Blaise Pascal............................................................................................................................................1

LETTER I...............................................................................................................................................1

LETTER II ..............................................................................................................................................7

REPLY OF THE "PROVINCIAL" TO THE FIRST TWO LETTERS OF HIS FRIEND.................12

LETTER III ...........................................................................................................................................13

LETTER IV..........................................................................................................................................17

LETTER V ............................................................................................................................................23

LETTER VI..........................................................................................................................................31

LETTER VII.........................................................................................................................................38

LETTER VIII ........................................................................................................................................46

LETTER IX..........................................................................................................................................54

LETTER X ............................................................................................................................................63

LETTER XI. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS.......................................................71

LETTER XII. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS ......................................................78

LETTER XIII. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS...........................85

LETTER XIV. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS....................................................92

LETTER XV. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS ......................................................99

LETTER XVI. TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS..................................................106

LETTER XVII. TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT...............................................116

LETTER XVIII. TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT ..............................................126

TO FATHER ANNAT .........................................................................................................................136

We were entirely mistaken. It was only yesterday that I was undeceived. Until that time I had laboured under

the impression that the disputes in the Sorbonne were vastly important, and deeply affected the interests of

religion. The frequent convocations of an assembly so illustrious as that of the Theological Faculty of Paris,

attended by so many extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, led one to form such high expectations

that it was impossible to help coming to the conclusion that the subject was most extraordinary. You will be

greatly surprised, however, when you learn from the following account the issue of this grand demonstration,

which, having made myself perfectly master of the subject, I shall be able to tell you in very few words.

Two questions, then, were brought under examination; the one a question of fact, the other a question of

The question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was guilty of presumption, for having

asserted in his second letter that he had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not

discovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that, nevertheless, as he condemned these

propositions wherever they might occur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in

The question here was, if he could, without presumption, entertain a doubt that these propositions were in

The matter having been brought before the Sorbonne, seventyone doctors undertook his defence,

maintaining that the only reply he could possibly give to the demands made upon him in so many

publications, calling on him to say if he held that these propositions were in that book, was that he had not

been able to find them, but that if they were in the book, he condemned them in the book.

Some even went a step farther and protested that, after all the search they had made into the book, they had

never stumbled upon these propositions, and that they had, on the contrary, found sentiments entirely at

variance with them. They then earnestly begged that, if any doctor present had discovered them, he would

have the goodness to point them out; adding that what was so easy could not reasonably be refused, as this

would be the surest way to silence the whole of them, M. Arnauld included; but this proposal has been

On the other side are eighty secular doctors and some forty mendicant friars, who have condemned M.

Arnauld's proposition, without choosing to examine whether he has spoken truly or falsely who, in fact,

have declared that they have nothing to do with the veracity of his proposition, but simply with its temerity.

Besides these, there were fifteen who were not in favor of the censure, and who are called Neutrals.

Such was the issue of the question of fact, regarding which, I must say, I give myself very little concern. It

does not affect my conscience in the least whether M. Arnauld is presumptuous or the reverse; and should I

be tempted, from curiosity, to ascertain whether these propositions are contained in Jansenius, his book is

neither so very rare nor so very large as to hinder me from reading it over from beginning to end, for my own

Were it not, however, for the dread of being presumptuous myself, I really think that I would be disposed to

adopt the opinion which has been formed by the most of my acquaintances, who, though they have believed

hitherto on common report that the propositions were in Jansenius, begin now to suspect the contrary, owing

to this strange refusal to point them out a refusal the more extraordinary to me as I have not yet met with a

single individual who can say that he has discovered them in that work. I am afraid, therefore, that this

censure will do more harm than good, and that the impression which it will leave on the minds of all who

know its history will be just the reverse of the conclusion that has been come to. The truth is the world has

become sceptical of late and will not believe things till it sees them. But, as I said before, this point is of very

The question of right, from its affecting the faith, appears much more important, and, accordingly, I took

particular pains in examining it. You will be relieved, however, to find that it is of as little consequence as the

The point of dispute here was an assertion of M. Arnauld's in the same letter, to the effect "that the grace,

without which we can do nothing, was wanting to St. Peter at his fall." You and I supposed that the

controversy here would turn upon the great principles of grace; such as whether grace is given to all men? Or

if it is efficacious of itself? But we were quite mistaken. You must know I have become a great theologian

To ascertain the matter with certainty, I repaired to my neighbor, M. N, doctor of Navarre, who, as you are

aware, is one of the keenest opponents of the Jansenists, and, my curiosity having made me almost as keen as

himself, I asked him if they would not formally decide at once that "grace is given to all men," and thus set

the question at rest. But he gave me a sore rebuff and told me that that was not the point; that there were some

of his party who held that grace was not given to all; that the examiners themselves had declared, in a full

assembly of the Sorbonne, that that opinion was problematical; and that he himself held the same sentiment,

which he confirmed by quoting to me what he called that celebrated passage of St. Augustine: "We know that

I apologized for having misapprehended his sentiment and requested him to say if they would not at least

condemn that other opinion of the Jansenists which is making so much noise: "That grace is efficacious of

itself, and invincibly determines our will to what is good." But in this second query I was equally unfortunate.

"You know nothing about the matter," he said; "that is not a heresy it is an orthodox opinion; all the

I did not venture again to propose my doubts, and yet I was as far as ever from understanding where the

difficulty lay; so, at last, in order to get at it, I begged him to tell me where, then, lay the heresy of M.

Arnauld's proposition. "It lies here," said he, "that he does not acknowledge that the righteous have the power

On receiving this piece of information, I took my leave of him; and, quite proud at having discovered the knot

of the question, I sought M. N, who is gradually getting better and was sufficiently recovered to conduct me

to the house of his brotherinlaw, who is a Jansenist, if ever there was one, but a very good man

notwithstanding. Thinking to insure myself a better reception, I pretended to be very high on what I took to

be his side, and said: "Is it possible that the Sorbonne has introduced into the Church such an error as this,

'that all the righteous have always the power of obeying the commandments of God?'"

"What say you?" replied the doctor. "Call you that an error a sentiment so Catholic that none but Lutherans

Confounded by this reply, I soon discovered that I had overacted the Jansenist, as I had formerly overdone

the Molinist. But, not being sure if I had rightly understood him, I requested him to tell me frankly if he held

"that the righteous have always a real power to observe the divine precepts?" Upon this, the good man got

warm (but it was with a holy zeal) and protested that he would not disguise his sentiments on any

consideration that such was, indeed, his belief, and that he and all his party would defend it to the death, as

This was spoken so seriously as to leave me no room for doubt; and under this impression I returned to my

first doctor and said to him, with an air of great satisfaction, that I was sure there would be peace in the

Sorbonne very soon; that the Jansenists were quite at one with them in reference to the power of the righteous

to obey the commandments of God; that I could pledge my word for them and could make them seal it with

"Hold there!" said he. "One must be a theologian to see the point of this question. The difference between us

is so subtle that it is with some difficulty we can discern it ourselves you will find it rather too much for

your powers of comprehension. Content yourself, then, with knowing that it is very true the Jansenists will

tell you that all the righteous have always the power of obeying the commandments; that is not the point in

dispute between us; but mark you, they will not tell you that that power is proximate. That is the point."

This was a new and unknown word to me. Up to this moment I had managed to understand matters, but that

term involved me in obscurity; and I verily believe that it has been invented for no other purpose than to

mystify. I requested him to give me an explanation of it, but he made a mystery of it, and sent me back,

without any further satisfaction, to demand of the Jansenists if they would admit this proximate power.

Having charged my memory with the phrase (as to my understanding, that was out of the question), I

hastened with all possible expedition, fearing that I might forget it, to my Jansenist friend and accosted him,

immediately after our first salutations, with: "Tell me, pray, if you admit the proximate power?" He smiled,

and replied, coldly: "Tell me yourself in what sense you understand it, and I may then inform you what I

think of it." As my knowledge did not extend quite so far, I was at a loss what reply to make; and yet, rather

than lose the object of my visit, I said at random: "Why, I understand it in the sense of the Molinists." "To

which of the Molinists do you refer me?" replied he, with the utmost coolness. I referred him to the whole of

"You know very little about the matter," returned he. "So far are they from being united in sentiment that

some of them are diametrically opposed to each other. But, being all united in the design to ruin M. Arnauld,

they have resolved to agree on this term proximate, which both parties might use indiscriminately, though

they understand it diversely, that thus, by a similarity of language and an apparent conformity, they may form

This reply filled me with amazement; but, without imbibing these impressions of the malicious designs of the

Molinists, which I am unwilling to believe on his word, and with which I have no concern, I set myself

simply to ascertain the various senses which they give to that mysterious word proximate. "I would enlighten

you on the subject with all my heart," he said; "but you would discover in it such a mass of contrariety and

contradiction that you would hardly believe me. You would suspect me. To make sure of the matter, you had

better learn it from some of themselves; and I shall give you some of their addresses. You have only to make

"Let me see, then," he replied, "if you know any of those whom I shall name to you; they all agree in

"Well, let us see if you are acquainted with any of the Dominicans whom they call the 'New Thomists,' for

I knew some of them also whom he named; and, resolved to profit by this council and to investigate the

matter, I took my leave of him and went immediately to one of the disciples of M. le Moine. I begged him to

"It is easy to tell you that, " he replied; "it is merely to have all that is necessary for doing it in such a manner

"And so," said I, "to have the proximate power of crossing a river, for example, is to have a boat, boatmen,

"And to have the proximate power of seeing," continued I, "must be to have good eyes and the light of day;

for a person with good sight in the dark would not have the proximate power of seeing, according to you, as

"And consequently," returned I, "when you say that all the righteous have the proximate power of observing

the commandments of God, you mean that they have always all the grace necessary for observing them, so

"Stay there," he replied; "they have always all that is necessary for observing the commandments, or at least

"I understand you," said I; "they have all that is necessary for praying to God to assist them, without requiring

"But is it not necessary that they have an efficacious grace, in order to pray to God?"

To lose no time, I went to the Jacobins, and requested an interview with some whom I knew to be New

Thomists, and I begged them to tell me what proximate power was. "Is it not," said I, "that power to which

"Indeed! fathers," said I; "if anything is wanting to that power, do you call it proximate? Would you say, for

instance, that a man in the nighttime, and without any light, had the proximate power of seeing?"

"I have no objections to that," I said; "for I never quarrel about a name, provided I am apprised of the sense in

which it is understood. But I perceive from this that, when you speak of the righteous having always the

proximate power of praying to God, you understand that they require another supply for praying, without

"Most excellent!" exclaimed the good fathers, embracing me; "exactly the thing; for they must have, besides,

an efficacious grace bestowed upon all, and which determines their wills to pray; and it is heresy to deny the

"Most excellent!" cried I, in return; "but, according to you, the Jansenists are Catholics, and M. le Moine a

heretic; for the Jansenists maintain that, while the righteous have power to pray, they require nevertheless an

efficacious grace; and this is what you approve. M. le Moine, again, maintains that the righteous may pray

"How now! fathers," I exclaimed; "this is merely playing with words, to say that you are agreed as to the

common terms which you employ, while you differ with them as to the sense of these terms."

The fathers made no reply; and at this juncture, who should come in but my old friend, the disciple of M. le

Moine! I regarded this at the time as an extraordinary piece of good fortune; but I have discovered since then

that such meetings are not rare that, in fact, they are constantly mixing in each other's society.

"I know a man," said I, addressing myself to M. le Moine's disciple, "who holds that all the righteous have

always the power of praying to God, but that, notwithstanding this, they will never pray without an

efficacious grace which determines them, and which God does not always give to all the righteous. Is he a

"Stay," said the doctor; "you might take me by surprise. Let us go cautiously to work. Distinguo. If he call

that power proximate power, he will be a Thomist, and therefore a Catholic; if not, he will be a Jansenist and,

"Then he is a heretic," quoth he; "I refer you to these good fathers if he is not."

I did not appeal to them as judges, for they had already nodded assent; but I said to them: "He refuses to

admit that word proximate, because he can meet with nobody who will explain it to him."

Upon this one of the fathers was on the point of offering his definition of the term, when he was interrupted

by M. le Moine's disciple, who said to him: "Do you mean, then, to renew our broils? Have we not agreed not

to explain that word proximate, but to use it on both sides without saying what it signifies?" To this the

I was thus let into the whole secret of their plot; and, rising to take my leave of them, I remarked: "Indeed,

fathers, I am much afraid this is nothing better than pure chicanery; and, whatever may be the result of your

convocations, I venture to predict that, though the censure should pass, peace will not be established. For

though it should be decided that the syllables of that word proximate should be pronounced, who does not see

that, the meaning not being explained, each of you will be disposed to claim the victory? The Jacobins will

contend that the word is to be understood in their sense; M. le Moine will insist that it must be taken in his;

and thus there will be more wrangling about the explanation of the word than about its introduction. For, after

all, there would be no great danger in adopting it without any sense, seeing it is through the sense only that it

can do any harm. But it would be unworthy of the Sorbonne and of theology to employ equivocal and

captious terms without giving any explanation of them. In short, fathers, tell me, I entreat you, for the last

"You must say," they all vociferated simultaneously, "that all the righteous have the proximate power,

abstracting from it all sense from the sense of the Thomists and the sense of other divines."

"That is to say," I replied, in taking leave of them, "that I must pronounce that word to avoid being the heretic

of a name. For, pray, is this a Scripture word?" "No," said they. "Is it a word of the Fathers, the Councils, or

the Popes?" "No." "Is the word, then, used by St. Thomas?" "No." "What necessity, therefore, is there for

using it since it has neither the authority of others nor any sense of itself.?" "You are an opinionative fellow,"

said they; "but you shall say it, or you shall be a heretic, and M. Arnauld into the bargain; for we are the

majority, and, should it be necessary, we can bring a sufficient number of Cordeliers into the field to carry the

On hearing this solid argument, I took my leave of them, to write you the foregoing account of my interview,

from which you will perceive that the following points remain undisputed and uncondemned by either party.

First, That grace is not given to all men. Second, That all the righteous have always the power of obeying the

divine commandments. Third, That they require, nevertheless, in order to obey them, and even to pray, an

efficacious grace, which invincibly determines their will. Fourth, That this efficacious grace is not always

granted to all the righteous, and that it depends on the pure mercy of God. So that, after all, the truth is safe,

Happy the people who are ignorant of its existence! happy those who lived before it was born! for I see no

help for it, unless the gentlemen of the Acadamy, by an act of absolute authority, banish that barbarous term,

which causes so many divisions, from beyond the precincts of the Sorbonne. Unless this be done, the censure

appears certain; but I can easily see that it will do no other harm than diminish the credit of the Sorbonne, and

Meanwhile, I leave you at perfect liberty to hold by the word proximate or not, just as you please; for I love

you too much to persecute you under that pretext. If this account is not displeasing to you, I shall continue to

Just as I had sealed up my last letter, I received a visit from our old friend M. N. Nothing could have

happened more luckily for my curiosity; for he is thoroughly informed in the questions of the day and is

completely in the secret of the Jesuits, at whose houses, including those of their leading men, he is a constant

visitor. After having talked over the business which brought him to my house, I asked him to state, in a few

He immediately complied, and informed me that the principal points were two the first about the proximate

power, and the second about sufficient grace. I have enlightened you on the first of these points in my former

In one word, then, I found that their difference about sufficient grace may be defined thus: The Jesuits

maintain that there is a grace given generally to all men, subject in such a way to freewill that the will

renders it efficacious or inefficacious at its pleasure, without any additional aid from God and without

wanting anything on his part in order to act effectively; and hence they term this grace sufficient, because it

suffices of itself for action. The Jansenists, on the other hand, will not allow that any grace is actually

sufficient which is not also efficacious; that is, that all those kinds of grace which do not determine the will to

act effectively are insufficient for action; for they hold that a man can never act without efficacious grace.

Such are the points in debate between the Jesuits and the Jansenists; and my next object was to ascertain the

doctrine of the New Thomists. "It is rather an odd one," he said; "they agree with the Jesuits in admitting a

sufficient grace given to all men; but they maintain, at the same time, that no man can act with this grace

alone, but that, in order to do this, he must receive from God an efficacious grace which really determines his

will to the action, and which God does not grant to all men." "So that, according to this doctrine," said I, "this

grace is sufficient without being sufficient." "Exactly so," he replied; "for if it suffices, there is no need of

anything more for acting; and if it does not suffice, why it is not sufficient."

"But," asked I, "where, then, is the difference between them and the Jansenists?" "They differ in this," he

replied, "that the Dominicans have this good qualification, that they do not refuse to say that all men have the

sufficient grace." "I understand you," returned I; "but they say it without thinking it; for they add that, in

order to act, we must have an efficacious grace which is not given to all, consequently, if they agree with the

Jesuits in the use of a term which has no sense, they differ from them and coincide with the Jansenists in the

substance of the thing. That is very true, said he. "How, then," said I, "are the Jesuits united with them? and

why do they not combat them as well as the Jansenists, since they will always find powerful antagonists in

these men, who, by maintaining the necessity of the efficacious grace which determines the will, will prevent

"The Dominicans are too powerful," he replied, "and the Jesuits are too politic, to come to an open rupture

with them. The Society is content with having prevailed on them so far as to admit the name of sufficient

grace, though they understand it in another sense; by which manoeuvre they gain this advantage, that they

will make their opinion appear untenable, as soon as they judge it proper to do so. And this will be no

difficult matter; for, let it be once granted that all men have the sufficient graces, nothing can be more natural

than to conclude that the efficacious grace is not necessary to action the sufficiency of the general grace

precluding the necessity of all others. By saying sufficient we express all that is necessary for action; and it

will serve little purpose for the Dominicans to exclaim that they attach another sense to the expression; the

people, accustomed to the common acceptation of that term, would not even listen to their explanation. Thus

the Society gains a sufficient advantage from the expression which has been adopted by the Dominicans,

without pressing them any further; and were you but acquainted with what passed under Popes Clement VIII

and Paul V, and knew how the Society was thwarted by the Dominicans in the establishment of the sufficient

grace, you would not be surprised to find that it avoids embroiling itself in quarrels with them and allows

them to hold their own opinion, provided that of the Society is left untouched; and more especially, when the

Dominicans countenance its doctrine, by agreeing to employ, on all public occasions, the term sufficient

"The Society," he continued, "is quite satisfied with their complaisance. It does not insist on their denying the

necessity of efficacious grace, this would be urging them too far. People should not tyrannize over their

friends; and the Jesuits have gained quite enough. The world is content with words; few think of searching

into the nature of things; and thus the name of sufficient grace being adopted on both sides, though in

different senses, there is nobody, except the most subtle theologians, who ever dreams of doubting that the

thing signified by that word is held by the Jacobins as well as by the Jesuits; and the result will show that

I acknowledged that they were a shrewd class of people, these Jesuits; and, availing myself of his advice, I

went straight to the Jacobins, at whose gate I found one of my good friends, a staunch Jansenist (for you must

know I have got friends among all parties), who was calling for another monk, different from him whom I

was in search of. I prevailed on him, however, after much entreaty, to accompany me, and asked for one of

my New Thomists. He was delighted to see me again. "How now! my dear father," I began, "it seems it is not

enough that all men have a proximate power, with which they can never act with effect; they must have

besides this a sufficient grace, with which they can act as little. Is not that the doctrine of your school?" "It

is," said the worthy monk; "and I was upholding it this very morning in the Sorbonne. I spoke on the point

during my whole halfhour; and, but for the sandglass, I bade fair to have reversed that wicked proverb,

now so current in Paris: 'He votes without speaking, like a monk in the Sorbonne.'" "What do you mean by

your halfhour and your sandglass?" I asked; "do they cut your speeches by a certain measure?" "Yes," said

he, "they have done so for some days past." "And do they oblige you to speak for half an hour?" "No; we may

speak as little as we please." "But not as much as you please, said I. "O what a capital regulation for the

boobies! what a blessed excuse for those who have nothing worth the saying! But, to return to the point,

father; this grace given to all men is sufficient, is it not?" "Yes," said he. "And yet it has no effect without

efficacious grace?" "None whatever," he replied. "And all men have the sufficient," continued I, "and all have

not the efficacious?" "Exactly," said he. "That is," returned I, "all have enough of grace, and all have not

enough of it that is, this grace suffices, though it does not suffice that is, it is sufficient in name and

insufficient in effect! In good sooth, father, this is particularly subtle doctrine! Have you forgotten, since you

retired to the cloister, the meaning attached, in the world you have quitted, to the word sufficient? don't you

remember that it includes all that is necessary for acting? But no, you cannot have lost all recollection of it;

for, to avail myself of an illustration which will come home more vividly to your feelings, let us suppose that

you were supplied with no more than two ounces of bread and a glass of water daily, would you be quite

pleased with your prior were he to tell you that this would be sufficient to support you, under the pretext that,

along with something else, which however, he would not give you, you would have all that would be

necessary to support you? How, then can you allow yourselves to say that all men have sufficient grace for

acting, while you admit that there is another grace absolutely necessary to acting which all men have not? Is

it because this is an unimportant article of belief, and you leave all men at liberty to believe that efficacious

grace is necessary or not, as they choose? Is it a matter of indifference to say, that with sufficient grace a man

may really act?" "How!" cried the good man; "indifference! it is heresy formal heresy. The necessity of

efficacious grace for acting effectively, is a point of faith it is heresy to deny it."

"Where are we now?" I exclaimed; "and which side am I to take here? If I deny the sufficient grace, I am a

Jansenist. If I admit it, as the Jesuits do, in the way of denying that efficacious grace is necessary, I shall be a

heretic, say you. And if I admit it, as you do, in the way of maintaining the necessity of efficacious grace, I

sin against common sense, and am a blockhead, say the Jesuits. What must I do, thus reduced to the

inevitable necessity of being a blockhead, a heretic, or a Jansenist? And what a sad pass are matters come to,

if there are none but the Jansenists who avoid coming into collision either with the faith or with reason, and

My Jansenist friend took this speech as a good omen and already looked upon me as a convert. He said

nothing to me, however; but, addressing the monk: "Pray, father," inquired he, "what is the point on which

you agree with the Jesuits?" "We agree in this," he replied, "that the Jesuits and we acknowledge the

sufficient grace given to all." "But," said the Jansenist, "there are two things in this expression sufficient

grace there is the sound, which is only so much breath; and there is the thing which it signifies, which is real

and effectual. And, therefore, as you are agreed with the Jesuits in regard to the word sufficient and opposed

to them as to the sense, it is apparent that you are opposed to them in regard to the substance of that term, and

that you only agree with them as to the sound. Is this what you call acting sincerely and cordially?"

"But," said the good man, "what cause have you to complain, since we deceive nobody by this mode of

speaking? In our schools we openly teach that we understand it in a manner different from the Jesuits."

"What I complain of," returned my friend" "is, that you do not proclaim it everywhere, that by sufficient

grace you understand the grace which is not sufficient. You are bound in conscience, by thus altering the

sense of the ordinary terms of theology, to tell that, when you admit a sufficient grace in all men, you

understand that they have not sufficient grace in effect. All classes of persons in the world understand the

word sufficient in one and the same sense; the New Thomists alone understand it in another sense. All the

women, who form onehalf of the world, all courtiers, all military men, all magistrates, all lawyers,

merchants, artisans, the whole populace in short, all sorts of men, except the Dominicans, understand the

word sufficient to express all that is necessary. Scarcely any one is aware of this singular exception. It is

reported over the whole earth, simply that the Dominicans hold that all men have the sufficient graces. What

other conclusion can be drawn from this, than that they hold that all men have all the graces necessary for

action; especially when they are seen joined in interest and intrigue with the Jesuits, who understand the thing

in that sense? Is not the uniformity of your expressions, viewed in connection with this union of party, a

"The multitude of the faithful inquire of theologians: What is the real condition of human nature since its

corruption? St. Augustine and his disciples reply that it has no sufficient grace until God is pleased to bestow

it. Next come the Jesuits, and they say that all have the effectually sufficient graces. The Dominicans are

consulted on this contrariety of opinion; and what course do they pursue? They unite with the Jesuits; by this

coalition they make up a majority; they secede from those who deny these sufficient graces; they declare that

all men possess them. Who, on hearing this, would imagine anything else than that they gave their sanction to

the opinion of the Jesuits? And then they add that, nevertheless, these said sufficient graces are perfectly

"Shall I present you with a picture of the Church amidst these conflicting sentiments? I consider her very like

a man who, leaving his native country on a journey, is encountered by robbers, who inflict many wounds on

him and leave him half dead. He sends for three physicians resident in the neighboring towns. The first, on

probing his wounds, pronounces them mortal and assures him that none but God can restore to him his lost

powers. The second, coming after the other, chooses to flatter the man tells him that he has still sufficient

strength to reach his home; and, abusing the first physician who opposed his advice, determines upon his

ruin. In this dilemma, the poor patient, observing the third medical gentleman at a distance, stretches out his

hands to him as the person who should determine the controversy. This practitioner, on examining his

wounds, and ascertaining the opinions of the first two doctors, embraces that of the second, and uniting with

him, the two combine against the first, and being the stronger party in number drive him from the field in

disgrace. From this proceeding, the patient naturally concludes that the last comer is of the same opinion with

the second; and, on putting the question to him, he assures him most positively that his strength is sufficient

for prosecuting his journey. The wounded man, however, sensible of his own weakness, begs him to explain

to him how he considered him sufficient for the journey. 'Because,' replies his adviser, 'you are still in

possession of your legs, and legs are the organs which naturally suffice for walking.' 'But,' says the patient,

'have I all the strength necessary to make use of my legs? for, in my present weak condition, it humbly

appears to me that they are wholly useless.' 'Certainly you have not,' replies the doctor; 'you will never walk

effectively, unless God vouchsafes some extraordinary assistance to sustain and conduct you.' 'What!'

exclaims the poor man, 'do you not mean to say that I have sufficient strength in me, so as to want for nothing

to walk effectively?' 'Very far from it,' returns the physician. 'You must, then,' says the patient, 'be of a

different opinion from your companion there about my real condition.' 'I must admit that I am,' replies the

"What do you suppose the patient said to this? Why, he complained of the strange conduct and ambiguous

terms of this third physician. He censured him for taking part with the second, to whom he was opposed in

sentiment, and with whom he had only the semblance of agreement, and for having driven away the first

doctor, with whom he in reality agreed; and, after making a trial of strength, and finding by experience his

actual weakness, he sent them both about their business, recalled his first adviser, put himself under his care,

and having, by his advice, implored from God the strength of which he confessed his need, obtained the

The worthy monk was so confounded with this parable that he could not find words to reply. To cheer him up

a little, I said to him, in a mild tone: "But after all, my dear father, what made you think of giving the name of

sufficient to a grace which you say it is a point of faith to believe is, in fact, insufficient?" "It is very easy for

you to talk about it," said he. "You are an independent and private man; I am a monk and in a community

cannot you estimate the difference between the two cases? We depend on superiors; they depend on others.

They have promised our votes what would you have to become of me?" We understood the hint; and this

brought to our recollection the case of his brother monk, who, for a similar piece of indiscretion, has been

"But," I resumed, "how comes it about that your community is bound to admit this grace?" "That is another

question," he replied. "All that I can tell you is, in one word, that our order has defended, to the utmost of its

ability, the doctrine of St. Thomas on efficacious grace. With what ardor did it oppose, from the very

commencement, the doctrine of Molina? How did it labor to establish the necessity of the efficacious grace of

Jesus Christ? Don't you know what happened under Clement VIII and Paul V, and how, the former having

been prevented by death, and the latter hindered by some Italian affairs from publishing his bull, our arms

still sleep in the Vatican? But the Jesuits, availing themselves, since the introduction of the heresy of Luther

and Calvin, of the scanty light which the people possess for discriminating between the error of these men

and the truth of the doctrine of St. Thomas, disseminated their principles with such rapidity and success that

they became, ere long, masters of the popular belief; while we, on our part, found ourselves in the

predicament of being denounced as Calvinists and treated as the Jansenists are at present, unless we qualified

the efficacious grace with, at least, the apparent avowal of a sufficient. In this extremity, what better course

could we have taken for saving the truth, without losing our own credit, than by admitting the name of

sufficient grace, while we denied that it was such in effect? Such is the real history of the case."

This was spoken in such a melancholy tone that I really began to pity the man; not so, however, my

companion. "Flatter not yourselves," said he to the monk, "with having saved the truth; had she not found

other defenders, in your feeble hands she must have perished. By admitting into the Church the name of her

enemy, you have admitted the enemy himself. Names are inseparable from things. If the term sufficient grace

be once established, it will be vain for you to protest that you understand by it a grace which is not sufficient.

Your protest will be held inadmissible. Your explanation would be scouted as odious in the world, where

men speak more ingenuously about matters of infinitely less moment. The Jesuits will gain a triumph it will

be their grace, which is sufficient in fact, and not yours, which is only so in name, that will pass as

"We will all suffer martyrdom first," cried the father, "rather than consent to the establishment of sufficient

grace in the sense of the Jesuits. St. Thomas, whom we have sworn to follow even to the death, is

To this my friend, who took up the matter more seriously than I did, replied: "Come now, father, your

fraternity has received an honor which it sadly abuses. It abandons that grace which was confided to its care,

and which has never been abandoned since the creation of the world. That victorious grace, which was waited

for by the patriarchs, predicted by the prophets, introduced by Jesus Christ, preached by St. Paul, explained

by St. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, embraced by his followers, confirmed by St. Bernard, the last of

the fathers, supported by St. Thomas, the angel of the schools, transmitted by him to your order, maintained

by so many of your fathers, and so nobly defended by your monks under Popes Clement and Paul that

efficacious grace, which had been committed as a sacred deposit into your hands, that it might find, in a

sacred and everlasting order, a succession of preachers, who might proclaim it to the end of time is

discarded and deserted for interests the most contemptible. It is high time for other hands to arm in its quarrel.

It is time for God to raise up intrepid disciples of the Doctor of grace, who, strangers to the entanglements of

the world, will serve God for God's sake. Grace may not, indeed, number the Dominicans among her

champions, but champions she shall never want; for, by her own almighty energy, she creates them for

herself. She demands hearts pure and disengaged; nay, she herself purifies and disengages them from worldly

interests, incompatible with the truths of the Gospel. Reflect seriously, on this, father; and take care that God

does not remove this candlestick from its place, leaving you in darkness and without the crown, as a

punishment for the coldness which you manifest to a cause so important to his Church."

He might have gone on in this strain much longer, for he was kindling as he advanced, but I interrupted him

by rising to take my leave and said: "Indeed, my dear father, had I any influence in France, I should have it

proclaimed, by sound of trumpet: 'BE IT KNOWN TO ALL MEN, that when the Jacobins SAY that

sufficient grace is given to all, they MEAN that all have not the grace which actually suffices!' After which,

you might say it often as you please, but not otherwise." And thus ended our visit.

You will perceive, therefore, that we have here a politic sufficiency somewhat similar to proximate power.

Meanwhile I may tell you that it appears to me that both the proximate power and this same sufficient grace

I have just come to learn, when closing my letter, that the censure has passed. But as I do not yet know in

what terms it is worded, and as it will not be published till the 15th of February, I shall delay writing you

Your two letters have not been confined to me. Everybody has seen them, everybody understands them, and

everybody believes them. They are not only in high repute among theologians they have proved agreeable

In a communication which I lately received from one of the gentlemen of the Academy one of the most

illustrious names in a society of men who are all illustrious who had seen only your first letter, he writes me

as follows: "I only wish that the Sorbonne, which owes so much to the memory of the late cardinal, would

acknowledge the jurisdiction of his French Academy. The author of the letter would be satisfied; for, in the

capacity of an academician, I would authoritatively condemn, I would banish, I would proscribe I had

almost said exterminate to the extent of my power, this proximate power, which makes so much noise about

nothing and without knowing what it would have. The misfortune is that our academic power is a very

limited and remote power. I am sorry for it; and still more sorry that my small power cannot discharge me

My next extract is from the pen of a lady, whom I shall not indicate in any way whatever. She writes thus to a

female friend who had transmitted to her the first of your letters: "You can have no idea how much I am

obliged to you for the letter you sent me it is so very ingenious, and so nicely written. It narrates, and yet it

is not a narrative; it clears up the most intricate and involved of all possible matters; its raillery is exquisite; it

enlightens those who know little about the subject and imparts double delight to those who understand it. It is

an admirable apology; and, if they would so take it, a delicate and innocent censure. In short, that letter

displays so much art, so much spirit, and so much judgment, that I burn with curiosity to know who wrote it,"

You too, perhaps, would like to know who the lady is that writes in this style; but you must be content to

esteem without knowing her; when you come to know her, your esteem will be greatly enhanced.

Take my word for it, then, and continue your letters; and let the censure come when it may, we are quite

prepared for receiving it. These words proximate power and sufficient grace, with which we are threatened,

will frighten us no longer. We have learned from the Jesuits, the Jacobins, and M. le Moine, in how many

different ways they may be turned, and how little solidity there is in these newfangled terms, to give

I have just received your letter; and, at the same time, there was brought me a copy of the censure in

manuscript. I find that I am as well treated in the former as M. Arnauld is ill treated in the latter. I am afraid

there is some extravagance in both cases and that neither of us is sufficiently well known by our judges. Sure

I am that, were we better known, M. Arnauld would merit the approval of the Sorbonne, and I the censure of

the Academy. Thus our interests are quite at variance with each other. It is his interest to make himself

known, to vindicate his innocence; whereas it is mine to remain in the dark, for fear of forfeiting my

reputation. Prevented, therefore, from showing my face, I must devolve on you the task of making my

acknowledgments to my illustrious admirers, while I undertake that of furnishing you with the news of the

I assure you, sir, it has filled me with astonishment. I expected to find it condemning the most shocking

heresy in the world, but your wonder will equal mine, when informed that these alarming preparations, when

on the point of producing the grand effect anticipated, have all ended in smoke.

To understand the whole affair in a pleasant way, only recollect, I beseech you, the strange impressions

which, for a long time past, we have been taught to form of the Jansenists. Recall to mind the cabals, the

factions, the errors, the schisms, the outrages, with which they have been so long charged; the manner in

which they have been denounced and vilified from the pulpit and the press; and the degree to which this

torrent of abuse, so remarkable for its violence and duration, has swollen of late years, when they have been

openly and publicly accused of being not only heretics and schismatics, but apostates and infidels with

"denying the mystery of transubstantiation, and renouncing Jesus Christ and the Gospel."

After having published these startling accusations, it was resolved to examine their writings, in order to

pronounce judgement on them. For this purpose the second letter of M. Arnauld, which was reported to be

full of the greatest errors, is selected. The examiners appointed are his most open and avowed enemies. They

employ all their learning to discover something that they might lay hold upon, and at length they produce one

What else could any one infer from such proceedings than that this proposition, selected under such

remarkable circumstances, would contain the essence of the blackest heresies imaginable. And yet the

proposition so entirely agrees with what is clearly and formally expressed in the passages from the fathers

quoted by M. Arnauld that I have not met with a single individual who could comprehend the difference

between them. Still, however, it might be imagined that there was a very great difference; for the passages

from the fathers being unquestionably Catholic, the proposition of M. Arnauld, if heretical, must be widely

Such was the difficulty which the Sorbonne was expected to clear up. All Christendom waited, with

wideopened eyes, to discover, in the censure of these learned doctors, the point of difference which had

proved imperceptible to ordinary mortals. Meanwhile M. Arnauld gave in his defences, placing his own

proposition and the passages of the fathers from which he had drawn it in parallel columns, so as to make the

He shows, for example, that St. Augustine says in one passage that "Jesus Christ points out to us, in the

person of St. Peter, a righteous man warning us by his fall to avoid presumption." He cites another passage

from the same father, in which he says "that God, in order to show us that without grace we can do nothing,

left St. Peter without grace." He produces a third, from St. Chrysostom, who says, "that the fall of St. Peter

happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus Christ, but because grace failed him; and that he fell, not

so much through his own negligence as through the withdrawment of God, as a lesson to the whole Church,

that without God we can do nothing." He then gives his own accused proposition, which is as follows: "The

fathers point out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man to whom that grace without which we can

In vain did people attempt to discover how it could possibly be that M. Arnauld's expression differed from

those of the fathers as much as the truth from error and faith from heresy. For where was the difference to be

found? Could it be in these words: "that the fathers point out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous

man"? St. Augustine has said the same thing in so many words. Is it because he says "that grace had failed

him"? The same St. Augustine who had said that "St. Peter was a righteous man," says "that he had not had

grace on that occasion." Is it, then, for his having said "that without grace we can do nothing"? Why, is not

this just what St. Augustine says in the same place, and what St. Chrysostom had said before him, with this

difference only, that he expresses it in much stronger language, as when he says "that his fall did not happen

through his own coldness or negligence, but through the failure of grace, and the withdrawment of God"?

Such considerations as these kept everybody in a state of breathless suspense to learn in what this diversity

could consist, when at length, after a great many meetings, this famous and longlookedfor censure made

its appearance. But, alas! it has sadly baulked our expectation. Whether it be that the Molinist doctors would

not condescend so far as to enlighten us on the point, or for some other mysterious reason, the fact is they

have done nothing more than pronounce these words: "This proposition is rash, impious, blasphemous,

Would you believe it, sir, that most people, finding themselves deceived in their expectations, have got into

bad humor, and begin to fall foul upon the censors themselves? They are drawing strange inferences from

their conduct in favour of M. Arnauld's innocence. "What!" they are saying, "is this all that could be

achieved, during all this time, by so many doctors joining in a furious attack on one individual? Can they find

nothing in all his works worthy of reprehension, but three lines, and these extracted, word for word, from the

greatest doctors of the Greek and Latin Churches? Is there any author whatever whose writings, were it

intended to ruin him, would not furnish a more specious pretext for the purpose? And what higher proof

"How comes it to pass," they add, "that so many denunciations are launched in this censure, into which they

have crowded such terms as 'poison, pestilence, horror, rashness, impiety, blasphemy, abomination,

execration, anathema, heresy' the most dreadful epithets that could be used against Arius, or Antichrist

himself; and all to combat an imperceptible heresy, and that, moreover, without telling as what it is? If it be

against the words of the fathers that they inveigh in this style, where is the faith and tradition? If against M.

Arnauld's proposition, let them point out the difference between the two; for we can see nothing but the most

perfect harmony between them. As soon as we have discovered the evil of the proposition, we shall hold it in

abhorrence; but so long as we do not see it, or rather see nothing in the statement but the sentiments of the

holy fathers, conceived and expressed in their own terms, how can we possibly regard it with any other

Such is the specimen of the way in which they are giving vent to their feelings. But these are by far too

deepthinking people. You and I, who make no pretensions to such extraordinary penetration, may keep

ourselves quite easy about the whole affair. What! would we be wiser than our masters? No: let us take

example from them, and not undertake what they have not ventured upon. We would be sure to get boggled

in such an attempt. Why it would be the easiest thing imaginable, to render this censure itself heretical. Truth,

we know, is so delicate that, if we make the slightest deviation from it, we fall into error; but this alleged

error is so extremely finespun that, if we diverge from it in the slightest degree, we fall back upon the truth.

There is positively nothing between this obnoxious proposition and the truth but an imperceptible point. The

distance between them is so impalpable that I was in terror lest, from pure inability to perceive it, I might, in

my overanxiety to agree with the doctors of the Sorbonne, place myself in opposition to the doctors of the

Church. Under this apprehension, I judged it expedient to consult one of those who, through policy, was

neutral on the first question, that from him I might learn the real state of the matter. I have accordingly had an

interview with one of the most intelligent of that party, whom I requested to point out to me the difference

between the two things, at the same time frankly owning to him that I could see none.

