n FLORENCE EGERTON. 18mo. 50 cts.\n EMILY VERNON. \u201d 50 \u201d\n JEANIE MORRISON. \u201d 50 \u201d\n KATE KILBORN. By the same author. 18mo. 50 \u201d\n SOUTHERN CROSS AND SOUTHERN CROWN. \u201d 50 \u201d\n CONTRIBUTIONS OF Q. Q. BY JANE TAYLOR. 18mo. 50 \u201d\n ABEOKUTTA. BY MISS TUCKER. \u201d 50 \u201d\n MAY DUNDAS. BY MRS. GELDART. \u201d 50 \u201d\n FRITZ HAROLD; OR, THE TEMPTATION. \u201d 40 \u201d\n ASHTON COTTAGE, A TALE. \u201d 40 \u201d\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n EXPOSITORY WORKS.\n\n Dr. Hodge\u2019s Commentary on Ephesians.\n 8vo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cThis is a work for the minister, for biblical scholars, and for all who\n can appreciate the mature results of thorough study and sacred learning\n in the lucid exposition of a very interesting portion of the Word of\n God. It is not a hasty production, but an elaborate commentary, giving\n in a condensed style, with great clearness, the precise meaning of\n every passage in this rich Epistle, exhibiting, as understood by the\n author, the glowing thoughts that warmed and kindled the affections of\n the inspired Apostle while composing it.\u201d\u2014_Chn. Observer._\n\n Dr. Jacobus\u2019s Notes on the Gospel of John.\n 12mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cThe Author, by his learning, taste, and skill, is eminently qualified\n for the responsible work of an annotator on the Holy Scriptures. In his\n Notes, he combines the marrow and fatness of many commentators with his\n own ideas, and associates his comments with a Harmony of the Gospels,\n in a very impressive manner.\u201d\u2014_Zion\u2019s Herald._\n\n\u2042 This volume completes Dr. Jacobus\u2019s Commentary on the Gospels\u2014Vol. I.\n being Matthew\u2014Vol. II., Mark and Luke\u2014Vol. III., John. The volumes are\n all uniform, price $2 25 for the set.\n\n Dr. Moore on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.\n 8vo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cThis volume we regard as a substantial and highly valuable contribution\n to the biblical literature of the country. The prophecies which form\n the subject of it, are the more interesting from the fact that they\n were the last which were delivered previous to the Messiah\u2019s advent.\n The work is not so critical as to be above the popular mind, while yet\n it shows a familiar acquaintance with the rules of Scripture\n interpretation, and is evidently the production of a mind at once well\n balanced and trained to thorough research.\u201d\u2014_Argus._\n\n * Dr. Sampson on the Greek Text of the Hebrews.\n 8vo. $2 50.\n\n\u201cThis is an eminently learned work, and is designed especially to aid in\n a critical investigation of this portion of Scripture, while yet there\n is no ostentatious display of erudition, nor any thing that approaches\n an affectation of originality. The introduction is at once clear,\n concise, and comprehensive. In the body of the work, the author gives\n us rather the results of his inquiries than the processes by which he\n arrived at them. His analyses show much patient labor, as well as\n accurate discrimination.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n * Owen on Hebrews.\n 8 vols. 8vo. $12 00.\n\n\u201cFew and far between, and among the richest gifts of God to man, are\n such great and good theologians as John Owen. * * * It is mentioned as\n a matter of thankfulness that Dr. Owen was led to concentrate all his\n rare endowments and vast resources on the exposition of the Epistle to\n the Hebrews.\u201d\u2014_N. Y. Observer._\n\n * Dr. Eadie on Colossians.\n 8vo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cA work of great learning and skill, pervaded with a truly Christian\n spirit.