He appeared to be amused at my simplicity and replied, with a smile: "How simple it is in you to believe that

there is any difference! Why, where could it be? Do you imagine that, if they could have found out any

discrepancy between M. Arnauld and the fathers, they would not have boldly pointed it out and been

delighted with the opportunity of exposing it before the public, in whose eyes they are so anxious to

I could easily perceive, from these few words, that those who had been neutral on the first question would not

all prove so on the second; but, anxious to hear his reasons, I asked: "Why, then, have they attacked this

"Is it possible," he replied, "you can be ignorant of these two things, which I thought had been known to the

veriest tyro in these matters? that, on the one hand, M. Arnauld has uniformly avoided advancing a single

tenet which is not powerfully supported by the tradition of the Church; and that, on the other hand, his

enemies have determined, cost what it may, to cut that ground from under him; and, accordingly, that as the

writings of the former afforded no handle to the designs of the latter, they have been obliged, in order to

satiate their revenge, to seize on some proposition, it mattered not what, and to condemn it without telling

why or wherefore. Do not you know how the keep them in check, and annoy them so desperately that they

cannot drop the slightest word against the principles of the fathers without being incontinently overwhelmed

with whole volumes, under the pressure of which they are forced to succumb? So that, after a great many

proofs of their weakness, they have judged it more to the purpose, and much less troublesome, to censure

than to reply it being a much easier matter with them to find monks than reasons."

"Why then," said I, "if this be the case, their censure is not worth a straw; for who will pay any regard to it,

when they see it to be without foundation, and refuted, as it no doubt will be, by the answers given to it?"

"If you knew the temper of people," replied my friend the doctor, "you would talk in another sort of way.

Their censure, censurable as it is, will produce nearly all its designed effect for a time; and although, by the

force of demonstration, it is certain that, in course of time, its invalidity will be made apparent, it is equally

true that, at first, it will tell as effectually on the minds of most people as if it had been the most righteous

sentence in the world. Let it only be cried about the streets: 'Here you have the censure of M. Arnauld! here

you have the condemnation of the Jansenists!' and the Jesuits will find their account in it. How few will ever

read it! How few, of them who do read, will understand it! How few will observe that it answers no

objections! How few will take the matter to heart, or attempt to sift it to the bottom! Mark, then, how much

advantage this gives to the enemies of the Jansenists. They are sure to make a triumph of it, though a vain

one, as usual, for some months at least and that is a great matter for them, they will look out afterwards for

some new means of subsistence. They live from hand to mouth, sir. It is in this way they have contrived to

maintain themselves down to the present day. Sometimes it is by a catechism in which a child is made to

condemn their opponents; then it is by a procession, in which sufficient grace leads the efficacious in

triumph; again it is by a comedy, in which Jansenius is represented as carried off by devils; at another time it

"In good sooth," said I "I was on the point of finding fault with the conduct of the Molinists; but after what

you have told me, I must say I admire their prudence and their policy. I see perfectly well that they could not

"You are right," returned he; "their safest policy has always been to keep silent; and this led a certain learned

divine to remark, 'that the cleverest among them are those who intrigue much, speak little, and write nothing.'

"It is on this principle that, from the commencement of the meetings, they prudently ordained that, if M.

Arnauld came into the Sorbonne, it must be simply to explain what he believed, and not to enter the lists of

controversy with any one. The examiners, having ventured to depart a little from this prudent arrangement,

suffered for their temerity. They found themselves rather too vigourously refuted by his second apology.

"On the same principle, they had recourse to that rare and very novel device of the halfhour and the

sandglass. By this means they rid themselves of the importunity of those troublesome doctors, who might

undertake to refute all their arguments, to produce books which might convict them of forgery, to insist on a

"It is not that they were so blind as not to see that this encroachment on liberty, which has induced so many

doctors to withdraw from the meetings, would do no good to their censure; and that the protest of nullity,

taken on this ground by M. Arnauld before it was concluded, would be a bad preamble for securing it a

favourable reception. They know very well that unprejudiced persons place fully as much weight on the

judgement of seventy doctors, who had nothing to gain by defending M. Arnauld, as on that of a hundred

others who had nothing to lose by condemning him. But, upon the whole, they considered that it would be of

vast importance to have a censure, although it should be the act of a party only in the Sorbonne, and not of

the whole body; although it should be carried with little or no freedom of debate and obtained by a great

many small manoeuvres not exactly according to order; although it should give no explanation of the matter

in dispute; although it should not point out in what this heresy consists, and should say as little as possible

about it, for fear of committing a mistake. This very silence is a mystery in the eyes of the simple; and the

censure will reap this singular advantage from it, that they may defy the most critical and subtle theologians

"Keep yourself easy, then, and do not be afraid of being set down as a heretic, though you should make use of

the condemned proposition. It is bad, I assure you, only as occurring in the second letter of M. Arnauld. If

you will not believe this statement on my word, I refer you to M. le Moine, the most zealous of the

examiners, who, in the course of conversation with a doctor of my acquaintance this very morning, on being

asked by him where lay the point of difference in dispute, and if one would no longer be allowed to say what

the fathers had said before him, made the following exquisite reply: 'This proposition would be orthodox in

the mouth of any other it is only as coming from M. Arnauld that the Sorbonne has condemned it!' You

must now be prepared to admire the machinery of Molinism, which can produce such prodigious

overturnings in the Church that what is Catholic in the fathers becomes heretical in M. Arnauld that what

is heretical in the SemiPelagians becomes orthodox in the writings of the Jesuits; the ancient doctrine of St.

Augustine becomes an intolerable innovation, and new inventions, daily fabricated before our eyes, pass for

This information has satisfied my purpose. I gather from it that this same heresy is one of an entirely new

species. It is not the sentiments of M. Arnauld that are heretical; it is only his person. This is a personal

heresy. He is not a heretic for anything he has said or written, but simply because he is M. Arnauld. This is all

they have to say against him. Do what he may, unless he cease to be, he will never be a good Catholic. The

grace of St. Augustine will never be the true grace, so long as he continues to defend it. It would become so at

once, were he to take it into his head to impugn it. That would be a sure stroke, and almost the only plan for

establishing the truth and demolishing Molinism; such is the fatality attending all the opinions which he

Let us leave them, then, to settle their own differences. These are the disputes of theologians, not of theology.

We, who are no doctors, have nothing to do with their quarrels. Tell our friends the news of the censure, and

Nothing can come up to the Jesuits. I have seen Jacobins, doctors, and all sorts of people in my day, but such

an interview as I have just had was wanting to complete my knowledge of mankind. Other men are merely

copies of them. As things are always found best at the fountainhead, I paid a visit to one of the ablest among

them, in company with my trusty Jansenist the same who accompanied me to the Dominicans. Being

particularly anxious to learn something of a dispute which they have with the Jansenists about what they call

actual grace, I said to the worthy father that I would be much obliged to him if he would instruct me on this

point that I did not even know what the term meant and would thank him to explain it. "With all my heart,"

the Jesuit replied; "for I dearly love inquisitive people. Actual grace, according to our definition, 'is an

inspiration of God, whereby He makes us to know His will and excites within us a desire to perform it.'"

"And where," said I, "lies your difference with the Jansenists on this subject?"

"The difference lies here," he replied; "we hold that God bestows actual grace on all men in every case of

temptation; for we maintain that unless a person have, whenever tempted, actual grace to keep him from

sinning, his sin, whatever it may be, can never be imputed to him. The Jansenists, on the other hand, affirm

that sins, though committed without actual grace, are, nevertheless, imputed; but they are a pack of fools." I

got a glimpse of his meaning; but, to obtain from him a fuller explanation, I observed: "My dear father, it is

that phrase actual grace that puzzles me; I am quite a stranger to it, and if you would have the goodness to tell

me the same thing over again, without employing that term, you would infinitely oblige me."

"Very good," returned the father; "that is to say, you want me to substitute the definition in place of the thing

defined; that makes no alteration of the sense; I have no objections. We maintain it, then, as an undeniable

principle, that an action cannot be imputed as a sin, unless God bestow on us, before committing it, the

knowledge of the evil that is in the action, and an inspiration inciting us to avoid it. Do you understand me

Astonished at such a declaration, according to which, no sins of surprise, nor any of those committed in entire

forgetfulness of God, could be imputed, I turned round to my friend the Jansenist and easily discovered from

his looks that he was of a different way of thinking. But as he did not utter a word, I said to the monk, "I

would fain wish, my dear father, to think that what you have now said is true, and that you have good proofs

"Proofs, say you!" he instantly exclaimed: "I shall furnish you with these very soon, and the very best sort

So saying, he went in search of his books, and I took this opportunity of asking my friend if there was any

other person who talked in this manner? "Is this so strange to you?" he replied. "You may depend upon it that

neither the fathers, nor the popes, nor councils, nor Scripture, nor any book of devotion employ such

language; but, if you wish casuists and modern schoolmen, he will bring you a goodly number of them on his

side." "O! but I care not a fig about these authors, if they are contrary to tradition," I said. "You are right," he

As he spoke, the good father entered the room, laden with books; and presenting to me the first that came to

hand. "Read that," he said; "this is The Summary of Sins, by Father Bauny the fifth edition too, you see,

"It is a pity, however," whispered the Jansenist in my ear, "that this same book has been condemned at Rome,

"Look at page 906," said the father. I did so and read as follows: "In order to sin and become culpable in the

sight of God, it is necessary to know that the thing we wish to do is not good, or at least to doubt that it is to

fear or to judge that God takes no pleasure in the action which we contemplate, but forbids it; and in spite of

"This is a good commencement," I remarked. "And yet," said he, "mark how far envy will carry some people.

It was on that very passage that M. Hallier, before he became one of our friends, bantered Father Bauny, by

applying to him these words: Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi 'Behold the man that taketh away the sins of the

"Certainly," said I, "according to Father Bauny, we may be said to behold a redemption of an entirely new

"Would you have a more authentic witness on the point?" added he. "Here is the book of Father Annat. It is

the last that he wrote against M. Arnauld. Turn up to page 34, where there is a dog's ear, and read the lines

which I have marked with pencil they ought to be written in letters of gold." I then read these words: "He

that has no thought of God, nor of his sins, nor any apprehension (that is, as he explained it, any knowledge)

of his obligation to exercise the acts of love to God or contrition, has no actual grace for exercising those acts;

but it is equally true that he is guilty of no sin in omitting them, and that, if he is damned, it will not be as a

punishment for that omission." And a few lines below, he adds: "The same thing may be said of a culpable

"You see," said the monk, "how he speaks of sins of omission and of commission. Nothing escapes him.

"Say!" I exclaimed. "I am delighted! What a charming train of consequences do I discover flowing from this

doctrine! I can see the whole results already; and such mysteries present themselves before me! Why, I see

more people, beyond all comparison, justified by this ignorance and forgetfulness of God, than by grace and

the sacraments! But, my dear father, are you not inspiring me with a delusive joy? Are you sure there is

nothing here like that sufficiency which suffices not? I am terribly afraid of the Distinguo; I was taken in with

"How now!" cried the monk, beginning to get angry, "here is no matter for jesting. I assure you there is no

"I am not making a jest of it, said I; "but that is what I really dread, from pure anxiety to find it true."

"Well then," he said, "to assure yourself still more of it, here are the writings of M. le Moine, who taught the

doctrine in a full meeting of the Sorbonne. He learned it from us, to be sure; but he has the merit of having

cleared it up most admirably. O how circumstantially he goes to work! He shows that, in order to make out

action to be a sin, all these things must have passed through the mind. Read, and weigh every word." I then

read what I now give you in a translation from the original Latin: "1. On the one hand, God sheds abroad on

the soul some measure of love, which gives it a bias toward the thing commanded; and on the other, a

rebellious concupiscence solicits it in the opposite direction. 2. God inspires the soul with a knowledge of its

own weakness. 3. God reveals the knowledge of the physician who can heal it. 4. God inspires it with a desire

"And unless all these things occur and pass through the soul," added the monk, "the action is not properly a

sin, and cannot be imputed, as M. le Moine shows in the same place and in what follows. Would you wish to

"So I perceive," said I to him aside; and then, turning to the monk: "O my dear sir," cried I, "what a blessing

this will be to some persons of my acquaintance! I must positively introduce them to you. You have never,

perhaps, met with people who had fewer sins to account for all your life. For, in the first place, they never

think of God at all; their vices have got the better of their reason; they have never known either their

weakness or the physician who can cure it; they have never thought of 'desiring the health of their soul,' and

still less of 'praying to God to bestow it'; so that, according to M. le Moine, they are still in the state of

baptismal innocence. They have 'never had a thought of loving God or of being contrite for their sins'; so that,

according to Father Annat, they have never committed sin through the want of charity and penitence. Their

life is spent in a perpetual round of all sorts of pleasures, in the course of which they have not been

interrupted by the slightest remorse. These excesses had led me to imagine that their perdition was inevitable;

but you, father, inform me that these same excesses secure their salvation. Blessings on you, my good father,

for this way of justifying people! Others prescribe painful austerities for healing the soul; but you show that

souls which may be thought desperately distempered are in quite good health. What an excellent device for

being happy both in this world and in the next! I had always supposed that the less a man thought of God, the

more he sinned; but, from what I see now, if one could only succeed in bringing himself not to think upon

God at all, everything would be pure with him in all time coming. Away with your halfandhalf sinners,

who retain some sneaking affection for virtue! They will be damned every one of them, these semisinners.

But commend me to your arrant sinners hardened, unalloyed, outandout, thoroughbred sinners. Hell is

no place for them; they have cheated the devil, purely by virtue of their devotion to his service!"

The good father, who saw very well the connection between these consequences and his principle,

dexterously evaded them; and, maintaining his temper, either from good nature or policy, he merely replied:

"To let you understand how we avoid these inconveniences, you must know that, while we affirm that these

reprobates to whom you refer would be without sin if they had no thoughts of conversion and no desires to

devote themselves to God, we maintain that they all actually have such thoughts and desires, and that God

never permitted a man to sin without giving him previously a view of the evil which he contemplated, and a

desire, either to avoid the offence, or at all events to implore his aid to enable him to avoid it; and none but

"Strange! father," returned I; "is this, then, the heresy of the Jansenists, to deny that every time a man

commits a sin he is troubled with a remorse of conscience, in spite of which, he 'leaps the fence and

transgresses,' as Father Bauny has it? It is rather too good a joke to be made a heretic for that. I can easily

believe that a man may be damned for not having good thoughts; but it never would have entered my head to

imagine that any man could be subjected to that doom for not believing that all mankind must have good

thoughts! But, father, I hold myself bound in conscience to disabuse you and to inform you that there are

thousands of people who have no such desires who sin without regret who sin with delight who make a

boast of sinning. And who ought to know better about these things than yourself.? You cannot have failed to

have confessed some of those to whom I allude; for it is among persons of high rank that they are most

generally to be met with. But mark, father, the dangerous consequences of your maxim. Do you not perceive

what effect it may have on those libertines who like nothing better than to find out matter of doubt in

religion? What a handle do you give them, when you assure them, as an article of faith, that, on every

occasion when they commit a sin, they feel an inward presentiment of the evil and a desire to avoid it? Is it

not obvious that, feeling convinced by their own experience of the falsity of your doctrine on this point,

which you say is a matter of faith, they will extend the inference drawn from this to all the other points? They

will argue that, since you are not trustworthy in one article, you are to be suspected in them all; and thus you

shut them up to conclude either that religion is false or that you must know very little about it."

Here my friend the Jansenist, following up my remarks, said to him: "You would do well, father, if you wish

to preserve your doctrine, not to explain so precisely as you have done to us what you mean by actual grace.

For, how could you, without forfeiting all credit in the estimation of men, openly declare that nobody sins

without having previously the knowledge of his weakness, and of a physician, or the desire of a cure, and of

asking it of God? Will it be believed, on your word, that those who are immersed in avarice, impurity,

blasphemy, duelling, revenge, robbery and sacrilege, have really a desire to embrace chastity, humility, and

the other Christian virtues? Can it be conceived that those philosophers who boasted so loudly of the powers

of nature, knew its infirmity and its physician? Will you maintain that those who held it as a settled maxim

that is not God that bestows virtue, and that no one ever asked it from him,' would think of asking it for

themselves? Who can believe that the Epicureans, who denied a divine providence, ever felt any inclination

to pray to God? men who said that 'it would be an insult to invoke the Deity in our necessities, as if he were

capable of wasting a thought on beings like us?' In a word, how can it be imagined that idolaters and atheists,

every time they are tempted to the commission of sin, in other words, infinitely often during their lives, have

a desire to pray to the true God, of whom they are ignorant, that he would bestow on them virtues of which

"Yes," said the worthy monk, in a resolute tone, "we will affirm it: and sooner than allow that any one sins

without having the consciousness that he is doing evil, and the desire of the opposite virtue, we will maintain

that the whole world, reprobates and infidels included, have these inspirations and desires in every case of

temptation. You cannot show me, from the Scripture at least, that this is not the truth."

On this remark I struck in, by exclaiming: "What! father, must we have recourse to the Scripture to

demonstrate a thing so clear as this? This is not a point of faith, nor even of reason. It is a matter of fact: we

But the Jansenist, keeping the monk to his own terms, addressed him as follows: "If you are willing, father, to

stand or fall by Scripture, I am ready to meet you there; only you must promise to yield to its authority; and,

since it is written that 'God has not revealed his judgements to the Heathen, but left them to wander in their

own ways,' you must not say that God has enlightened those whom the Sacred Writings assure us 'he has left

in darkness and in the shadow of death.' Is it not enough to show the erroneousness of your principle, to find

that St. Paul calls himself 'the chief of sinners,' for a sin which he committed 'ignorantly, and with zeal'? Is it

not enough, to and from the Gospel, that those who crucified Jesus Christ had need of the pardon which he

asked for them, although they knew not the malice of their action, and would never have committed it,

according to St. Paul, if they had known it? Is it not enough that Jesus Christ apprises us that there will be

persecutors of the Church, who, while making every effort to ruin her, will 'think that they are doing God

service'; teaching us that this sin, which in the judgement of the apostle, is the greatest of all sins, may be

committed by persons who, so far from knowing that they were sinning, would think that they sinned by not

committing it? In fine, it is not enough that Jesus Christ himself has taught us that there are two kinds of

sinners, the one of whom sin with 'knowledge of their Master's will,' and the other without knowledge; and

that both of them will be 'chastised,' although, indeed, in a different manner?"

Sorely pressed by so many testimonies from Scripture, to which he had appealed, the worthy monk began to

give way; and, leaving the wicked to sin without inspiration, he said: "You will not deny that good men, at

least, never sin unless God give them" "You are flinching," said I, interrupting him; "you are flinching now,

my good father; you abandon the general principle, and, finding that it will not hold good in regard to the

wicked, you would compound the matter, by making it apply at least to the righteous. But in this point of

view the application of it is, I conceive, so circumscribed that it will hardly apply to anybody, and it is

My friend, however, who was so ready on the whole question, that I am inclined to think he had studied it all

that very morning, replied: "This, father, is the last entrenchment to which those of your party who are

willing to reason at all are sure to retreat; but you are far from being safe even here. The example of the saints

is not a whit more in your favour. Who doubts that they often fall into sins of surprise, without being

conscious of them? Do we not learn from the saints themselves how often concupiscence lays hidden snares

for them; and how generally it happens, as St. Augustine complains of himself in his Confessions, that, with

all their discretion, they 'give to pleasure what they mean only to give to necessity'?

"How usual is it to see the more zealous friends of truth betrayed by the heat of controversy into sallies of

bitter passion for their personal interests, while their consciences, at the time, bear them no other testimony

than that they are acting in this manner purely for the interests of truth, and they do not discover their mistake

"What, again, shall we say of those who, as we learn from examples in ecclesiastical history, eagerly involve

themselves in affairs which are really bad, because they believe them to be really good; and yet this does not

hinder the fathers from condemning such persons as having sinned on these occasions?

"And were this not the case, how could the saints have their secret faults? How could it be true that God alone

knows the magnitude and the number of our offences; that no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or

love; and that the best of saints, though unconscious of any culpability, ought always, as St. Paul says of

"You perceive, then, father, that this knowledge of the evil and love of the opposite virtue, which you

imagine to be essential to constitute sin, are equally disproved by the examples of the righteous and of the

wicked. In the case of the wicked, their passion for vice sufficiently testifies that they have no desire for

virtue; and in regard to the righteous, the love which they bear to virtue plainly shows that they are not

always conscious of those sins which, as the Scripture teaches, they are daily committing.

"So true is it, indeed, that the righteous often sin through ignorance, that the greatest saints rarely sin

otherwise. For how can it be supposed that souls so pure, who avoid with so much care and zeal the least

things that can be displeasing to God as soon as they discover them, and who yet sin many times every day,

could possibly have every time before they fell into sin, 'the knowledge of their infirmity on that occasion,

and of their physician, and the desire of their souls' health, and of praying to God for assistance,' and that, in

spite of these inspirations, these devoted souls 'nevertheless transgress,' and commit the sin?

"You must conclude then, father, that neither sinners nor yet saints have always that knowledge, or those

desires and inspirations, every time they offend; that is, to use your own terms, they have not always actual

grace. Say no longer, with your modern authors, that it is impossible for those to sin who do not know

righteousness; but rather join with St. Augustine and the ancient fathers in saying that it is impossible not to

sin, when we do not know righteousness: Necesse est ut peccet, a quo ignoratur justilia."

The good father, though thus driven from both of his positions, did not lose courage, but after ruminating a

little, "Ha!" he exclaimed, "I shall convince you immediately." And again taking up Father Bauny, he pointed

to the same place he had before quoted, exclaiming, "Look now see the ground on which he establishes his

opinion! I was sure he would not be deficient in good proofs. Read what he quotes from Aristotle, and you

will see that, after so express an authority, you must either burn the books of this prince of philosophers or

adopt our opinion. Hear, then, the principles which support Father Bauny: Aristotle states first, 'that an action

"This is the first time you have agreed together," said I. "Take my advice, father, and proceed no further."

"That would be doing nothing," he replied; "we must know what are the conditions necessary to constitute an

"I am much afraid," returned I, "that you will get at loggerheads on that point."

"No fear of that," said he; "this is sure ground Aristotle is on my side. Hear now, what Father Bauny says:

'In order that an action be voluntary, it must proceed from a man who perceives, knows, and comprehends

what is good and what is evil in it. Voluntarium est that is a voluntary action, as we commonly say with the

philosopher' (that is Aristotle, you know, said the monk, squeezing my hand); 'quod fit a principio

cognoscente singula in quibus est actio which is done by a person knowing the particulars of the action; so

that when the will is led inconsiderately, and without mature reflection, to embrace or reject, to do or omit to

do anything, before the understanding has been able to see whether it would be right or wrong, such an action

is neither good nor evil; because previous to this mental inquisition, view, and reflection on the good or bad

qualities of the matter in question, the act by which it is done is not voluntary.' Are you satisfied now?" said

"It appears," returned I, "that Aristotle agrees with Father Bauny; but that does not prevent me from feeling

surprised at this statement. What, sir! is it not enough to make an action voluntary that the man knows what

he is doing, and does it just because he chooses to do it? Must we suppose, besides this, that he 'perceives,

knows, and comprehends what is good and evil in the action'? Why, on this supposition there would be hardly

such a thing in nature as voluntary actions, for no one scarcely thinks about all this. How many oaths in

gambling, how many excesses in debauchery, how many riotous extravagances in the carnival, must, on this

principle, be excluded from the list of voluntary actions, and consequently neither good nor bad, because not

accompanied by those 'mental reflections on the good and evil qualities' of the action? But is it possible,

father, that Aristotle held such a sentiment? I have always understood that he was a sensible man."

"I shall soon convince you of that, said the Jansenist, and requesting a sight of Aristotle's Ethics, he opened it

at the beginning of the third book, from which Father Bauny had taken the passage quoted, and said to the

monk: "I excuse you, my dear sir, for having believed, on the word of Father Bauny, that Aristotle held such

a sentiment; but you would have changed your mind had you read him for yourself. It is true that he teaches,

that 'in order to make an action voluntary, we must know the particulars of that action' singula in quibus est

actio. But what else does he means by that, than the circumstances of the action? The examples which he

adduces clearly show this to be his meaning, for they are exclusively confined to cases in which the persons

were ignorant of some of the circumstances; such as that of 'a person who, wishing to exhibit a machine,

discharges a dart which wounds a bystander; and that of Merope, who killed her own son instead of her

"Thus you see what is the kind of ignorance that renders actions involuntary; namely, that of the particular

circumstances, which is termed by divines, as you must know, ignorance of the fact. But with respect to

ignorance of the right ignorance of the good or evil in an action which is the only point in question, let us

see if Aristotle agrees with Father Bauny. Here are the words of the philosopher: 'All wicked men are

ignorant of what they ought to do, and what they ought to avoid; and it is this very ignorance which makes

them wicked and vicious. Accordingly, a man cannot be said to act involuntarily merely because he is

ignorant of what it is proper for him to do in order to fulfil his duty. This ignorance in the choice of good and

evil does not make the action involuntary; it only makes it vicious. The same thing may be affirmed of the

man who is ignorant generally of the rules of his duty; such ignorance is worthy of blame, not of excuse. And

consequently, the ignorance which renders actions involuntary and excusable is simply that which relates to

the fact and its particular circumstances. In this case the person is excused and forgiven, being considered as

"After this, father, will you maintain that Aristotle is of your opinion? And who can help being astonished to

find that a Pagan philosopher had more enlightened views than your doctors, in a matter so deeply affecting

morals, and the direction of conscience, too, as the knowledge of those conditions which render actions

voluntary or involuntary, and which, accordingly, charge or discharge them as sinful? Look for no more

support, then, father, from the prince of philosophers, and no longer oppose yourselves to the prince of

theologians, who has thus decided the point in the first book of his Retractations, chapter xv: 'Those who sin

through ignorance, though they sin without meaning to sin, commit the deed only because they will commit

it. And, therefore, even this sin of ignorance cannot be committed except by the will of him who commits it,

though by a will which incites him to the action merely, and not to the sin; and yet the action itself is

nevertheless sinful, for it is enough to constitute it such that he has done what he was bound not to do.'"

The Jesuit seemed to be confounded more with the passage from Aristotle, I thought, than that from St.

Augustine; but while he was thinking on what he could reply, a messenger came to inform him that Madame

la Marechale of , and Madame the Marchioness of , requested his attendance. So, taking a hasty leave of

us, he said: "I shall speak about it to our fathers. They will find an answer to it, I warrant you; we have got

We understood him perfectly well; and, on our being left alone, I expressed to my friend my astonishment at

the subversion which this doctrine threatened to the whole system of morals. To this he replied that he was

quite astonished at my astonishment. "Are you not yet aware," he said, "that they have gone to far greater

excess in morals than in any other matter?" He gave me some strange illustrations of this, promising me more

at some future time. The information which I may receive on this point will, I hope, furnish the topic of my

According to my promise, I now send you the first outlines of the morals taught by those good fathers the

Jesuits, "those men distinguished for learning and sagacity, who are all under the guidance of divine wisdom

a surer guide than all philosophy." You imagine, perhaps, that I am in jest, but I am perfectly serious; or

rather, they are so when they speak thus of themselves in their book entitied The Image of the First Century. I

am only copying their own words, and may now give you the rest of the eulogy: "They are a society of men,

or rather let us call them angels, predicted by Isaiah in these words, 'Go, ye swift and ready angels.'" The

prediction is as clear as day, is it not? "They have the spirit of eagles they are a flock of phoenixes (a late

author having demonstrated that there are a great many of these birds); they have changed the face of

Christendom!" Of course, we must believe all this, since they have said it; and in one sense you will find the

account amply verified by the sequel of this communication, in which I propose to treat of their maxims.

Determined to obtain the best possible information, I did not trust to the representations of our friend the

Jansenist, but sought an interview with some of themselves. I found however, that he told me nothing but the

bare truth, and I am persuaded he is an honest man. Of this you may judge from the following account of

In the conversation I had with the Jansenist, he told me so many strange things about these fathers that I could

with difficulty believe them, till he pointed them out to me in their writings; after which he left me nothing

more to say in their defence than that these might be the sentiments of some individuals only, which it was

not fair to impute to the whole fraternity. And, indeed, I assured him that I knew some of them who were as

severe as those whom he quoted to me were lax. This led him to explain to me the spirit of the Society, which

is not known to every one; and you will perhaps have no objections to learning something about it.

"You imagine," he began, "that it would tell considerably in their favour to show that some of their fathers

are as friendly to Evangelical maxims as others are opposed to them; and you would conclude from that

circumstance, that these loose opinions do not belong to the whole Society. That I grant you; for had such

been the case, they would not have suffered persons among them holding sentiments so diametrically

opposed to licentiousness. But, as it is equally true that there are among them those who hold these licentious

doctrines, you are bound also to conclude that the holy Spirit of the Society is not that of Christian severity,

for had such been the case, they would not have suffered persons among them holding sentiments so

"And what, then," I asked, "can be the design of the whole as a body? Perhaps they have no fixed principle,

"That cannot be," returned my friend; "such an immense body could not subsist in such a haphazard sort of

way, or without a soul to govern and regulate its movements; besides, it is one of their express regulations

"But," said I, "how can these same superiors give their consent to maxims so contradictory?"

"That is what you have yet to learn," he replied. "Know then that their object is not the corruption of

manners that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them that would be bad policy.

Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in

some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and

that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing

some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as

these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such

persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world. Accordingly, having to deal with persons of all

classes and of all different nations, they find it necessary to have casuists assorted to match this diversity.

"On this principle, you will easily see that, if they had none but the looser sort of casuists, they would defeat

their main design, which is to embrace all; for those that are truly pious are fond of a stricter discipline. But

as there are not many of that stamp, they do not require many severe directors to guide them. They have a few

for the select few; while whole multitudes of lax casuists are provided for the multitudes that prefer laxity.

"It is in virtue of this 'obliging and accommodating, conduct,' as Father Petau calls it, that they may be said to

stretch out a helping hand to all mankind. Should any person present himself before them, for example, fully

resolved to make restitution of some illgotten gains, do not suppose that they would dissuade him from it.

By no means; on the contrary, they would applaud and confirm him in such a holy resolution. But suppose

another should come who wishes to be absolved without restitution, and it will be a particularly hard case

indeed, if they cannot furnish him with means of evading the duty, of one kind or another, the lawfulness of

"By this policy they keep all their friends, and defend themselves against all their foes; for when charged with

extreme laxity, they have nothing more to do than produce their austere directors, with some books which

they have written on the severity of the Christian code of morals; and simple people, or those who never look

below the surface of things, are quite satisfied with these proofs of the falsity of the accusation.

"Thus, are they prepared for all sorts of persons, and so ready are they to suit the supply to the demand that,

when they happen to be in any part of the world where the doctrine of a crucified God is accounted

foolishness, they suppress the offence of the cross and preach only a glorious and not a suffering Jesus Christ.

This plan they followed in the Indies and in China, where they permitted Christians to practise idolatry itself,

with the aid of the following ingenious contrivance: they made their converts conceal under their clothes an

image of Jesus Christ, to which they taught them to transfer mentally those adorations which they rendered

ostensibly to the idol of Cachinchoam and Keumfucum. This charge is brought against them by Gravina, a

Dominican, and is fully established by the Spanish memorial presented to Philip IV, king of Spain, by the

Cordeliers of the Philippine Islands, quoted by Thomas Hurtado, in his Martyrdom of the Faith, page 427. To

such a length did this practice go that the Congregation De Propaganda were obliged expressly to forbid the

Jesuits, on pain of excommunication, to permit the worship of idols on any pretext whatever, or to conceal the

mystery of the cross from their catechumens; strictly enjoining them to admit none to baptism who were not

thus instructed, and ordering them to expose the image of the crucifix in their churches: all of which is amply

detailed in the decree of that Congregation, dated the 9th of July, 1646, and signed by Cardinal Capponi.

"Such is the manner in which they have spread themselves over the whole earth, aided by the doctrine of

probable opinions, which is at once the source and the basis of all this licentiousness. You must get some of

themselves to explain this doctrine to you. They make no secret of it, any more than of what you have already

learned; with this difference only, that they conceal their carnal and worldly policy under the garb of divine

and Christian prudence; as if the faith, and tradition, its ally, were not always one and the same at all times

and in all places; as if it were the part of the rule to bend in conformity to the subject which it was meant to

regulate; and as if souls, to be purified from their pollutions, had only to corrupt the law of the Lord, in place

of the law of the Lord, which is clean and pure, converting the soul which lieth in sin, and bringing it into

"Go and see some of these worthy fathers, I beseech you, and I am confident that you will soon discover, in

the laxity of their moral system, the explanation of their doctrine about grace. You will then see the Christian

virtues exhibited in such a strange aspect, so completely stripped of the charity which is the life and soul of

them, you will see so many crimes palliated and irregularities tolerated that you will no longer be surprised at

their maintaining that 'all men have always enough of grace' to lead a pious life, in the sense of which they

understand piety. Their morality being entirely Pagan, nature is quite competent to its observance. When we

maintain the necessity of efficacious grace, we assign it another sort of virtue for its object. Its office is not to

cure one vice by means of another; it is not merely to induce men to practise the external duties of religion: it

aims at a virtue higher than that propounded by Pharisees, or the greatest sages of Heathenism. The law and

reason are 'sufficient graces' for these purposes. But to disenthral the soul from the love of the world to tear

it from what it holds most dear to make it die to itself to lift it up and bind it wholly, only, and forever, to

God can be the work of none but an allpowerful hand. And it would be as absurd to affirm that we have the

full power of achieving such objects, as it would be to allege that those virtues, devoid of the love of God,

which these fathers confound with the virtues of Christianity, are beyond our power."

Such was the strain of my friend's discourse, which was delivered with much feeling; for he takes these sad

disorders very much to heart. For my own part, I began to entertain a high admiration for these fathers,

simply on account of the ingenuity of their policy; and, following his advice, I waited on a good casuist of the

Society, one of my old acquaintances, with whom I now resolved purposely to renew my former intimacy.

Having my instructions how to manage them, I had no great difficulty in getting him afloat. Retaining his old

attachment, he received me immediately with a profusion of kindness; and, after talking over some indifferent

matters, I took occasion from the present season to learn something from him about fasting and, thus, slip

insensibly into the main subject. I told him, therefore, that I had difficulty in supporting the fast. He exhorted

me to do violence to my inclinations; but, as I continued to murmur, he took pity on me and began to search

out some ground for a dispensation. In fact he suggested a number of excuses for me, none of which

happened to suit my case, till at length he bethought himself of asking me whether I did not find it difficult to

sleep without taking supper. "Yes, my good father," said I; "and for that reason I am obliged often to take a

"I am extremely happy," he replied, "to have found out a way of relieving you without sin: go in peace you

are under no obligation to fast. However, I would not have you depend on my word: step this way to the

On going thither with me he took up a book, exclaiming with great rapture, "Here is the authority for you:

"What! not know Escobar! " cried the monk; "the member of our Society who compiled this Moral Theology

from twentyfour of our fathers, and on this founds an analogy, in his preface, between his book and 'that in

the Apocalypse which was sealed with seven seals,' and states that 'Jesus presents it thus sealed to the four

living creatures, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, and Valencia, in presence of the fourandtwenty Jesuits who

He read me, in fact, the whole of that allegory, which he pronounced to be admirably appropriate, and which

conveyed to my mind a sublime idea of the exellence of the work. At length, having sought out the passage of

fasting, "Oh, here it is!" he said; "treatise I, example 13, no. 67: 'If a man cannot sleep without taking supper,

"Not exactly," replied I; "for I might sustain the fast by taking my refreshment in the morning, and supping at

"Listen, then, to what follows; they have provided for all that: 'And what is to be said, if the person might

"'Answer: Still he is not obliged to fast; because no person is obliged to change the order of his meals.'"

"I merely put the question," returned he, "to apprise you that you might, without breaking the fast, take a

glass or so in the morning, or whenever you felt inclined for a drop; and that is always something in the way

of supporting nature. Here is the decision at the same place, no. 57: 'May one, without breaking the fast, drink

wine at any hour he pleases, and even in a large quantity? Yes, he may: and a dram of hippocrass too.' I had

no recollection of the hippocrass," said the monk; "I must take a note of that in my memorandumbook."

"Oh! everybody likes him," rejoined the father; "he has such delightful questions! Only observe this one in

the same place, no. 38: 'If a man doubt whether he is twentyone years old, is he obliged to fast? No. But

suppose I were to be twentyone tonight an hour after midnight, and tomorrow were the fast, would I be

obliged to fast tomorrow? No; for you were at liberty to eat as much as you pleased for an hour after

midnight, not being till then fully twentyone; and therefore having a right to break the fast day, you are not

"Oh," rejoined the father, "it is impossible to tear one's self away from the book: I spend whole days and

The worthy monk, perceiving that I was interested, was quite delighted, and went on with his quotations.

"Now," said he, "for a taste of Filiutius, one of the fourandtwenty Jesuits: 'Is a man who has exhausted

himself any way by profligacy, for example obliged to fast? By no means. But if he has exhausted himself

expressly to procure a dispensation from fasting, will he be held obliged? He will not, even though he should

"Indeed, good father, I do not believe it yet," said I. "What! is it no sin for a man not to fast when he has it in

his power? And is it allowable to court occasions of committing sin, or rather, are we not bound to shun

"Oh!" rejoined the monk, "so you think that if a person experience some inconvenience in avoiding the

occasions of sin, he is still bound to do so? Not so thinks Father Bauny. 'Absolution,' says he, 'is not to be

refused to such as continue in the proximate occasions of sin, if they are so situated that they cannot give

them up without becoming the common talk of the world, or subjecting themselves to personal

"I am glad to hear it, father," I remarked; "and now that we are not obliged to avoid the occasions of sin,

"Even that is occasionally permitted," added he; "the celebrated casuist, Basil Ponce, has said so, and Father

Bauny quotes his sentiment with approbation in his Treatise on Penance, as follows: 'We may seek an

occasion of sin directly and designedly primo et per se when our own or our neighbour's spiritual or

"Truly," said I, "it appears to be all a dream to me, when I hear grave divines talking in this manner! Come

now, my dear father, tell me conscientiously, do you hold such a sentiment as that?"

"Not at all," he replied; "I was speaking on that point not according to my own conscience, but according to

that of Ponce and Father Bauny, and them you may follow with the utmost safety, for I assure you that they

"What, father! because they have put down these three lines in their books, will it therefore become allowable

to court the occasions of sin? I always thought that we were bound to take the Scripture and the tradition of

"Goodness!" cried the monk, "I declare you put me in mind of these Jansenists. Think you that Father Bauny

"I can easily see," replied the good father, "that you know nothing about our doctrine of probable opinions. If

you did, you would speak in another strain. Ah! my dear sir, I must really give you some instructions on this

point; without knowing this, positively you can understand nothing at all. It is the foundation the very A, B,

Glad to see him come to the point to which I had been drawing him on, I expressed my satisfaction and

"That," he replied, "our authors will answer better than I can do. The generality of them, and, among others,

our fourandtwenty elders, describe it thus: 'An opinion is called probable when it is founded upon reasons

of some consideration. Hence it may sometimes happen that a single very grave doctor may render an opinion

probable.' The reason is added: 'For a man particularly given to study would not adhere to an opinion unless

"So it would appear," I observed, with a smile, "that a single doctor may turn consciences round about and

"You must not laugh at it, sir," returned the monk; "nor need you attempt to combat the doctrine. The

Jansenists tried this; but they might have saved themselves the trouble it is too firmly established. Hear

Sanchez, one of the most famous of our fathers: 'You may doubt, perhaps, whether the authority of a single

good and learned doctor renders an opinion probable. I answer that it does; and this is confirmed by Angelus,

Sylvester, Navarre, Emanuel Sa, It is proved thus: A probable opinion is one that has a considerable

foundation. Now the authority of a learned and pious man is entitled to very great consideration; because

(mark the reason), if the testimony of such a man has great influence in convincing us that such and such an

event occurred, say at Rome, for example, why should it not have the same weight in the case of a question in

"An odd comparison this," interrupted I, "between the concerns of the world and those of conscience!"

"Have a little patience," rejoined the monk; "Sanchez answers that in the very next sentence: 'Nor can I assent

to the qualification made here by some writers, namely, that the authority of such a doctor, though sufficient

in matters of human right, is not so in those of divine right. It is of vast weight in both cases.'"

"Well, father," said I, frankly, "I really cannot admire that rule. Who can assure me, considering the freedom

your doctors claim to examine everything by reason, that what appears safe to one may seem so to all the

"You don't understand it," said he, interrupting me; "no doubt they are often of different sentiments, but what

signifies that? Each renders his own opinion probable and safe. We all know well enough that they are far

from being of the same mind; what is more, there is hardly an instance in which they ever agree. There are

very few questions, indeed, in which you do not find the one saying yes and the other saying no. Still, in all

these cases, each of the contrary opinions is probable. And hence Diana says on a certain subject: 'Ponce and

Sanchez hold opposite views of it; but, as they are both learned men, each renders his own opinion

"But, father," I remarked, "a person must be sadly embarrassed in choosing between them!" "Not at all," he

rejoined; "he has only to follow the opinion which suits him best." "What! if the other is more probable?" "It

does not signify," "And if the other is the safer?" "It does not signify," repeated the monk; "this is made quite

plain by Emanuel Sa, of our Society, in his Aphorisms: 'A person may do what he considers allowable

according to a probable opinion, though the contrary may be the safer one. The opinion of a single grave

"And if an opinion be at once the less probable and the less safe, it is allowable to follow it," I asked, "even in

"Once more, I say yes," replied the monk. "Hear what Filiutius, that great Jesuit of Rome, says: 'It is

allowable to follow the less probable opinion, even though it be the less safe one. That is the common

"Well, reverend father," said I, "you have given us elbowroom, at all events! Thanks to your probable

opinions, we have got liberty of conscience with a witness! And are you casuists allowed the same latitude in

"Oh, yes," said he, "we answer just as we please; or rather, I should say, just as it may please those who ask

our advice. Here are our rules, taken from Fathers Layman, Vasquez, Sanchez, and the fourandtwenty

worthies, in the words of Layman: 'A doctor, on being consulted, may give an advice, not only probable

according to his own opinion, but contrary to his own opinion, provided this judgement happens to be more

favourable or more agreeable to the person that consults him si forte haec favorabilior seu exoptatior sit.

Nay, I go further and say that there would be nothing unreasonable in his giving those who consult him a

judgement held to be probable by some learned person, even though he should be satisfied in his own mind

"Well, seriously, father," I said, "your doctrine is a most uncommonly comfortable one! Only think of being

allowed to answer yes or no, just as you please! It is impossible to prize such a privilege too highly. I see now

the advantage of the contrary opinions of your doctors. One of them always serves your turn, and the other

never gives you any annoyance. If you do not find your account on the one side, you fall back on the other

"That is quite true," he replied; "and, accordingly, we may always say with Diana, on his finding that Father

Bauny was on his side, while Father Lugo was against him: Saepe premente deo, fert deus alter opem."*

* Ovid, Appendice, xiii. "If pressed by any god, we will be delivered by another."

"I understand you," resumed I; "but a practical difficulty has just occurred to me, which is this, that supposing

a person to have consulted one of your doctors and obtained from him a pretty liberal opinion, there is some

danger of his getting into a scrape by meeting a confessor who takes a different view of the matter and

refuses him absolution unless he recant the sentiment of the casuist. Have you not provided for such a case as

"Can you doubt it?" he replied, "We have bound them, sir, to absolve their penitents who act according to

probable opinions, under the pain of mortal sin, to secure their compliance. 'When the penitent,' says Father

Bauny, 'follows a probable opinion, the confessor is bound to absolve him, though his opinion should differ

"How hasty you are!" rejoined the monk; "listen to what follows; he has expressly decided that, 'to refuse

absolution to a penitent who acts according to a probable opinion is a sin which is in its nature mortal.' And,

to settle that point, he cites the most illustrious of our fathers Suarez, Vasquez, and Sanchez."

"My dear sir," said I, "that is a most prudent regulation. I see nothing to fear now. No confessor can dare to

be refractory after this. Indeed, I was not aware that you had the power of issuing your orders on pain of

damnation. I thought that your skill had been confined to the taking away of sins; I had no idea that it

extended to the introduction of new ones. But, from what I now see, you are omnipotent."

"That is not a correct way of speaking," rejoined the father. "We do not introduce sins; we only pay attention

to them. I have had occasion to remark, two or three times during our conversation, that you are no great

"Be that as it may, father, you have at least answered my difficulty. But I have another to suggest. How do

you manage when the Fathers of the Church happen to differ from any of your casuists?"

"You really know very little of the subject," he replied. "The Fathers were good enough for the morality of

their own times; but they lived too far back for that of the present age, which is no longer regulated by them,

but by the modern casuists. On this Father Cellot, following the famous Reginald, remarks: 'In questions of

morals, the modern casuists are to be preferred to the ancient fathers, though those lived nearer to the times of

the apostles.' And following out this maxim, Diana thus decides: 'Are beneficiaries bound to restore their

revenue when guilty of malappropriation of it? The ancients would say yes, but the moderns say no; let us,

therefore, adhere to the latter opinion, which relieves from the obligation of restitution.'"

"Delightful words these, and most comfortable they must be to a great many people!" I observed.

"We leave the fathers," resumed the monk, "to those who deal with positive divinity. As for us, who are the

directors of conscience, we read very little of them and quote only the modern casuists. There is Diana, for

instance, a most voluminous writer; he has prefixed to his works a list of his authorities, which amount to two

hundred and ninetysix, and the most ancient of them is only about eighty years old."

"It would appear, then," I remarked, "that all these have come into the world since the date of your Society?"

"That is to say, dear father, on your advent, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and all

the rest, in so far as morals are concerned, disappeared from the stage. Would you be so kind as let me know

"A most able and renowned class of men they are," replied the monk. "Their names are: Villalobos, Conink,

Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer, Dellacruz, Veracruz, Ugolin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, Suarez,

Henriquez, Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez, Sanchez, De Vechis, De Grassis, De Grassalis, De Pitigianis, De

Graphaeis, Squilanti, Bizozeri, Barcola, De Bobadilla, Simanacha, Perez de Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, De

Scarcia, Quaranta, Scophra, Pedrezza, Cabrezza, Bisbe, Dias, De Clavasio, Villagut, Adam a Manden,

"How! Christians!" returned the casuist; "did I not tell you that these are the only writers by whom we now

Deeply affected as I was by this announcement, I concealed my emotion from the monk and only asked him

"No," said he; "but that is of little consequence; they have said a number of good things for all that. It is true

the greater part of these same good things are extracted or copied from our authors, but we do not stand on

ceremony with them on that score, more especially as they are in the constant habit of quoting our authors

with applause. When Diana, for example, who does not belong to our Society, speaks of Vasquez, he calls

him 'that phoenix of genius'; and he declares more than once 'that Vasquez alone is to him worth all the rest

of men put together' instar omnium. Accordingly, our fathers often make use of this good Diana; and, if you

understand our doctrine of probability, you will see that this is no small help in its way. In fact, we are

anxious that others besides the Jesuits would render their opinions probable, to prevent people from ascribing

them all to us; for you will observe that, when any author, whoever he may be, advances a probable opinion,

we are entitled, by the doctrine of probability, to adopt it if we please; and yet, if the author does not belong

"I understand all that," said I. "It is easy to see that all are welcome that come your way, except the ancient

fathers; you are masters of the field, and have only to walk the course. But I foresee three or four serious

"They are the Holy Scriptures," I replied, "the popes, and the councils, whom you cannot gainsay, and who

"Is that all?" he exclaimed; "I declare you put me in a fright. Do you imagine that we would overlook such an

obvious scruple as that, or that we have not provided against it? A good idea, forsooth, to suppose that we

would contradict Scripture, popes, and councils! I must convince you of your mistake; for I should be sorry

you should go away with an impression that we are deficient in our respect to these authorities. You have

doubtless taken up this notion from some of the opinions of our fathers, which are apparently at variance with

their decisions, though in reality they are not. But to illustrate the harmony between them would require more

leisure than we have at present; and, as I would not like you to retain a bad impression of us, if you agree to

Thus ended our interview, and thus shall end my present communication, which has been long enough,

besides, for one letter. I am sure you will be satisfied with it, in the prospect of what is forthcoming. I am,

I mentioned, at the close of my last letter, that my good friend, the Jesuit, had promised to show me how the

casuists reconcile the contrarieties between their opinions and the decisions of the popes, the councils, and

the Scripture. This promise he fulfilled at our last interview, of which I shall now give you an account.

"One of the methods," resumed the monk, "in which we reconcile these apparent contradictions, is by the

interpretation of some phrase. Thus, Pope Gregory XIV decided that assassins are not worthy to enjoy the

benefit of sanctuary in churches and ought to be dragged out of them; and yet our fourandtwenty elders

affirm that 'the penalty of this bull is not incurred by all those that kill in treachery.' This may appear to you a

contradiction; but we get over this by interpreting the word assassin as follows: 'Are assassins unworthy of

sanctuary in churches? Yes, by the bull of Gregory XIV they are. But by the word assassins we understand

those that have received money to murder one; and, accordingly, such as kill without taking any reward for

the deed, but merely to oblige their friends, do not come under the category of assassins.'"

"Take another instance: It is said in the Gospel, 'Give alms of your superfluity.' Several casuists, however,

have contrived to discharge the wealthiest from the obligation of almsgiving. This may appear another

paradox, but the matter is easily put to rights by giving such an interpretation to the word superfluity that it

will seldom or never happen that any one is troubled with such an article. This feat has been accomplished by

the learned Vasquez, in his Treatise on Alms, c. 4: 'What men of the world lay up to improve their

circumstances, or those of their relatives, cannot be termed superfluity, and accordingly, such a thing as

superfluity is seldom to be found among men of the world, not even excepting kings.' Diana, too, who

generally founds on our fathers, having quoted these words of Vasquez, justly concludes, 'that as to the

question whether the rich are bound to give alms of their superfluity, even though the affirmative were true, it

"I see very well how that follows from the doctrine of Vasquez," said I. "But how would you answer this

objection, that, in working out one's salvation, it would be as safe, according to Vasquez, to give no alms,

provided one can muster as much ambition as to have no superfluity; as it is safe, according to the Gospel, to

have no ambition at all, in order to have some superfluity for the purpose of almsgiving?"

"Why," returned he, "the answer would be that both of these ways are safe according to the Gospel; the one

according to the Gospel in its more literal and obvious sense, and the other according to the same Gospel as

interpreted by Vasquez. There you see the utility of interpretations. When the terms are so clear, however,"

he continued, "as not to admit of an interpretation, we have recourse to the observation of favourable

circumstances. A single example will illustrate this. The popes have denounced excommunication on monks

who lay aside their canonicals; our casuists, notwithstanding, put it as a question, 'On what occasions may a

monk lay aside his religious habits without incurring excommunication?' They mention a number of cases in

which they may, and among others the following: 'If he has laid it aside for an infamous purpose, such as to

pick pockets or to go incognito into haunts of profligacy, meaning shortly after to resume it.' It is evident the

I could hardly believe that and begged the father to show me the passage in the original. He did so, and under

the chapter headed "Practice according to the School of the Society of Jesus" Praxis ex Societatis Jesu

Schola I read these very words: Si habitum dimittat ut furetur occulte, vel fornicetur. He showed me the

same thing in Diana, in these terms: Ut eat incognitus ad lupanar. "And why, father," I asked, "are they

"Don't you understand it?" he replied. "Only think what a scandal it would be, were a monk surprised in such

a predicament with his canonicals on! And have you never heard," he continued, "how they answer the first

bull contra sollicitantes and how our fourandtwenty, in another chapter of the Practice according to the

"I got him only yesterday, father, said I; "and I had no small difficulty, too, in procuring a copy. I don't know

"The passage to which I referred," returned the monk, "may be found in treatise I, example 8, no. 102.

I did so that very night; but it is so shockingly bad that I dare not transcribe it.

The good father then went on to say: "You now understand what use we make of favourable circumstances.

Sometimes, however, obstinate cases will occur, which will not admit of this mode of adjustment; so much

so, indeed, that you would almost suppose they involved flat contradictions. For example, three popes have

decided that monks who are bound by a particular vow to a Lenten life cannot be absolved from it even

though they should become bishops. And yet Diana avers that notwithstanding this decision they are

"By the most subtle of all the modern methods, and by the nicest possible application of probability," replied

the monk. "You may recollect you were told the other day that the affirmative and negative of most opinions

have each, according to our doctors, some probability enough, at least, to be followed with a safe conscience.

Not that the pro and con are both true in the same sense that is impossible but only they are both probable

and, therefore, safe, as a matter of course. On this principle our worthy friend Diana remarks: 'To the decision

of these three popes, which is contrary to my opinion, I answer that they spoke in this way by adhering to the

affirmative side which, in fact, even in my judgement, is probable; but it does not follow from this that the

negative may not have its probability too.' And in the same treatise, speaking of another subject on which he

again differs from a pope, he says: 'The pope, I grant, has said it as the head of the Church; but his decision

does not extend beyond the sphere of the probability of his own opinion.' Now you perceive this is not doing

any harm to the opinions of the popes; such a thing would never be tolerated at Rome, where Diana is in high

repute. For he does not say that what the popes have decided is not probable; but leaving their opinion within

"Yes," added the monk, "and rather more ingenious than the reply made by Father Bauny, when his books

were censured at Rome; for, when pushed very hard on this point by M. Hallier, he made bold to write: 'What

has the censure of Rome to do with that of France?' You now see how, either by the interpretation of terms,

by the observation of favourable circumstances, or by the aid of the double probability of pro and con, we

always contrive to reconcile those seeming contradictions which occasioned you so much surprise, without

"Reverend father," said I, "how happy the world is in having such men as you for its masters! And what

blessings are these probabilities! I never knew the reason why you took such pains to establish that a single

doctor, if a grave one, might render an opinion probable, and that the contrary might be so too, and that one

may choose any side one pleases, even though he does not believe it to be the right side, and all with such a

safe conscience, that the confessor who should refuse him absolution on the faith of the casuists would be in a

state of damnation. But I see now that a single casuist may make new rules of morality at his discretion and

dispose, according to his fancy, of everything pertaining to the regulation of manners."

"What you have now said," rejoined the father, "would require to be modified a little. Pay attention now,

while I explain our method, and you will observe the progress of a new opinion, from its birth to its maturity.

First, the grave doctor who invented it exhibits it to the world, casting it abroad like seed, that it may take

root. In this state it is very feeble; it requires time gradually to ripen. This accounts for Diana, who has

introduced a great many of these opinions, saying: 'I advance this opinion; but as it is new, I give it time to

come to maturity relinquo tempori maturandum.' Thus in a few years it becomes insensibly consolidated;

and, after a considerable time, it is sanctioned by the tacit approbation of the Church, according to the grand

maxim of Father Bauny, 'that if an opinion has been advanced by some casuist, and has not been impugned

by the Church, it is a sign that she approves of it.' And, in fact, on this principle he authenticates one of his

"Indeed, father! " cried I, "why, on this principle the Church would approve of all the abuses which she

"Dispute the point with Father Bauny," he replied. "I am merely quoting his words, and you begin to quarrel

with me. There is no disputing with facts, sir. Well, as I was saying, when time has thus matured an opinion,

it thenceforth becomes completely probable and safe. Hence the learned Caramuel, in dedicating his

Fundamental Theology to Diana, declares that this great Diana has rendered many opinions probable which

were not so before quae antea non erant, and that, therefore, in following them, persons do not sin now,

though they would have sinned formerly jam non peccant, licet ante peccaverint."

"Truly, father," I observed, "it must be worth one's while living in the neighbourhood of your doctors. Why,

of two individuals who do the same actions, he that knows nothing about their doctrine sins, while he that

knows it does no sin. It seems, then, that their doctrine possesses at once an edifying and a justifying virtue!

The law of God, according to St. Paul, made transgressors; but this law of yours makes nearly all of us

innocent. I beseech you, my dear sir, let me know all about it. I will not leave you till you have told me all the

"Alas!" the monk exclaimed, "our main object, no doubt, should have been to establish no other maxims than

those of the Gospel in all their strictness: and it is easy to see, from the Rules for the regulation of our

manners, that, if we tolerate some degree of relaxation in others, it is rather out of complaisance than through

design. The truth is, sir, we are forced to it. Men have arrived at such a pitch of corruption nowadays that,

unable to make them come to us, we must e'en go to them, otherwise they would cast us off altogether; and,

what is worse, they would become perfect castaways. It is to retain such characters as these that our casuists

have taken under consideration the vices to which people of various conditions are most addicted, with the

view of laying down maxims which, while they cannot be said to violate the truth, are so gentle that he must

be a very impracticable subject indeed who is not pleased with them. The grand project of our Society, for the

good of religion, is never to repulse any one, let him be what he may, and so avoid driving people to despair.

"They have got maxims, therefore, for all sorts of persons; for beneficiaries, for priests, for monks; for

gentlemen, for servants; for rich men, for commercial men; for people in embarrassed or indigent

circumstances; for devout women, and women that are not devout; for married people, and irregular people.

"In other words," said I, "they have got maxims for the clergy, the nobility, and the commons. Well, I am

"Let us commence," resumed the father, 'with the beneficiaries. You are aware of the traffic with benefices

that is now carried on, and that, were the matter referred to St. Thomas and the ancients who had written on

it, there might chance to be some simoniacs in the Church. This rendered it highly necessary for our fathers to

exercise their prudence in finding out a palliative. With what success they have done so will appear from the

following words of Valencia, who is one of Escobar's 'four living creatures.' At the end of a long discourse, in

which he suggests various expedients, he propounds the following at page 2039, vol. iii, which, to my mind,

is the best: 'If a person gives a temporal in exchange for a spiritual good' that is, if he gives money for a

benefice 'and gives the money as the price of the benefice, it is manifest simony. But if he gives it merely as

the motive which inclines the will of the patron to confer on him the living, it is not simony, even though the

person who confers it considers and expects the money as the principal object.' Tanner, who is also a member

of our Society, affirms the same thing, vol. iii, p.1519, although he 'grants that St. Thomas is opposed to it;

for he expressly teaches that it is always simony to give a spiritual for a temporal good, if the temporal is the

end in view.' By this means we prevent an immense number of simoniacal transactions; for who would be so

desperately wicked as to refuse, when giving money for a benefice, to take the simple precaution of so

directing his intentions as to give it as a motive to induce the beneficiary to part with it, instead of giving it as

the price of the benefice? No man, surely, can be so far left to himself as that would come to."

"I agree with you there," I replied; "all men, I should think, have sufficient grace to make a bargain of that

"There can be no doubt of it," returned the monk. "Such, then, is the way in which we soften matters in regard

to the beneficiaries. And now for the priests we have maxims pretty favourable to them also. Take the

following, for example, from our fourandtwenty elders: "Can a priest, who has received money to say a

mass, take an additional sum upon the same mass? Yes, says Filiutius, he may, by applying that part of the

sacrifice which belongs to himself as a priest to the person who paid him last; provided he does not take a

"Surely, father," said I, "this must be one of those cases in which the pro and the con have both their share of

probability. What you have now stated cannot fail, of course, to be probable, having the authority of such

men as Filiutius and Escobar; and yet, leaving that within the sphere of probability, it strikes me that the

contrary opinion might be made out to be probable too, and might be supported by such reasons as the

following: That, while the Church allows priests who are in poor circumstances to take money for their

masses, seeing it is but right that those who serve at the altar should live by the altar, she never intended that

they should barter the sacrifice for money, and, still less, that they should deprive themselves of those

benefits which they ought themselves, in the first place, to draw from it; to which I might add that, according

to St. Paul, the priests are to offer sacrifice first for themselves and then for the people; and that, accordingly,

while permitted to participate with others in the benefit of the sacrifice, they are not at liberty to forego their

share by transferring it to another for a third of a mass, or, in other words, for the matter of fourpence or

fivepence. Verily, father, little as I pretend to be a grave man, I might contrive to make this opinion

"It would cost you no great pains to do that, replied the monk; "it is visibly probable already. The difficulty

lies in discovering probability in the converse of opinions manifestly good; and this is a feat which none but

great men can achieve. Father Bauny shines in this department. It is really delightful to see that learned

casuist examining with characteristic ingenuity and subtlety the negative and affirmative of the same

question, and proving both of them to be right! Thus in the matter of priests, he says in one place: 'No law can

be made to oblige the curates to say mass every day; for such a law would unquestionably (haud dubie)

expose them to the danger of saying it sometimes in mortal sin.' And yet, in another part of the same treatise,

he says, 'that priests who have received money for saying mass every day ought to say it every day, and that

they cannot excuse themselves on the ground that they are not always in a fit state for the service; because it

is in their power at all times to do penance, and if they neglect this they have themselves to blame for it and

not the person who made them say mass.' And to relieve their minds from all scruples on the subject, he thus

resolves the question: 'May a priest say mass on the same day in which he has committed a mortal sin of the

worst kind, in the way of confessing himself beforehand?' Villalobos says no, because of his impurity; but

Sancius says: 'He may without any sin; and I hold his opinion to be safe, and one which may be followed in

"Follow this opinion in practice!" cried I. "Will any priest who has fallen into such irregularities have the

assurance on the same day to approach the altar, on the mere word of Father Bauny? Is he not bound to

submit to the ancient laws of the Church, which debarred from the sacrifice forever, or at least for a long

time, priests who had committed sins of that description instead of following the modern opinions of

"You have a very short memory, returned the monk. "Did I not inform you a little ago that, according to our

fathers Cellot and Reginald, 'in matters of morality we are to follow, not the ancient fathers, but the modern

"I remember it perfectly," said I; "but we have something more here: we have the laws of the Church."

"True," he replied; "but this shows you do not know another capital maxim of our fathers, 'that the laws of the

Church lose their authority when they have gone into desuetude cum jam desuetudine abierunt as Filiutius

says. We know the present exigencies of the Church much better than the ancients could do. Were we to be

so strict in excluding priests from the altar, you can understand there would not be such a great number of

masses. Now a multitude of masses brings such a revenue of glory to God and of good to souls that I may

venture to say, with Father Cellot, that there would not be too many priests, 'though not only all men and

women, were that possible, but even inanimate bodies, and even brute beasts bruta animalia were

I was so astounded at the extravagance of this imagination that I could not utter a word and allowed him to go

on with his discourse. "Enough, however, about priests; I am afraid of getting tedious: let us come to the

monks. The grand difficulty with them is the obedience they owe to their superiors; now observe the

palliative which our fathers apply in this case. Castro Palao of our Society has said: 'Beyond all dispute, a

monk who has a probable opinion of his own, is not bound to obey his superior, though the opinion of the

latter is the more probable. For the monk is at liberty to adopt the opinion which is more agreeable to

himself quae sibi gratior fuerit as Sanchez says. And though the order of his superior be just, that does not

oblige you to obey him, for it is not just at all points or in every respect non undequaque juste praecepit but

only probably so; and, consequently, you are only probably bound to obey him, and probably not bound

"Certainly, father," said I, "it is impossible too highly to estimate this precious fruit of the double

"It is of great use indeed," he replied; "but we must be brief. Let me only give you the following specimen of

our famous Molina in favour of monks who are expelled from their convents for irregularities. Escobar

quotes him thus: 'Molina asserts that a monk expelled from his monastery is not obliged to reform in order to

"Well, father," cried I, "this is all very comfortable for the clergy. Your casuists, I perceive, have been very

indulgent to them, and no wonder they were legislating, so to speak, for themselves. I am afraid people of

other conditions are not so liberally treated. Every one for himself in this world."

"There you do us wrong," returned the monk; "they could not have been kinder to themselves than we have

been to them. We treat all, from the highest to the lowest, with an evenhanded charity, sir. And to prove

this, you tempt me to tell you our maxims for servants. In reference to this class, we have taken into

consideration the difficulty they must experience, when they are men of conscience, in serving profligate

masters. For, if they refuse to perform all the errands in which they are employed, they lose their places; and

if they yield obedience, they have their scruples. To relieve them from these, our fourandtwenty fathers

have specified the services which they may render with a safe conscience; such as 'carrying letters and

presents, opening doors and windows, helping their master to reach the window, holding the ladder which he

is mounting. All this,' say they, 'is allowable and indifferent; it is true that, as to holding the ladder, they must

be threatened, more than usually, with being punished for refusing; for it is doing an injury to the master of a

house to enter it by the window.' You perceive the judiciousness of that observation, of course?"

"I expected nothing less," said I, "from a book edited by fourandtwenty Jesuits."

"But," added the monk, "Father Bauny has gone beyond this; he has taught valets how to perform these sorts

of offices for their masters quite innocently, by making them direct their intention, not to the sins to which

they are accessary, but to the gain which is to accrue from them. In his Summary of Sins, p.710, first edition,

he thus states the matter: 'Let confessors observe,' says he, 'that they cannot absolve valets who perform base

errands, if they consent to the sins of their masters; but the reverse holds true, if they have done the thing

merely from a regard to their temporal emolument.' And that, I should conceive, is no difficult matter to do;

for why should they insist on consenting to sins of which they taste nothing but the trouble? The same Father

Bauny has established a prime maxim in favour of those who are not content with their wages: 'May servants

who are dissatisfied with their wages use means to raise them by laying their hands on as much of the

property of their masters as they may consider necessary to make the said wages equivalent to their trouble?

They may, in certain circumstances; as when they are so poor that, in looking for a situation, they have been

obliged to accept the offer made to them, and when other servants of the same class are gaining more than

"Strange, father!" returned I: "do you not remember what happened in this city in the year 1647? Where in

"I was teaching cases of conscience in one of our colleges far from Paris," he replied.

"I see you don't know the story, father: I must tell it to you. I heard it related the other day by a man of

honour, whom I met in company. He told us that this John d'Alba, who was in the service of your fathers in

the College of Clermont, in the Rue St. Jacques, being dissatisfied with his wages, had purloined something

to make himself amends; and that your fathers, on discovering the theft, had thrown him into prison on the

charge of larceny. The case was reported to the court, if I recollect right, on the 16th of April, 1647; for he

was very minute in his statements, and indeed they would hardly have been credible otherwise. The poor

fellow, on being questioned, confessed to having taken some pewter plates, but maintained that for all that he

had not stolen them; pleading in his defence this very doctrine of Father Bauny, which he produced before the

judges, along with a pamphlet by one of your fathers, under whom he had studied cases of conscience, and

who had taught him the same thing. Whereupon M. de Montrouge, one of the most respected members of the

court, said, in giving his opinion, 'that he did not see how, on the ground of the writings of these fathers

writings containing a doctrine so illegal, pernicious, and contrary to all laws, natural, divine, and human, and

calculated to ruin all families, and sanction all sorts of household robbery they could discharge the accused.

But his opinion was that this too faithful disciple should be whipped before the college gate, by the hand of

the common hangman; and that, at the same time, this functionary should burn the writings of these fathers

which treated of larceny, with certification that they were prohibited from teaching such doctrine in future,

"The result of this judgement, which was heartily approved of, was waited for with much curiosity, when

some incident occurred which made them delay procedure. But in the meantime the prisoner disappeared,

nobody knew how, and nothing more was heard about the affair; so that John d'Alba got off, pewter plates

and all. Such was the account he gave us, to which he added, that the judgement of M. de Montrouge was

entered on the records of the court, where any one may consult it. We were highly amused at the story."

"What are you trifling about now?" cried the monk. "What does all that signify? I was explaining the maxims

of our casuists, and was just going to speak of those relating to gentlemen, when you interrupt me with

"It was only something put in by the way, father," I observed; "and besides, I was anxious to apprise you of

an important circumstance, which I find you have overlooked in establishing your doctrine of probability."

"Ay, indeed!" exclaimed the monk, "what defect can this be that has escaped the notice of so many ingenious

"You have certainly," continued I, "contrived to place your disciples in perfect safety so far as God and the

conscience are concerned; for they are quite safe in that quarter, according to you, by following in the wake

of a grave doctor. You have also secured them on the part of the confessors, by obliging priests, on the pain

of mortal sin, to absolve all who follow a probable opinion. But you have neglected to secure them on the

part of the judges; so that, in following your probabilities, they are in danger of coming into contact with the

"You are right," said the monk; "I am glad you mentioned it. But the reason is we have no such power over

magistrates as over the confessors, who are obliged to refer to us in cases of conscience, in which we are the

"So I understand," returned I; "but if, on the one hand, you are the judges of the confessors, are you not, on

the other hand, the confessors of the judges? Your power is very extensive. Oblige them, on pain of being

debarred from the sacraments, to acquit all criminals who act on a probable opinion; otherwise it may happen,

to the great contempt and scandal of probability, that those whom you render innocent in theory may be

whipped or hanged in practice. Without something of this kind, how can you expect to get disciples?"

"The matter deserves consideration," said he; "it will never do to neglect it. I shall suggest it to our father

Provincial. You might, however, have reserved this advice to some other time, without interrupting the

account I was about to give you of the maxims which we have established in favour of gentlemen; and I shall

not give you any more information, except on condition that you do not tell me any more stories."

This is all you shall have from me at present; for it would require more than the limits of one letter to

Having succeeded in pacifying the good father, who had been rather disconcerted by the story of John d'Alba,

he resumed the conversation, on my assuring him that I would avoid all such interruptions in future, and

spoke of the maxims of his casuists with regard to gentlemen, nearly in the following terms:

"You know," he said, "that the ruling passion of persons in that rank of life is 'the point of honor,' which is

perpetually driving them into acts of violence apparently quite at variance with Christian piety; so that, in

fact, they would be almost all of them excluded from our confessionals, had not our fathers relaxed a little

from the strictness of religion, to accommodate themselves to the weakness of humanity. Anxious to keep on

good terms both with the Gospel, by doing their duty to God, and with the men of the world, by showing

charity to their neighbour, they needed all the wisdom they possessed to devise expedients for so nicely

adjusting matters as to permit these gentlemen to adopt the methods usually resorted to for vindicating their

honour, without wounding their consciences, and thus reconcile two things apparently so opposite to each

other as piety and the point of honour. But, sir, in proportion to the utility of the design, was the difficulty of

the execution. You cannot fail, I should think, to realize the magnitude and arduousness of such an

"It astonishes you, forsooth!" cried the monk. "I can well believe that; many besides you might be astonished

at it. Why, don't you know that, on the one hand, the Gospel commands us 'not to render evil for evil, but to

leave vengeance to God'; and that, on the other hand, the laws of the world forbid our enduring an affront

without demanding satisfaction from the offender, and that often at the expense of his life? You have never, I

am sure, met with anything to all appearance more diametrically opposed than these two codes of morals; and

yet, when told that our fathers have reconciled them, you have nothing more to say than simply that this

"I did not sufficiently explain myself, father. I should certainly have considered the thing perfectly

impracticable, if I had not known, from what I have seen of your fathers, that they are capable of doing with

ease what is impossible to other men. This led me to anticipate that they must have discovered some method

for meeting the difficulty a method which I admire even before knowing it, and which I pray you to explain

"Since that is your view of the matter," replied the monk, "I cannot refuse you. Know then, that this

marvellous principle is our grand method of directing the intention the importance of which, in our moral

system, is such that I might almost venture to compare it with the doctrine of probability. You have had some

glimpses of it in passing, from certain maxims which I mentioned to you. For example, when I was showing

you how servants might execute certain troublesome jobs with a safe conscience, did you not remark that it

was simply by diverting their intention from the evil to which they were accessary to the profit which they

might reap from the transaction? Now that is what we call directing the intention. You saw, too, that, were it

not for a similar divergence of the mind, those who give money for benefices might be downright simoniacs.

But I will now show you this grand method in all its glory, as it applies to the subject of homicide a crime

which it justifies in a thousand instances; in order that, from this startling result, you may form an idea of all

"I foresee already," said I, "that, according to this mode, everything will be permitted; it win stick at nothing."

"You always fly from the one extreme to the other," replied the monk: "prithee avoid that habit. For, just to

show you that we are far from permitting everything, let me tell you that we never suffer such a thing as a

formal intention to sin, with the sole design of sinning; and if any person whatever should persist in having

no other end but evil in the evil that he does, we break with him at once: such conduct is diabolical. This

holds true, without exception of age, sex, or rank. But when the person is not of such a wretched disposition

as this, we try to put in practice our method of directing the intention, which simply consists in his proposing

to himself, as the end of his actions, some allowable object. Not that we do not endeavour, as far as we can, to

dissuade men from doing things forbidden; but when we cannot prevent the action, we at least purify the

motive, and thus correct the viciousness of the means by the goodness of the end. Such is the way in which

our fathers have contrived to permit those acts of violence to which men usually resort in vindication of their

honour. They have no more to do than to turn off their intention from the desire of vengeance, which is

criminal, and direct it to a desire to defend their honour, which, according to us, is quite warrantable. And in

this way our doctors discharge all their duty towards God and towards man. By permitting the action, they

gratify the world; and by purifying the intention, they give satisfaction to the Gospel. This is a secret, sir,

which was entirely unknown to the ancients; the world is indebted for the discovery entirely to our doctors.

"Perfectly well," was my reply. "To men you grant the outward material effect of the action; and to God you

give the inward and spiritual movement of the intention; and by this equitable partition, you form an alliance

between the laws of God and the laws of men. But, my dear sir, to be frank with you, I can hardly trust your

"You do me injustice, rejoined the monk; "I advance nothing but what I am ready to prove, and that by such a

rich array of passages that altogether their number, their authority, and their reasonings, will fill you with

admiration. To show you, for example, the alliance which our fathers have formed between the maxims of the

Gospel and those of the world, by thus regulating the intention, let me refer you to Reginald: 'Private persons

are forbidden to avenge themselves; for St. Paul says to the Romans (12), "Recompense to no man evil for

evil"; and Ecclesiasticus says (28), "He that taketh vengeance shall draw on himself the vengeance of God,

and his sins will not be forgotten." Besides all that is said in the Gospel about forgiving offences, as in

"Well, father, if after that he says anything contrary to the Scripture, it will not be from lack of scriptural

"You shall hear," he said. "From all this it appears that a military man may demand satisfaction on the spot

from the person who has injured him not, indeed, with the intention of rendering evil for evil, but with that

of preserving his honour 'non ut malum pro malo reddat, sed ut conservet honorem.' See you how carefully

they guard against the intention of rendering evil for evil, because the Scripture condemns it? This is what

they will tolerate on no account. Thus Lessius observes, that 'if a man has received a blow on the face, he

must on no account have an intention to avenge himself; but he may lawfully have an intention to avert

infamy, and may, with that view, repel the insult immediately, even at the point of the sword etiam cum

gladio!' So far are we from permitting any one to cherish the design of taking vengeance on his enemies that

our fathers will not allow any even to wish their death by a movement of hatred. 'If your enemy is disposed

to injure you,' says Escobar, 'you have no right to wish his death, by a movement of hatred; though you may,

with a view to save yourself from harm.' So legitimate, indeed, is this wish, with such an intention, that our

great Hurtado de Mendoza says that 'we may pray God to visit with speedy death those who are bent on

"May it please your reverence," said I, "the Church has forgotten to insert a petition to that effect among her

"They have not put in everything into the prayers that one may lawfully ask of God," answered the monk.

"Besides, in the present case, the thing was impossible, for this same opinion is of more recent standing than

the Breviary. You are not a good chronologist, friend. But, not to wander from the point, let me request vour

attention to the following passage, cited by Diana from Gaspar Hurtado, one of Escobar's fourandtwenty

fathers: 'An incumbent may, without any mortal sin, desire the decease of a liferenter on his benefice, and a

son that of his father, and rejoice when it happens; provided always it is for the sake of the profit that is to

"Good!" cried I. "That is certainly a very happy hit; and I can easily see that the doctrine admits of a wide

application. But yet there are certain cases, the solution of which, though of great importance for gentlemen,

"Show me, with all your directing of the intention," returned I, "that it is allowable to fight a duel."

"Our great Hurtado de Mendoza," said the father, "will satisfy you on that point in a twinkling. 'If a

gentleman,' says he, in a passage cited by Diana, 'who is challenged to fight a duel, is well known to have no

religion, and if the vices to which he is openly and unscrupulously addicted are such as would lead people to

conclude, in the event of his refusing to fight, that he is actuated, not by the fear of God, but by cowardice,

and induce them to say of him that he was a hen, and not a man, gallina, et non vir; in that case he may, to

save his honour, appear at the appointed spot not, indeed, with the express intention of fighting a duel, but

merely with that of defending himself, should the person who challenged him come there unjustly to attack

him. His action in this case, viewed by itself, will be perfectly indifferent; for what moral evil is there in one

stepping into a field, taking a stroll in expectation of meeting a person, and defending one's self in the event

of being attacked? And thus the gentleman is guilty of no sin whatever; for in fact it cannot be called

accepting a challenge at all, his intention being directed to other circumstances, and the acceptance of a

challenge consisting in an express intention to fight, which we are supposing the gentleman never had.'"

"You have not kept your word with me, sir," said I. "This is not, properly speaking, to permit duelling; on the

contrary, the casuist is so persuaded that this practice is forbidden that, in licensing the action in question, he

"Ah!" cried the monk, "you begin to get knowing on my hand, I am glad to see. I might reply that the author I

have quoted grants all that duellists are disposed to ask. But since you must have a categorical answer, I shall

allow our Father Layman to give it for me. He permits duelling in so many words, provided that, in accepting

the challenge, the person directs his intention solely to the preservation of his honour or his property: 'If a

soldier or a courtier is in such a predicament that he must lose either his honour or his fortune unless he

accepts a challenge, I see nothing to hinder him from doing so in selfdefence.' The same thing is said by

Peter Hurtado, as quoted by our famous Escobar; his words are: 'One may fight a duel even to defend one's

property, should that be necessary; because every man has a right to defend his property, though at the

I was struck, on hearing these passages, with the reflection that, while the piety of the king appears in his

exerting all his power to prohibit and abolish the practice of duelling in the State, the piety of the Jesuits is

shown in their employing all their ingenuity to tolerate and sanction it in the Church. But the good father was

in such an excellent key for talking that it would have been cruel to have interrupted him; so he went on with

"In short," said he, "Sanchez (mark, now, what great names I am quoting to you!) Sanchez, sir, goes a step

further; for he shows how, simply by managing the intention rightly, a person may not only receive a

"Prove that, father," said I, "and I shall give up the point: but I will not believe that he has written it, unless I

"Read it yourself, then," he replied: and, to be sure, I read the following extract from the Moral Theology of

Sanchez: "It is perfectly reasonable to hold that a man may fight a duel to save his life, his honour, or any

considerable portion of his property, when it is apparent that there is a design to deprive him of these

unjustly, by lawsuits and chicanery, and when there is no other way of preserving them. Navarre justly

observes that, in such cases, it is lawful either to accept or to send a challenge licet acceptare et offerre

duellum. The same author adds that there is nothing to prevent one from despatching one's adversary in a

private way. Indeed, in the circumstances referred to, it is advisable to avoid employing the method of the

duel, if it is possible to settle the affair by privately killing our enemy; for, by this means, we escape at once

from exposing our life in the combat, and from participating in the sin which our opponent would have

"A most pious assassination!" said I. "Still, however, pious though it be, it is assassination, if a man is

"Did I say that he might kill him treacherously?" cried the monk. "God forbid! I said he might kill him

privately, and you conclude that he may kill him treacherously, as if that were the same thing! Attend, sir, to

Escobar's definition before allowing yourself to speak again on this subject: 'We call it killing in treachery

when the person who is slain had no reason to suspect such a fate. He, therefore, that slays his enemy cannot

be said to kill him in treachery, even although the blow should be given insidiously and behind his back

licet per insidias aut a tergo percutiat.' And again: 'He that kills his enemy, with whom he was reconciled

under a promise of never again attempting his life, cannot be absolutely said to kill in treachery, unless there

was between them all the stricter friendship arctior amicitia.' You see now you do not even understand what

"I grant you this is something quite new to me," I replied; "and I should gather from that definition that few,

if any, were ever killed in treachery; for people seldom take it into their heads to assassinate any but their

enemies. Be this as it may, however, it seems that, according to Sanchez, a man may freely slay (I do not say

treacherously, but only insidiously and behind his back) a calumniator, for example, who prosecutes us at

"Certainly he may," returned the monk, "always, however, in the way of giving a right direction to the

intention: you constantly forget the main point. Molina supports the same doctrine; and what is more, our

learned brother Reginald maintains that we may despatch the false witnesses whom he summons against us.