\u201d\u2014_Evangelist._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE.\n\n * Pool\u2019s Annotations.\n New edition, on larger paper, 3 vols. royal 8vo. Sheep. $10 00.\n\n\u201cOf the general character of this work, it is sufficient to say that it\n brings out in a felicitous and concise manner the meaning of the text,\n without connecting with it any extended practical remarks. It contains\n not only the whole of the sacred text, as many commentaries of that day\n did not, various readings also, together with parallel passages; and\n though it never transcends the capacity of an ordinary English reader,\n yet it evidently comes from a rich store-house of biblical learning. It\n disposes of difficult passages, not by gathering all the opinions that\n have been put forth concerning them, but by stating the writer\u2019s own\n mature judgment, with the grounds on which it has been formed. The\n notes are generally brief, condensed, perspicuous, and easily\n remembered.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n * Henry\u2019s Commentary.\n 5 vols. quarto. Sheep. $15 00.\n\n\u201cIt is becoming more and more the standard commentary of the Church.\n Christians of all denominations, and of all grades of intellectual\n attainment, find it their refreshment, their food, and their pleasure\n to peruse it steadily, and in so doing they can reap a great reward. We\n knew, some years ago, a lady in humble life, more than sixty years of\n age, who borrowed the folio edition of Henry\u2019s Commentary, and keeping\n it always open on her bed, was accustomed to run to it whenever a\n single moment of leisure offered itself; so that, by patient\n continuance in well-doing, even at that late period of life, she\n traveled through the successive volumes, to her own great spiritual and\n intellectual improvement; and in her latest hours, when on her dying\n bed, she expressed her gratitude for the opportunity which she had thus\n enjoyed of becoming better acquainted than ever before with the meaning\n of God\u2019s Holy Word.\u201d\u2014_Observer._\n\n * Doddridge\u2019s Expositor.\n\nThe Family Expositor; or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament,\n with Critical Notes and a Practical Improvement of Each Section, by\n Philip Doddridge, D.D. Royal octavo. $\n\nThe late Bishop of Durham (Dr. Barrington), in addressing his clergy on\n the choice of books, says:\n\n\u201cIn reading the New Testament, I recommend Doddridge\u2019s Family Expositor,\n as an _impartial_ INTERPRETER AND FAITHFUL _monitor_. Other Expositions\n might be mentioned, greatly to the honor of their respective authors,\n for their several excellences; such as, elegance of exposition,\n acuteness of illustration, and copiousness of erudition; but I know of\n no Expositor who unites so many advantages as Doddridge; whether you\n regard the fidelity of his version, the fullness and perspicuity of his\n composition, the utility of his general and historical information, the\n impartiality of his doctrinal comments, or, lastly, the piety and\n pastoral earnestness of his moral and religious applications. He has\n made, as he professes to have done, ample use of the commentators that\n preceded him; and in the explanation of grammatical difficulties, he\n has profited much more from the philological writers on the Greek\n Testament than could almost have been expected in so multifarious an\n undertaking as the _Family Expositor_. Indeed for all the most valuable\n purposes of a Commentary on the New Testament, the Family Expositor can\n not fall too early into the hands of those intended for holy orders.\u201d\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n NEW RELIGIOUS BIOGRAPHIES.