And, to crown the whole, according to our great and famous fathers Tanner and Emanuel Sa, it is lawful to

kill both the false witnesses and the judge himself, if he has had any collusion with them. Here are Tanner's

very words: 'Sotus and Lessius think that it is not lawful to kill the false witnesses and the magistrate who

conspire together to put an innocent person to death; but Emanuel Sa and other authors with good reason

impugn that sentiment, at least so far as the conscience is concerned.' And he goes on to show that it is quite

"Well, father," said I, "I think I now understand pretty well your principle regarding the direction of the

intention: but I should like to know something of its consequences, and all the cases in which this method of

yours arms a man with the power of life and death. Let us go over them again, for fear of mistake, for

equivocation here might be attended with dangerous results. Killing is a matter which requires to be

welltimed, and to be backed with a good probable opinion. You have assured me, then, that by giving a

proper turn to the intention, it is lawful, according to your fathers, for the preservation of one's honour, or

even property, to accept a challenge to a duel, to give one sometimes, to kill in a private way a false accuser,

and his witnesses along with him, and even the judge who has been bribed to favour them; and you have also

told me that he who has got a blow may, without avenging himself, retaliate with the sword. But you have not

"He can hardly mistake there," replied the father, "for he may go all the length of killing his man. This is

satisfactorily proved by the learned Henriquez, and others of our fathers quoted by Escobar, as follows: 'It is

perfectly right to kill a person who has given us a box on the ear, although he should run away, provided it is

not done through hatred or revenge, and there is no danger of giving occasion thereby to murders of a gross

kind and hurtful to society. And the reason is that it is as lawful to pursue the thief that has stolen our honour,

as him that has run away with our property. For, although your honour cannot be said to be in the hands of

your enemy in the same sense as your goods and chattels are in the hands of the thief, still it may be

recovered in the same way by showing proofs of greatness and authority, and thus acquiring the esteem of

men. And, in point of fact, is it not certain that the man who has received a buffet on the ear is held to be

under disgrace, until he has wiped off the insult with the blood of his enemy?'"

I was so shocked on hearing this that it was with great difficulty I could contain myself; but, in my anxiety to

"Nay," he continued, "it is allowable to prevent a buffet, by killing him that meant to give it, if there be no

other way to escape the insult. This opinion is quite common with our fathers. For example, Azor, one of the

fourandtwenty elders, proposing the question, 'Is it lawful for a man of honour to kill another who

threatens to give him a slap on the face, or strike him with a stick?' replies, 'Some say he may not; alleging

that the life of our neighbour is more precious than our honour, and that it would be an act of cruelty to kill a

man merely to avoid a blow. Others, however, think that it is allowable; and I certainly consider it probable,

when there is no other way of warding off the insult; for, otherwise, the honour of the innocent would be

constantly exposed to the malice of the insolent.' The same opinion is given by our great Filiutius; by Father

Hereau, in his Treatise on Homicide, by Hurtado de Mendoza, in his Disputations, by Becan, in his

Summary; by our Fathers Flahaut and Lecourt, in those writings which the University, in their third petition,

quoted at length, in order to bring them into disgrace (though in this they failed); and by Escobar. In short,

this opinion is so general that Lessius lays it down as a point which no casuist has contested; he quotes a

great many that uphold, and none that deny it; and particularly Peter Navarre, who, speaking of affronts in

general (and there is none more provoking than a box on the ear), declares that 'by the universal consent of

the casuists, it is lawful to kill the calumniator, if there be no other way of averting the affront ex sententia

omnium, licet contumeliosum occidere, si aliter ea injuria arceri nequit.' Do you wish any more authorities?"

I declared I was much obliged to him; I had heard rather more than enough of them already. But, just to see

how far this damnable doctrine would go, I said, "But, father, may not one be allowed to kill for something

still less? Might not a person so direct his intention as lawfully to kill another for telling a lie, for example?"

"He may," returned the monk; "and according to Father Baldelle, quoted by Escobar, 'you may lawfully take

the life of another for saying, "You have told a lie"; if there is no other way of shutting his mouth.' The same

thing may be done in the case of slanders. Our Fathers Lessius and Hereau agree in the following sentiments:

'If you attempt to ruin my character by telling stories against me in the presence of men of honour, and I have

no other way of preventing this than by putting you to death, may I be permitted to do so? According to the

modern authors, I may, and that even though I have been really guilty of the crime which you divulge,

provided it is a secret one, which you could not establish by legal evidence. And I prove it thus: If you mean

to rob me of my honour by giving me a box on the ear, I may prevent it by force of arms; and the same mode

of defence is lawful when you would do me the same injury with the tongue. Besides, we may lawfully

obviate affronts and, therefore, slanders. In fine, honour is dearer than life; and as it is lawful to kill in

defence of life, it must be so to kill in defence of honour.' There, you see, are arguments in due form; this is

demonstration, sir not mere discussion. And, to conclude, this great man Lessius shows, in the same place,

that it is lawful to kill even for a simple gesture, or a sign of contempt. 'A man's honour,' he remarks, 'may be

attacked or filched away in various ways in all of which vindication appears very reasonable; as, for

instance, when one offers to strike us with a stick, or give us a slap on the face, or affront us either by words

"Well, father," said I, "it must be owned that you have made every possible provision to secure the safety of

reputation; but it strikes me that human life is greatly in danger, if any one may be conscientiously put to

"That is true," he replied; "but, as our fathers are very circumspect, they have thought it proper to forbid

putting this doctrine into practice on such trifling occasions. They say, at least, 'that it ought hardly to be

reduced to practice practice vix probari potest.' And they have a good reason for that, as you shall see."

"Oh, I know what it will be," interrupted I; "because the law of God forbids us to kill, of course."

"They do not exactly take that ground," said the father; "as a matter of conscience, and viewing the thing

"I shall tell you that, sir. It is because, were we to kill all the defamers among us, we should very shortly

depopulate the country. 'Although,' says Reginald, 'the opinion that we may kill a man for calumny is not

without its probability in theory, the contrary one ought to be followed in practice; for, in our mode of

defending ourselves, we should always avoid doing injury to the commonwealth; and it is evident that by

killing people in this way there would be too many murders. 'We should be on our guard,' says Lessius, 'lest

the practice of this maxim prove hurtful to the State; for in this case it ought not to be permitted tunc enim

"What, father! is it forbidden only as a point of policy, and not of religion? Few people, I am afraid, will pay

any regard to such a prohibition, particularly when in a passion. Very probably they might think they were

"And accordingly," replied the monk, "our Filiutius has fortified that argument with another, which is of no

slender importance, namely, 'that for killing people after this manner, one might be punished in a court of

"There now, father; I told you before, that you will never be able to do anything worth the while, unless you

"The magistrates," said the father, "as they do not penetrate into the conscience, judge merely of the outside

of the action, while we look principally to the intention; and hence it occasionally happens that our maxims

"Be that as it may, father; from yours, at least, one thing may be fairly inferred that, by taking care not to

injure the commonwealth, we may kill defamers with a safe conscience, provided we can do it with a sound

skin. But, sir, after having seen so well to the protection of honour, have you done nothing for property? I am

aware it is of inferior importance, but that does not signify; I should think one might direct one's intention to

"Yes," replied the monk; "and I gave you a hint to that effect already, which may have suggested the idea to

you. All our casuists agree in that opinion; and they even extend the permission to those cases 'where no

further violence is apprehended from those that steal our property; as, for example, where the thief runs

"But, sir, how much must the article be worth, to justify our proceeding to that extremity?"

"According to Reginald and Tanner, 'the article must be of great value in the estimation of a judicious man.'

"But, father, that is saying nothing to the purpose; where am I to find 'a judicious man' (a rare person to meet

with at any time), in order to make this estimation? Why do they not settle upon an exact sum at once?"

"Ay, indeed!" retorted the monk; "and was it so easy, think you, to adjust the comparative value between the

life of a man, and a Christian man, too, and money? It is here I would have you feel the need of our casuists.

Show me any of your ancient fathers who will tell for how much money we may be allowed to kill a man.

"Our great and incomparable Molina," he replied "the glory of our Society who has, in his inimitable

wisdom, estimated the life of a man 'at six or seven ducats; for which sum he assures us it is warrantable to

kill a thief, even though he should run off'; and he adds, 'that he would not venture to condemn that man as

guilty of any sin who should kill another for taking away an article worth a crown, or even less unius aurei,

vel minoris adhuc valoris'; which has led Escobar to lay it down, as a general rule, 'that a man may be killed

"O father," cried I; "where can Molina have got all this wisdom to enable him to determine a matter of such

importance, without any aid from Scripture, the councils, or the fathers? It is quite evident that he has

obtained an illumination peculiar to himself, and is far beyond St. Augustine in the matter of homicide, as

well as of grace. Well, now, I suppose I may consider myself master of this chapter of morals; and I see

perfectly that, with the exception of ecclesiastics, nobody need refrain from killing those who injure them in

"What say you?" exclaimed the monk. "Do you, then, suppose that it would be reasonable that those, who

ought of all men to be most respected, should alone be exposed to the insolence of the wicked? Our fathers

have provided against that disorder; for Tanner declares that 'Churchmen, and even monks, are permitted to

kill, for the purpose of defending not only their lives, but their property, and that of their community.' Molina,

Escobar, Becan, Reginald, Layman, Lessius, and others, hold the same language. Nay, according to our

celebrated Father Lamy, priests and monks may lawfully prevent those who would injure them by calumnies

from carrying their ill designs into effect, by putting them to death. Care, however, must always be taken to

direct the intention properly. His words are: 'An ecclesiastic or a monk may warrantably kill a defamer who

threatens to publish the scandalous crimes of his community, or his own crimes, when there is no other way

of stopping him; if, for instance, he is prepared to circulate his defamations unless promptly despatched. For,

in these circumstances, as the monk would be allowed to kill one who threatened to take his life, he is also

warranted to kill him who would deprive him of his reputation or his property, in the same way as the men of

"I was not aware of that," said I; "in fact, I have been accustomed simply enough to believe the very reverse,

without reflecting on the matter, in consequence of having heard that the Church had such an abhorrence of

bloodshed as not even to permit ecclesiastical judges to attend in criminal cases."

"Never mind that," he replied; "our Father Lamy has completely proved the doctrine I have laid down,

although, with a humility which sits uncommonly well on so great a man, he submits it to the judgement of

his judicious readers. Caramuel, too, our famous champion, quoting it in his Fundamental Theology, p. 543.

thinks it so certain, that he declares the contrary opinion to be destitute of probability, and draws some

admirable conclusions from it, such as the following, which he calls 'the conclusion of conclusions

conclusionum conclusio': 'That a priest not only may kill a slanderer, but there are certain circumstances in

which it may be his duty to do so etiam aliquando debet occidere.' He examines a great many new questions

on this principle, such as the following, for instance: 'May the Jesuits kill the Jansenists?'"

"A curious point of divinity that, father! " cried I. "I hold the Jansenists to be as good as dead men, according

"There, now, you are in the wrong," said the monk: "Caramuel infers the very reverse from the same

"Because," he replied, "it is not in the power of the Jansenists to injure our reputation. 'The Jansenists,' says

he, 'call the Jesuits Pelagians, may they not be killed for that? No; inasmuch as the Jansenists can no more

obscure the glory of the Society than an owl can eclipse that of the sun; on the contrary, they have, though

against their intention, enhanced it occidi non possunt, quia nocere non potuerunt.'"

"Ha, father! do the lives of the Jansenists, then, depend on the contingency of their injuring your reputation?

If so, I reckon them far from being in a safe position; for supposing it should be thought in the slightest

degree probable that they might do you some mischief, why, they are killable at once! You have only to draw

up a syllogism in due form, and, with a direction of the intention, you may despatch your man at once with a

safe conscience. Thrice happy must those hot spirits be who cannot bear with injuries, to be instructed in this

doctrine! But woe to the poor people who have offended them! Indeed, father, it would be better to have to do

with persons who have no religion at all than with those who have been taught on this system. For, after all,

the intention of the wounder conveys no comfort to the wounded. The poor man sees nothing of that secret

direction of which you speak; he is only sensible of the direction of the blow that is dealt him. And I am by

no means sure but a person would feel much less sorry to see himself brutally killed by an infuriated villain

than to find himself conscientiously stilettoed by a devotee. To be plain with you, father, I am somewhat

staggered at all this; and these questions of Father Lamy and Caramuel do not please me at all."

"I have another reason for it," I replied. "You must know I am in the habit of writing from time to time, to a

friend of mine in the country, all that I can learn of the maxims of your doctors. Now, although I do no more

than simply report and faithfully quote their own words, yet I am apprehensive lest my letter should fall into

the hands of some stray genius who may take into his head that I have done you injury, and may draw some

"Away!" cried the monk; "no fear of danger from that quarter, I'll give you my word for it. Know that what

our fathers have themselves printed, with the approbation of our superiors, it cannot be wrong to read nor

I write you, therefore, on the faith of this worthy father's word of honour. But, in the meantime, I must stop

for want of paper not of passages; for I have got as many more in reserve, and good ones too, as would

You did not suppose that anybody would have the curiosity to know who we were; but it seems there are

people who are trying to make it out, though they are not very happy in their conjectures. Some take me for a

doctor of the Sorbonne; others ascribe my letters to four or five persons, who, like me, are neither priests nor

Churchmen. All these false surmises convince me that I have succeeded pretty well in my object, which was

to conceal myself from all but yourself and the worthy monk, who still continues to bear with my visits,

while I still contrive, though with considerable difficulty, to bear with his conversations. I am obliged,

however, to restrain myself; for, were he to discover how much I am shocked at his communications, he

would discontinue them and thus put it out of my power to fulfil the promise I gave you, of making you

acquainted with their morality. You ought to think a great deal of the violence which I thus do to my own

feelings. It is no easy matter, I can assure you, to stand still and see the whole system of Christian ethics

undermined by such a set of monstrous principles, without daring to put in a word of flat contradiction

against them. But, after having borne so much for your satisfaction, I am resolved I shall burst out for my

own satisfaction in the end, when his stock of information has been exhausted. Meanwhile, I shall repress my

feelings as much as I possibly can for I find that the more I hold my tongue, he is the more communicative.

The last time I saw him, he told me so many things that I shall have some difficulty in repeating them all. On

the point of restitution you will find they have some most convenient principles. For, however the good monk

palliates his maxims, those which I am about to lay before you really go to sanction corrupt judges, usurers,

bankrupts, thieves, prostitutes and sorcerers all of whom are most liberally absolved from the obligation of

"At the commencement of our interviews, I engaged to explain to you the maxims of our authors for all ranks

and classes; and you have already seen those that relate to beneficiaries, to priests, to monks, to domestics,

and to gentlemen. Let us now take a cursory glance at the remaining, and begin with the judges.

"Now I am going to tell you one of the most important and advantageous maxims which our fathers have laid

down in their favour. Its author is the learned Castro Palao, one of our fourandtwenty elders. His words

are: 'May a judge, in a question of right and wrong, pronounce according to a probable opinion, in preference

to the more probable opinion? He may, even though it should be contrary to his own judgement imo contra

"Well, father," cried I, "that is a very fair commencement! The judges, surely, are greatly obliged to you; and

I am surprised that they should be so hostile, as we have sometimes observed, to your probabilities, seeing

these are so favourable to them. For it would appear from this that you give them the same power over men's

"You perceive we are far from being actuated by selfinterest," returned he; "we have had no other end in

view than the repose of their consciences; and to the same useful purpose has our great Molina devoted his

attention, in regard to the presents which may be made them. To remove any scruples which they might

entertain in accepting of these on certain occasions, he has been at the pains to draw out a list of all those

cases in which bribes may be taken with a good conscience, provided, at least, there be no special law

forbidding them. He says: 'Judges may receive presents from parties when they are given them either for

friendship's sake, or in gratitude for some former act of justice, or to induce them to give justice in future, or

to oblige them to pay particular attention to their case, or to engage them to despatch it promptly.' The

learned Escobar delivers himself to the same effect: 'If there be a number of persons, none of whom have

more right than another to have their causes disposed of, will the judge who accepts of something from one of

them, on condition expacto of taking up his cause first, be guilty of sin? Certainly not, according to

Layman; for, in common equity, he does no injury to the rest by granting to one, in consideration of his

present, what he was at liberty to grant to any of them he pleased; and besides, being under an equal

obligation to them all in respect of their right, he becomes more obliged to the individual who furnished the

donation, who thereby acquired for himself a preference above the rest a preference which seems capable of

"May it please your reverence," said I, "after such a permission, I am surprised that the first magistrates of the

kingdom should know no better. For the first president has actually carried an order in Parliament to prevent

certain clerks of court from taking money for that very sort of preference a sign that he is far from thinking

it allowable in judges; and everybody has applauded this as a reform of great benefit to all parties."

The worthy monk was surprised at this piece of intelligence, and replied: "Are you sure of that? I heard

nothing about it. Our opinion, recollect, is only probable; the contrary is probable also."

"To tell you the truth, father," said I, "people think that the first president has acted more than probably well,

and that he has thus put a stop to a course of public corruption which has been too long winked at."

"I am not far from being of the same mind," returned he; "but let us waive that point, and say no more about

"You are quite right, sir," said I; "indeed, they are not half thankful enough for all you have done for them."

"That is not my reason," said the father; "but there is so much to be said on all the different classes that we

must study brevity on each of them. Let us now say a word or two about men of business. You are aware that

our great difficulty with these gentlemen is to keep them from usury an object to accomplish which our

fathers have been at particular pains; for they hold this vice in such abhorrence that Escobar declares 'it is

heresy to say that usury is no sin'; and Father Bauny has filled several pages of his Summary of Sins with the

pains and penalties due to usurers. He declares them 'infamous during their life, and unworthy of sepulture

"He can be severe enough when there is occasion for it," said the monk; "but then this learned casuist, having

observed that some are allured into usury merely from the love of gain, remarks in the same place that 'he

would confer no small obligation on society, who, while he guarded it against the evil effects of usury, and of

the sin which gives birth to it, would suggest a method by which one's money might secure as large, if not a

larger profit, in some honest and lawful employment than he could derive from usurious dealings."

"Accordingly," continued he, "our casuist has suggested 'a general method for all sorts of persons

gentlemen, presidents, councillors,' and a very simple process it is, consisting only in the use of certain words

which must be pronounced by the person in the act of lending his money; after which he may take his interest

for it without fear of being a usurer, which he certainly would be on any other plan."

"I will give you them exactly in his own words," said the father; "for he has written his Summary in French,

you know, 'that it may be understood by everybody,' as he says in the preface: 'The person from whom the

loan is asked must answer, then, in this manner: I have got no money to lend, I have got a little, however, to

lay out for an honest and lawful profit. If you are anxious to have the sum you mention in order to make

something of it by your industry, dividing the profit and loss between us, I may perhaps be able to

accommodate you. But now I think of it, as it may be a matter of difficulty to agree about the profit, if you

will secure me a certain portion of it, and give me so much for my principal, so that it incur no risk, we may

come to terms much sooner, and you shall touch the cash immediately.' Is not that an easy plan for gaining

money without sin? And has not Father Bauny good reason for concluding with these words: 'Such, in my

opinion, is an excellent plan by which a great many people, who now provoke the just indignation of God by

their usuries, extortions, and illicit bargains, might save themselves, in the way of making good, honest, and

"O sir!" I exclaimed, "what potent words these must be! Doubtless they must possess some latent virtue to

chase away the demon of usury which I know nothing of, for, in my poor judgement, I always thought that

"You know little about it indeed," he replied. "Usury, according to our fathers, consists in little more than the

intention of taking the interest as usurious. Escobar, accordingly, shows you how you may avoid usury by a

simple shift of the intention. 'It would be downright usury,' says he 'to take interest from the borrower, if we

should exact it as due in point of justice; but if only exacted as due in point of gratitude, it is not usury.

Again, it is not lawful to have directly the intention of profiting by the money lent; but to claim it through the

medium of the benevolence of the borrower media benevolentia is not usury.' These are subtle methods;

but, to my mind, the best of them all (for we have a great choice of them) is that of the Mohatra bargain."

"You are not acquainted with it, I see," returned he. "The name is the only strange thing about it. Escobar will

explain it to you: 'The Mohatra bargain is effected by the needy person purchasing some goods at a high price

and on credit, in order to sell them over again, at the same time and to the same merchant, for ready money

and at a cheap rate.' This is what we call the Mohatra a sort of bargain, you perceive, by which a person

"But, sir, I really think nobody but Escobar has employed such a term as that; is it to be found in any other

"How little you do know of what is going on, to be sure!" cried the father. "Why, the last work on theological

morality, printed at Paris this very year, speaks of the Mohatra, and learnedly, too. It is called Epilogus

Summarum, and is an abridgment of all the summaries of divinity extracted from Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius,

Fagundez, Hurtado, and other celebrated casuists, as the title bears. There you will find it said, on p. 54, that

'the Mohatra bargain takes place when a man who has occasion for twenty pistoles purchases from a

merchant goods to the amount of thirty pistoles, payable within a year, and sells them back to him on the spot

for twenty pistoles ready money.' This shows you that the Mohatra is not such an unheardof term as you

"Escobar," replied he, "tells us in the same place that there are laws which prohibit it under very severe

"Not at all; Escobar, in the same passage, suggests expedients for making it lawful: 'It is so, even though the

principal intention both of the buyer and seller is to make money by the transaction, provided the seller, in

disposing of the goods, does not exceed their highest price, and in repurchasing them does not go below

their lowest price, and that no previous bargain has been made, expressly or otherwise.' Lessius, however,

maintains that 'even though the merchant has sold his goods, with the intention of repurchasing them at the

lowest price, he is not bound to make restitution of the profit thus acquired, unless, perhaps, as an act of

charity, in the case of the person from whom it had been exacted being in poor circumstances, and not even

then, if he cannot do it without inconvenience si commode non potest.' This is the utmost length to which

"Indeed, sir," said I, "any further indulgence would, I should think, be rather too much."

"Oh, our fathers know very well when it is time for them to stop!" cried the monk. "So much, then, for the

utility of the Mohatra. I might have mentioned several other methods, but these may suffice; and I have now

to say a little in regard to those who are in embarrassed circumstances. Our casuists have sought to relieve

them, according to their condition of life. For, if they have not enough of property for a decent maintenance,

and at the same time for paying their debts, they permit them to secure a portion by making a bankruptcy with

their creditors. This has been decided by Lessius, and confirmed by Escobar, as follows: 'May a person who

turns bankrupt, with a good conscience keep back as much of his personal estate as may be necessary to

maintain his family in a respectable way ne indecore vivat? I hold, with Lessius, that he may, even though

he may have acquired his wealth unjustly and by notorious crimes ex injustilia et notorio delicto; only, in

this case, he is not at liberty to retain so large an amount as he otherwise might.'"

"Indeed, father! what a strange sort of charity is this, to allow property to remain in the hands of the man who

has acquired it by rapine, to support him in his extravagance rather than go into the hands of his creditors, to

"It is impossible to please everybody," replied the father; "and we have made it our particular study to relieve

these unfortunate people. This partiality to the poor has induced our great Vasquez, cited by Castro Palao, to

say that 'if one saw a thief going to rob a poor man, it would be lawful to divert him from his purpose by

pointing out to him some rich individual, whom he might rob in place of the other.' If you have not access to

Vasquez or Castro Palao, you will find the same thing in your copy of Escobar; for, as you are aware, his

work is little more than a compilation from twentyfour of the most celebrated of our fathers. You will find it

in his treatise, entitled The Practice of our Society, in the Matter of Charity towards our Neighbours."

"A very singular kind of charity this," I observed, "to save one man from suffering loss, by inflicting it upon

another! But I suppose that, to complete the charity, the charitable adviser would be bound in conscience to

"Not at all, sir," returned the monk; "for he did not rob the man he only advised the other to do it. But only

attend to this notable decision of Father Bauny, on a case which will still more astonish you, and in which

you would suppose there was a much stronger obligation to make restitution. Here are his identical words: 'A

person asks a soldier to beat his neighbour, or to set fire to the barn of a man that has injured him. The

question is whether, in the essence of the soldier, the person who employed him to commit these outrages is

bound to make reparation out of his own pocket for the damage that has followed? My opinion is that he is

not. For none can be held bound to restitution, where there has been no violation of justice; and is justice

violated by asking another to do us a favour? As to the nature of the request which he made, he is at liberty

either to acknowledge or deny it; to whatever side he may incline, it is a matter of mere choice; nothing

obliges him to it, unless it may be the goodness, gentleness, and easiness of his disposition. If the soldier,

therefore, makes no reparation for the mischief he has done, it ought not to be exacted from him at whose

This sentence had very nearly broken up the whole conversation, for I was on the point of bursting into a

laugh at the idea of the goodness and gentleness of a burner of barns, and at these strange sophisms which

would exempt from the duty of restitution the principal and real incendiary, whom the civil magistrate would

not exempt from the halter. But, had I not restrained myself, the worthy monk, who was perfectly serious,

would have been displeased; he proceeded, therefore, without any alteration of countenance, in his

"From such a mass of evidence, you ought to be satisfied now of the futility of your objections; but we are

losing sight of our subject. To revert, then, to the succour which our fathers apply to persons in straitened

circumstances, Lessius, among others, maintains that 'it is lawful to steal, not only in a case of extreme

"This is somewhat startling, father," said I. "There are very few people in this world who do not consider

their cases of necessity to be grave ones, and to whom, accordingly, you would not give the right of stealing

with a good conscience. And, though you should restrict the permission to those only who are really and truly

in that condition, you open the door to an infinite number of petty larcenies which the magistrates would

punish in spite of your grave necessity, and which you ought to repress on a higher principle you who are

bound by your office to be the conservators, not of justice only, but of charity between man and man, a grace

which this permission would destroy. For after all, now, is it not a violation of the law of charity, and of our

duty to our neighbour, to deprive a man of his property in order to turn it to our own advantage? Such, at

"That will not always hold true," replied the monk; "for our great Molina has taught us that 'the rule of charity

does not bind us to deprive ourselves of a profit, in order thereby to save our neighbour from a corresponding

loss.' He advances this in corroboration of what he had undertaken to prove 'that one is not bound in

conscience to restore the goods which another had put into his hands in order to cheat his creditors.' Lessius

holds the same opinion, on the same ground. Allow me to say, sir, that you have too little compassion for

people in distress. Our fathers have had more charity than that comes to: they render ample justice to the

poor, as well as the rich; and, I may add, to sinners as well as saints. For, though far from having any

predilection for criminals, they do not scruple to teach that the property gained by crime may be lawfully

retained. 'No person,' says Lessius, speaking generally, 'is bound, either by the law of nature or by positive

laws (that is, by any law), to make restitution of what has been gained by committing a criminal action, such

as adultery, even though that action is contrary to justice.' For, as Escobar comments on this writer, 'though

the property which a woman acquires by adultery is certainly gained in an illicit way, yet once acquired, the

possession of it is lawful quamvis mulier illicite acquisat, licite tamen retinet acquisita.' It is on this

principle that the most celebrated of our writers have formally decided that the bribe received by a judge from

one of the parties who has a bad case, in order to procure an unjust decision in his favour, the money got by a

soldier for killing a man, or the emoluments gained by infamous crimes, may be legitimately retained.

Escobar, who has collected this from a number of our authors, lays down this general rule on the point that

'the means acquired by infamous courses, such as murder, unjust decisions, profligacy, are legitimately

possessed, and none are obliged to restore them.' And, further, 'they may dispose of what they have received

for homicide, profligacy, as they please; for the possession is just, and they have acquired a propriety in the

"My dear father," cried I, "this is a mode of acquisition which I never heard of before; and I question much if

the law will hold it good, or if it will consider assassination, injustice, and adultery, as giving valid titles to

"I do not know what your lawbooks may say on the point," returned the monk; "but I know well that our

books, which are the genuine rules for conscience, bear me out in what I say. It is true they make one

exception, in which restitution is positively enjoined; that is, in the case of any receiving money from those

who have no right to dispose of their property such as minors and monks. 'Unless,' says the great Molina, 'a

woman has received money from one who cannot dispose' of it, such as a monk or a minor nisi mulier

accepisset ab eo qui alienare non potest, ut a religioso et filio familias. In this case she must give back the

"May it please your reverence," said I, "the monks, I see, are more highly favoured in this way than other

"By no means," he replied; "have they not done as much generally for all minors, in which class monks may

be viewed as continuing all their lives? It is barely an act of justice to make them an exception; but with

regard to all other people, there is no obligation whatever to refund to them the money received from them

for a criminal action. For, as has been amply shown by Lessius, 'a wicked action may have its price fixed in

money, by calculating the advantage received by the person who orders it to be done and the trouble taken by

him who carries it into execution; on which account the latter is not bound to restore the money he got for the

deed, whatever that may have been homicide, injustice, or a foul act' (for such are the illustrations which he

uniformly employs in this question); 'unless he obtained the money from those having no right to dispose of

their property. You may object, perhaps, that he who has obtained money for a piece of wickedness is sinning

and, therefore, ought neither to receive nor retain it. But I reply that, after the thing is done, there can be no

sin either in giving or in receiving payment for it.' The great Filiutius enters still more minutely into details,

remarking 'that a man is bound in conscience to vary his payments for actions of this sort, according to the

different conditions of the individuals who commit them, and some may bring a higher price than others.'

He then pointed out to me, in his authors, some things of this nature so indelicate that I should be ashamed to

repeat them; and indeed the monk himself, who is a good man, would have been horrified at them himself,

were it not for the profound respect which he entertains for his fathers, and which makes him receive with

veneration everything that proceeds from them. Meanwhile, I held my tongue, not so much with the view of

allowing him to enlarge on this matter as from pure astonishment at finding the books of men in holy orders

stuffed with sentiments at once so horrible, so iniquitous, and so silly. He went on, therefore, without

"From these premisses, our illustrious Molina decides the following question (and after this, I think you will

have got enough): 'If one has received money to perpetrate a wicked action, is he obliged to restore it? We

must distinguish here,' says this great man; 'if he has not done the deed, he must give back the cash; if he has,

he is under no such obligation!' Such are some of our principles touching restitution. You have got a great

deal of instruction today; and I should like, now, to see what proficiency you have made. Come, then,

answer me this question: 'Is a judge, who has received a sum of money from one of the parties before him, in

"I told you no such thing," replied the father; "did I express myself so generally? I told you he was not bound

to make restitution, provided he succeeded in gaining the cause for the party who had the wrong side of the

question. But if a man has justice on his side, would you have him to purchase the success of his cause, which

is his legitimate right? You are very unconscionable. Justice, look you, is a debt which the judge owes, and

therefore he cannot sell it; but he cannot be said to owe injustice, and therefore he may lawfully receive

money for it. All our leading authors, accordingly, agree in teaching 'that though a judge is bound to restore

the money he had received for doing an act of justice, unless it was given him out of mere generosity, he is

not obliged to restore what he has received from a man in whose favour he has pronounced an unjust

This preposterous decision fairly dumbfounded me, and, while I was musing on its pernicious tendencies, the

monk had prepared another question for me. "Answer me again," said he, "with a little more circumspection.

Tell me now, 'if a man who deals in divination is obliged to make restitution of the money he has acquired in

"Eh! what! just as I please! Indeed, but you are a pretty scholar! It would seem, according to your way of

talking, that the truth depended on our will and pleasure. I see that, in the present case, you would never find

it out yourself: so I must send you to Sanchez for a solution of the problem no less a man than Sanchez. In

the first place, he makes a distinction between 'the case of the diviner who has recourse to astrology and other

natural means, and that of another who employs the diabolical art. In the one case, he says, the diviner is

bound to make restitution; in the other he is not.' Now, guess which of them is the party bound?"

"I see what you mean to say," he replied. "You think that he ought to make restitution in the case of his

having employed the agency of demons. But you know nothing about it; it is just the reverse. 'If,' says

Sanchez, 'the sorcerer has not taken care and pains to discover, by means of the devil, what he could not have

known otherwise, he must make restitution si nullam operam apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret, but if he has

"Don't you See?" returned he. "It is because men may truly divine by the aid of the devil, whereas astrology is

"But, sir, should the devil happen not to tell the truth (and he is not much more to be trusted than astrology),

the magician must, I should think, for the same reason, be obliged to make restitution?"

"Not always," replied the monk: "Distinguo, as Sanchez says, here. If the magician be ignorant of the diabolic

art si sit artis diabolicae ignarus he is bound to restore: but if he is an expert sorcerer, and has done all in

his power to arrive at the truth, the obligation ceases; for the industry of such a magician may be estimated at

"There is some sense in that," I said; "for this is an excellent plan to induce sorcerers to aim at proficiency in

their art, in the hope of making an honest livelihood, as you would say, by faithfully serving the public."

"You are making a jest of it, I suspect," said the father: "that is very wrong. If you were to talk in that way in

places where you were not known, some people might take it amiss and charge you with turning sacred

"That, father, is a charge from which I could very easily vindicate myself; for certain I am that whoever will

be at the trouble to examine the true meaning of my words will find my object to be precisely the reverse; and

perhaps, sir, before our conversations are ended, I may find an opportunity of making this very amply

"I confess," said I, "that the suspicion that I intended to laugh at things sacred would be as painful for me to

"I did not say it in earnest," returned the father; "but let us speak more seriously."

"I am quite disposed to do so, if you prefer it; that depends upon you, father. But I must say, that I have been

astonished to see your friends carrying their attentions to all sorts and conditions of men so far as even to

"One cannot write for too many people," said the monk, "nor be too minute in particularising cases, nor

repeat the same things too often in different books. You may be convinced of this by the following anecdote,

which is related by one of the gravest of our fathers, as you may well suppose, seeing he is our present

Provincial the reverend Father Cellot: 'We know a person,' says he, 'who was carrying a large sum of

money' in his pocket to restore it, in obedience to the orders of his confessor, and who, stepping into a

bookseller's shop by the way, inquired if there was anything new? numquid novi? when the bookseller

showed him a book on moral theology, recently published; and turning over the leaves carelessly, and

without reflection, he lighted upon a passage describing his own case, and saw that he was under no

obligation to make restitution: upon which, relieved from the burden of his scruples, he returned home with a

purse no less heavy, and a heart much lighter, than when he left it abjecta scrupuli sarcina, retento auri

"Say, after hearing that, if it is useful or not to know our maxims? Will you laugh at them now? or rather, are

you not prepared to join with Father Cellot in the pious reflection which he makes on the blessedness of that

incident? 'Accidents of that kind,' he remarks, 'are, with God, the effect of his providence; with the guardian

angel, the effect of his good guidance; with the individuals to whom they happen, the effect of their

predestination. From all eternity, God decided that the golden chain of their salvation should depend on such

and such an author, and not upon a hundred others who say the same thing, because they never happen to

meet with them. Had that man not written, this man would not have been saved. All, therefore, who find fault

with the multitude of our authors, we would beseech, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to beware of envying

others those books which the eternal election of God and the blood of Jesus Christ have purchased for them!'

Such are the eloquent terms in which this learned man proves successfully the proposition which he had

advanced, namely, 'How useful it must be to have a great many writers on moral theology quam utile sit de

"Father," said I, "I shall defer giving you my opinion of that passage to another opportunity; in the meantime,

I shall only say that as your maxims are so useful, and as it is so important to publish them, you ought to

continue to give me further instruction in them. For I can assure you that the person to whom I send them

shows my letters to a great many people. Not that we intend to avail ourselves of them in our own case; but,

"Very well," rejoined the monk, "you see I do not conceal them; and, in continuation, I am ready to furnish

you, at our next interview, with an account of the comforts and indulgences which our fathers allow, with the

view of rendering salvation easy, and devotion agreeable; so that, in addition to what you have hitherto

learned as to particular conditions of men, you may learn what applies in general to all classes, and thus you

will have gone through a complete course of instruction." So saying, the monk took his leave of me. I am,

P.S. I have always forgot to tell you that there are different editions of Escobar. Should you think of

purchasing him, I would advise you to choose the Lyons edition, having on the title page the device of a lamb

lying on a book sealed with seven seals; or the Brussels edition of 1651. Both of these are better and larger

I shall use as little ceremony with you as the worthy monk did with me when I saw him last. The moment he

perceived me, he came forward, with his eyes fixed on a book which he held in his hand, and accosted me

thus: "'Would you not be infinitely obliged to any one who should open to you the gates of paradise? Would

you not give millions of gold to have a key by which you might gain admittance whenever you thought

proper? You need not be at such expense; here is one here are a hundred for much less money.'"

At first I was at a loss to know whether the good father was reading, or talking to me, but he soon put the

"These, sir, are the opening words of a fine book, written by Father Barry of our Society; for I never give you

"Here is its title," he replied: "Paradise opened to Philagio, in a Hundred Devotions to the Mother of God,

"Indeed, father! and is each of these easy devotions a sufficient passport to heaven?"

"It is," returned he. "Listen to what follows: 'The devotions to the Mother of God, which you will find in this

book, are so many celestial keys, which will open wide to you the gates of paradise, provided you practise

them'; and, accordingly, he says at the conclusion, 'that he is satisfied if you practise only one of them.'"

"They are all easy," he replied, "for example 'Saluting the Holy Virgin when you happen to meet her

image saying the little chaplet of the pleasures of the Virgin fervently pronouncing the name of Mary

commissioning the angels to bow to her for us wishing to build her as many churches as all the monarchs on

earth have done bidding her good morrow every morning, and good night in the evening saying the Ave

Maria every day, in honour of the heart of Mary' which last devotion, he says, possesses the additional

"But, father," said I, "only provided we give her our own in return, I presume?"

"That," he replied, "is not absolutely necessary, when a person is too much attached to the world. Hear Father

Barry: 'Heart for heart would, no doubt, be highly proper; but yours is rather too much attached to the world,

too much bound up in the creature, so that I dare not advise you to offer, at present, that poor little slave

which you call your heart.' And so he contents himself with the Ave Maria which he had prescribed."

"Why, this is extremely easy work," said I, "and I should really think that nobody will be damned after that."