\n\n Dr. Cheever\u2019s Life of Cowper.\n 12mo. Illustrated. $1 00.\n\n\u201cThe author of this work could scarcely have selected a subject better\n adapted to his own peculiar genius, than this which he has here chosen.\n He has treated it at once philosophically, practically, and\n spiritually; has evinced a profound insight into the mysteries of human\n nature, the nicest discrimination in respect both to intellectual and\n moral qualities, and a deep sympathy with the sublimity and tenderness,\n the joys, and griefs, and hopes of the exalted character he\n commemorates.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n * Memoirs of John M. Mason, D.D.\n By Dr. Van Vechten. 8vo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cThis delightful memoir of a great captain in Israel will be hailed as a\n valuable addition to the religious biography of our country. The\n literary execution of the work is equally creditable to the talents and\n taste of the author, and the most ardent admirers of Dr. Mason will\n admit that while a spirit of fulsome eulogy is avoided, there is ample\n justice done to the memory of a great and a good man.\u201d\u2014_Pbn. Banner._\n\n Memoirs of John Kitto, D.D.\n Author of \u201cDaily Bible Illustrations,\u201d etc. 2 vols. 12mo. $2 00.\n\n\u201cWe have rarely heard of a more remarkable instance of the triumph of\n talent and energy over circumstances the most adverse. He began life\n struggling with the evils of poverty, and the baleful influence of an\n intemperate father. A dangerous fall from a ladder, when he was a\n mason\u2019s boy, rendered him hopelessly deaf. Being considered unable to\n support himself, he was put into the workhouse; and after a series of\n vicissitudes which would have overwhelmed an ordinary boy\u2014at one time\n working as a shoemaker, at another as a barber\u2019s apprentice, and by\n various shifts managing to toil along his rugged pathway\u2014he at length,\n through a kind Providence, struck the highway on which he afterwards\n traveled successfully to distinction and usefulness.\u201d\u2014_Presbyterian._\n\n Memoirs of Capt. Vicars of the 97th Regiment.\n 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cThe subject of these memoirs, was generous and noble in his natural\n disposition, in all his intercourse with his fellows. As a soldier he\n was brave, and as an officer skillful and prompt; but all these things\n were eclipsed by the ardor and devotedness of his piety. Among the\n soldiers in the Crimea he spent his leisure hours, in ministering\n spiritual consolation to the sick and dying in the hospital. In the\n lives of missionaries which we have read, none have proved by their\n works a better right to be called a missionary than he.\u201d\u2014_Witness._\n\n The Victory Won.\n By the Author of \u201cCaptain Vicars,\u201d 18mo. 25 cents.\n\n Memoirs of Adelaide Leaper Newton.\n By the Rev. John Baillie. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cThis is certainly a rare specimen of female biography. The subject of\n it was among the most gifted and cultivated of her sex. The Word of God\n was not only the light, but the food of her soul; and the enjoyments of\n heaven seem to have been in no small degree vouchsafed to her before\n she left the world.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n The Martyr of Sumatra.\n A Memoir of Henry Lyman.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n=BICKERSTETH=, Rev. Edward.\n\n =* Complete Works.= 16 vols. $10 00.\n\n =Exposition of the Epistles of John and Jude.= 60 cents.\n\n=BINNEY=, Rev. Thomas.\n\n =Is it possible to make the Best of Both Worlds?= 60 cts.\n\n=BRIDGES=, Rev. Charles.\n\n =A Manual for the Young.= 16mo. 50 cents.\n\n=CHART=\n\n =Of the Sacred History of the World=. $1 50.\n\n=DA COSTA=, Dr. Isaac.\n\n =Israel and the Gentiles.= 12mo. $1 25.\n\n =The Four Witnesses.= $2 00.\n\n=FLETCHER=, Rev. Alexander.\n\n =Addresses to the Young.= 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n=HEWITSON=, Rev. W. H.\n\n =Letters and Remains.= 2 vols. $2 00.\n\n=HOWELS=, Rev. William.\n\n =Remains and Extracts from Sermons.= 75 cents.\n\n=LECTURES TO YOUNG MEN.=\n\n Delivered in London. Series of 1854\u20135\u20136. Each $1 00.\n\n=RYLE=, Rev. J. C.\n\n =Expository Thoughts on the Gospels=; for Family and Private Use.\n 12mo.\n\n=SMITH=, Rev. John Pye.\n\n =* Scripture Testimony to the Messiah.= 2 vols., 8vo. $5 00.\n\n=* SELF-EXPLANATORY REFERENCE BIBLE.=\n\n 8vo. Half-calf, $4 50; Turkey morocco, $6 00.\n\n=SWETE=, Rev. John.\n\n =Family Prayers.= 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n=VILLAGE CHURCHYARD.=\n\n 40 cents.\n\n=VILLAGE PASTOR.=\n\n 40 cents.\n\n=VILLAGE OBSERVER.=\n\n 30 cents.\n\n=WORDS TO WIN SOULS.= 75 cents.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n FIRESIDE LIBRARY.\n\n FIRST SERIES.\n 50 cents per volume.\n\n ADOPTED SON.\n AUNT EDITH.\n BALLANTYNE\u2019S MABEL GRANT.\n BLOSSOMS OF CHILDHOOD.\n BRETT\u2019S INDIAN TRIBES.\n BROTHER AND SISTER.\n BUNYAN\u2019S PILGRIM\u2019S PROGRESS.\n CLARA STANLEY.\n CLAREMONT TALES.\n DRUMMOND\u2019S EMILY RENON.\n DUNCAN\u2019S CHILDREN OF MANSE.\n DUNCAN\u2019S SCOTTISH PEASANTRY.\n FAR OFF.\n FLORENCE EGERTON.\n GELDART\u2019S MAY DUNDAS.\n HAMILTON\u2019S HAPPY HOME.\n INFANT\u2019S PROGRESS.\n JAMIE GORDON.\n JEANIE MORRISON.\n KATE KILBORN.\n LOUIS AND FRANK.\n MACKAY\u2019S FAM. HEATHERDALE.\n M\u2018CRINDELL\u2019S CONVENT.\n MY SCHOOL DAY\u2019S AND COMPAN.\n NEAR HOME.\n OSBORNE\u2019S WORLD OF WATERS.\n POLLOK\u2019S TALES OF COVENANT.\n SIGOURNEY\u2019S OLIVE LEAVES.\n SIGOURNEY\u2019S LETTERS TO PUPILS.\n SINCLAIR\u2019S HOLIDAY HOUSE.\n TAYLOR\u2019S CONTRIB. OF Q. Q.\n TUCKER\u2019S ABBEOKUTA.\n TUCKER\u2019S RAINBOW IN NORTH.\n TUCKER\u2019S SOUTHERN CROSS.\n WEEK, THE.\n WILLIAM WILBERFORCE.\n WOODCUTTER AND EXILES.\n\n SECOND SERIES.\n 40 cents per volume.\n\n ASHTON COTTAGE.\n CHARLES ROUSSELL.\n COMMANDMENT WITH PROMISE.\n DUNCAN\u2019S COTTAGE FIRESIDE.\n FRANK NETHERTON.\n FRITZ HAROLD.\n JOHNSON\u2019S RASSELAS.\n MICHAEL KEMP.\n OPIE ON LYING.\n RICHMOND\u2019S ANNALS OF POOR.\n SIGOURNEY\u2019S BOY\u2019S BOOK.\n SIGOURNEY\u2019S GIRL\u2019S BOOK.\n TAYLOR\u2019S ORIGINAL POEMS.\n\n THIRD SERIES.\n 30 cents per volume.\n\n CAMERON\u2019S FARM. DAUGHTER.\n FRANK HARRISON.\n GREAT JOURNEY.\n KENNEDY\u2019S ANNA ROSS.\n KENNEDY\u2019S PROF. NOT PRINCIPLE.\n KENNEDY\u2019S FATHER CLEMENT.\n KENNEDY\u2019S PHILIP COLVILLE.\n MY SCHOOL-BOY DAYS.\n MY YOUTHFUL COMPANIONS.\n SINCLAIR\u2019S CHARLIE SEYMOUR.\n STORIES ON LORD\u2019S PRAYER.\n THREE MONTHS UNDER SNOW.\n TAYLOR\u2019S DISPLAY. A Tale.\n\n FOURTH SERIES.\n 25 cents per volume.\n\n AUSTRALIA, LOSS OF THE.\n BUNBERY\u2019S GLORY, GLORY.\n COLLIER\u2019S TALE.\n FISK\u2019S ORPHAN TALE.\n KENNEDY\u2019S DECISION.\n KENNEDY\u2019S JESSY ALLAN.\n PASTOR\u2019S FAMILY.\n POLLOK\u2019S HELEN OF GLEN.\n POLLOK\u2019S PERSECUTED FAMILY.\n POLLOK\u2019S RALPH GUNMEL.\n TRUE HEROISM.\n WALTER BINNING.\n WINGS AND STINGS.\n\n * * * * *\n\n JUVENILE LIBRARY.\n Square, 50 cents each.\n\n CLEVER STORIES.\n LITTLE LESSONS.\n RHYMES FOR THE NURSERY.\n MAMMA\u2019S BIBLE STORIES.\n SEQUEL TO BIBLE STORIES.\n HUNDRED SHORT TALES.\n TENDER GRASS.\n CALL TO THE LAMBS.\n FANNY AND HER MAMMA.\n CHILD\u2019S OWN STORY-BOOK.\n LIMED TWIGS.\n NEW COBWEBS.\n\n * * * * *\n ANNIE\u2019S FIRST BOOK. 35 cents.\n ANNIE\u2019S SECOND BOOK. 40 cents.