"Alas!" said the monk, "I see you have no idea of the hardness of some people's hearts. There are some, sir,

who would never engage to repeat, every day, even these simple words, Good day, Good evening, just

because such a practice would require some exertion of memory. And, accordingly, it became necessary for

Father Barry to furnish them with expedients still easier, such as wearing a chaplet night and day on the arm,

in the form of a bracelet, or carrying about one's person a rosary, or an image of the Virgin. 'And, tell me

now,' as Father Barry says, 'if I have not provided you with easy devotions to obtain the good graces of

"Yes," he said, "it is as much as could possibly be done, and I think should be quite satisfactory. For he must

be a wretched creature indeed, who would not spare a single moment in all his lifetime to put a chaplet on his

arm, or a rosary in his pocket, and thus secure his salvation; and that, too, with so much certainty that none

who have tried the experiment have ever found it to fail, in whatever way they may have lived; though, let me

add, we exhort people not to omit holy living. Let me refer you to the example of this, given at p. 34; it is that

of a female who, while she practised daily the devotion of saluting the images of the Virgin, spent all her

days in mortal sin, and yet was saved after all, by the merit of that single devotion."

"Our Saviour," he replied, "raised her up again, for the very purpose of showing it. So certain it is that none

"My dear sir," I observed, "I am fully aware that the devotions to the Virgin are a powerful means of

salvation, and that the least of them, if flowing from the exercise of faith and charity, as in the case of the

saints who have practised them, are of great merit; but to make persons believe that, by practising these

without reforming their wicked lives, they will be converted by them at the hour of death, or that God will

raise them up again, does appear calculated rather to keep sinners going on in their evil courses, by deluding

them with false peace and foolhardy confidence, than to draw them off from sin by that genuine conversion

"What does it matter," replied the monk, "by what road we enter paradise, provided we do enter it? as our

famous Father Binet, formerly our Provincial, remarks on a similar subject, in his excellent book, On the

Mark of Predestination. 'Be it by hook or by crook,' as he says, 'what need we care, if we reach at last the

"The Virgin will be answerable for that," returned he; "so says Father Barry in the concluding lines of his

book: 'If at the hour of death, the enemy should happen to put in some claim upon you, and occasion

disturbance in the little commonwealth of your thoughts, you have only to say that Mary will answer for you,

"But, father, it might be possible to puzzle you, were one disposed to push the question a little further. Who,

"Father Barry will be answerable for her," he replied. "'As for the profit and happiness to be derived from

these devotions,' he says, 'I will be answerable for that; I will stand bail for the good Mother.'"

"How!" cried the monk; "for Father Barry? is he not a member of our Society; and do you need to be told that

our Society is answerable for all the books of its members? It is highly necessary and important for you to

know about this. There is an order in our Society, by which all booksellers are prohibited from printing any

work of our fathers without the approbation of our divines and the permission of our superiors. This

regulation was passed by Henry III, 10th May 1583, and confirmed by Henry IV, 20th December 1603, and

by Louis XIII, 14th February 1612; so that the whole of our body stands responsible for the publications of

each of the brethren. This is a feature quite peculiar to our community. And, in consequence of this, not a

single work emanates from us which does not breathe the spirit of the Society. That, sir, is a piece of

"My good father," said I, "you oblige me very much, and I only regret that I did not know this sooner, as it

"I would have told you sooner," he replied, "had an opportunity offered; I hope, however, you will profit by

the information in future, and, in the meantime, let us prosecute our subject. The methods of securing

salvation which I have mentioned are, in my opinion, very easy, very sure, and sufficiently numerous; but it

was the anxious wish of our doctors that people should not stop short at this first step, where they only do

what is absolutely necessary for salvation and nothing more. Aspiring, as they do without ceasing, after the

greater glory of God, they sought to elevate men to a higher pitch of piety; and, as men of the world are

generally deterred from devotion by the strange ideas they have been led to form of it by some people, we

have deemed it of the highest importance to remove this obstacle which meets us at the threshold. In this

department Father Le Moine has acquired much fame, by his work entitled Devotion Made Easy, composed

for this very purpose. The picture which he draws of devotion in this work is perfectly charming. None ever

understood the subject before him. Only hear what he says in the beginning of his work: 'Virtue has never as

yet been seen aright; no portrait of her hitherto produced, has borne the least verisimilitude. It is by no means

surprising that so few have attempted to scale her rocky eminence. She has been held up as a crosstempered

dame, whose only delight is in solitude; she has been associated with toil and sorrow; and, in short,

represented as the foe of sports and diversions, which are, in fact, the flowers of joy and the seasoning of

"But, father, I am sure, I have heard, at least, that there have been great saints who led extremely austere

"No doubt of that," he replied; "but still, to use the language of the doctor, 'there have always been a number

of genteel saints, and wellbred devotees'; and this difference in their manners, mark you, arises entirely from

a difference of humours. 'I am far from denying,' says my author, 'that there are devout persons to be met

with, pale and melancholy in their temperament, fond of silence and retirement, with phlegm instead of blood

in their veins, and with faces of clay; but there are many others of a happier complexion, and who possess

that sweet and warm humour, that genial and rectified blood, which is the true stuff that joy is made of.'

"You see," resumed the monk, "that the love of silence and retirement is not common to all devout people;

and that, as I was saying, this is the effect rather of their complexion than their piety. Those austere manners

to which you refer are, in fact, properly the character of a savage and barbarian, and, accordingly, you will

find them ranked by Father Le Moine among the ridiculous and brutal manners of a moping idiot. The

following is the description he has drawn of one of these in the seventh book of his Moral Pictures. 'He has

no eyes for the beauties of art or nature. Were he to indulge in anything that gave him pleasure, he would

consider himself oppressed with a grievous load. On festival days, he retires to hold fellowship with the dead.

He delights in a grotto rather than a palace, and prefers the stump of a tree to a throne. As to injuries and

affronts, he is as insensible to them as if he had the eyes and ears of a statue. Honour and glory are idols with

whom he has no acquaintance, and to whom he has no incense to offer. To him a beautiful woman is no better

than a spectre; and those imperial and commanding looks those charming tyrants who hold so many slaves

in willing and chainless servitude have no more influence over his optics than the sun over those of owls,'

"Reverend sir," said I, "had you not told me that Father Le Moine was the author of that description, I declare

I would have guessed it to be the production of some profane fellow who had drawn it expressly with the

view of turning the saints into ridicule. For if that is not the picture of a man entirely denied to those feelings

which the Gospel obliges us to renounce, I confess that I know nothing of the matter."

"You may now perceive, then, the extent of your ignorance," he replied; "for these are the features of a

feeble, uncultivated mind, 'destitute of those virtuous and natural affections which it ought to possess,' as

Father Le Moine says at the close of that description. Such is his way of teaching 'Christian virtue and

philosophy,' as he announces in his advertisement; and, in truth, it cannot be denied that this method of

treating devotion is much more agreeable to the taste of the world than the old way in which they went to

"There can be no comparison between them," was my reply, "and I now begin to hope that you will be as

"You will see that better byandby," returned the monk. "Hitherto I have only spoken of piety in general,

but, just to show you more in detail how our fathers have disencumbered it of its toils and troubles, would it

not be most consoling to the ambitious to learn that they may maintain genuine devotion along with an

"Yes," he replied; "for this would be only a venial sin, unless they sought after greatness in order to offend

God and injure the State more effectually. Now venial sins do not preclude a man from being devout, as the

greatest saints are not exempt from them. 'Ambition,' says Escobar, 'which consists in an inordinate appetite

for place and power, is of itself a venial sin; but when such dignities are coveted for the purpose of hurting

the commonwealth, or having more opportunity to offend God, these adventitious circumstances render it

"And is it not still more savoury," continued the monk, "for misers to be told, by the same authority, 'that the

rich are not guilty of mortal sin by refusing to give alms out of their superfluity to the poor in the hour of

their greatest need? scio in gravi pauperum necessitate divites non dando superflua, non peccare

"Why truly," said I, "if that be the case, I give up all pretension to skill in the science of sins."

"To make you still more sensible of this," returned he, "you have been accustomed to think, I suppose, that a

good opinion of one's self, and a complacency in one's own works, is a most dangerous sin? Now, will you

not be surprised if I can show you that such a good opinion, even though there should be no foundation for it,

"That it is," said the monk; "and our good Father Garasse shows it in his French work, entitled Summary of

the Capital Truths of Religion: 'It is a result of commutative justice that all honest labour should find its

recompense either in praise or in selfsatisfaction. When men of good talents publish some excellent work,

they are justly remunerated by public applause. But when a man of weak parts has wrought hard at some

worthess production, and fails to obtain the praise of the public, in order that his labour may not go without

its reward, God imparts to him a personal satisfaction, which it would be worse than barbarous injustic to

envy him. It is thus that God, who is infinitely just, has given even to frogs a certain complacency in their

"Very fine decisions in favour of vanity, ambition, and (n) ext Page (p) Previous Page (u) Menu (38%)

avarice!" cried I; "and envy, father, will it be more difficult to find an excuse for it?"

"That is a delicate point," he replied. "We require to make use here of Father Bauny's distinction, which he

lay down in his Summary of Sins. 'Envy of the spiritual good of our neighbour is mortal but envy of his

"You shall hear, said he. "'For the good tha consists in temporal things is so slender, and so insignificant in

relation to heaven, that it is of no consideration in the eyes of God and His saints.'"

"But, father, if temporal good is so slender, andof so little consideration, how do you come to permit men's

"You mistake the matter entirely," returned the monk; "you were told that temporal good was of o

"That idea never occurred to me," I replied; "and now, it is to be hoped that, in virtue of these same

"Do not flatter yourself with that," said the father; "there are still such things as mortal sins there is sloth, for

"Nay, then, father dear!" I exclaimed, "afte that, farewell to all 'the joys of life!'"

"Stay," said the monk, "when you have heard Escobar's definition of that vice, you will perhaps change your

tone: 'Sloth,' he observes, 'lies in grieving that spiritual things are spiritual, as if one should lament that the

"O my dear sir!" cried I, "I don't think that anybody ever took it into his head to be slothful in that way."

"And accordingly," he replied, "Escobar afterwards remarks: 'I must confess that it is very rarely that a person

falls into the sin of sloth.' You see now how important it is to define things properly?"

"Yes, father, and this brings to my mind your other definitions about assassinations, ambuscades, and

superfluities. But why have you not extended your method to all cases, and given definitions of all vices in

"It is not always essential," he replied, "to accomplish that purpose by changing the definitions of things. I

may illustrate this by referring to the subject of good cheer, which is accounted one of the greatest pleasures

of life, and which Escobar thus sanctions in his Practice according to our Society: 'Is it allowable for a person

to eat and drink to repletion, unnecessarily, and solely for pleasure? Certainly he may, according to Sanchez,

provided he does not thereby injure his health; because the natural appetite may be permitted to enjoy its

"Well, father, that is certainly the most complete passage, and the most finished maxim in the whole of your

moral system! What comfortable inferences may be drawn from it! Why, and is gluttony, then, not even a

"Not in the shape I have just referred to," he replied; "but, according to the same author, it would be a venial

sin 'were a person to gorge himself, unnecessarily, with eating and drinking, to such a degree as to produce

vomiting.' So much for that point. I would now say a little about the facilities we have invented for avoiding

sin in worldly conversations and intrigues. One of the most embarrassing of these cases is how to avoid

telling lies, particularly when one is anxious to induce a belief in what is false. In such cases, our doctrine of

equivocations has been found of admirable service, according to which, as Sanchez has it, 'it is permitted to

use ambiguous terms, leading people to understand them in another sense from that in which we understand

"We have published it so often," continued he, "that at length, it seems, everybody knows of it. But do you

"I thought as much, said the Jesuit; "this is something new, sir: I mean the doctrine of mental reservations. 'A

man may swear,' as Sanchez says in the same place, 'that he never did such a thing (though he actually did it),

meaning within himself that he did not do so on a certain day, or before he was born, or understanding any

other such circumstance, while the words which he employs have no such sense as would discover his

meaning. And this is very convenient in many cases, and quite innocent, when necessary or conducive to

"No," said the father; "Sanchez and Filiutius prove that it is not; for, says the latter, 'it is the intention that

determines the quality of the action.' And he suggests a still surer method for avoiding falsehood, which is

this: After saying aloud, 'I swear that I have not done that,' to add, in a low voice, 'today'; or after saying

aloud, 'I swear,' to interpose in a whisper, 'that I say,' and then continue aloud, 'that I have done that.' This,

"I grant it," said I; "it might possibly, however, be found to be telling the truth in a low key, and falsehood in

a loud one; besides, I should be afraid that many people might not have sufficient presence of mind to avail

"Our doctors," replied the Jesuit, "have taught, in the same passage, for the benefit of such as might not be

expert in the use of these reservations, that no more is required of them, to avoid lying, than simply to say

that 'they have not done' what they have done, provided 'they have, in general, the intention of giving to their

language the sense which an able man would give to it.' Be candid, now, and confess if you have not often

"And will you not also acknowledge," continued he, "that it would often prove very convenient to be

"Listen, then, to the general rule laid down by Escobar: 'Promises are not binding, when the person in making

them had no intention to bind himself. Now, it seldom happens that any have such an intention, unless when

they confirm their promises by an oath or contract; so that when one simply says, "I will do it," he means that

he will do it if he does not change his mind; for he does not wish, by saying that, to deprive himself of his

liberty.' He gives other rules in the same strain, which you may consult for yourself, and tells us, in

conclusion, 'that all this is taken from Molina and our other authors, and is therefore settled beyond all

"My dear father," I observed, "I had no idea that the direction of the intention possessed the power of

"You must perceive," returned he, "what facility this affords for prosecuting the business of life. But what has

given us the most trouble has been to regulate the commerce between the sexes; our fathers being more chary

in the matter of chastity. Not but that they have discussed questions of a very curious and very indulgent

At this stage of the conversation I was made acquainted with the most extraordinary questions you can well

imagine. He gave me enough of them to fill many letters; but, as you show my communications to all sorts of

persons, and as I do not choose to be the vehicle of such reading to those who would make it the subject of

The only thing to which I can venture to allude, out of all the books which he showed me, and these in

French, too, is a passage which you will find in Father Bauny's Summary, p. 165, relating to certain little

familiarities, which, provided the intention is well directed, he explains "as passing for gallant"; and you will

be surprised to find, on p. 148 a principle of morals, as to the power which daughters have to dispose of their

persons without the leave of their relatives, couched in these terms: "When that is done with the consent of

the daughter, although the father may have reason to complain, it does not follow that she, or the person to

whom she has sacrificed her honour, has done him any wrong, or violated the rules of justice in regard to

him; for the daughter has possession of her honour, as well as of her body, and can do what she pleases with

them, bating death or mutilation of her members." Judge, from that specimen, of the rest. It brings to my

recollection a passage from a heathen poet, a much better casuist, it would appear, than these reverend

doctors; for he says, "that the person of a daughter does not belong wholly to herself, but partly to her father

and partly to her mother, without whom she cannot dispose of it, even in marriage." And I am much mistaken

if there is a single judge in the land who would not lay down as law the very reverse of this maxim of Father

This is all I dare tell you of this part of our conversation, which lasted so long that I was obliged to beseech

the monk to change the subject. He did so and proceeded to entertain me with their regulations about female

"We shall not speak," he said, "of those who are actuated by impure intentions; but, as to others, Escobar

remarks that 'if the woman adorn herself without any evil intention, but merely to gratify a natural inclination

to vanity ob naturalem fastus inclinationem this is only a venial sin, or rather no sin at all.' And Father

Bauny maintains, that 'even though the woman knows the bad effect which her care in adorning her person

may have upon the virtue of those who may behold her, all decked out in rich and precious attire, she would

not sin in so dressing.' And, among others, he cites our Father Sanchez as being of the same mind."

"But, father, what do your authors say to those passages of Scripture which so strongly denounce everything

"Lessius has well met that objection," said the monk, "by observing, 'that these passages of Scripture have the

force of precepts only in regard to the women of that period, who were expected to exhibit, by their modest

"It does not matter where he found it," replied he; "it is enough to know that the sentiments of these great

men are always probable of themselves. It deserves to be noticed, however, that Father Le Moine has

qualified this general permission; for he will on no account allow it to be extended to the old ladies. 'Youth,'

he observes, 'is naturally entitled to adorn itself, nor can the use of ornament be condemned at an age which is

the flower and verdure of life. But there it should be allowed to remain: it would be strangely out of season to

seek for roses on the snow. The stars alone have a right to be always dancing, for they have the gift of

perpetual youth. The wisest course in this matter, therefore, for old women, would be to consult good sense

and a good mirror, to yield to decency and necessity, and to retire at the first approach of the shades of

"But," continued the monk, "just to show you how careful our fathers are about everything you can think of, I

may mention that, after granting the ladies permission to gamble, and foreseeing that, in many cases, this

license would be of little avail unless they had something to gamble with, they have established another

maxim in their favour, which will be found in Escobar's chapter on larceny, no. 13: 'A wife,' says he, 'may

"There are many other good things besides that," said the father; "but we must waive them and say a little

about those more important maxims, which facilitate the practice of holy things the manner of attending

mass, for example. On this subject, our great divines, Gaspard Hurtado and Coninck, have taught 'that it is

quite sufficient to be present at mass in body, though we may be absent in spirit, provided we maintain an

outwardly respectful deportment.' Vasquez goes a step further, maintaining 'that one fulfils the precept of

hearing mass, even though one should go with no such intention at all.' All this is repeatedly laid down by

Escobar, who, in one passage, illustrates the point by the example of those who are dragged to mass by force,

"Truly, sir," said I, "had any other person told me that, I would not have believed it."

"In good sooth," he replied, "it requires all the support which the authority of these great names can lend it;

and so does the following maxim by the same Escobar, 'that even a wicked intention, such as that of ogling

the women, joined to that of hearing mass rightly, does not hinder a man from fulfilling the service.' But

another very convenient device, suggested by our learned brother Turrian, is that 'one may hear the half of a

mass from one priest, and the other half from another; and that it makes no difference though he should hear

first the conclusion of the one, and then the commencement of the other.' I might also mention that it has been

decided by several of our doctors to be lawful 'to hear the two halves of a mass at the same time, from the lips

of two different priests, one of whom is commencing the mass, while the other is at the elevation; it being

quite possible to attend to both parties at once, and two halves of a mass making a whole duae medietates

unam missam constituunt.' 'From all which,' says Escobar, 'I conclude, that you may hear mass in a very short

period of time; if, for example, you should happen to hear four masses going on at the same time, so arranged

that when the first is at the commencement, the second is at the gospel, the third at the consecration, and the

"Certainly, father, according to that plan, one may hear mass any day at Notre Dame in a twinkling."

"Well," replied he, "that just shows how admirably we have succeeded in facilitating the hearing of mass. But

I am anxious now to show you how we have softened the use of the sacraments, and particularly that of

penance. It is here that the benignity of our fathers shines in its truest splendour; and you will be really

astonished to find that devotion, a thing which the world is so much afraid of, should have been treated by

our doctors with such consummate skill that, to use the words of Father Le Moine, in his Devotion Made

Easy, demolishing the bugbear which the devil had placed at its threshold, they have rendered it easier than

vice and more agreeable than pleasure; so that, in fact, simply to live is incomparably more irksome than to

"Indeed, father, I cannot help telling you a bit of my mind: I am sadly afraid that you have overshot the mark,

and that this indulgence of yours will shock more people than it will attract. The mass, for example, is a thing

so grand and so holy that, in the eyes of a great many, it would be enough to blast the credit of your doctors

"With a certain class," replied the monk, "I allow that may be the case; but do you not know that we

accommodate ourselves to all sorts of persons? You seem to have lost all recollection of what I have

repeatedly told you on this point. The first time you are at leisure, therefore, I propose that we make this the

theme of our conversation, deferring till then the lenitives we have introduced into the confessional. I promise

With these words we parted, so that our next conversation, I presume, will turn on the policy of the Society. I

P.S. Since writing the above, I have seen Paradise Opened by a Hundred Devotions Easily Practised, by

Father Barry; and also the Mark of Predestination, by Father Binet; both of them pieces well worth the

I have not come yet to the policy of the Society, but shall first introduce you to one of its leading principles. I

refer to the palliatives which they have applied to confession, and which are unquestionably the best of all the

schemes they have fallen upon to "attract all and repel none." It is absolutely necessary to know something of

this before going any further; and, accordingly, the monk judged it expedient to give me some instructions on

"From what I have already stated," he observed, "you may judge of the success with which our doctors have

laboured to discover, in their wisdom, that a great many things, formerly regarded as forbidden, are innocent

and allowable; but as there are some sins for which one can find no excuse, and for which there is no remedy

but confession, it became necessary to alleviate, by the methods I am now going to mention, the difficulties

attending that practice. Thus, having shown you, in our previous conversations, how we relieve people from

troublesome scruples of conscience by showing them that what they believed to be sinful was indeed quite

innocent, I proceed now to illustrate our convenient plan for expiating what is really sinful, which is effected

"Why," said he, "it is by those admirable subtleties which are peculiar to our Company, and have been styled

by our fathers in Flanders, in The Image of the First Century, 'the pious finesse, the holy artifice of devotion

piam et religiosam calliditatem, et pietatis solertiam.' By the aid of these inventions, as they remark in the

same place, 'crimes may be expiated nowadays alacrius with more zeal and alacrity than they were

committed in former days, and a great many people may be washed from their stains almost as cleverly as

"Pray, then, father, do teach me some of these most salutary lessons of finesse."

"We have a good number of them, answered the monk; "for there are a great many irksome things about

confession, and for each of these we have devised a palliative. The chief difficulties connected with this

ordinance are the shame of confessing certain sins, the trouble of specifying the circumstances of others, the

penance exacted for them, the resolution against relapsing into them, the avoidance of the proximate

occasions of sins, and the regret for having committed them. I hope to convince you today that it is now

possible to get over all this with hardly any trouble at all; such is the care we have taken to allay the bitterness

and nauseousness of this very necessary medicine. For, to begin with the difficulty of confessing certain sins,

you are aware it is of importance often to keep in the good graces of one's confessor; now, must it not be

extremely convenient to be permitted, as you are by our doctors, particularly Escobar and Suarez, 'to have

two confessors, one for the mortal sins and another for the venial, in order to maintain a fair character with

your ordinary confessor uti bonam famam apud ordinarium tueatur provided you do not take occasion

from thence to indulge in mortal sin?' This is followed by another ingenious contrivance for confessing a sin,

even to the ordinary confessor, without his perceiving that it was committed since the last confession, which

is, 'to make a general confession, and huddle this last sin in a lump among the rest which we confess.' And I

am sure you will own that the following decision of Father Bauny goes far to alleviate the shame which one

must feel in confessing his relapses, namely, 'that, except in certain cases, which rarely occur, the confessor is

not entitled to ask his penitent if the sin of which he accuses himself is an habitual one, nor is the latter

obliged to answer such a question; because the confessor has no right to subject his penitent to the shame of

"Indeed, father! I might as well say that a physician has no right to ask his patient if it is long since he had the

fever. Do not sins assume quite a different aspect according to circumstances? and should it not be the object

of a genuine penitent to discover the whole state of his conscience to his confessor, with the same sincerity

and openheartedness as if he were speaking to Jesus Christ himself, whose place the priest occupies? If so,

how far is he from realizing such a disposition who, by concealing the frequency of his relapses, conceals the

I saw that this puzzled the worthy monk, for he attempted to elude rather than resolve the difficulty by

turning my attention to another of their rules, which only goes to establish a fresh abuse, instead of justifying

in the least the decision of Father Bauny; a decision which, in my opinion, is one of the most pernicious of

their maxims, and calculated to encourage profligate men to continue in their evil habits.

"I grant you," replied the father, "that habit aggravates the malignity of a sin, but it does not alter its nature;

and that is the reason why we do not insist on people confessing it, according to the rule laid down by our

fathers, and quoted by Escobar, 'that one is only obliged to confess the circumstances that alter the species of

the sin, and not those that aggravate it.' Proceeding on this rule, Father Granados says, 'that if one has eaten

flesh in Lent, all he needs to do is to confess that he has broken the fast, without specifying whether it was by

eating flesh, or by taking two fish meals.' And, according to Reginald, 'a sorcerer who has employed the

diabolical art is not obliged to reveal that circumstance; it is enough to say that he has dealt in magic, without

expressing whether it was by palmistry or by a paction with the devil.' Fagundez, again, has decided that 'rape

is not a circumstance which one is bound to reveal, if the woman give her consent.' All this is quoted by

Escobar, with many other very curious decisions as to these circumstances, which you may consult at your

"And yet," said the father, "notwithstanding all that, they would go for nothing, sir, unless we had proceeded

to mollify penance, which, more than anything else, deters people from confession. Now, however, the most

squeamish have nothing to dread from it, after what we have advanced in our theses of the College of

Clermont, where we hold that, if the confessor imposes a suitable penance, and the penitent be unwilling to

submit himself to it, the latter may go home, 'waiving both the penance and the absolution.' Or, as Escobar

says, in giving the Practice of our Society, 'if the penitent declare his willingness to have his penance remitted

to the next world, and to suffer in purgatory all the pains due to him, the confessor may, for the honour of the

sacrament, impose a very light penance on him, particularly if he has reason to believe that this penitent

"I really think," said I, "that, if that is the case, we ought no longer to call confession the sacrament of

"You are wrong," he replied; "for we always administer something in the way of penance, for the form's

"But, father, do you suppose that a man is worthy of receiving absolution when he will submit to nothing

painful to expiate his offences? And, in these circumstances, ought you not to retain rather than remit their

sins? Are you not aware of the extent of your ministry, and that you have the power of binding and loosing?

Do you imagine that you are at liberty to give absolution indifferently to all who ask it, and without

ascertaining beforehand if Jesus Christ looses in heaven those whom you loose on earth?"

"What!" cried the father, "do you suppose that we do not know that 'the confessor (as one remarks) ought to

sit in judgement on the disposition of his penitent, both because he is bound not to dispense the sacraments to

the unworthy, Jesus Christ having enjoined him to be a faithful steward and not give that which is holy unto

dogs; and because he is a judge, and it is the duty of a judge to give righteous judgement, by loosing the

worthy and binding the unworthy, and he ought not to absolve those whom Jesus Christ condemns.'

"You astonish me," said I; "I took them to be a quotation from one of the fathers of the Church. At all events,

sir, that passage ought to make an impression on the confessors, and render them very circumspect in the

dispensation of this sacrament, to ascertain whether the regret of their penitents is sufficient, and whether

"That is not such a difficult matter," replied the father; "Filiutius had more sense than to leave confessors in

that dilemma, and accordingly he suggests an easy way of getting out of it, in the words immediately

following: 'The confessor may easily set his mind at rest as to the disposition of his penitent; for, if he fail to

give sufficient evidence of sorrow, the confessor has only to ask him if he does not detest the sin in his heart,

and, if he answers that he does, he is bound to believe it. The same thing may be said of resolutions as to the

future, unless the case involves an obligation to restitution, or to avoid some proximate occasion of sin.'"

"You are mistaken though," said the father, "for he has extracted it, word for word, from Suarez."

"But, father, that last passage from Filiutius overturns what he had laid down in the former. For confessors

can no longer be said to sit as judges on the disposition of their penitents, if they are bound to take it simply

upon their word, in the absence of all satisfying signs of contrition. Are the professions made on such

occasions so infallible, that no other sign is needed? I question much if experience has taught your fathers

that all who make fair promises are remarkable for keeping them; I am mistaken if they have not often found

"No matter," replied the monk; "confessors are bound to believe them for all that; for Father Bauny, who has

probed this question to the bottom, has concluded 'that at whatever time those who have fallen into frequent

relapses, without giving evidence of amendment, present themselves before a confessor, expressing their

regret for the past, and a good purpose for the future, he is bound to believe them on their simple averment,

although there may be reason to presume that such resolution only came from the teeth outwards. Nay,' says

he, 'though they should indulge subsequently to greater excess than ever in the same delinquencies, still, in

my opinion, they may receive absolution.' There now! that, I am sure, should silence you."

"But, father," said I, "you impose a great hardship, I think, on the confessors, by thus obliging them to believe

"You don't understand it," returned he; "all that is meant is that they are obliged to act and absolve as if they

believed that their penitents would be true to their engagements, though, in point of fact, they believe no such

thing. This is explained, immediately afterwards, by Suarez and Filiutius. After having said that 'the priest is

bound to believe the penitent on his word,' they add: 'It is not necessary that the confessor should be

convinced that the good resolution of his penitent will be carried into effect, nor even that he should judge it

probable; it is enough that he thinks the person has at the time the design in general, though he may very

shortly after relapse. Such is the doctrine of all our authors ita docent omnes autores.' Will you presume to

"But, sir, what then becomes of what Father Petau himself is obliged to own, in the preface to his Public

Penance, 'that the holy fathers, doctors, and councils of the Church agree in holding it as a settled point that

the penance preparatory to the eucharist must be genuine, constant, resolute, and not languid and sluggish, or

"Don't you observe," replied the monk, "that Father Petau is speaking of the ancient Church? But all that is

now so little in season, to use a common saying of our doctors, that, according to Father Bauny, the reverse is

the only true view of the matter. 'There are some,' says he, 'who maintain that absolution ought to be refused

to those who fall frequently into the same sin, more especially if, after being often absolved, they evince no

signs of amendment; and others hold the opposite view. But the only true opinion is that they ought not to be

refused absolution; and, though they should be nothing the better of all the advice given them, though they

should have broken all their promises to lead new lives, and been at no trouble to purify themselves, still it is

of no consequence; whatever may be said to the contrary, the true opinion which ought to be followed is that

even in all these cases, they ought to be absolved.' And again: 'Absolution ought neither to be denied nor

delayed in the case of those who live in habitual sins against the law of God, of nature, and of the Church,

although there should be no apparent prospect of future amendment etsi emendationis futurae nulla spes

"I know what you mean," interrupted the Jesuit; "but listen to Father Bauny, Q. 15: 'Absolution may be given

even to him who candidly avows that the hope of being absolved induced him to sin with more freedom than

he would otherwise have done.' And Father Caussin, defending this proposition, says 'that, were this not true,

confession would be interdicted to the greater part of mankind; and the only resource left poor sinners would

"Yes, he replied, "you would hardly believe what numbers are in the habit of frequenting them; 'we are

absolutely oppressed and overwhelmed, so to speak, under the crowd of our penitents penitentium numero

"I could suggest a very simple method," said I, "to escape from this inconvenient pressure. You have only to

oblige sinners to avoid the proximate occasions of sin; that single expedient would afford you relief at once."

"We have no wish for such a relief," rejoined the monk; "quite the reverse; for, as is observed in the same

book, 'the great end of our Society is to labor to establish the virtues, to wage war on the vices, and to save a

great number of souls.' Now, as there are very few souls inclined to quit the proximate occasions of sin, we

have been obliged to define what a proximate occasion is. 'That cannot be called a proximate occasion,' says

Escobar, 'where one sins but rarely, or on a sudden transport say three or four times a year'; or, as Father

Bauny has it, once or twice in a month.' Again, asks this author, 'what is to be done in the case of masters and

servants, or cousins, who, living under the same roof, are by this occasion tempted to sin?'"

"That is what he says, too, 'if their relapses be very frequent: but if the parties offend rarely, and cannot be

separated without trouble and loss, they may, according to Suarez and other authors, be absolved, provided

This required no explanation, for he had already informed me with what sort of evidence of contrition the

"And Father Bauny," continued the monk, "permits those who are involved in the proximate occasions of sin,

'to remain as they are, when they cannot avoid them without becoming the common talk of the world, or

subjecting themselves to inconvenience.' 'A priest,' he remarks in another work, 'may and ought to absolve a

woman who is guilty of living with a paramour, if she cannot put him away honourably, or has some reason

for keeping him si non potest honeste ejicere, aut habeat aliquam causam retinendi provided she promises

"Well, father," cried I, "you have certainly succeeded in relaxing the obligation of avoiding the occasions of

sin to a very comfortable extent, by dispensing with the duty as soon as it becomes inconvenient; but I should

think your fathers will at least allow it be binding when there is no difficulty in the way of its performance?"

"Yes," said the father, "though even then the rule is not without exceptions. For Father Bauny says, in the

same place, 'that any one may frequent profligate houses, with the view of converting their unfortunate

inmates, though the probability should be that he fall into sin, having often experienced before that he has

yielded to their fascinations. Some doctors do not approve of this opinion, and hold that no man may

voluntarily put his salvation in peril to succour his neighbor; yet I decidedly embrace the opinion which they

"A novel sort of preachers these, father! But where does Father Bauny find any ground for investing them

"It is upon one of his own principles," he replied, "which he announces in the same place after Basil Ponce. I

mentioned it to you before, and I presume you have not forgotten it. It is, 'that one may seek an occasion of

sin, directly and expressly primo et per se to promote the temporal or spiritual good of himself or his

On hearing these passages, I felt so horrified that I was on the point of breaking out; but, being resolved to

hear him to an end, I restrained myself, and merely inquired: "How, father, does this doctrine comport with

that of the Gospel, which binds us to 'pluck out the right eye,' and 'cut off the right hand,' when they 'offend,'

or prove prejudicial to salvation? And how can you suppose that the man who wilfully indulges in the

occasions of sins, sincerely hates sin? Is it not evident, on the contrary, that he has never been properly

touched with a sense of it, and that he has not yet experienced that genuine conversion of heart, which makes

"Indeed!" cried he, "do you call that genuine contrition? It seems you do not know that, as Father Pintereau

says, 'all our fathers teach, with one accord, that it is an error, and almost a heresy, to hold that contrition is

necessary; or that attrition alone, induced by the sole motive, the fear of the pains of hell, which excludes a

"What, father! do you mean to say that it is almost an article of faith that attrition, induced merely by fear of

punishment, is sufficient with the sacrament? That idea, I think, is peculiar to your fathers; for those other

doctors who hold that attrition is sufficient along with the sacrament, always take care to show that it must be

accompanied with some love to God at least. It appears to me, moreover, that even your own authors did not

always consider this doctrine of yours so certain. Your Father Suarez, for instance, speaks of it thus:

'Although it is a probable opinion that attrition is sufficient with the sacrament, yet it is not certain, and it may

be false non est certa, et potest esse falsa. And, if it is false, attrition is not sufficient to save a man; and he

that dies knowingly in this state, wilfully exposes himself to the grave peril of eternal damnation. For this

opinion is neither very ancient nor very common nec valde antiqua, nec multum communis.' Sanchez was

not more prepared to hold it as infallible when he said in his Summary that 'the sick man and his confessor,

who content themselves at the hour of death with attrition and the sacrament, are both chargeable with mortal

sin, on account of the great risk of damnation to which the penitent would be exposed, if the opinion that

attrition is sufficient with the sacrament should not turn out to be true. Comitolus, too, says that 'we should

Here the worthy father interrupted me. "What!" he cried, "you read our authors then, it seems? That is all

very well; but it would be still better were you never to read them without the precaution of having one of us

beside you. Do you not see, now, that, from having read them alone, you have concluded, in your simplicity,

that these passages bear hard on those who have more lately supported our doctrine of attrition? Whereas it

might be shown that nothing could set them off to greater advantage. Only think what a triumph it is for our

fathers of the present day to have succeeded in disseminating their opinion in such short time, and to such an

extent that, with the exception of theologians, nobody almost would ever suppose but that our modern views

on this subject had been the uniform belief of the faithful in all ages! So that, in fact, when you have shown,

from our fathers themselves, that, a few years ago, 'this opinion was not certain,' you have only succeeded in

"Accordingly," he continued, "our cordial friend Diana, to gratify us, no doubt, has recounted the various

steps by which the opinion reached its present position. 'In former days, the ancient schoolmen maintained

that contrition was necessary as soon as one had committed a mortal sin; since then, however, it has been

thought that it is not binding except on festival days; afterwards, only when some great calamity threatened

the people; others, again, that it ought not to be long delayed at the approach of death. But our fathers,

Hurtado and Vasquez, have ably refuted all these opinions and established that one is not bound to contrition

unless he cannot be absolved in any other way, or at the point of death!' But, to continue the wonderful

progress of this doctrine, I might add, what our fathers, Fagundez, Granados, and Escobar, have decided, 'that

contrition is not necessary even at death; because,' say they, 'if attrition with the sacrament did not suffice at

death, it would follow that attrition would not be sufficient with the sacrament. And the learned Hurtado,

cited by Diana and Escobar, goes still further; for he asks: 'Is that sorrow for sin which flows solely from

apprehension of its temporal consequences, such as having lost health or money, sufficient? We must

distinguish. If the evil is not regarded as sent by the hand of God, such a sorrow does not suffice; but if the

evil is viewed as sent by God, as, in fact, all evil, says Diana, except sin, comes from him, that kind of sorrow

"You surprise me, father; for I see nothing in all that attrition of which you speak but what is natural; and in

this way a sinner may render himself worthy of absolution without supernatural grace at all. Now everybody

"I should have thought with you," he replied; "and yet it seems this must not be the case, for the fathers of our

College of Clermont have maintained (in their Theses of the 23rd May and 6th June 1644) 'that attrition may

be holy and sufficient for the sacrament, although it may not be supernatural'; and (in that of August 1643)

'that attrition, though merely natural, is sufficient for the sacrament, provided it is honest.' I do not see what

more could be said on the subject, unless we choose to subjoin an inference, which may be easily drawn from

these principles, namely, that contrition, so far from being necessary to the sacrament, is rather prejudicial to

it, inasmuch as, by washing away sins of itself, it would leave nothing for the sacrament to do at all. That is,

indeed, exactly what the celebrated Jesuit Father Valencia remarks. (Book iv, disp.7, q.8, p.4.) 'Contrition,'

says he, 'is by no means necessary in order to obtain the principal benefit of the sacrament; on the contrary, it

is rather an obstacle in the way of it imo obstat potius quominus effectus sequatur.' Nobody could well

"I believe that, father, said I; "but you must allow me to tell you my opinion, and to show you to what a

dreadful length this doctrine leads. When you say that 'attrition, induced by the mere dread of punishment,' is

sufficient, with the sacrament, to justify sinners, does it not follow that a person may always expiate his sins

in this way, and thus be saved without ever having loved God all his lifetime? Would your fathers venture to

"I perceive," replied the monk, "from the strain of your remarks, that you need some information on the

doctrine of our fathers regarding the love of God. This is the last feature of their morality, and the most

important of all. You must have learned something of it from the passages about contrition which I have

quoted to you. But here are others still more definite on the point of love to God Don't interrupt me, now;

for it is of importance to notice the connection. Attend to Escobar, who reports the different opinions of our

authors, in his Practice of the Love of God according to our Society. The question is: 'When is one obliged to

have an actual affection for God?' Suarez says it is enough if one loves Him before being articulo mortis at

the point of death without determining the exact time. Vasquez, that it is sufficient even at the very point of

death. Others, when one has received baptism. Others, again, when one is bound to exercise contrition. And

others, on festival days. But our father, Castro Palao, combats all these opinions, and with good reason

merito. Hurtado de Mendoza insists that we are obliged to love God once a year; and that we ought to regard

it as a great favour that we are not bound to do it oftener. But our Father Coninck thinks that we are bound to

it only once in three or four years; Henriquez, once in five years; and Filiutius says that it is probable that we

are not strictly bound to it even once in five years. How often, then, do you ask? Why, he refers it to the

I took no notice of all this badinage, in which the ingenuity of man seems to be sporting, in the height of

"But," pursued the monk, "our Father Antony Sirmond surpasses all on this point, in his admirable book, The

Defence of Virtue, where, as he tells the reader, 'he speaks French in France,' as follows: 'St. Thomas says

that we are obliged to love God as soon as we come to the use of reason: that is rather too soon! Scotus says

every Sunday; pray, for what reason? Others say when we are sorely tempted: yes, if there be no other way of

escaping the temptation. Scotus says when we have received a benefit from God: good, in the way of

thanking Him for it. Others say at death: rather late! As little do I think it binding at the reception of any

sacrament: attrition in such cases is quite enough, along with confession, if convenient. Suarez says that it is

binding at some time or another; but at what time? he leaves you to judge of that for yourself he does not

know; and what that doctor did not know I know not who should know.' In short, he concludes that we are

not strictly bound to more than to keep the other commandments, without any affection for God, and without

giving Him our hearts, provided that we do not hate Him. To prove this is the sole object of his second

treatise. You will find it in every page; more especially where he says: 'God, in commanding us to love Him,

is satisfied with our obeying Him in his other commandments. If God had said: "Whatever obedience thou

yieldest me, if thy heart is not given to me, I will destroy thee!" would such a motive, think you, be well fitted

to promote the end which God must, and only can, have in view? Hence it is said that we shall love God by

doing His will, as if we loved Him with affection, as if the motive in this case was real charity. If that is really

our motive, so much the better; if not, still we are strictly fulfilling the commandment of love, by having its

works, so that (such is the goodness of God!) we are commanded, not so much to love Him, as not to hate

"Such is the way in which our doctors have discharged men from the painful obligation of actually loving

God. And this doctrine is so advantageous that our Fathers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and Antony Sirmond

himself, have strenuously defended it when it has been attacked. You have only to consult their answers to

the Moral Theology. That of Father Pintereau, in particular, will enable you to form some idea of the value of

this dispensation, from the price which he tells us that it cost, which is no less than the blood of Jesus Christ.