\n DUTY IS SAFETY. 25 cents.\n JACK THE SAILOR BOY. 25 cents.\n THINK BEFORE YOU ACT. 25 cts.\n HYMNS FOR INFANT MINDS. 40 cts.\n VERY LITTLE TALES. 2 vols. 75 cts.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n CARTERS\u2019 PUBLICATIONS.\n\n The Rich Kinsman.\n The History of Ruth the Moabitess, by Stephen H. Tyng, D.D. 16mo. $1.\n\n\u201cThe author presents this work in the hope that it will be found adapted\n to enlighten the minds of the young in some of the great subjects of\n Scriptural instruction.... The author has been long impressed with the\n feeling that neither commentaries nor sermons have yet made that simple\n and practical use of the fullness of Scripture truth for which it is\n adapted\u2014perhaps he might say for which it is designed. The young mind\n certainly can be interested in the word of God, as a book full of\n attraction as well as full of truth. Whoever can be made in any degree\n the instrument of leading to this result, by bringing out to view the\n real attractions of Scripture, confers so far an invaluable benefit\n upon others.\u201d\u2014_Extract from the Preface._\n\n The Truth and Life.\n A SERIES OF DISCOURSES. By Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio. 8vo. $2.\n\n\u201cWe have seldom met with a more admirable volume of Sermons than the one\n now lying before us. * * * The subjects are varied, but in all there is\n the same clearness, and fullness of Gospel truth. * * * We can assure\n our readers that there is a freshness and power pervading the work,\n which is most delightful to find in this age of flimsy sentiment and\n idealistic abstractions.\u201d\u2014_Banner._\n\n The Saints\u2019 Everlasting Rest.\n By Richard Baxter. The ONLY COMPLETE EDITION ever published in the\n United States. One volume royal 8vo. $2.\n\n\u201cThere are no religious works which have had, next to John Bunyan\u2019s\n \u201cPilgrim\u2019s Progress,\u201d so extensive, increasing, and continued\n circulation, as those of Richard Baxter. \u2018The Saints\u2019 Rest\u2019 is\n eminently a favorite with Christians, and has been richly blessed. The\n volume in general use is an abridgment, well executed, of the original,\n and is not as much as one-half of its compass. However well condensed,\n an abridgment can not retain and exhibit all the merits of the\n original, and very many of the lovers of the smaller volume will hail\n and embrace the opportunity of obtaining the original work, in the\n present neat and acceptable form.\u201d\u2014_Christian Intelligencer._\n\n Discourses on Truth.\n By J. H. Thornwell, D.D., President of the South Carolina College,\n Columbia, S. C. 12mo. $1.\n\n\u201cThe Ethics are of the loftiest standard, breathing a pure theology, and\n informed by a sound psychology, and presented in a form of compacted\n logic. It is a tonic for both mind and heart to read these able\n expositions of the moral system of Christianity. * * * To those who\n _think_, it will be found a dish of strong meat, the inward digestion\n of which will give vigor to both the mental and spiritual\n man.\u201d\u2014_Watchman and Observer._\n\n Fritz Harold; or, the Temptation.\n By Mrs. Sarah A. Meyers. 16mo. Illustrated. 40 cents.\n\n May Dundas; or, Passages from Young Life.\n By Mrs. Thomas Geldart. Illustrated. 16mo. 50 cents.\n\n The Christian Patriot.\n A Memoir of William Wilberforce. 75 cents.\n\nThis new Memoir of the Christian, the patriot, and philanthropist, is\n from the pen of a gifted American lady, and will be read with intense\n interest by all classes of readers.\n\n The Autobiography and Reminiscences of the Rev. Wm. Jay.\n 2 vols. royal 12mo. $1 25.