This crowns the whole. It appears, that this dispensation from the painful obligation to love God, is the

privilege of the Evangelical law, in opposition to the Judaical. 'It was reasonable,' he says, 'that, under the law

of grace in the New Testament, God should relieve us from that troublesome and arduous obligation which

existed under the law of bondage, to exercise an act of perfect contrition, in order to be justified; and that the

place of this should be supplied by the sacraments, instituted in aid of an easier disposition. Otherwise,

indeed, Christians, who are the children, would have no greater facility in gaining the good graces of their

Father than the Jews, who were the slaves, had in obtaining the mercy of their Lord and Master.'"

"O father!" cried I; "no patience can stand this any longer. It is impossible to listen without horror to the

"I grant it, sir," said I; "but you feel no aversion to them; and, so far from detesting the authors of these

maxims, you hold them in esteem. Are you not afraid that your consent may involve you in a participation of

their guilt? and are you not aware that St. Paul judges worthy of death, not only the authors of evil things, but

also 'those who have pleasure in them that do them?' Was it not enough to have permitted men to indulge in

so many forbidden things under the covert of your palliations? Was it necessary to go still further and hold

out a bribe to them to commit even those crimes which you found it impossible to excuse, by offering them

an easy and certain absolution; and for this purpose nullifying the power of the priests, and obliging them,

more as slaves than as judges, to absolve the most inveterate sinners without any amendment of life, without

any sign of contrition except promises a hundred times broken, without penance 'unless they choose to accept

of it', and without abandoning the occasions of their vices, 'if they should thereby be put to any

"But your doctors have gone even beyond this; and the license which they have assumed to tamper with the

most holy rules of Christian conduct amounts to a total subversion of the law of God. They violate 'the great

commandment on which hang all the law and the prophets'; they strike at the very heart of piety; they rob it

of the spirit that giveth life; they hold that to love God is not necessary to salvation; and go so far as to

maintain that 'this dispensation from loving God is the privilege which Jesus Christ has introduced into the

world!' This, sir, is the very climax of impiety. The price of the blood of Jesus Christ paid to obtain us a

dispensation from loving Him! Before the incarnation, it seems men were obliged to love God; but since 'God

has so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son,' the world, redeemed by him, is released from loving

Him! Strange divinity of our days to dare to take off the 'anathema' which St. Paul denounces on those 'that

love not the Lord Jesus!' To cancel the sentence of St. John: 'He that loveth not, abideth in death!' and that of

Jesus Christ himself: 'He that loveth me not keepeth not my precepts!' and thus to render those worthy of

enjoying God through eternity who never loved God all their life! Behold the Mystery of Iniquity fulfilled!

Open your eyes at length, my dear father, and if the other aberrations of your casuists have made no

impression on you, let these last, by their very extravagance, compel you to abandon them. This is what I

desire from the bottom of my heart, for your own sake and for the sake of your doctors; and my prayer to God

is that He would vouchsafe to convince them how false the light must be that has guided them to such

precipices; and that He would fill their hearts with that love of Himself from which they have dared to give

After some remarks of this nature, I took my leave of the monk, and I see no great likelihood of my repeating

my visits to him. This, however, need not occasion you any regret; for, should it be necessary to continue

these communications on their maxims, I have studied their books sufficiently to tell you as much of their

morality, and more, perhaps, of their policy, than he could have done himself. I am,

I have seen the letters which you are circulating in opposition to those which I wrote to one of my friends on

your morality; and I perceive that one of the principal points of your defence is that I have not spoken of your

maxims with sufficient seriousness. This charge you repeat in all your productions, and carry it so far as to

Such a charge, fathers, is no less surprising than it is unfounded. Where do you find that I have turned sacred

things into ridicule? You specify "the Mohatra contract, and the story of John d'Alba." But are these what you

call "sacred things?" Does it really appear to you that the Mohatra is something so venerable that it would be

blasphemy not to speak of it with respect? And the lessons of Father Bauny on larceny, which led John

d'Alba to practise it at your expense, are they so sacred as to entitle you to stigmatize all who laugh at them as

What, fathers! must the vagaries of your doctors pass for the verities of the Christian faith, and no man be

allowed to ridicule Escobar, or the fantastical and unchristian dogmas of your authors, without being

stigmatized as jesting at religion? Is it possible you can have ventured to reiterate so often an idea so utterly

unreasonable? Have you no fears that, in blaming me for laughing at your absurdities, you may only afford

me fresh subject of merriment; that you may make the charge recoil on yourselves, by showing that I have

really selected nothing from your writings as the matter of raillery but what was truly ridiculous; and that

thus, in making a jest of your morality, I have been as far from jeering at holy things, as the doctrine of your

Indeed, reverend sirs, there is a vast difference between laughing at religion and laughing at those who

profane it by their extravagant opinions. It were impiety to be wanting in respect for the verities which the

Spirit of God has revealed; but it were no less impiety of another sort to be wanting in contempt for the

For, fathers (since you will force me into this argument), I beseech you to consider that, just in proportion as

Christian truths are worthy of love and respect, the contrary errors must deserve hatred and contempt; there

being two things in the truths of our religion: a divine beauty that renders them lovely, and a sacred majesty

that renders them venerable; and two things also about errors: an impiety, that makes them horrible, and an

impertinence that renders them ridiculous. For these reasons, while the saints have ever cherished towards the

truth the twofold sentiment of love and fear the whole of their wisdom being comprised between fear, which

is its beginning, and love, which is its end they have, at the same time, entertained towards error the twofold

feeling of hatred and contempt, and their zeal has been at once employed to repel, by force of reasoning, the

malice of the wicked, and to chastise, by the aid of ridicule, their extravagance and folly.

Do not then expect, fathers, to make people believe that it is unworthy of a Christian to treat error with

derision. Nothing is easier than to convince all who were not aware of it before that this practice is perfectly

just that it is common with the fathers of the Church, and that it is sanctioned by Scripture, by the example

Do we not find God at once hates and despises sinners; so that even at the hour of death, when their condition

is most sad and deplorable, Divine Wisdom adds mockery to the vengeance which consigns them to eternal

punishment? "In interitu vestro ridebo et subsannabo I will laugh at your calamity." The saints, too,

influenced by the same feeling, will join in the derision; for, according to David, when they witness the

punishment of the wicked, "they shall fear, and yet laugh at it videbunt justi et timebunt, et super eum

ridebunt." And Job says: "Innocens subsannabit eos The innocent shall laugh at them."

It is worthy of remark here that the very first words which God addressed to man after his fall contain, in the

opinion of the fathers, "bitter irony" and mockery. After Adam had disobeyed his Maker, in the hope,

suggested by the devil, of being like God, it appears from Scripture that God, as a punishment, subjected him

to death; and after having reduced him to this miserable condition, which was due to his sin, He taunted him

in that state with the following terms of derision: "Behold, the man has become as one of us! Ecce Adam

quasi unus ex nobis!" which, according to St. Jerome and the interpreters, is "a grievous and cutting piece of

irony," with which God "stung him to the quick." "Adam," says Rupert, "deserved to be taunted in this

manner, and he would be naturally made to feel his folly more acutely by this ironical expression than by a

more serious one." St. Victor, after making the same remark, adds, "that this irony was due to his sottish

credulity, and that this species of rainery is an act of justice, merited by him against whom it was directed."

Thus you see, fathers, that ridicule is, in some cases, a very appropriate means of reclaiming men from their

errors, and that it is accordingly an act of justice, because, as Jeremiah says, "the actions of those that err are

worthy of derision, because of their vanity vana sunt es risu digna." And so far from its being impious to

laugh at them, St. Augustine holds it to be the effect of divine wisdom: "The wise laugh at the foolish,

because they are wise, not after their own wisdom, but after that divine wisdom which shall laugh at the death

The prophets, accordingly, filled with the Spirit of God, have availed themselves of ridicule, as we find from

the examples of Daniel and Elias. In short, examples of it are not wanting in the discourses of Jesus Christ

himself. St. Augustine remarks that, when he would humble Nicodemus, who deemed himself so expert in his

knowledge of the law, "perceiving him to be pulled up with pride, from his rank as doctor of the Jews, he first

beats down his presumption by the magnitude of his demands, and, having reduced him so low that he was

unable to answer, What! says he, you a master in Israel, and not know these things! as if he had said, Proud

ruler, confess that thou knowest nothing." St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril likewise observe upon this that "he

You may learn from this, fathers, that should it so happen, in our day that persons who enact the part of

"masters" among Christians, as Nicodemus and the Pharisees did among the Jews, show themselves so

ignorant of the first principles of religion as to maintain, for example, that "a man may be saved who never

loved God all his life," we only follow the example of Jesus Christ when we laugh at such a combination of

I am sure, fathers, these sacred examples are sufficient to convince you that to deride the errors and

extravagances of man is not inconsistent with the practice of the saints; otherwise we must blame that of the

greatest doctors of the Church, who have been guilty of it such as St. Jerome, in his letters and writings

against Jovinian, Vigilantius, and the Pelagians; Tertullian, in his Apology against the follies of idolaters; St.

Augustine against the monks of Africa, whom he styles "the hairy men"; St. Irenaeus the Gnostics; St.

Bernard and the other fathers of the Church, who, having been the imitators of the apostles, ought to be

imitated by the faithful in all time coming; for, say what we will, they are the true models for Christians, even

In following such examples, I conceived that I could not go far wrong; and, as I think I have sufficiently

established this position, I shall only add, in the admirable words of Tertullian, which give the true

explanation of the whole of my proceeding in this matter: "What I have now done is only a little sport before

the real combat. I have rather indicated the wounds that might be given you than inflicted any. If the reader

has met with passages which have excited his risibility, he must ascribe this to the subjects themselves. There

are many things which deserve to be held up in this way to ridicule and mockery, lest, by a serious refutation,

we should attach a weight to them which they do not deserve. Nothing is more due to vanity than laughter;

and it is the Truth properly that has a right to laugh, because she is cheerful, and to make sport of her

enemies, because she is sure of the victory. Care must be taken, indeed, that the raillery is not too low, and

unworthy of the truth; but, keeping this in view, when ridicule may be employed with effect, it is a duty to

avail ourselves of it." Do you not think fathers, that this passage is singularly applicable to our subject? The

letters which I have hitherto written are "merely a little sport before a real combat." As yet, I have been only

playing with the foils and "rather indicating the wounds that might be given you than inflicting any." I have

merely exposed your passages to the light, without making scarcely a reflection on them. "If the reader has

met with any that have excited his risibility, he must ascribe this to the subjects themselves." And, indeed,

what is more fitted to raise a laugh than to see a matter so grave as that of Christian morality decked out with

fancies so grotesque as those in which you have exhibited it? One is apt to form such high anticipations of

these maxims, from being told that "Jesus Christ himself has revealed them to the fathers of the Society," that

when one discovers among them such absurdities as "that a priest, receiving money to say a mass, may take

additional sums from other persons by giving up to them his own share in the sacrifice"; "that a monk is not

to be excommunicated for putting off his habit, provided it is to dance, swindle, or go incognito into

infamous houses"; and "that the duty of hearing mass may be fulfilled by listening to four quarters of a mass

at once from different priests" when, I say, one listens to such decisions as these, the surprise is such that it

is impossible to refrain from laughing; for nothing is more calculated to produce that emotion than a startling

contrast between the thing looked for and the thing looked at. And why should the greater part of these

maxims be treated in any other way? As Tertullian says, "To treat them seriously would be to sanction them."

What! is it necessary to bring up all the forces of Scripture and tradition, in order to prove that running a

sword through a man's body, covertly and behind his back, is to murder him in treachery? or, that to give one

money as a motive to resign a benefice, is to purchase the benefice? Yes, there are things which it is duty to

despise, and which "deserve only to be laughed at." In short, the remark of that ancient author, "that nothing

is more due to vanity than derision, with what follows, applies to the case before us so justly and so

convincingly, as to put it beyond all question that we may laugh at errors without violating propriety.

And let me add, fathers, that this may be done without any breach of charity either, though this is another of

the charges you bring against me in your publications. For, according to St. Augustine, "charity may

sometimes oblige us to ridicule the errors of men, that they may be induced to laugh at them in their turn, and

renounce them Haec tu misericorditer irride, ut eis ridenda ac fugienda commendes." And the same charity

may also, at other times, bind us to repel them with indignation, according to that other saying of St. Gregory

of Nazianzen: "The spirit of meekness and charity hath its emotions and its heats." Indeed, as St. Augustine

observes, "who would venture to say that truth ought to stand disarmed against falsehood, or that the enemies

of the faith shall be at liberty to frighten the faithful with hard words, and jeer at them with lively sallies of

wit; while the Catholics ought never to write except with a coldness of style enough to set the reader asleep?"

Is it not obvious that, by following such a course, a wide door would be opened for the introduction of the

most extravagant and pernicious dogmas into the Church; while none would be allowed to treat them with

contempt, through fear of being charged with violating propriety, or to confute them with indignation, from

Indeed, fathers! shall you be allowed to maintain, "that it is lawful to kill a man to avoid a box on the ear or

an affront," and must nobody be permitted publicly to expose a public error of such consequence? Shall you

be at liberty to say, "that a judge may in conscience retain a fee received for an act of injustice," and shall no

one be at liberty to contradict you? Shall you print, with the privilege and approbation of your doctors, "that a

man may be saved without ever having loved God"; and will you shut the mouth of those who defend the true

faith, by telling them that they would violate brotherly love by attacking you, and Christian modesty by

laughing at your maxims? I doubt, fathers, if there be any persons whom you could make believe this; if

however, there be any such, who are really persuaded that, by denouncing your morality, I have been

deficient in the charity which I owe to you, I would have them examine, with great jealousy, whence this

feeling takes its rise within them. They may imagine that it proceeds from a holy zeal, which will not allow

them to see their neighbour impeached without being scandalized at it; but I would entreat them to consider

that it is not impossible that it may flow from another source, and that it is even extremely likely that it may

spring from that secret, and often selfconcealed dissatisfaction, which the unhappy corruption within us

seldom fails to stir up against those who oppose the relaxation of morals. And, to furnish them with a rule

which may enable them to ascertain the real principle from which it proceeds, I will ask them if, while they

lament the way in which the religious have been treated, they lament still more the manner in which these

religious have treated the truth; if they are incensed, not only against the letters, but still more against the

maxims quoted in them. I shall grant it to be barely possible that their resentment proceeds from some zeal,

though not of the most enlightened kind; and, in this case, the passages I have just cited from the fathers will

serve to enlighten them. But if they are merely angry at the reprehension, and not at the things reprehended,

truly, fathers, I shall never scruple to tell them that they are grossly mistaken, and that their zeal is miserably

Strange zeal, indeed! which gets angry at those that censure public faults, and not at those that commit them!

Novel charity this, which groans at seeing error confuted, but feels no grief at seeing morality subverted by

that error. If these persons were in danger of being assassinated, pray, would they be offended at one

advertising them of the stratagem that had been laid for them; and instead of turning out of their way to avoid

it, would they trifle away their time in whining about the little charity manifested in discovering to them the

criminal design of the assassins? Do they get waspish when one tells them not to eat such an article of food,

Whence comes it, then, that the same persons who set down a man as wanting in charity, for exposing

maxims hurtful to religion, would, on the contrary, think him equally deficient in that grace were he not to

disclose matters hurtful to health and life, unless it be from this, that their fondness for life induces them to

take in good part every hint that contributes to its preservation, while their indifference to truth leads them,

not only to take no share in its defence, but even to view with pain the efforts made for the extirpation of

Let them seriously ponder, as in the sight of God, how shameful, and how prejudicial to the Church, is the

morality which your casuists are in the habit of propagating; the scandalous and unmeasured license which

they are introducing into public manners; the obstinate and violent hardihood with which you support them.

And if they do not think it full time to rise against such disorders, their blindness is as much to be pitied as

yours, fathers; and you and they have equal reason to dread that saying of St. Augustine, founded on the

words of Jesus Christ, in the Gospel: "Woe to the blind leaders! woe to the blind followers! Vae caecis

But, to leave you no room in future, either to create such impressions on the minds of others, or to harbour

them in your own, I shall tell you, fathers (and I am ashamed I should have to teach you what I should have

rather learnt from you), the marks which the fathers of the Church have given for judging when our

animadversions flow from a principle of piety and charity, and when from a spirit of malice and impiety.

The first of these rules is that the spirit of piety always prompts us to speak with sincerity and truthfulness;

whereas malice and envy make use of falsehood and calumny. "Splendentia et vehementia, sed rebus veris

Splendid and vehement in words, but true in things," as St. Augustine says. The dealer in falsehood is an

agent of the devil. No direction of the intention can sanctify slander; and though the conversion of the whole

earth should depend on it, no man may warrantably calumniate the innocent: because none may do the least

evil, in order to accomplish the greatest good; and, as the Scripture says, "the truth of God stands in no need

of our lie." St. Hilary observes that "it is the bounden duty of the advocates of truth, to advance nothing in its

support but true things." Now, fathers, I can declare before God that there is nothing that I detest more than

the slightest possible deviation from the truth, and that I have ever taken the greatest care, not only not to

falsify (which would be horrible), but not to alter or wrest, in the slightest possible degree, the sense of a

single passage. So closely have I adhered to this rule that, if I may presume to apply them to the present case,

I may safely say, in the words of the same St. Hilary: "If we advance things that are false, let our statements

be branded with infamy; but if we can show that they are public and notorious, it is no breach of apostolic

It is not enough, however, to tell nothing but the truth; we must not always tell everything that is true; we

should publish only those things which it is useful to disclose, and not those which can only hurt, without

doing any good. And, therefore, as the first rule is to speak with truth, the second is to speak with discretion.

"The wicked," says St. Augustine, "in persecuting the good, blindly follow the dictates of their passion; but

the good, in their prosecution of the wicked, are guided by a wise discretion, even as the surgeon warily

considers where he is cutting, while the murderer cares not where he strikes." You must be sensible, fathers,

that in selecting from the maxims of your authors, I have refrained from quoting those which would have

galled you most, though I might have done it, and that without sinning against discretion, as others who were

both learned and Catholic writers, have done before me. All who have read your authors know how far I have

spared you in this respect. Besides, I have taken no notice whatever of what might be brought against

individual characters among you; and I would have been extremely sorry to have said a word about secret and

personal failings, whatever evidence I might have of them, being persuaded that this is the distinguishing

property of malice, and a practice which ought never to be resorted to, unless where it is urgently demanded

for the good of the Church. It is obvious, therefore, that, in what I have been compelled to advance against

your moral maxims, I have been by no means wanting in due consideration: and that you have more reason to

The third rule, fathers, is: That when there is need to employ a little raillery, the spirit of piety will take care

to employ it against error only, and not against things holy; whereas the spirit of buffoonery, impiety, and

heresy, mocks at all that is most sacred. I have already vindicated myself on that score; and indeed there is no

great danger of falling into that vice so long as I confine my remarks to the opinions which I have quoted

In short, fathers, to abridge these rules, I shall only mention another, which is the essence and the end of all

the rest: That the spirit of charity prompts us to cherish in the heart a desire for the salvation of those against

whom we dispute, and to address our prayers to God while we direct our accusations to men. "We ought

ever," says St. Augustine, "to preserve charity in the heart, even while we are obliged to pursue a line of

external conduct which to man has the appearance of harshness; we ought to smite them with a sharpness,

severe but kindly, remembering that their advantage is more to be studied than their gratification." I am sure,

fathers, that there is nothing in my letters from which it can be inferred that I have not cherished such a desire

towards you; and as you can find nothing to the contrary in them, charity obliges you to believe that I have

been really actuated by it. It appears, then, that you cannot prove that I have offended against this rule, or

against any of the other rules which charity inculcates; and you have no right to say, therefore, that I have

But, fathers, if you should now like to have the pleasure of seeing, within a short compass, a course of

conduct directly at variance with each of these rules, and bearing the genuine stamp of the spirit of

buffoonery, envy, and hatred, I shall give you a few examples of it; and, that they may be of the sort best

To begin, then, with the unworthy manner in which your authors speak of holy things, whether in their

sportive and gallant effusions, or in their more serious pieces, do you think that the parcel of ridiculous

stories, which your father Binet has introduced into his Consolation to the Sick, are exactly suitable to his

professed object, which is that of imparting Christian consolation to those whom God has chastened with

affliction? Will you pretend to say that the profane, foppish style in which your Father Le Moine has talked

of piety in his Devotion made Easy is more fitted to inspire respect than contempt for the picture that he

draws of Christian virtues? What else does his whole book of Moral Pictures breathe, both in its prose and

poetry, but a spirit full of vanity, and the follies of this world? Take, for example, that ode in his seventh

book, entitled, "Eulogy on Bashfulness, showing that all beautiful things are red, or inclined to redden." Call

you that a production worthy of a priest? The ode is intended to comfort a lady, called Delphina, who was

sadly addicted to blushing. Each stanza is devoted to show that certain red things are the best of things, such

as roses, pomegranates, the mouth, the tongue; and it is in the midst of this badinage, so disgraceful in a

clergyman, that he has the effrontery to introduce those blessed spirits that minister before God, and of whom

What think you of this, fathers? Does this preference of the blushes of Delphina to the ardour of those spirits,

which is neither more nor less than the ardour of divine love, and this simile of the fan applied to their

mysterious wings, strike you as being very Christianlike in the lips which consecrate the adorable body of

Jesus Christ? I am quite aware that he speaks only in the character of a gallant and to raise a smile; but this is

precisely what is called laughing at things holy. And is it not certain, that, were he to get full justice, he could

not save himself from incurring a censure? although, to shield himself from this, he pleads an excuse which is

hardly less censurable than the offence, "that the Sorbonne has no jurisdiction over Parnassus, and that the

errors of that land are subject neither to censure nor the Inquisition"; as if one could act the blasphemer and

profane fellow only in prose! There is another passage, however, in the preface, where even this excuse fails

him, when he says, "that the water of the river, on whose banks he composes his verses, is so apt to make

poets, that, though it were converted into holy water, it would not chase away the demon of poesy." To match

this, I may add the following flight of your Father Garasse, in his Summary of the Capital Truths in Religion,

where, speaking of the sacred mystery of the incarnation, he mixes up blasphemy and heresy in this fashion:

"The human personality was grafted, as it were, or set on horseback, upon the personality of the Word!" And

omitting many others, I might mention another passage from the same author, who, speaking on the subject

I.H.S. observes that "some have taken away the cross from the top of it, leaving the characters barely thus,

Such is the indecency with which you treat the truths of religion, in the face of the inviolable law which binds

us always to speak of them with reverence. But you have sinned no less flagrantly against the rule which

obliges us to speak of them with truth and discretion. What is more common in your writings than calumny?

Can those of Father Brisacier be called sincere? Does he speak with truth when he says that "the nuns of

PortRoyal do not pray to the saints, and have no images in their church?" Are not these most outrageous

falsehoods, when the contrary appears before the eyes of all Paris? And can he be said to speak with

discretion when he stabs the fair reputation of these virgins, who lead a life so pure and austere, representing

them as "impenitent, unsacramentalists, uncommunicants, foolish virgins, visionaries, Calagans, desperate

creatures, and anything you please," loading them with many other slanders, which have justly incurred the

censure of the late Archbishop of Paris? Or when he calumniates priests of the most irreproachable morals,

by asserting "that they practise novelties in confession, to entrap handsome innocent females, and that he

would be horrified to tell the abominable crimes which they commit." Is it not a piece of intolerable

assurance to advance slanders so black and base, not merely without proof, but without the slightest shadow,

or the most distant semblance of truth? I shall not enlarge on this topic, but defer it to a future occasion, for I

have something more to say to you about it; but what I have now produced is enough to show that you have

But it may be said, perhaps, that you have not offended against the last rule at least, which binds you to desire

the salvation of those whom you denounce, and that none can charge you with this, except by unlocking the

secrets of your breasts, which are only known to God. It is strange, fathers, but true, nevertheless, that we can

convict you even of this offence; that while your hatred to your opponents has carried you so far as to wish

their eternal perdition, your infatuation has driven you to discover the abominable wish that, so far from

cherishing in secret desires for their salvation, you have offered up prayers in public for their damnation; and

that, after having given utterance to that hideous vow in the city of Caen, to the scandal of the whole Church,

you have since then ventured, in Paris, to vindicate, in your printed books, the diabolical transaction. After

such gross offences against piety, first ridiculing and speaking lightly of things the most sacred; next falsely

and scandalously calumniating priests and virgins; and lastly, forming desires and prayers for their

damnation, it would be difficult to add anything worse. I cannot conceive, fathers, how you can fail to be

ashamed of yourselves, or how you could have thought for an instant of charging me with a want of charity,

who have acted all along with so much truth and moderation, without reflecting on your own horrid

violations of charity, manifested in those deplorable exhibitions, which make the charge recoil against

In fine, fathers, to conclude with another charge which you bring against me, I see you complain that among

the vast number of your maxims which I quote, there are some which have been objected to already, and that

I "say over again, what others have said before me." To this I reply that it is just because you have not

profited by what has been said before that I say it over again. Tell me now what fruit has appeared from all

the castigations you have received in all the books written by learned doctors and even the whole University?

What more have your Fathers Annat, Caussin, Pintereau, and Le Moine done, in the replies they have put

forth, except loading with reproaches those who had given them salutary admonitions? Have you suppressed

the books in which these nefarious maxims are taught? Have you restrained the authors of these maxims?

Have you become more circumspect in regard to them? On the contrary, is it not the fact that since that time

Escobar has been repeatedly reprinted in France and in the Low Countries, and that your fathers Cellot,

Bagot, Bauny, Lamy, Le Moine, and others, persist in publishing daily the same maxims over again, or new

ones as licentious as ever? Let us hear no more complaints, then, fathers, either because I have charged you

with maxims which you have not disavowed, or because I have objected to some new ones against you, or

because I have laughed equally at them all. You have only to sit down and look at them, to see at once your

own confusion and my defence. Who can look without laughing at the decision of Bauny, respecting the

person who employs another to set fire to his neighbour's barn; that of Cellot on restitution; the rule of

Sanchez in favour of sorcerers; the plan of Hurtado for avoiding the sin of duelling by taking a walk through

a field and waiting for a man; the compliments of Bauny for escaping usury; the way of avoiding simony by a

detour of the intention, and keeping clear of falsehood by speaking high and low; and such other opinions of

your most grave and reverend doctors? Is there anything more necessary, fathers, for my vindication? And, as

Tertullian says, "can anything be more justly due to the vanity and weakness of these opinions than

laughter?" But, fathers, the corruption of manners, to which your maxims lead, deserves another sort of

consideration; and it becomes us to ask, with the same ancient writer: "Whether ought we to laugh at their

folly, or deplore their blindness? Rideam vanitatem, an exprobrem caecitatem?" My humble opinion is that

one may either laugh at them or weep over them, as one is in the humour. "Haec tolerabilius vel ridentur, vel

flentur, " as St. Augustine says. The Scripture tells us that "there is a time to laugh, and a time to weep"; and

my hope is, fathers, that I may not find verified, in your case, these words in the Proverbs: "If a wise man

P.S. On finishing this letter, there was put in my hands one of your publications, in which you accuse me of

falsification, in the case of six of your maxims quoted by me, and also with being in correspondence with

heretics. You will shortly receive, I trust, a suitable reply; after which, fathers, I rather think you will not feel

I was prepared to write you on the subject of the abuse with which you have for some time past been assailing

me in your publications, in which you salute me with such epithets as "reprobate," "buffoon," "blockhead,"

"merry Andrew," "impostor," "slanderer," "cheat," "heretic," "Calvinist in disguise," "disciple of Du

Moulin," "possessed with a legion of devils," and everything else you can think of. As I should be sorry to

have all this believed of me, I was anxious to show the public why you treated me in this manner; and I had

resolved to complain of your calumnies and falsifications, when I met with your Answers, in which you bring

these same charges against myself. This will compel me to alter my plan; though it will not prevent me from

prosecuting it in some sort, for I hope, while defending myself, to convict you of impostures more genuine

than the imaginary ones which you have ascribed to me. Indeed, fathers, the suspicion of foul play is much

more sure to rest on you than on me. It is not very likely, standing as I do, alone, without power or any

human defence against such a large body, and having no support but truth and integrity, that I would expose

myself to lose everything by laying myself open to be convicted of imposture. It is too easy to discover

falsifications in matters of fact such as the present. In such a case there would have been no want of persons

to accuse me, nor would justice have been denied them. With you, fathers, the case is very different; you may

say as much as you please against me, while I may look in vain for any to complain to. With such a wide

difference between our positions, though there had been no other consideration to restrain me, it became me

to study no little caution. By treating me, however, as a common slanderer, you compel me to assume the

defensive, and you must be aware that this cannot be done without entering into a fresh exposition and even

into a fuller disclosure of the points of your morality. In provoking this discussion, I fear you are not acting as

good politicians. The war must be waged within your own camp and at your own expense; and, although you

imagine that, by embroiling the questions with scholastic terms, the answers will be so tedious, thorny, and

obscure, that people will lose all relish for the controversy, this may not, perhaps, turn out to be exactly the

case; I shall use my best endeavours to tax your patience as little as possible with that sort of writing. Your

maxims have something diverting about them, which keeps up the good humour of people to the last. At all

events, remember that it is you that oblige me to enter upon this eclaircissement, and let us see which of us

The first of your Impostures, as you call them, is on the opinion of Vasquez upon almsgiving. To avoid all

ambiguity, then, allow me to give a simple explanation of the matter in dispute. It is well known, fathers, that,

according to the mind of the Church, there are two precepts touching alms: 1st, "To give out of our

superfluity in the case of the ordinary necessities of the poor"; and 2nd, "To give even out of our necessaries,

according to our circumstances, in cases of extreme necessity." Thus says Cajetan, after St. Thomas; so that,

to get at the mind of Vasquez on this subject, we must consider the rules he lays down, both in regard to

With regard to superfluity, which is the most common source of relief to the poor, it is entirely set aside by

that single maxim which I have quoted in my Letters: "That what the men of the world keep with the view of

improving their own condition, and that of their relatives, is not properly superfluity; so that such a thing as

superfluity is rarely to be met with among men of the world, not even excepting kings." It is very easy to see,

fathers, that, according to this definition, none can have superfluity, provided they have ambition; and thus,

so far as the greater part of the world is concerned, almsgiving is annihilated. But even though a man should

happen to have superfluity, he would be under no obligation, according to Vasquez, to give it away in the

case of ordinary necessity; for he protests against those who would thus bind the rich. Here are his own

words: "Corduba," says he, "teaches that when we have a superfluity we are bound to give out of it in cases of

ordinary necessity; but this does not please me sed hoc non placet for we have demonstrated the contrary

against Cajetan and Navarre." So, fathers, the obligation to this kind of alms is wholly set aside, according to

With regard to necessaries, out of which we are bound to give in cases of extreme and urgent necessity, it

must be obvious, from the conditions by which he has limited the obligation, the richest man in all Paris may

not come within its reach one in a lifetime. I shall only refer to two of these. The first is: That "we must know

that the poor man cannot be relieved from any other quarter haec intelligo et caetera omnia, quando SCIO

nullum alium opem laturum." What say you to this, fathers? Is it likely to happen frequently in Paris, where

there are so many charitable people, that I must know that there is not another soul but myself to relieve the

poor wretch who begs an alms from me? And yet, according to Vasquez, if I have not ascertained that fact, I

may send him away with nothing. The second condition is: That the poor man be reduced to such straits "that

he is menaced with some fatal accident, or the ruin of his character" none of them very common

occurrences. But what marks still more the rarity of the cases in which one is bound to give charity, is his

remark, in another passage, that the poor man must be so ill off, "that he may conscientiously rob the rich

man!" This must surely be a very extraordinary case, unless he will insist that a man may be ordinarily

allowed to commit robbery. And so, after having cancelled the obligation to give alms out of our

superfluities, he obliges the rich to relieve the poor only in those cases when he would allow the poor to rifle

the rich! Such is the doctrine of Vasquez, to whom you refer your readers for their edification!

I now come to your pretended Impostures. You begin by enlarging on the obligation to almsgiving which

Vasquez imposes on ecclesiastics. But on this point I have said nothing; and I am prepared to take it up

whenever you choose. This, then, has nothing to do with the present question. As for laymen, who are the

only persons with whom we have now to do, you are apparently anxious to have it understood that, in the

passage which I quoted, Vasquez is giving not his own judgement, but that of Cajetan. But as nothing could

be more false than this, and as you have not said it in so many terms, I am willing to believe, for the sake of

You next loudly complain that, after quoting that maxim of Vasquez, "Such a thing as superfluity is rarely if

ever to be met with among men of the world, not excepting kings," I have inferred from it, "that the rich are

rarely, if ever, bound to give alms out of their superfluity." But what do you mean to say, fathers? If it be true

that the rich have almost never superfluity, is it not obvious that they will almost never be bound to give alms

out of their superfluity? I might have put it into the form of a syllogism for you, if Diana, who has such an

esteem for Vasquez that he calls him "the phoenix of genius," had not drawn the same conclusion from the

same premisses; for, after quoting the maxim of Vasquez, he concludes, "that, with regard to the question,

whether the rich are obliged to give alms out of their superfluity, though the affirmation were true, it would

seldom, or almost never, happen to be obligatory in practice." I have followed this language word for word.

What, then, are we to make of this, fathers? When Diana quotes with approbation the sentiments of Vasquez,

when he finds them probable, and "very convenient for rich people," as he says in the same place, he is no

slanderer, no falsifier, and we hear no complaints of misrepresenting his author; whereas, when I cite the

same sentiments of Vasquez, though without holding him up as a phoenix, I am a slanderer, a fabricator, a

corrupter of his maxims. Truly, fathers, you have some reason to be apprehensive, lest your very different

treatment of those who agree in their representation, and differ only in their estimate of your doctrine,

discover the real secret of your hearts and provoke the conclusion that the main object you have in view is to

maintain the credit and glory of your Company. It appears that, provided your accommodating theology is

treated as judicious complaisance, you never disavow those that publish it, but laud them as contributing to

your design; but let it be held forth as pernicious laxity, and the same interest of your Society prompts you to

disclaim the maxims which would injure you in public estimation. And thus you recognize or renounce them,

not according to the truth, which never changes, but according to the shifting exigencies of the times, acting

on that motto of one of the ancients, "Omnia pro tempore, nihil pro veritate Anything for the times, nothing

for the truth." Beware of this, fathers; and that you may never have it in your power again to say that I drew

from the principle of Vasquez a conclusion which he had disavowed, I beg to inform you that he has drawn it

himself: "According to the opinion of Cajetan, and according to my own et secundum nostram (he says,

chap. i., no. 27), one is hardly obliged to give alms at all when one is only obliged to give them out of one's

superfluity." Confess then, fathers, on the testimony of Vasquez himself, that I have exactly copied his

sentiment; and think how you could have the conscience to say that "the reader, on consulting the original,

In fine, you insist, above all, that if Vasquez does not bind the rich to give alms out of their superfluity, he

obliges them to atone for this by giving out of the necessaries of life. But you have forgotten to mention the

list of conditions which he declares to be essential to constitute that obligation, which I have quoted, and

which restrict it in such a way as almost entirely to annihilate it. In place of giving this honest statement of

his doctrine, you tell us, in general terms, that he obliges the rich to give even what is necessary to their

condition. This is proving too much, fathers; the rule of the Gospel does not go so far; and it would be an

error, into which Vasquez is very far, indeed, from having fallen. To cover his laxity, you attribute to him an

excess of severity which would be reprehensible; and thus you lose all credit as faithful reporters of his

sentiments. But the truth is, Vasquez is quite free from any such suspicion; for he has maintained, as I have

shown, that the rich are not bound, either in justice or in charity, to give of their superfluities, and still less of

their necessaries, to relieve the ordinary wants of the poor; and that they are not obliged to give of the

Having disposed of your objections against me on this head, it only remains to show the falsehood of your

assertion that Vasquez is more severe than Cajetan. This will by very easily done. That cardinal teaches "that

we are bound in justice to give alms out of our superfluity, even in the ordinary wants of the poor; because,

according to the holy fathers, the rich are merely the dispensers of their superfluity, which they are to give to

whom they please, among those who have need of it." And accordingly, unlike Diana, who says of the

maxims of Vasquez that they will be "very convenient and agreeable to the rich and their confessors," the

cardinal, who has no such consolation to afford them, declares that he has nothing to say to the rich but these

words of Jesus Christ: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter

into heaven"; and to their confessors: "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." So

indispensable did he deem this obligation! This, too, is what the fathers and all the saints have laid down as a

certain truth. "There are two cases," says St. Thomas, "in which we are bound to give alms as a matter of

justice ex debito legali: one, when the poor are in danger; the other, when we possess superfluous property."

And again: "The threetenths which the Jews were bound to eat with the poor, have been augmented under

the new law; for Jesus Christ wills that we give to the poor, not the tenth only, but the whole of our

superfluity." And yet it does not seem good to Vasquez that we should be obliged to give even a fragment of

our superfluity; such is his complaisance to the rich, such his hardness to the poor, such his opposition to

those feelings of charity which teach us to relish the truth contained in the following words of St. Gregory,

harsh as it may sound to the rich of this world: "When we give the poor what is necessary to them, we are not

so much bestowing on them what is our property as rendering to them what is their own; and it may be said to

It is thus that the saints recommend the rich to share with the poor the good things of this earth, if they would

expect to possess with them the good things of heaven. While you make it your business to foster in the

breasts of men that ambition which leaves no superfluity to dispose of, and that avarice which refuses to part

with it, the saints have laboured to induce the rich to give up their superfluity, and to convince them that they

would have abundance of it, provided they measured it, not by the standard of covetousness, which knows no

bounds to its cravings, but by that of piety, which is ingenious in retrenchments, so as to have wherewith to

diffuse itself in the exercise of charity. "We will have a great deal of superfluity," says St. Augustine, "if we

keep only what is necessary: but if we seek after vanities, we will never have enough. Seek, brethren, what is

sufficient for the work of God" that is, for nature "and not for what is sufficient for your covetousness,"

which is the work of the devil: "and remember that the superfluities of the rich are the necessaries of the

I would fondly trust, fathers, that what I have now said to you may serve, not only for my vindication that

were a small matter but also to make you feel and detest what is corrupt in the maxims of your casuists, and

thus unite us sincerely under the sacred rules of the Gospel, according to which we must all be judged.