\n\n\u201cFew names are so extensively known in the Christian communities of\n Great Britain and the United States as that of William Jay. His\n \u2018Morning and Evening Exercises\u2019 is in the great majority of Christian\n families. The Autobiography is written in a style of great simplicity\n and pleasantness. The reminiscences by Mr. Jay of prominent individuals\n with whom he was well acquainted\u2014as John Newton, Richard Cecil, Robert\n Hall, William Wilberforce, and others, are graphic and entertaining,\n and replete with anecdote.\u201d\u2014_Christian Intelligencer._\n\n\u201cThis is a delightful work. The autobiography is a simple story of\n his life, in letters addressed to his children, beginning with\n bricklayer boy at Beckford\u2019s Abbey, whose sweet face attracted the\n attention of Cornelius Winter, and led to the bringing out of the\n \u2018boy preacher,\u2019 and ending with the venerable patriarch of Bath,\n whose name and writings were known and loved all over Protestant\n Christendom.\u201d\u2014_Watchman._\n\n\u201cAs an autobiography, this will do to go along with that of Hugh\n Miller.\u201d\u2014_Journal._\n\n By the same author.\n\n I. Morning and Evening Exercises.\n A new edition in 4 royal 12mo vols. $4.\n\n\u201cThis edition of the Exercises is in four large 12mo volumes. It is\n remarkably well printed in large, clear type, and on clear, white\n paper, so that the old and those of weak sight can enjoy the good\n things prepared for them by one of the most pious and best writers\n which the world has produced.\u201d\u2014_Christ. Advocate._\n\n II. Female Scripture Characters.\n 12mo. $1.\n\n\u201cBy all sincere Christian women, the world over, this volume will be\n regarded as a spiritual treasure.\u201d\u2014_Presbyterian._\n\n Paley\u2019s Evidences of Christianity,\n With Notes and Additions. By Charles Murray Nairne, M.A. 12mo. $1.25.\n\n\u201cIt would be a work of supererogation, at this late day, to dwell on the\n peculiar excellences of Paley\u2019s treatise on the Evidences of\n Christianity. It is not probable it will ever be superseded. Its\n learning, its exactness, its wonderful clearness of thought, its\n logical force, are incomparable. * * * * * * * The American editor has\n fortified the points in which Paley has failed, and, by his additional\n matter, has unquestionably furnished the best, as well as the safest\n edition of Paley extant.\u201d\u2014_Presbyterian._\n\n\u201cThe Editor of this work, we hesitate not to say, is a man of\n extraordinary intellect and acquirements, and he has done what it\n may safely be said that few are capable of doing, has given\n additional attraction and value to Paley\u2019s Evidences of\n Christianity. The introductory article, entitled \u2018Claims of Divine\n Revelation,\u2019 could never have been the production of any other than\n a master-mind.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n\u201cAs one of the impregnable defences of the historical verity of the\n facts of Christianity, the work of Paley stands unrivaled and complete.\n * * * The notes and additions of Prof. Nairne make it more valuable\n than any edition hitherto published. The labors of Chalmers, Hill,\n Wardlaw, Campbell, Alexander, Hitchcock, Miller, Birks, and many\n others, are here put under contribution.\u201d\u2014_Presbyterian of the West._\n\n The Footsteps of St. Paul.\n By the author of the \u201cMorning and Night Watches.\u201d 12mo. Illustrated.\n $1 00.\n\n\u201c\u2018The Footsteps of St. Paul\u2019 is the title of an able and instructive\n work, presenting a consecutive history of the life, labors, and\n teachings of the great Apostle. It interweaves, in the narrative, all\n the direct disclosures of the Acts, the incidental intimations of the\n Epistles, all the outside information extant, and many conjectural\n statements derived from a comparison of different parts of Scripture.\n But he has written it in an animated and graphic style, and imbued it\n with a fine spirit. It leaves a strong impression on the reader\u2019s mind.\n It is copiously illustrated with maps and engravings, and is every way\n a scholarly performance.\u201d\u2014_Evangelist._\n\n\u201cThe Carters have published a multitude of good books, but, unless we\n greatly mistake, this will be reckoned among the best of\n them.\u201d\u2014_Puritan Recorder._\n\n By the same author.\n\n I. The Words of Jesus.\n 16mo. 40 cents.\n\n\u201cThis admirable little volume illustrates and applies some of the\n precious utterances of the blessed Saviour, in language chaste, simple,\n affectionate, and urgent, enlightening the thoughts, exciting the\n affections, subduing the passions, guiding the soul, like the star of\n Bethlehem, to the meek and lowly Saviour.\u201d\u2014_Watchman._\n\n II. The Mind of Jesus.\n 16mo. 40 cents.\n\n III. Morning and Night Watches.\n 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n\u201cA precious volume of religious truth most pleasingly and scripturally\n presented for the comfort and edification of the people of\n God.\u201d\u2014_Observer._\n\n IV. Family Prayers.\n 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cSimple, evangelical, earnest, and well-adapted to prove a devotional\n help.\u201d\u2014_Christian Herald._\n\n\u201cDirect, fervent, and comprehensive.\u201d\u2014_Evangelist._\n\n V. The Woodcutter, and The Exiles.\n 18mo. 50 cents.\n\n VI. The Great Journey:\n A PILGRIMAGE THROUGH THE VALLEY OF TEARS TO MOUNT ZION, THE CITY OF THE\n LIVING GOD. Illustrated. 16mo. 50 cents.\n\n Family Prayers.\n By the Rev. John Swete, D.D. 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n Family Expositions of John and Jude.\n By the Rev. Edward Bickersteth. 16mo. 60 cents.\n\n The Young Man\u2019s Friend and Guide through Life to Immortality.\n By the Rev. John Angel James. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cThe young men of our land have in this book a rare treasure. Every page\n is fraught with instruction of momentous interest. No young man who\n would prepare for the life that now is, and for that which is to come,\n should fail to read it.\u201d\u2014_Advocate._\n\n Preces Paulin\u00e6; or, Devotions of the Apostle Paul.\n 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n\u201cA gem of no ordinary worth. * * * We may briefly describe it, and\n this because we think its title fails to do so, as a Treatise on\n Prayer, founded on the instances of prayer recorded of, and by, the\n Apostle Paul. It is searching, devotional, practical, and\n profitable.\u201d\u2014_Christian Annotator._\n\n Philip Colville, a Covenanter\u2019s Story.\n By Grace Kennedy, author of \u201cAnna Ross.\u201d 18mo. 30 cts.\n\n The Dead in Christ; their State, Present and Future.\n By John Brown, D.D. 16mo. 50 cents.\n\n Memoir of John Frederick Oberlin, Pastor of the Waldbach in the Ban De\n La Roche.\n 18mo. 40 cents.\n\n\u201cThe mind that does not rise from this memoir excited and mightier for\n God, has a heartlessness and apathy none will covet.\u201d\u2014_Halsey._\n\n Israel and the Gentiles.\n Contributions to the History of the Jews from the earliest time to the\n present day. By Dr. Isaac Da Costa. $1.25.\n\n Stray Arrows.\n By the Rev. T. L. Cuyler, new and enlarged edition. 18mo. 40 cents.\n\n Emily Vernon; or, Filial Piety Exemplified.\n By Mrs. Drummond. 50 cents.\n\n\u201cMost cordially do we recommend it as a gift to young ladies who have\n passed their sixteenth birthday.