As to the second point, which regards simony, before proceeding to answer the charges you have advanced

against me, I shall begin by illustrating your doctrine on this subject. Finding yourselves placed in an

awkward dilemma, between the canons of the Church, which impose dreadful penalties upon simoniacs, on

the one hand, and the avarice of many who pursue this infamous traffic on the other, you have recourse to

your ordinary method, which is to yield to men what they desire, and give the Almighty only words and

shows. For what else does the simoniac want but money in return for his benefice? And yet this is what you

exempt from the charge of simony. And as the name of simony must still remain standing, and a subject to

which it may be ascribed, you have substituted, in the place of this, an imaginary idea, which never yet

crossed the brain of a simoniac, and would not serve him much though it did the idea, namely, that simony

lies in estimating the money considered in itself as highly as the spiritual gift or office considered in itself.

Who would ever take it into his head to compare things so utterly disproportionate and heterogeneous? And

yet, provided this metaphysical comparison be not drawn, any one may, according to your authors, give away

Such is the way in which you sport with religion, in order to gratify the worst passions of men; and yet only

see with what gravity your Father Valentia delivers his rhapsodies in the passage cited in my letters. He says:

"One may give a spiritual for a temporal good in two ways first, in the way of prizing the temporal more

than the spiritual, and that would be simony; secondly, in the way of taking the temporal as the motive and

end inducing one to give away the spiritual, but without prizing the temporal more than the spiritual, and then

it is not simony. And the reason is that simony consists in receiving something temporal as the just price of

what is spiritual. If, therefore, the temporal is sought si petatur temporale not as the price, but only as the

motive determining us to part with the spiritual, it is by no means simony, even although the possession of

the temporal may be principally intended and expected minime erit simonia, etiamsi temporale principaliter

intendatur et expectetur." Your redoubtable Sanchez has been favoured with a similar revelation; Escobar

quotes him thus: "If one give a spiritual for a temporal good, not as the price, but as a motive to induce the

collator to give it, or as an acknowledgement if the benefice has been actually received, is that simony?

Sanchez assures us that it is not." In your Caen Theses of 1644 you say: "It is a probable opinion, taught by

many Catholics, that it is not simony to exchange a temporal for a spiritual good, when the former is not

given as a price." And as to Tanner, here is his doctrine, exactly the same with that of Valentia; and I quote it

again to show you how far wrong it is in you to complain of me for saying that it does not agree with that of

St. Thomas, for he avows it himself in the very passage which I quoted in my letter: "There is properly and

truly no simony," says he, "unless when a temporal good is taken as the price of a spiritual; but when taken

merely as the motive for giving the spiritual, or as an acknowledgement for having received it, this is not

simony, at least in point of conscience." And again: "The same thing may be said, although the temporal

should be regarded as the principal end, and even preferred to the spiritual; although St. Thomas and others

appear to hold the reverse, inasmuch as they maintain it to be downright simony to exchange a spiritual for a

Such, then, being your doctrine on simony, as taught by your best authors, who follow each other very

closely in this point, it only remains now to reply to your charges of misrepresentation. You have taken no

notice of Valentia's opinion, so that his doctrine stands as it was before. But you fix on that of Tanner,

maintaining that he has merely decided it to be no simony by divine right; and you would have it to be

believed that, in quoting the passage, I have suppressed these words, divine right. This, fathers, is a most

unconscionable trick; for these words, divine right, never existed in that passage. You add that Tanner

declares it to be simony according to positive right. But you are mistaken; he does not say that generally, but

only of particular cases, or, as he expresses it, in casibus a jure expressis, by which he makes an exception to

the general rule he had laid down in that passage, "that it is not simony in point of conscience," which must

imply that it is not so in point of positive right, unless you would have Tanner made so impious as to

maintain that simony, in point of positive right, is not simony in point of conscience. But it is easy to see your

drift in mustering up such terms as "divine right, positive right, natural right, internal and external tribunal,

expressed cases, outward presumption," and others equally little known; you mean to escape under this

obscurity of language, and make us lose sight of your aberrations. But, fathers, you shall not escape by these

vain artifices; for I shall put some questions to you so simple, that they will not admit of coming under your

I ask you, then, without speaking of "positive rights," of "outward presumptions," or "external tribunals" I

ask if, according to your authors, a beneficiary would be simoniacal, were he to give a benefice worth four

thousand livres of yearly rent, and to receive ten thousand francs ready money, not as the price of the

benefice, but merely as a motive inducing him to give it? Answer me plainly, fathers: What must we make of

such a case as this according to your authors? Will not Tanner tell us decidedly that "this is not simony in

point of conscience, seeing that the temporal good is not the price of the benefice, but only the motive

inducing to dispose of it?" Will not Valentia, will not your own Theses of Caen, will not Sanchez and

Escobar, agree in the same decision and give the same reason for it? Is anything more necessary to exculpate

that beneficiary from simony? And, whatever might be your private opinion of the case, durst you deal with

that man as a simonist in your confessionals, when he would be entitled to stop your mouth by telling you

that he acted according to the advice of so many grave doctors? Confess candidly, then, that, according to

your views, that man would be no simonist; and, having done so, defend the doctrine as you best can.

Such, fathers, is the true mode of treating questions, in order to unravel, instead of perplexing them, either by

scholastic terms, or, as you have done in your last charge against me here, by altering the state of the

question. Tanner, you say, has, at any rate, declared that such an exchange is a great sin; and you blame me

for having maliciously suppressed this circumstance, which, you maintain, "completely justifies him." But

you are wrong again, and that in more ways than one. For, first, though what you say had been true, it would

be nothing to the point, the question in the passage to which I referred being, not if it was sin, but if it was

simony. Now, these are two very different questions. Sin, according to your maxims, obliges only to

confession simony obliges to restitution; and there are people to whom these may appear two very different

things. You have found expedients for making confession a very easy affair; but you have not fallen upon

ways and means to make restitution an agreeable one. Allow me to add that the case which Tanner charges

with sin is not simply that in which a spiritual good is exchanged for a temporal, the latter being the principal

end in view, but that in which the party "prizes the temporal above the spiritual," which is the imaginary case

already spoken of. And it must be allowed he could not go far wrong in charging such a case as that with sin,

since that man must be either very wicked or very stupid who, when permitted to exchange the one thing for

the other, would not avoid the sin of the transaction by such a simple process as that of abstaining from

comparing the two things together. Besides, Valentia, in the place quoted, when treating the question if it be

sinful to give a spiritual good for a temporal, the latter being the main consideration and after producing the

reasons given for the affirmative, adds, "Sed hoc non videtur mihi satis certum But this does not appear to

Since that time, however, your father, Erade Bille, professor of cases of conscience at Caen, has decided that

there is no sin at all in the case supposed; for probable opinions, you know, are always in the way of

advancing to maturity. This opinion he maintains in his writings of 1644, against which M. Dupre, doctor and

professor at Caen, delivered that excellent oration, since printed and well known. For though this Erade Bille

confesses that Valentia's doctrine, adopted by Father Milhard and condemned by the Sorbonne, "is contrary

to the common opinion, suspected of simony, and punishable at law when discovered in practice," he does

not scruple to say that it is a probable opinion, and consequently sure in point of conscience, and that there is

neither simony nor sin in it. "It is a probable opinion, he says, "taught by many Catholic doctors, that there is

neither any simony nor any sin in giving money, or any other temporal thing, for a benefice, either in the way

of acknowledgement, or as a motive, without which it would not be given, provided it is not given as a price

equal to the benefice." This is all that could possibly be desired. In fact, according to these maxims of yours,

simony would be so exceedingly rare that we might exempt from this sin even Simon Magus himself, who

desired to purchase the Holy Spirit and is the emblem of those simonists that buy spiritual things; and Gehazi,

who took money for a miracle and may be regarded as the prototype of the simonists that sell them. There can

be no doubt that when Simon, as we read in the Acts, "offered the apostles money, saying, Give me also this

power"; he said nothing about buying or selling, or fixing the price; he did no more than offer the money as a

motive to induce them to give him that spiritual gift; which being, according to you, no simony at all, he

might, had be but been instructed in your maxims, have escaped the anathema of St. Peter. The same unhappy

ignorance was a great loss to Gehazi, when he was struck with leprosy by Elisha; for, as he accepted the

money from the prince who had been miraculously cured, simply as an acknowledgement, and not as a price

equivalent to the divine virtue which had effected the miracle, he might have insisted on the prophet healing

him again on pain of mortal sin; seeing, on this supposition, he would have acted according to the advice of

your grave doctors, who, in such cases, oblige confessors to absolve their penitents and to wash them from

Seriously, fathers, it would be extremely easy to hold you up to ridicule in this matter, and I am at a loss to

know why you expose yourselves to such treatment. To produce this effect, I have nothing more to do than

simply to quote Escobar, in his Practice of Simony according to the Society of Jesus; "Is it simony when two

Churchmen become mutually pledged thus: Give me your vote for my election as Provincial, and I shall give

you mine for your election as prior? By no means." Or take another: "It is not simony to get possession of a

benefice by promising a sum of money, when one has no intention of actually paying the money; for this is

merely making a show of simony, and is as far from being real simony as counterfeit gold is from the

genuine." By this quirk of conscience, he has contrived means, in the way of adding swindling to simony, for

But I have no time to dwell longer on the subject, for I must say a word or two in reply to your third

accusation, which refers to the subject of bankrupts. Nothing can be more gross than the manner in which you

have managed this charge. You rail at me as a libeller in reference to a sentiment of Lessius, which I did not

quote myself, but took from a passage in Escobar; and, therefore, though it were true that Lessius does not

hold the opinion ascribed to him by Escobar, what can be more unfair than to charge me with the

misrepresentation? When I quote Lessius or others of your authors myself, I am quite prepared to answer for

it; but, as Escobar has collected the opinions of twentyfour of your writers, I beg to ask if I am bound to

guarantee anything beyond the correctness of my citations from his book? Or if I must, in addition, answer

for the fidelity of all his quotations of which I may avail myself? This would be hardly reasonable; and yet

this is precisely the case in the question before us. I produced in my letter the following passage from

Escobar, and you do not object to the fidelity of my translation: "May the bankrupt, with a good conscience,

retain as much of his property as is necessary to afford him an honourable maintenance ne indecore vivat? I

answer, with Lessius, that he may cum Lessio assero posse." You tell me that Lessius does not hold that

opinion. But just consider for a moment the predicament in which you involve yourselves. If it turns out that

he does hold that opinion, you will be set down as impostors for having asserted the contrary; and if it is

proved that he does not hold it, Escobar will be the impostor; so it must now of necessity follow that one or

other of the Society will be convicted of imposture. Only think what a scandal! You cannot, it would appear,

foresee the consequences of things. You seem to imagine that you have nothing more to do than to cast

aspersions upon people, without considering on whom they may recoil. Why did you not acquaint Escobar

with your objection before venturing to publish it? He might have given you satisfaction. It is not so very

troublesome to get word from Valladolid, where he is living in perfect health, and completing his grand work

on Moral Theology, in six volumes, on the first of which I mean to say a few words byandby. They have

sent him the first ten letters; you might as easily have sent him your objection, and I am sure he would have

soon returned you an answer, for he has doubtless seen in Lessius the passage from which he took the ne

indecore vivat. Read him yourselves, fathers, and you will find it word for word, as I have done. Here it is:

"The same thing is apparent from the authorities cited, particularly in regard to that property which he

acquires after his failure, out of which even the delinquent debtor may retain as much as is necessary for his

honourable maintenance, according to his station of life ut non indecore vivat. Do you ask if this rule

applies to goods which he possessed at the time of his failure? Such seems to be the judgement of the

I shall not stop here to show how Lessius, to sanction his maxim, perverts the law that allows bankrupts

nothing more than a mere livelihood, and that makes no provision for "honourable maintenance." It is enough

to have vindicated Escobar from such an accusation it is more, indeed, than what I was in duty bound to do.

But you, fathers, have not done your duty. It still remains for you to answer the passage of Escobar, whose

decisions, by the way, have this advantage, that, being entirely independent of the context and condensed in

little articles, they are not liable to your distinctions. I quoted the whole of the passage, in which "bankrupts

are permitted to keep their goods, though unjustly acquired, to provide an honourable maintenance for their

families" commenting on which in my letters, I exclaim: "Indeed, father! by what strange kind of charity

would you have the illgotten property of a bankrupt appropriated to his own use, instead of that of his lawful

creditors?" This is the question which must be answered; but it is one that involves you in a sad dilemma, and

from which you in vain seek to escape by altering the state of the question, and quoting other passages from

Lessius, which have no connection with the subject. I ask you, then: May this maxim of Escobar be followed

by bankrupts with a safe conscience, or no? And take care what you say. If you answer, "No," what becomes

of your doctor, and your doctrine of probability? If you say, "Yes," I delate you to the Parliament.

In this predicament I must now leave you, fathers; for my limits will not permit me to overtake your next

accusation, which respects homicide. This will serve for my next letter, and the rest will follow.

In the meanwhile, I shall make no remarks on the advertisements which you have tagged to the end of each of

your charges, filled as they are with scandalous falsehoods. I mean to answer all these in a separate letter, in

which I hope to show the weight due to your calumnies. I am sorry, fathers, that you should have recourse to

such desperate resources. The abusive terms which you heap on me will not clear up our disputes, nor will

your manifold threats hinder me from defending myself You think you have power and impunity on your

side; and I think I have truth and innocence on mine. It is a strange and tedious war when violence attempts to

vanquish truth. All the efforts of violence cannot weaken truth, and only serve to give it fresh vigour. All the

lights of truth cannot arrest violence, and only serve to exasperate it. When force meets force, the weaker

must succumb to the stronger; when argument is opposed to argument, the solid and the convincing triumphs

over the empty and the false; but violence and verity can make no impression on each other. Let none

suppose, however, that the two are, therefore, equal to each other; for there is this vast difference between

them, that violence has only a certain course to run, limited by the appointment of Heaven, which overrules

its effects to the glory of the truth which it assails; whereas verity endures forever and eventually triumphs

I have just seen your last production, in which you have continued your list of Impostures up to the twentieth

and intimate that you mean to conclude with this the first part of your accusations against me, and to proceed

to the second, in which you are to adopt a new mode of defence, by showing that there are other casuists

besides those of your Society who are as lax as yourselves. I now see the precise number of charges to which

I have to reply; and as the fourth, to which we have now come, relates to homicide, it may be proper, in

answering it, to include the 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th, which refer to the same subject.

In the present letter, therefore, my object shall be to vindicate the correctness of my quotations from the

charges of falsity which you bring against me. But as you have ventured, in your pamphlets, to assert that

"the sentiments of your authors on murder are agreeable to the decisions of popes and ecclesiastical laws,"

you will compel me, in my next letter, to confute a statement at once so unfounded and so injurious to the

Church. It is of some importance to show that she is innocent of your corruptions, in order that heretics may

be prevented from taking advantage of your aberrations, to draw conclusions tending to her dishonour. And

thus, viewing on the one hand your pernicious maxims, and on the other the canons of the Church which have

uniformly condemned them, people will see, at one glance, what they should shun and what they should

Your fourth charge turns on a maxim relating to murder, which you say I have falsely ascribed to Lessius. It

is as follows: "That if a man has received a buffet, he may immediately pursue his enemy, and even return the

blow with the sword, not to avenge himself, but to retrieve his honour." This, you say, is the opinion of the

casuist Victoria. But this is nothing to the point. There is no inconsistency in saying that it is at once the

opinion of Victoria and of Lessius; for Lessius himself says that it is also held by Navarre and Henriquez,

who teach identically the same doctrine. The only question, then, is if Lessius holds this view as well as his

brother casuists. You maintain "that Lessius quotes this opinion solely for the purpose of refuting it, and that

I, therefore, attribute to him a sentiment which he produces only to overthrow the basest and most

disgraceful act of which a writer can be guilty." Now I maintain, fathers, that he quotes the opinion solely for

the purpose of supporting it. Here is a question of fact, which it will be very easy to settle. Let us see, then,

To show that Lessius is not of that opinion, you tell us that he condemns the practice of it; and in proof of

this, you quote one passage of his (l. 2, c. 9, n. 92), in which he says, in so many words, "I condemn the

practice of it." I grant that, on looking for these words, at number 92, to which you refer, they will be found

there. But what will people say, fathers, when they discover, at the same time, that he is treating in that place

of a question totally different from that of which we are speaking, and that the opinion of which he there says

that he condemns the practice has no connection with that now in dispute, but is quite distinct? And yet to be

convinced that this is the fact, we have only to open the book to which you refer, and there we find the whole

subject in its connection as follows: At number 79 he treats the question, "If it is lawful to kill for a buffet?"

and at number 80 he finishes this matter without a single word of condemnation. Having disposed of this

question, he opens a new one at 81, namely, "If it is lawful to kill for slanders?" and it is when speaking of

this question that he employs the words you have quoted: "I condemn the practice of it."

Is it not shameful, fathers, that you should venture to produce these words to make it be believed that Lessius

condemns the opinion that it is lawful to kill for a buffet? and that, on the ground of this single proof, you

should chuckle over it, as you have done, by saying: "Many persons of honour in Paris have already

discovered this notorious falsehood by consulting Lessius, and have thus ascertained the degree of credit due

to that slanderer?" Indeed! and is it thus that you abuse the confidence which those persons of honour repose

in you? To show them that Lessius does not hold a certain opinion, you open the book to them at a place

where he is condemning another opinion; and these persons, not having begun to mistrust your good faith and

never thinking of examining whether the author speaks in that place of the subject in dispute, you impose on

their credulity. I make no doubt, fathers, that, to shelter yourselves from the guilt of such a scandalous lie,

you had recourse to your doctrine of equivocations; and that, having read the passage in a loud voice, you

would say, in a lower key, that the author was speaking there of something else. But I am not so sure whether

this saving clause, which is quite enough to satisfy your consciences, will be a very satisfactory answer to the

just complaint of those "honourable persons," when they shall discover that you have hoodwinked them in

Take care, then, fathers, to prevent them by all means from seeing my letters; for this is the only method now

left to you to preserve your credit for a short time longer. This is not the way in which I deal with your

writings: I send them to all my friends; I wish everybody to see them. And I verily believe that both of us are

in the right for our own interests; for, after having published with such parade this fourth Imposture, were it

once discovered that you have made it up by foisting in one passage for another, you would be instantly

denounced. It will be easily seen that if you could have found what you wanted in the passage where Lessius

treated of this matter, you would not have searched for it elsewhere, and that you had recourse to such a trick

You would have us believe that we may find in Lessius what you assert, "that he does not allow that this

opinion (that a man may be lawfully killed for a buffet) is probable in theory"; whereas Lessius distinctly

declares, at number 80: "This opinion, that a man may kill for a buffet, is probable in theory." Is not this,

word for word, the reverse of your assertion? And can we sufficiently admire the hardihood with which you

have advanced, in set phrase, the very reverse of a matter of fact! To your conclusion, from a fabricated

passage, that Lessius was not of that opinion, we have only to place Lessius himself, who, in the genuine

Again, you would have Lessius to say "that he condemns the practice of it"; and, as I have just observed,

there is not in the original a single word of condemnation; all that he says is: "It appears that it ought not to be

easily permitted in practice In praxi non videtur facile permittenda." Is that, fathers, the language of a man

who condemns a maxim? Would you say that adultery and incest ought not to be easily permitted in practice?

Must we not, on the contrary, conclude that as Lessius says no more than that the practice ought not to be

easily permitted, his opinion is that it may be permitted sometimes, though rarely? And, as if he had been

anxious to apprise everybody when it might be permitted, and to relieve those who have received affronts

from being troubled with unreasonable scruples from not knowing on what occasions they might lawfully kill

in practice, he has been at pains to inform them what they ought to avoid in order to practise the doctrine with

a safe conscience. Mark his words: "It seems," says he, "that it ought not to be easily permitted, because of

the danger that persons may act in this matter out of hatred or revenge, or with excess, or that this may

occasion too many murders." From this it appears that murder is freely permitted by Lessius, if one avoids the

inconveniences referred to in other words, if one can act without hatred or revenge and in circumstances that

may not open the door to a great many murders. To illustrate the matter, I may give you an example of recent

occurrence the case of the buffet of Compiegne. You will grant that the person who received the blow on

that occasion has shown, by the way in which he has acted, that he was sufficiently master of the passions of

hatred and revenge. It only remained for him, therefore, to see that he did not give occasion to too many

murders; and you need hardly be told, fathers, it is such a rare spectacle to find Jesuits bestowing buffets on

the officers of the royal household that he had no great reason to fear that a murder committed on this

occasion would be likely to draw many others in its train. You cannot, accordingly, deny that the Jesuit who

figured on that occasion was killable with a safe conscience, and that the offended party might have

converted him into a practical illustration of the doctrine of Lessius. And very likely, fathers, this might have

been the result had he been educated in your school, and learnt from Escobar that the man who has received a

buffet is held to be disgraced until he has taken the life of him who insulted him. But there is ground to

believe that the very different instructions which he received from a curate, who is no great favourite of

Tell us no more, then, of inconveniences which may, in many instances, be so easily got over, and in the

absence of which, according to Lessius, murder is permissible even in practice. This is frankly avowed by

your authors, as quoted by Escobar, in his Practice of Homicide, according to your Society. "Is it allowable,"

asks this casuist, "to kill him who has given me a buffet? Lessius says it is permissible in speculation, though

not to be followed in practice non consulendum in praxi on account of the risk of hatred, or of murders

prejudicial to the State. Others, however, have judged that, by avoiding these inconveniences, this is

permissible and safe in practice in praxi probabilem et tutam judicarunt Henriquez," See how your opinions

mount up, by little and little, to the climax of probabilism! The present one you have at last elevated to this

position, by permitting murder without any distinction between speculation and practice, in the following

terms: "It is lawful, when one has received a buffet, to return the blow immediately with the sword, not to

avenge one's self, but to preserve one's honour." Such is the decision of your fathers of Caen in 1644,

embodied in their publications produced by the university before parliament, when they presented their third

remonstrance against your doctrine of homicide, as shown in the book then emitted by them, on page 339.

Mark, then, fathers, that your own authors have themselves demolished this absurd distinction between

speculative and practical murder a distinction which the university treated with ridicule, and the invention of

which is a secret of your policy, which it may now be worth while to explain. The knowledge of it, besides

being necessary to the right understanding of your 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th charges, is well calculated, in

general, to open up, by little and little, the principles of that mysterious policy.

In attempting, as you have done, to decide cases of conscience in the most agreeable and accommodating

manner, while you met with some questions in which religion alone was concerned such as those of

contrition, penance, love to God, and others only affecting the inner court of conscience you encountered

another class of cases in which civil society was interested as well as religion such as those relating to

usury, bankruptcy, homicide, and the like. And it is truly distressing to all that love the Church to observe

that, in a vast number of instances, in which you had only Religion to contend with, you have violated her

laws without reservation, without distinction, and without compunction; because you knew that it is not here

that God visibly administers his justice. But in those cases in which the State is interested as well as Religion,

your apprehension of man's justice has induced you to divide your decisions into two shares. To the first of

these you give the name of speculation; under which category crimes, considered in themselves, without

regard to society, but merely to the law of God, you have permitted, without the least scruple, and in the way

of trampling on the divine law which condemns them. The second you rank under the denomination of

practice, and here, considering the injury which may be done to society, and the presence of magistrates who

look after the public peace, you take care, in order to keep yourselves on the safe side of the law, not to

approve always in practice the murders and other crimes which you have sanctioned in speculation. Thus, for

example, on the question, "If it be lawful to kill for slanders?" your authors, Filiutius, Reginald, and others,

reply: "This is permitted in speculation ex probabile opinione licet; but is not to be approved in practice, on

account of the great number of murders which might ensue, and which might injure the State, if all slanderers

were to be killed, and also because one might be punished in a court of justice for having killed another for

that matter." Such is the style in which your opinions begin to develop themselves, under the shelter of this

distinction, in virtue of which, without doing any sensible injury to society, you only ruin religion. In acting

thus, you consider yourselves quite safe. You suppose that, on the one hand, the influence you have in the

Church will effectually shield from punishment your assaults on truth; and that, on the other, the precautions

you have taken against too easily reducing your permissions to practice will save you on the part of the civil

powers, who, not being judges in cases of conscience, are properly concerned only with the outward practice.

Thus an opinion which would be condemned under the name of practice, comes out quite safe under the name

of speculation. But this basis once established, it is not difficult to erect on it the rest of your maxims. There

is an infinite distance between God's prohibition of murder and your speculative permission of the crime; but

between that permission and the practice the distance is very small indeed. It only remains to show that what

is allowable in speculation is also so in practice; and there can be no want of reasons for this. You have

contrived to find them in far more difficult cases. Would you like to see, fathers, how this may be managed? I

refer you to the reasoning of Escobar, who has distinctly decided the point in the first six volumes of his

grand Moral Theology, of which I have already spoken a work in which he shows quite another spirit from

that which appears in his former compilation from your fourandtwenty elders. At that time he thought that

there might be opinions probable in speculation, which might not be safe in practice; but he has now come to

form an opposite judgment, and has, in this, his latest work, confirmed it. Such is the wonderful growth

attained by the doctrine of probability in general, as well as by every probable opinion in particular, in the

course of time. Attend, then, to what he says: "I cannot see how it can be that an action which seems

allowable in speculation should not be so likewise in practice; because what may be done in practice depends

on what is found to be lawful in speculation, and the things differ from each other only as cause and effect.

Speculation is that which determines to action. Whence it follows that opinions probable in speculation may

be followed with a safe conscience in practice, and that even with more safety than those which have not

Verily, fathers, your friend Escobar reasons uncommonly well sometimes; and, in point of fact, there is such

a close connection between speculation and practice, that when the former has once taken root, you have no

difficulty in permitting the latter, without any disguise. A good illustration of this we have in the permission

"to kill for a buffet," which, from being a point of simple speculation, was boldly raised by Lessius into a

practice "which ought not easily to be allowed"; from that promoted by Escobar to the character of "an easy

practice"; and from thence elevated by your fathers of Caen, as we have seen, without any distinction

between theory and practice, into a full permission. Thus you bring your opinions to their full growth very

gradually. Were they presented all at once in their finished extravagance, they would beget horror; but this

slow imperceptible progress gradually habituates men to the sight of them and hides their offensiveness. And

in this way the permission to murder, in itself so odious both to Church and State, creeps first into the

A similar success has attended the opinion of "killing for slander," which has now reached the climax of a

permission without any distinction. I should not have stopped to quote my authorities on this point from your

writings, had it not been necessary in order to put down the effrontery with which you have asserted, twice

over, in your fifteenth Imposture, "that there never was a Jesuit who permitted killing for slander." Before

making this statement, fathers, you should have taken care to prevent it from coming under my notice, seeing

that it is so easy for me to answer it. For, not to mention that your fathers Reginald, Filiutius, and others, have

permitted it in speculation, as I have already shown, and that the principle laid down by Escobar leads us

safely on to the practice, I have to tell you that you have authors who have permitted it in so many words, and

among others Father Hereau in his public lectures, on the conclusion of which the king put him under arrest

in your house, for having taught, among other errors, that when a person who has slandered us in the presence

of men of honour, continues to do so after being warned to desist, it is allowable to kill him, not publicly,

I have had occasion already to mention Father Lamy, and you do not need to be informed that his doctrine on

this subject was censured in 1649 by the University of Louvain. And yet two months have not elapsed since

your Father Des Bois maintained this very censured doctrine of Father Lamy and taught that "it was

allowable for a monk to defend the honour which he acquired by his virtue, even by killing the person who

assails his reputation etiam cum morte invasoris"; which has raised such a scandal in that town that the

whole of the cures united to impose silence on him, and to oblige him, by a canonical process, to retract his

What say you now, fathers? Why attempt, after that, to maintain that "no Jesuit ever held that it was lawful to

kill for slander?" Is anything more necessary to convince you of this than the very opinions of your fathers

which you quote, since they do not condemn murder in speculation, but only in practice, and that, too, "on

account of the injury that might thereby accrue to the State"? And here I would just beg to ask whether the

whole matter in dispute between us is not simply and solely to ascertain if you have or have not subverted the

law of God which condemns murder? The point in question is, not whether you have injured the

commonwealth, but whether you have injured religion. What purpose, then, can it serve, in a dispute of this

kind, to show that you have spared the State, when you make it apparent, at the same time, that you have

destroyed the faith? Is this not evident from your saying that the meaning of Reginald, on the question of

killing for slanders, is, "that a private individual has a right to employ that mode of defence, viewing it simply

in itself"? I desire nothing beyond this concession to confute you. "A private individual," you say, "has a right

to employ that mode of defence" (that is, killing for slanders), "viewing the thing in itself'; and, consequently,

fathers, the law of God, which forbids us to kill, is nullified by that decision.

It serves no purpose to add, as you have done, "that such a mode is unlawful and criminal, even according to

the law of God, on account of the murders and disorders which would follow in society, because the law of

God obliges us to have regard to the good of society." This is to evade the question: for there are two laws to

be observed one forbidding us to kill, and another forbidding us to harm society. Reginald has not, perhaps,

broken the law which forbids us to do harm to society; but he has most certainly violated that which forbids

us to kill. Now this is the only point with which we have to do. I might have shown, besides, that your other

writers, who have permitted these murders in practice, have subverted the one law as well as the other. But, to

proceed, we have seen that you sometimes forbid doing harm to the State; and you allege that your design in

that is to fulfil the law of God, which obliges us to consult the interests of society. That may be true, though it

is far from being certain, as you might do the same thing purely from fear of the civil magistrate. With your

Is it not certain, fathers, that if you had really any regard to God, and if the observance of his law had been

the prime and principal object in your thoughts, this respect would have invariably predominated in all your

leading decisions and would have engaged you at all times on the side of religion? But, if it turns out, on the

contrary, that you violate, in innumerable instances, the most sacred commands that God has laid upon men,

and that, as in the instances before us, you annihilate the law of God, which forbids these actions as criminal

in themselves, and that you only scruple to approve of them in practice, from bodily fear of the civil

magistrate, do you not afford us ground to conclude that you have no respect to God in your apprehensions,

and that if you yield an apparent obedience to his law, in so far as regards the obligation to do no harm to the

State, this is not done out of any regard to the law itself, but to compass your own ends, as has ever been the

What, fathers! will you tell us that, looking simply to the law of God, which says, "Thou shalt not kill," we

have a right to kill for slanders? And after having thus trampled on the eternal law of God, do you imagine

that you atone for the scandal you have caused, and can persuade us of your reverence for Him, by adding

that you prohibit the practice for State reasons and from dread of the civil arm? Is not this, on the contrary, to

raise a fresh scandal? I mean not by the respect which you testify for the magistrate; that is not my charge

against you, and it is ridiculous in you to banter, as you have done, on this matter. I blame you, not for

fearing the magistrate, but for fearing none but the magistrate. And I blame you for this, because it is making

God less the enemy of vice than man. Had you said that to kill for slander was allowable according to men,

but not according to God, that might have been something more endurable; but when you maintain that what

is too criminal to be tolerated among men may yet be innocent and right in the eyes of that Being who is

righteousness itself, what is this but to declare before the whole world, by a subversion of principle as

shocking in itself as it is alien to the spirit of the saints, that while you can be braggarts before God, you are

Had you really been anxious to condemn these homicides, you would have allowed the commandment of

God which forbids them to remain intact; and had you dared at once to permit them, you would have

permitted them openly, in spite of the laws of God and men. But, your object being to permit them

imperceptibly, and to cheat the magistrate, who watches over the public safety, you have gone craftily to

work. You separate your maxims into two portions. On the one side, you hold out "that it is lawful in

speculation to kill a man for slander"; and nobody thinks of hindering you from taking a speculative view of

matters. On the other side, you come out with this detached axiom, "that what is permitted in speculation is

also permissible in practice"; and what concern does society seem to have in this general and

metaphysicallooking proposition? And thus these two principles, so little suspected, being embraced in their

separate form, the vigilance of the magistrate is eluded; while it is only necessary to combine the two together

to draw from them the conclusion which you aim at namely, that it is lawful in practice to put a man to

It is, indeed, fathers, one of the most subtle tricks of your policy to scatter through your publications the

maxims which you club together in your decisions. It is partly in this way that you establish your doctrine of

probabilities, which I have frequently had occasion to explain. That general principle once established, you

advance propositions harmless enough when viewed apart, but which, when taken in connection with that

pernicious dogma, become positively horrible. An example of this, which demands an answer, may be found

in the 11th page of your Impostures, where you allege that "several famous theologians have decided that it is

lawful to kill a man for a box on the ear." Now, it is certain that, if that had been said by a person who did not

hold probabilism, there would be nothing to find fault with in it; it would in this case amount to no more than

a harmless statement, and nothing could be elicited from it. But you, fathers, and all who hold that dangerous

tenet, "that whatever has been approved by celebrated authors is probable and safe in conscience," when you

add to this "that several celebrated authors are of opinion that it is lawful to kill a man for a box on the ear,"

what is this but to put a dagger into the hand of all Christians, for the purpose of plunging it into the heart of

the first person that insults them, and to assure them that, having the judgement of so many grave authors on

What monstrous species of language is this, which, in announcing that certain authors hold a detestable

opinion, is at the same time giving a decision in favour of that opinion which solemnly teaches whatever it

simply tells! We have learnt, fathers, to understand this peculiar dialect of the Jesuitical school; and it is

astonishing that you have the hardihood to speak it out so freely, for it betrays your sentiments somewhat too

broadly. It convicts you of permitting murder for a buffet, as often as you repeat that many celebrated authors

This charge, fathers, you will never be able to repel; nor will you be much helped out by those passages from

Vasquez and Suarez that you adduce against me, in which they condemn the murders which their associates

have approved. These testimonies, disjoined from the rest of your doctrine, may hoodwink those who know

little about it; but we, who know better, put your principles and maxims together. You say, then, that Vasquez

condemns murders; but what say you on the other side of the question, my reverend fathers? Why, "that the

probability of one sentiment does not hinder the probability of the opposite sentiment; and that it is

warrantable to follow the less probable and less safe opinion, giving up the more probable and more safe

one." What follows from all this taken in connection, but that we have perfect freedom of conscience to adopt

any one of these conflicting judgements which pleases us best? And what becomes of all the effect which you

fondly anticipate from your quotations? It evaporates in smoke, for we have no more to do than to conjoin for

your condemnation the maxims which you have disjoined for your exculpation. Why, then, produce those

passages of your authors which I have not quoted, to qualify those which I have quoted, as if the one could

excuse the other? What right does that give you to call me an "impostor"? Have I said that all your fathers are

implicated in the same corruptions? Have I not, on the contrary, been at pains to show that your interest lay in

having them of all different minds, in order to suit all your purposes? Do you wish to kill your man? here is

Lessius for you. Are you inclined to spare him? here is Vasquez. Nobody need go away in ill humour

nobody without the authority of a grave doctor. Lessius will talk to you like a Heathen on homicide, and like

a Christian, it may be, on charity. Vasquez, again, will descant like a Heathen on charity, and like a Christian

on homicide. But by means of probabilism, which is held both by Vasquez and Lessius, and which renders all

your opinions common property, they will lend their opinions to one another, and each will be held bound to

absolve those who have acted according to opinions which each of them has condemned. It is this very

variety, then, that confounds you. Uniformity, even in evil, would be better than this. Nothing is more

contrary to the orders of St. Ignatius and the first generals of your Society than this confused medley of all

sorts of opinions, good and bad. I may, perhaps, enter on this topic at some future period; and it will astonish

many to see how far you have degenerated from the original spirit of your institution, and that your own

generals have foreseen that the corruption of your doctrine on morals might prove fatal, not only to your

Meanwhile, I repeat that you can derive no advantage from the doctrine of Vasquez. It would be strange,

indeed, if, out of all the that have written on morals, one or two could not be found who may have hit upon a

truth which has been confessed by all Christians. There is no glory in maintaining the truth, according to the

Gospel, that it is unlawful to kill a man for smiting us on the face; but it is foul shame to deny it. So far,

indeed, from justifying you, nothing tells more fatally against you than the fact that, having doctors among

you who have told you the truth, you abide not in the truth, but love the darkness rather than the light. You

have been taught by Vasquez that it is a Heathen, and not a Christian, opinion to hold that we may knock

down a man for a blow on the cheek; and that it is subversive both of the Gospel and of the Decalogue to say

that we may kill for such a matter. The most profligate of men will acknowledge as much. And yet you have

allowed Lessius, Escobar, and others, to decide, in the face of these wellknown truths, and in spite of all the

laws of God against manslaughter, that it is quite allowable to kill a man for a buffet!

What purpose, then, can it serve to set this passage of Vasquez over against the sentiment of Lessius, unless

you mean to show that, in the opinion of Vasquez, Lessius is a "Heathen" and a "profligate"? and that,

fathers, is more than I durst have said myself. What else can be deduced from it than that Lessius "subverts

both the Gospel and the Decalogue"; that, at the last day, Vasquez will condemn Lessius on this point, as

Lessius will condemn Vasquez on another; and that all your fathers will rise up in judgement one against

another, mutually condemning each other for their sad outrages on the law of Jesus Christ?

To this conclusion, then, reverend fathers, must we come at length, that, as your probabilism renders the good

opinions of some of your authors useless to the Church, and useful only to your policy, they merely serve to

betray, by their contrariety, the duplicity of your hearts. This you have completely unfolded, by telling us, on

the one hand, that Vasquez and Suarez are against homicide, and on the other hand, that many celebrated

authors are for homicide; thus presenting two roads to our choice and destroying the simplicity of the Spirit

of God, who denounces his anathema on the deceitful and the doublehearted: "Voe duplici corde, et

ingredienti duabus viis! Woe be to the double hearts, and the sinner that goeth two ways!"

If I had merely to reply to the three remaining charges on the subject of homicide, there would be no need for

a long discourse, and you will see them refuted presently in a few words; but as I think it of much more

importance to inspire the public with a horror at your opinions on this subject than to justify the fidelity of my

quotations, I shall be obliged to devote the greater part of this letter to the refutation of your maxims, to show

you how far you have departed from the sentiments of the Church and even of nature itself. The permissions

of murder, which you have granted in such a variety of cases, render it very apparent, that you have so far

forgotten the law of God, and quenched the light of nature, as to require to be remanded to the simplest

What can be a plainer dictate of nature than that "no private individual has a right to take away the life of

another"? "So well are we taught this of ourselves," says St. Chrysostom, "that God, in giving the

commandment not to kill, did not add as a reason that homicide was an evil; because," says that father, "the

law supposes that nature has taught us that truth already." Accordingly, this commandment has been binding

on men in all ages. The Gospel has confirmed the requirement of the law; and the Decalogue only renewed

the command which man had received from God before the law, in the person of Noah, from whom all men

are descended. On that renovation of the world, God said to the patriarch: "At the hand of man, and at the

hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his

blood be shed; for man is made in the image of God." (Gen. ix. 5, 6.) This general prohibition deprives man

of all power over the life of man. And so exclusively has the Almighty reserved this prerogative in His own

hand that, in accordance with Christianity, which is at utter variance with the false maxims of Paganism, man

has no power even over his own life. But, as it has seemed good to His providence to take human society

under His protection, and to punish the evildoers that give it disturbance, He has Himself established laws

for depriving criminals of life; and thus those executions which, without this sanction, would be punishable

outrages, become, by virtue of His authority, which is the rule of justice, praiseworthy penalties. St.