\u201d\u2014_British Mothers\u2019 Magazine._\n\n\u201cThe story is simple, but beautiful in its simplicity; while here and\n there we meet with passages of exquisite grace and pathos. It has our\n hearty recommendation.\u201d\u2014_Commonwealth._\n\n A Chart of the Sacred History of the World from the Creation to the\n Birth of Christ,\n\nBeing a Synchronical arrangement of the leading events of sacred and\n profane history; subdivided into periods, embellished by pictorial\n illustrations, and accompanied by a concise Introductory Sketch, and\n copious notes. Folio. $1.50\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n =Transcriber\u2019s Notes=\n\nSome inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have been\nretained.\n\nThis file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text and =equals signs=\nto indicate bold text.\n\nItemized changes from the original text:\n\n \u25cf p. ix: changed \u201cProtestanism\u201d to \u201cProtestantism\u201d (Protestantism, like\n the primitive Church,)\n \u25cf p. xxxiii:\n \u25cb changed \u201cSarbonne\u201d to \u201cSorbonne\u201d (Expelled from the Sorbonne,)\n \u25cb changed \u201cbe\u201d to \u201che\u201d (for the eucharist, he insinuated)\n \u25cb changed \u201cSarbonne\u201d to \u201cSorbonne\u201d (expulsion from the Sorbonne,)\n\n \u25cf p. xxxv: changed \u201cSarbonne\u201d to \u201cSorbonne\u201d (before the Sorbonne was in\n dependence,)\n \u25cf p. 94: changed \u201cperfeet\u201d to \u201cperfect\u201d (the most perfect harmony)\n \u25cf p. 103: added missing quote mark based on context and 1875 Chatto &\n Windus edition (written in letters of gold.\u201d)\n \u25cf p. 104: changed \u201cterrribly\u201d to \u201cterribly\u201d (I am terribly afraid)\n \u25cf p. 110: changed \u201cnnmber\u201d to \u201cnumber\u201d (the number of our offences)\n \u25cf p. 143: changed \u201cFiliutus\u201d to \u201cFiliutius\u201d (as Filiutius says.)\n \u25cf p. 146: added missing quote mark based on context and 1875 Chatto &\n Windus edition (gone into desuetude\u2019)\n \u25cf p. 168: changed \u201csylllogism\u201d to \u201csyllogism\u201d (a syllogism in due\n form,)\n \u25cf p. 204: added missing quote mark based on context and 1875 Chatto &\n Windus edition (than to live well.\u2019)\n \u25cf p. 209: inserted missing opening quote mark (\u2018if the confessor\n imposes) based on context as well as 1847 John Johnstone edition,\n 1875 & 1898 Chatto & Windus editions\n \u25cf p. 211: changed \u201cwas\u201d to \u201chas\u201d (who has probed this question)\n \u25cf p. 218: added missing quote mark based on context (sufficient with\n the sacrament.\u2019)\n \u25cf p. 286: changed \u201csurmont\u201d to \u201csurmount\u201d (to surmount external\n obstacles)\n \u25cf p. 322: removed extraneous closing quote mark based on context and\n 1875 Chatto & Windus edition (adored in the sanctuary)\n \u25cf p. 340: removed extraneous closing quote mark based on context and\n 1875 Chatto & Windus edition (you may profit by my example.)\n \u25cf p. 345: removed extraneous closing quote mark based on context and\n 1875 Chatto & Windus edition (any more than his book?)\n \u25cf p. 347: changed \u201cM. de l aLane\u201d to \u201cM. de la Lane\u201d based on 1890\n Houghton, Osgood And Company edition.\n \u25cf p. 349: added missing closing quote based on context and 1875 Chatto\n & Windus edition (purgare, sed facere\u201d.)\n\nIn the end-of-book publisher\u2019s catalog, some repeated words were\nindicated by quote marks (\u201d). These were replaced with the repeated\nword, for formatting reasons.","title":"The provincial letters of Blaise Pascal : $b A new translation, with historical introduction and notes, by the Rev. Thomas M'Crie","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":147696}