Augustine takes an admirable view of this subject. "God," he says, "has himself qualified this general

prohibition against manslaughter, both by the laws which He has instituted for the capital punishment of

malefactors, and by the special orders which He has sometimes issued to put to death certain individuals. And

when death is inflicted in such cases, it is not man that kills, but God, of whom man may be considered as

only the instrument, in the same way as a sword in the hand of him that wields it. But, these instances

It appears, then, fathers, that the right of taking away the life of man is the sole prerogative of God, and that,

having ordained laws for executing death on criminals, He has deputed kings or commonwealths as the

depositaries of that power a truth which St. Paul teaches us, when, speaking of the right which sovereigns

possess over the lives of their subjects, he deduces it from Heaven in these words: "He beareth not the sword

in vain; for he is the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13. 4.) But as it is

God who has put this power into their hands, so He requires them to exercise it in the same manner as He

does himself; in other words, with perfect justice; according to what St. Paul observes in the same passage:

"Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that

which is good: for he is the minister of God to thee for good." And this restriction, so far from lowering their

prerogative, exalts it, on the contrary, more than ever; for it is thus assimilated to that of God who has no

power to do evil, but is allpowerful to do good; and it is thus distinguished from that of devils, who are

impotent in that which is good, and powerful only for evil. There is this difference only to be observed

betwixt the King of Heaven and earthly sovereigns, that God, being justice and wisdom itself, may inflict

death instantaneously on whomsoever and in whatsoever manner He pleases; for, besides His being the

sovereign Lord of human life, it certain that He never takes it away either without cause or without

judgement, because He is as incapable of injustice as He is of error. Earthly potentates, however, are not at

liberty to act in this manner; for, though the ministers of God, still they are but men, and not gods. They may

be misguided by evil counsels, irritated by false suspicions, transported by passion, and hence they find

themselves obliged to have recourse, in their turn also, to human agency, and appoint magistrates in their

dominions, to whom they delegate their power, that the authority which God has bestowed on them may be

I hope you understand, then, fathers, that, to avoid the crime of murder, we must act at once by the authority

of God, and according to the justice of God; and that, when these two conditions are not united, sin is

contracted; whether it be by taking away life with his authority, but without his justice; or by taking it away

with justice, but without his authority. From this indispensable connection it follows, according to St.

Augustine, "that he who, without proper authority, kills a criminal, becomes a criminal himself, chiefly for

this reason, that he usurps an authority which God has not given him"; and on the other hand, magistrates,

though they possess this authority, are nevertheless chargeable with murder, if, contrary to the laws which

Such are the principles of public safety and tranquillity which have been admitted at all times and in all

places, and on the basis of which all legislators, sacred and profane, from the beginning of the world, have

founded their laws. Even Heathens have never ventured to make an exception to this rule, unless in cases

where there was no other way of escaping the loss of chastity or life, when they conceived, as Cicero tells us,

"that the law itself seemed to put its weapons into the hands of those who were placed in such an emergency."

But with this single exception, which has nothing to do with my present purpose, that such a law was ever

enacted, authorizing or tolerating, as you have done, the practice of putting a man to death, to atone for an

insult, or to avoid the loss of honour or property, where life is not in danger at the same time; that, fathers, is

what I deny was ever done, even by infidels. They have, on the contrary, most expressly forbidden the

practice. The law of the Twelve Tables of Rome bore, "that it is unlawful to kill a robber in the daytime,

when he does not defend himself with arms"; which, indeed, had been prohibited long before in the 22d

chapter of Exodus. And the law Furem, in the Lex Cornelia, which is borrowed from Ulpian, forbids the

Tell us now, fathers, what authority you have to permit what all laws, human as well as divine, have

forbidden; and who gave Lessius a right to use the following language? "The book of Exodus forbids the

killing of thieves by day, when they do not employ arms in their defence; and in a court of justice,

punishment is inflicted on those who kill under these circumstances. In conscience, however, no blame can be

attached to this practice, when a person is not sure of being able otherwise to recover his stolen goods, or

entertains a doubt on the subject, as Sotus expresses it; for he is not obliged to run the risk of losing any part

of his property merely to save the life of a robber. The same privilege extends even to clergymen." Such

extraordinary assurance! The law of Moses punishes those who kill a thief when he does not threaten our

lives, and the law of the Gospel, according to you, will absolve them! What, fathers! has Jesus Christ come to

destroy the law, and not to fulfil it? "The civil judge," says Lessius, "would inflict punishment on those who

should kill under such circumstances; but no blame can be attached to the deed in conscience." Must we

conclude, then, that the morality of Jesus Christ is more sanguinary, and less the enemy of murder, than that

of Pagans, from whom our judges have borrowed their civil laws which condemn that crime? Do Christians

make more account of the good things of this earth, and less account of human life, than infidels and

idolaters? On what principle do you proceed, fathers? Assuredly not upon any law that ever was enacted

either by God or man on nothing, indeed, but this extraordinary reasoning: "The laws," say you, "permit us

to defend ourselves against robbers, and to repel force by force; selfdefence, therefore, being permitted, it

follows that murder, without which selfdefence is often impracticable, may be considered as permitted

It is false, fathers, that, because selfdefence is allowed, murder may be allowed also. This barbarous method

of selfvindication lies at the root of all your errors, and has been justly stigmatized by the Faculty of

Louvain, in their censure of the doctrine of your friend Father Lamy, as "a murderous defence defensio

occisiva." I maintain that the laws recognize such a wide difference between murder and selfdefence that, in

those very cases in which the latter is sanctioned, they have made a provision against murder, when the

person is in no danger of his life. Read the words, fathers, as they run in the same passage of Cujas: "It is

lawful to repulse the person who comes to invade our property; but we are not permitted to kill him." And

again: "If any should threaten to strike us, and not to deprive us of life, it is quite allowable to repulse him;

Who, then, has given you a right to say, as Molina, Reginald, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others among

you, have said, "that it is lawful to kill the man who offers to strike us a blow"? or, "that it is lawful to take

the life of one who means to insult us, by the common consent of all the casuists," as Lessius says. By what

authority do you, who are mere private individuals, confer upon other private individuals, not excepting

clergymen, this right of killing and slaying? And how dare you usurp the power of life and death, which

belongs essentially to none but God, and which is the most glorious mark of sovereign authority? These are

the points that demand explanation; and yet you conceive that you have furnished a triumphant reply to the

whole, by simply remarking, in your thirteenth Imposture, "that the value for which Molina permits us to kill

a thief, who flies without having done us any violence, is not so small as I have said, and that it must be a

much larger sum than six ducats!" How extremely silly! Pray, fathers, where would you have the price to be

fixed? At fifteen or sixteen ducats? Do not suppose that this will produce any abatement in my accusations.

At all events, you cannot make it exceed the value of a horse; for Lessius is clearly of opinion, "that we may

lawfully kill the thief that runs off with our horse." But I must tell you, moreover, that I was perfectly correct

when I said that Molina estimates the value of the thief's life at six ducats; and, if you will not take it upon my

word, we shall refer it to an umpire to whom you cannot object. The person whom I fix upon for this office is

your own Father Reginald, who, in his explanation of the same passage of Molina (l.28, n. 68), declares that

"Molina there determines the sum for which it is not allowable to kill at three, or four, or five ducats." And

It will be equally easy for me to refute your fourteenth Imposture, touching Molina's permission to "kill a

thief who offers to rob us of a crown." This palpable fact is attested by Escobar, who tells us "that Molina has

regularly determined the sum for which it is lawful to take away life, at one crown." And all you have to lay

to my charge in the fourteenth Imposture is, that I have suppressed the last words of this passage, namely,

"that in this matter every one ought to study the moderation of a just selfdefence." Why do you not

complain that Escobar has also omitted to mention these words? But how little tact you have about you! You

imagine that nobody understands what you mean by selfdefence. Don't we know that it is to employ "a

murderous defence"? You would persuade us that Molina meant to say that if a person, in defending his

crown, finds himself in danger of his life, he is then at liberty to kill his assailant, in selfpreservation. If that

were true, fathers, why should Molina say in the same place that "in this matter he was of a contrary

judgement from Carrer and Bald," who give permission to kill in selfpreservation? I repeat, therefore, that

his plain meaning is that, provided the person can save his crown without killing the thief, he ought not to kill

him; but that, if he cannot secure his object without shedding blood, even though he should run no risk of his

own life, as in the case of the robber being unarmed, he is permitted to take up arms and kill the man, in order

to save his crown; and in so doing, according to him, the person does not transgress "the moderation of a just

defence." To show you that I am in the right, just allow him to explain himself: "One does not exceed the

moderation of a just defence," says he, "when he takes up arms against a thief who has none, or employs

weapons which give him the advantage over his assailant. I know there are some who are of a contrary

judgement; but I do not approve of their opinion, even in the external tribunal."

Thus, fathers, it is unquestionable that your authors have given permission to kill in defence of property and

honour, though life should be perfectly free from danger. And it is upon the same principle that they

authorize duelling, as I have shown by a great variety of passages from their writings, to which you have

made no reply. You have animadverted in your writings only on a single passage taken from Father Layman,

who sanctions the above practice, "when otherwise a person would be in danger of sacrificing his fortune or

his honour"; and here you accuse me with having suppressed what he adds, "that such a case happens very

rarely." You astonish me, fathers: these are really curious impostures you charge me withal. You talk as if the

question were whether that is a rare case? when the real question is if, in such a case, duelling is lawful?

These are two very different questions. Layman, in the quality of a casuist, ought to judge whether duelling is

lawful in the case supposed; and he declares that it is. We can judge without his assistance whether the case

be a rare one; and we can tell him that it is a very ordinary one. Or, if you prefer the testimony of your good

friend Diana, he will tell you that "the case is exceedingly common." But, be it rare or not, and let it be

granted that Layman follows in this the example of Navarre, a circumstance on which you lay so much stress,

is it not shameful that he should consent to such an opinion as that, to preserve a false honour, it is lawful in

conscience to accept of a challenge, in the face of the edicts of all Christian states, and of all the canons of the

Church, while in support of these diabolical maxims you can produce neither laws, nor canons, nor

authorities from Scripture, or from the fathers, nor the example of a single saint, nor, in short, anything but

the following impious synogism: "Honour is more than life; it is allowable to kill in defence of life; therefore

it is allowable to kill in defence of honour!" What, fathers! because the depravity of men disposes them to

prefer that factitious honour before the life which God hath given them to be devoted to his service, must they

be permitted to murder one another for its preservation? To love that honour more than life is in itself a

heinous evil; and yet this vicious passion, which, when proposed as the end of our conduct, is enough to

tarnish the holiest of actions, is considered by you capable of sanctifying the most criminal of them!

What a subversion of all principle is here, fathers! And who does not see to what atrocious excesses it may

lead? It is obvious, indeed, that it will ultimately lead to the commission of murder for the most trifling things

imaginable, when one's honour is considered to be staked for their preservation murder, I venture to say,

even for an apple! You might complain of me, fathers, for drawing sanguinary inferences from your doctrine

with a malicious intent, were I not fortunately supported by the authority of the grave Lessius, who makes the

following observation, in number 68: "It is not allowable to take life for an article of small value, such as for

a crown or for an apple aut pro pomo unless it would be deemed dishonourable to lose it. In this case, one

may recover the article, and even, if necessary, kill the aggressor, for this is not so much defending one's

property as retrieving one's honour." This is plain speaking, fathers; and, just to crown your doctrine with a

maxim which includes all the rest, allow me to quote the following from Father Hereau, who has taken it

from Lessius: "The right of selfdefence extends to whatever is necessary to protect ourselves from all

What strange consequences does this inhuman principle involve! and how imperative is the obligation laid

upon all, and especially upon those in public stations, to set their face against it! Not the general good alone,

but their own personal interest should engage them to see well to it; for the casuists of your school whom I

have cited in my letters extend their permissions to kill far enough to reach even them. Factious men, who

dread the punishment of their outrages, which never appear to them in a criminal light, easily persuade

themselves that they are the victims of violent oppression, and will be led to believe at the same time, "that

the right of selfdefence extends to whatever is necessary to protect themselves from all injury." And thus,

relieved from contending against the checks of conscience, which stifle the greater number of crimes at their

I shall say no more on this subject, fathers; nor shall I dwell on the other murders, still more odious and

important to governments, which you sanction, and of which Lessius, in common with many others of your

authors, treats in the most unreserved manner. It was to be wished that these horrible maxims had never

found their way out of hell; and that the devil, who is their original author, had never discovered men

From all that I have hitherto said, it is easy to judge what a contrariety there is betwixt the licentiousness of

your opinions and the severity of civil laws, not even excepting those of Heathens. How much more apparent

must the contrast be with ecclesiastical laws, which must be incomparably more holy than any other, since it

is the Church alone that knows and possesses the true holiness! Accordingly, this chaste spouse of the Son of

God, who, in imitation of her heavenly husband, can shed her own blood for others, but never the blood of

others for herself, entertains a horror at the crime of murder altogether singular, and proportioned to the

peculiar illumination which God has vouchsafed to bestow upon her. She views man, not simply as man, but

as the image of the God whom she adores. She feels for every one of the race a holy respect, which imparts to

him, in her eyes, a venerable character, as redeemed by an infinite price, to be made the temple of the living

God. And therefore she considers the death of a man, slain without the authority of his Maker, not as murder

only, but as sacrilege, by which she is deprived of one of her members; for, whether he be a believer or an

unbeliever, she uniformly looks upon him, if not as one, at least as capable of becoming one, of her own

Such, fathers, are the holy reasons which, ever since the time that God became man for the redemption of

men, have rendered their condition an object of such consequence to the Church that she uniformly punishes

the crime of homicide, not only as destructive to them, but as one of the grossest outrages that can possibly be

perpetrated against God. In proof of this I shall quote some examples, not from the idea that all the severities

to which I refer ought to be kept up (for I am aware that the Church may alter the arrangement of such

exterior discipline), but to demonstrate her immutable spirit upon this subject. The penances which she

ordains for murder may differ according to the diversity of the times, but no change of time can ever effect an

For a long time the Church refused to be reconciled, till the very hour of death, to those who had been guilty

of wilful murder, as those are to whom you give your sanction. The celebrated Council of Ancyra adjudged

them to penance during their whole lifetime; and, subsequently, the Church deemed it an act of sufficient

indulgence to reduce that term to a great many years. But, still more effectually to deter Christians from

wilful murder, she has visited with most severe punishment even those acts which have been committed

through inadvertence, as may be seen in St. Basil, in St. Gregory of Nyssen, and in the decretals of Popes

Zachary and Alexander II. The canons quoted by Isaac, bishop of Langres (tr. 2. 13), "ordain seven years of

penance for having killed another in selfdefence." And we find St. Hildebert, bishop of Mans, replying to

Yves de Chartres, "that he was right in interdicting for life a priest who had, in selfdefence, killed a robber

After this, you cannot have the assurance to persist in saying that your decisions are agreeable to the spirit or

the canons of the Church. I defy you to show one of them that permits us to kill solely in defence of our

property (for I speak not of cases in which one may be called upon to defend his life se suaquae liberando);

your own authors, and, among the rest, Father Lamy, confess that no such canon can be found. "There is no

authority," he says, "human or divine, which gives an express permission to kill a robber who makes no

resistance." And yet this is what you permit most expressly. I defy you to show one of them that permits us to

kill in vindication of honour, for a buffet, for an affront, or for a slander. I defy you to show one of them that

permits the killing of witnesses, judges, or magistrates, whatever injustice we may apprehend from them. The

spirit of the church is diametrically opposite to these seditious maxims, opening the door to insurrections to

which the mob is naturally prone enough already. She has invariably taught her children that they ought not

to render evil for evil; that they ought to give place unto wrath; to make no resistance to violence; to give

unto every one his due honour, tribute, submission; to obey magistrates and superiors, even though they

should be unjust, because we ought always to respect in them the power of that God who has placed them

over us. She forbids them, still more strongly than is done by the civil law, to take justice into their own

hands; and it is in her spirit that Christian kings decline doing so in cases of high treason, and remit the

criminals charged with this grave offence into the hands of the judges, that they may be punished according

to the laws and the forms of justice, which in this matter exhibit a contrast to your mode of management so

As my discourse has taken this turn, I beg you to follow the comparison which I shall now draw between the

style in which you would dispose of your enemies, and that in which the judges of the land dispose of

criminals. Everybody knows, fathers, that no private individual has a right to demand the death of another

individual; and that though a man should have ruined us, maimed our body, burnt our house, murdered our

father, and was prepared, moreover, to assassinate ourselves, or ruin our character, our private demand for the

death of that person would not be listened to in a court of justice. Public officers have been appointed for that

purpose, who make the demand in the name of the king, or rather, I would say, in the name of God. Now, do

you conceive, fathers, that Christian legislators have established this regulation out of mere show and

grimace? Is it not evident that their object was to harmonize the laws of the state with those of the Church,

and thus prevent the external practice of justice from clashing with the sentiments which all Christians are

bound to cherish in their hearts? It is easy to see how this, which forms the commencement of a civil process,

Suppose then, fathers, that these official persons have demanded the death of the man who has committed all

the abovementioned crimes, what is to be done next? Will they instantly plunge a dagger in his breast? No,

fathers; the life of man is too important to be thus disposed of; they go to work with more decency; the laws

have committed it, not to all sorts of persons, but exclusively to the judges, whose probity and competency

have been duly tried. And is one judge sufficient to condemn a man to death? No; it requires seven at the very

least; and of these seven there must not be one who has been injured by the criminal, lest his judgement

should be warped or corrupted by passion. You are aware also, fathers, that, the more effectually to secure the

purity of their minds, they devote the hours of the morning to these functions. Such is the care taken to

prepare them for the solemn action of devoting a fellowcreature to death; in performing which they occupy

the place of God, whose ministers they are, appointed to condemn such only as have incurred his

For the same reason, to act as faithful administrators of the divine power of taking away human life, they are

bound to form their judgement solely according to the depositions of the witnesses, and according to all the

other forms prescribed to them; after which they can pronounce conscientiously only according to law, and

can judge worthy of death those only whom the law condemns to that penalty. And then, fathers, if the

command of God obliges them to deliver over to punishment the bodies of the unhappy culprits, the same

divine statute binds them to look after the interests of their guilty souls, and binds them the more to this just

because they are guilty; so that they are not delivered up to execution till after they have been afforded the

means of providing for their consciences. All this is quite fair and innocent; and yet, such is the abhorrence of

the Church to blood that she judges those to be incapable of ministering at her altars who have borne any

share in passing or executing a sentence of death, accompanied though it be with these religious

circumstances; from which we may easily conceive what idea the Church entertains of murder.

Such, then, being the manner in which human life is disposed of by the legal forms of justice, let us now see

how you dispose of it. According to your modern system of legislation, there is but one judge, and that judge

is no other than the offended party. He is at once the judge, the party, and the executioner. He himself

demands from himself the death of his enemy; he condemns him, he executes him on the spot; and, without

the least respect either for the soul or the body of his brother, he murders and damns him for whom Jesus

Christ died; and all this for the sake of avoiding a blow on the cheek, or a slander, or an offensive word, or

some other offence of a similar nature, for which, if a magistrate, in the exercise of legitimate authority, were

condemning any to die, he would himself be impeached; for, in such cases, the laws are very far indeed from

condemning any to death. In one word, to crown the whole of this extravagance, the person who kills his

neighbour in this style, without authority and in the face of all law, contracts no sin and commits no disorder,

though he should be religious and even a priest! Where are we, fathers? Are these really religious, and priests,

who talk in this manner? Are they Christians? are they Turks? are they men? or are they demons? And are

these "the mysteries revealed by the Lamb to his Society"? or are they not rather abominations suggested by

To come to the point, with you, fathers, whom do you wish to be taken for? for the children of the Gospel,

or for the enemies of the Gospel? You must be ranged either on the one side or on the other; for there is no

medium here. "He that is not with Jesus Christ is against him." Into these two classes all mankind are divided.

There are, according to St. Augustine, two peoples and two worlds, scattered abroad over the earth. There is

the world of the children of God, who form one body, of which Jesus Christ is the king and the head; and

there is the world at enmity with God, of which the devil is the king and the head. Hence Jesus Christ is

called the King and God of the world, because he has everywhere his subjects and worshippers; and hence the

devil is also termed in Scripture the prince of this world, and the god of this world, because he has

everywhere his agents and his slaves. Jesus Christ has imposed upon the Church, which is his empire, such

laws as he, in his eternal wisdom, was pleased to ordain; and the devil has imposed on the world, which is his

kingdom, such laws as he chose to establish. Jesus Christ has associated honour with suffering; the devil with

not suffering. Jesus Christ has told those who are smitten on the one cheek to turn the other also; and the

devil has told those who are threatened with a buffet to kill the man that would do them such an injury. Jesus

Christ pronounces those happy who share in his reproach; and the devil declares those to be unhappy who lie

under ignominy. Jesus Christ says: Woe unto you when men shall speak well of you! and the devil says: Woe

Judge, then, fathers, to which of these kingdoms you belong. You have heard the language of the city of

peace, the mystical Jerusalem; and you have heard the language of the city of confusion, which Scripture

terms "the spiritual Sodom." Which of these two languages do you understand? which of them do you speak?

Those who are on the side of Jesus Christ have, as St. Paul teaches us, the same mind which was also in him;

and those who are the children of the devil ex patre diabolo who has been a murderer from the beginning,

according to the saying of Jesus Christ, follow the maxims of the devil. Let us hear, therefore, the language of

your school. I put this question to your doctors: When a person has given me a blow on the cheek, ought I

rather to submit to the injury than kill the offender? or may I not kill the man in order to escape the affront?

Kill him by all means it is quite lawful! exclaim, in one breath, Lessius, Molina, Escobar, Reginald,

Filiutius, Baldelle, and other Jesuits. Is that the language of Jesus Christ? One question more: Would I lose

my honour by tolerating a box on the ear, without killing the person that gave it? "Can there be a doubt," cries

Escobar, "that so long as a man suffers another to live who has given him a buffet, that man remains without

honour?" Yes, fathers, without that honour which the devil transfuses, from his own proud spirit into that of

his proud children. This is the honour which has ever been the idol of worldlyminded men. For the

preservation of this false glory, of which the god of this world is the appropriate dispenser, they sacrifice their

lives by yielding to the madness of duelling; their honour, by exposing themselves to ignominious

punishments; and their salvation, by involving themselves in the peril of damnation a peril which, according

to the canons of the Church, deprives them even of Christian burial. We have reason to thank God, however,

for having enlightened the mind of our monarch with ideas much purer than those of your theology. His

edicts bearing so severely on this subject, have not made duelling a crime they only punish the crime which

is inseparable from duelling. He has checked, by the dread of his rigid justice, those who were not restrained

by the fear of the justice of God; and his piety has taught him that the honour of Christians consists in their

observance of the mandates of Heaven and the rules of Christianity, and not in the pursuit of that phantom

which, airy and unsubstantial as it is, you hold to be a legitimate apology for murder. Your murderous

decisions being thus universally detested, it is highly advisable that you should now change your sentiments,

if not from religious principle, at least from motives of policy. Prevent, fathers, by a spontaneous

condemnation of these inhuman dogmas, the melancholy consequences which may result from them, and for

which you will be responsible. And to impress your minds with a deeper horror at homicide, remember that

the first crime of fallen man was a murder, committed on the person of the first holy man; that the greatest

crime was a murder, perpetrated on the person of the King of saints; and that, of all crimes, murder is the only

one which involves in a common destruction the Church and the state, nature and religion.

I have just seen the answer of your apologist to my Thirteenth Letter, but if he has nothing better to produce

in the shape of a reply to that letter, which obviates the greater part of his objections, he will not deserve a

rejoinder. I am sorry to see him perpetually digressing from his subject, to indulge in rancorous abuse both of

the living and the dead. But, in order to gain some credit to the stories with which you have furnished him,

you should not have made him publicly disavow a fact so notorious as that of the buffet of Compiegne.

Certain it is, fathers, from the deposition of the injured party, that he received upon his cheek a blow from the

hand of a Jesuit; and all that your friends have been able to do for you has been to raise a doubt whether he

received the blow with the back or the palm of the hand, and to discuss the question whether a stroke on the

cheek with the back of the hand can be properly denominated a buffet. I know not to what tribunal it belongs

to decide this point; but shall content myself, in the meantime, with believing that it was, to say the very least,

As your scurrilities are daily increasing, and as you are employing them in the merciless abuse of all pious

persons opposed to your errors, I feel myself obliged, for their sake and that of the Church, to bring out that

grand secret of your policy, which I promised to disclose some time ago, in order that all may know, through

means of your own maxims, what degree of credit is due to your calumnious accusations.

I am aware that those who are not very well acquainted with you are at a great loss what to think on this

subject, as they find themselves under the painful necessity, either of believing the incredible crimes with

which you charge your opponents, or (what is equally incredible) of setting you down as slanderers.

"Indeed!" they exclaim, "were these things not true, would clergymen publish them to the world would they

debauch their consciences and damn themselves by venting such libels?" Such is their way of reasoning, and

thus it is that the palpable proof of your falsifications coming into collision with their opinion of your

honesty, their minds hang in a state of suspense between the evidence of truth, which they cannot gainsay,

and the demands of charity, which they would not violate. It follows that since their high esteem for you is

the only thing that prevents them from discrediting your calumnies, if we can succeed in convincing them

that you have quite a different idea of calumny from that which they suppose you to have, and that you

actually believe that in blackening and defaming your adversaries you are working out your own salvation,

there can be little question that the weight of truth will determine them immediately to pay no regard to your

My design is not simply to show that your writings are full of calumnies; I mean to go a step beyond this. It is

quite possible for a person to say a number of false things believing them to be true; but the character of a liar

implies the intention to tell lies. Now I undertake to prove, fathers, that it is your deliberate intention to tell

lies, and that it is both knowingly and purposely that you load your opponents with crimes of which you

know them to be innocent, because you believe that you may do so without falling from a state of grace.

Though you doubtless know this point of your morality as well as I do, this need not prevent me from telling

you about it; which I shall do, were it for no other purpose than to convince all men of its existence, by

showing them that I can maintain it to your face, while you cannot have the assurance to disavow it, without

The doctrine to which I allude is so common in your schools that you have maintained it not only in your

books, but, such is your assurance, even in your public theses; as, for example, in those delivered at Louvain

in the year 1645, where it occurs in the following terms: "What is it but a venial sin to culminate and forge

false accusations to ruin the credit of those who speak evil of us?" So settled is this point among you that, if

any one dare to oppose it, you treat him as a blockhead and a harebrained idiot. Such was the way in which

you treated Father Quiroga, the German Capuchin, when he was so unfortunate as to impugn the doctrine.

The poor man was instantly attacked by Dicastille, one of your fraternity; and the following is a specimen of

the manner in which he manages the dispute: "A certain ruefulvisaged, barefooted, cowled friarcucullatus

gymnopoda whom I do not choose to name, had the boldness to denounce this opinion, among some women

and ignorant people, and to allege that it was scandalous and pernicious against all good manners, hostile to

the peace of states and societies, and, in short, contrary to the judgement not only of all Catholic doctors, but

of all true Catholics. But in opposition to him I maintained, as I do still, that calumny, when employed

against a calumniator, though it should be a falsehood, is not a mortal sin, either against justice or charity:

and, to prove the point, I referred him to the whole body of our fathers, and to whole universities, exclusively

composed of them whom I had consulted on the subject; and among others the reverend Father John Gans,

confessor to the Emperor; the reverend Father Daniel Bastele, confessor to the Archduke Leopold; Father

Henri, who was preceptor to these two princes; all the public and ordinary professors of the university of

Vienna" (wholly composed of Jesuits); "all the professors of the university of Gratz" (all Jesuits); "all the

professors of the university of Prague" (where Jesuits are the masters); "from all of whom I have in my

possession approbations of my opinions, written and signed with their own hands; besides having on my side

the reverend Father Panalossa, a Jesuit, preacher to the Emperor and the King of Spain; Father Pilliceroli, a

Jesuit, and many others, who had all judged this opinion to be probable, before our dispute began." You

perceive, fathers, that there are few of your opinions which you have been at more pains to establish than the

present, as indeed there were few of them of which you stood more in need. For this reason, doubtless, you

have authenticated it so well that the casuists appeal to it as an indubitable principle. "There can be no doubt,"

says Caramuel, "that it is a probable opinion that we contract no mortal sin by calumniating another, in order

to preserve our own reputation. For it is maintained by more than twenty grave doctors, by Gaspard Hurtado,

and Dicastille, Jesuits, so that, were this doctrine not probable, it would be difficult to find any one such in

Wretched indeed must that theology be, and rotten to the very core, which, unless it has been decided to be

safe in conscience to defame our neighbor's character to preserve our own, can hardly boast of a safe decision

on any other point! How natural is it, fathers, that those who hold this principle should occasionally put it in

practice! corrupt propensity of mankind leans so strongly in that direction of itself that, the obstacle of

conscience once being removed, it would be folly to suppose that it will not burst forth with all its native

impetuosity. If you desire an example of this, Caramuel will furnish you with one that occurs in the same

passage: "This maxim of Father Dicastille," he says, "having been communicated by a German countess to

the daughters of the Empress, the belief thus impressed on their minds that calumny was only a venial sin,

gave rise in the course of a few days to such an immense number of false and scandalous tales that the whole

court was thrown into a flame and fill ed with alarm. It is easy, indeed, to conceive what a fine use these

ladies would make of the new light they had acquired. Matters proceeded to such a length, that it was found

necessary to call in the assistance of a worthy Capuchin friar, a man of exemplary life, called Father Quiroga"

(the very man whom Dicastille rails at so bitterly), "who assured them that the maxim was most pernicious,

especially among women, and was at the greatest pains to prevail upon the Empress to abolish the practice of

it entirely." We have no reason, therefore, to be surprised at the bad effects of this doctrine; on the contrary,

the wonder would be if it had failed to produce them. Selflove is always ready enough to whisper in our ear,

when we are attacked, that we suffer wrongfully; and more particularly in your case, fathers, whom vanity

has blinded so egregiously as to make you believe that to wound the honour of your Society is to wound that

of the Church. There would have been good ground to look on it as something miraculous, if you had not

reduced this maxim to practice. Those who do not know you are ready to say: How could these good fathers

slander their enemies, when they cannot do so but at the expense of their own salvation? But, if they knew

you better, the question would be: How could these good fathers forego the advantage of decrying their

enemies, when they have it in their power to do so without hazarding their salvation? Let none, therefore,

henceforth be surprised to find the Jesuits calumniators; they can exercise this vocation with a safe

conscience; there is no obstacle in heaven or on earth to prevent them. In virtue of the credit they have

acquired in the world, they can practise defamation without dreading the justice of mortals; and, on the

strength of their selfassumed authority in matters of conscience, they have invented maxims for enabling

This, fathers, is the fertile source of your base slanders. On this principle was Father Brisacier led to scatter

his calumnies about him, with such zeal as to draw down on his head the censure of the late Archbishop of

Paris. Actuated by the same motives, Father D'Anjou launched his invectives from the pulpit of the Church of

St. Benedict in Paris on the 8th of March, 1655, against those honourable gentlemen who were intrusted with

the charitable funds raised for the poor of Picardy and Champagne, to which they themselves had largely

contributed; and, uttering a base falsehood, calculated (if your slanders had been considered worthy of any

credit) to dry up the stream of that charity, he had the assurance to say, "that he knew, from good authority,

that certain persons had diverted that money from its proper use, to employ it against the Church and the

State"; a calumny which obliged the curate of the parish, who is a doctor of the Sorbonne, to mount the pulpit

the very next day, in order to give it the lie direct. To the same source must be traced the conduct of your

Father Crasset, who preached calumny at such a furious rate in Orleans that the Archbishop of that place was

under the necessity of interdicting him as a public slanderer. In this mandate, dated the 9th of September last,

his lordship declares: "That whereas he had been informed that Brother Jean Crasset, priest of the Society of

Jesus, had delivered from the pulpit a discourse filled with falsehoods and calumnies against the ecclesiastics

of this city, falsely and maliciously charging them with maintaining impious and heretical propositions, such

as: That the commandments of God are impracticable; that internal grace is irresistible; that Jesus Christ did

not die for all men; and others of a similar kind, condemned by Innocent X: he therefore hereby interdicts the

aforesaid Crasset from preaching in his diocese, and forbids all his people to hear him, on pain of mortal

disobedience." The above, fathers, is your ordinary accusation, and generally among the first that you bring

against all whom it is your interest to denounce. And, although you should find it as impossible to

substantiate the charge against any of them, as Father Crasset did in the case of the clergy of Orleans, your

peace of conscience will not be in the least disturbed on that account; for you believe that this mode of

calumniating your adversaries is permitted you with such certainty that you have no scruple to avow it in the

A remarkable proof of this may be seen in the dispute you had with M. Puys, curate of St. Nisier at Lyons;

and the story exhibits so complete an illustration of your spirit that I shall take the liberty of relating some of

its leading circumstances. You know, fathers, that, in the year 1649, M. Puys translated into French an

excellent book, written by another Capuchin friar, On the duty which Christians owe to their own parishes,

against those that would lead them away from them, without using a single invective, or pointing to any

monk or any order of monks in particular. Your fathers, however, were pleased to put the cap on their own

heads; and without any respect to an aged pastor, a judge in the Primacy of France, and a man who was held

in the highest esteem by the whole city, Father Alby wrote a furious tract against him, which you sold in your

own church upon Assumption Day; in which book, among other various charges, he accused him of having

made himself scandalous by his gallantries," described him as suspected of having no religion, as a heretic,

excommunicated, and, in short, worthy of the stake. To this M. Puys made a reply; and Father Alby, in a

second publication, supported his former allegations. Now, fathers, is it not a clear point either that you were

calumniators, or that you believed all that you alleged against that worthy priest to be true; and that, on this

latter assumption, it became you to see him purified from all these abominations before judging him worthy

of your friendship? Let us see, then, what happened at the accommodation of the dispute, which took place in

the presence of a great number of the principal inhabitants of the town on the 25th of September, 1650.

Before all these witnesses M. Puys made a declaration, which was neither more nor less than this: "That what

he had written was not directed against the fathers of the Society of Jesus; that he had spoken in general of

those who alienated the faithful from their parishes, without meaning by that to attack the Society; and that,

so far from having such an intention, the Society was the object of his esteem and affection." By virtue of

these words alone, without either retraction or absolution, M. Puys recovered, all at once, from his apostasy,

his scandals, and his excommunication; and Father Alby immediately thereafter addressed him in the

following express terms: "Sir, it was in consequence of my believing that you meant to attack the Society to

which I have the honour to belong that I was induced to take up the pen in its defence; and I considered that

the mode of reply which I adopted was such as I was permitted to employ. But, on a better understanding of

your intention, I am now free to declare that there is nothing in your work to prevent me from regarding you

as a man of genius, enlightened in judgement, profound and orthodox in doctrine, and irreproachable in

manners; in one word, as a pastor worthy of your Church. It is with much pleasure that I make this

They do remember it, fathers; and, allow me to add, they were more scandalized by the reconciliation than by

the quarrel. For who can fail to admire this speech of Father Alby? He does not say that he retracts, in

consequence of having learnt that a change had taken place in the faith and manners of M. Puys, but solely

because, having understood that he had no intention of attacking your Society, there was nothing further to

prevent him from regarding the author as a good Catholic. He did not then believe him to be actually a

heretic! And yet, after having, contrary to his conviction, accused him of this crime, he will not acknowledge

he was in the wrong, but has the hardihood to say that he considered the method he adopted to be "such as he

What can you possibly mean, fathers, by so publicly avowing the fact that you measure the faith and the

virtue of men only by the sentiments they entertain towards your Society? Had you no apprehension of

making yourselves pass, by your own acknowledgement, as a band of swindlers and slanderers? What,

fathers! must the same individual without undergoing any personal transformation, but simply according as

you judge him to have honoured or assailed your community, be "pious" or "impious," "irreproachable" or

"excommunicated," "a pastor worthy of the Church," or "worthy of the stake"; in short, "a Catholic" or "a

heretic"? To attack your Society and to be a heretic are, therefore, in your language, convertible terms! An

odd sort of heresy this, fathers! And so it would appear that, when we see many good Catholics branded, in

your writings, by the name of heretia, it means nothing more than that you think they attack you! It is well,

fathers, that we understand this strange dialect, according to which there can be no doubt that I must be a

great heretic. It is in this sense, then, that you so often favour me with this appellation! Your sole reason for

cutting me off from the Church is because you conceive that my letters have done you harm; and,

accordingly, all that I have to do, in order to become a good Catholic, is either to approve of your extravagant

morality, or to convince you that my sole aim in exposing it has been your advantage. The former I could not

do without renouncing every sentiment of piety that I ever possessed; and the latter you will be slow to

acknowledge till you are well cured of your errors. Thus am I involved in heresy, after a very singular

fashion; for, the purity of my faith being of no avail for my exculpation, I have no means of escaping from

the charge, except either by turning traitor to my own conscience, or by reforming yours. Till one or other of

these events happen, I must remain a reprobate and a slanderer; and, let me be ever so faithful in my citations

from your writings, you will go about crying everywhere: "What an instrument of the devil must that man be,

to impute to us things of which there is not the least mark or vestige to be found in our books!" And, by doing

so, you will only be acting in conformity with your fixed maxim and your ordinary practice: to such latitude

does your privilege of telling lies extend! Allow me to give you an example of this, which I select on

purpose; it will give me an opportunity of replying, at the same time, to your ninth Imposture: for, in truth,

About ten or twelve years ago, you were accused of holding that maxim of Father Bauny, "that it is

permissible to seek directly (primo et per se) a proximate occasion of sin, for the spiritual or temporal good of

ourselves or our neighbour" (tr.4, q.14); as an example of which, he observes: "It is allowable to visit

infamous places, for the purpose of converting abandoned females, even although the practice should be very

likely to lead into sin, as in the case of one who has found from experience that he has frequently yielded to

their temptations." What answer did your Father Caussin give to this charge in the year 1644? "Just let any

one look at the passage in Father Bauny," said he, "let him peruse the page, the margins, the preface, the

appendix, in short, the whole book from beginning to end, and he will not discover the slightest vestige of

such a sentence, which could only enter into the mind of a man totally devoid of conscience, and could hardly

have been forged by any other but an instrument of Satan." Father Pintereau talks in the same style: "That

man must be lost to all conscience who would teach so detestable a doctrine; but he must be worse than a

devil who attributes it to Father Bauny. Reader, there is not a single trace or vestige of it in the whole of his

book." Who would not believe that persons talking in this tone have good reason to complain, and that Father

Bauny has, in very deed, been misrepresented? Have you ever asserted anything against me in stronger

terms? And, after such a solemn asseveration, that "there was not a single trace or vestige of it in the whole

book, " who would imagine that the passage is to be found, word for word, in the place referred to?

Truly, fathers, if this be the means of securing your reputation, so long as you remain unanswered, it is also,

unfortunately, the means of destroying it forever, so soon as an answer makes its appearance. For so certain is

it that you told a lie at the period before mentioned, that you make no scruple of acknowledging, in your

apologies of the present day, that the maxim in question is to be found in the very place which had been

quoted; and, what is most extraordinary, the same maxim which, twelve years ago, was "detestable," has now

become so innocent that in your ninth Imposture (p. 10) you accuse me of "ignorance and malice, in

quarrelling with Father Bauny for an opinion which has not been rejected in the School." What an advantage

it is, fathers, to have to do with people that deal in contradictions! I need not the aid of any but yourselves to

confute you; for I have only two things to show: first, That the maxim in dispute is a worthless one; and,

secondly, That it belongs to Father Bauny; and I can prove both by your own confession. In 1644, you

confessed that it was "detestable"; and, in 1656, you avow that it is Father Bauny's. This double

acknowledgement completely justifies me, fathers; but it does more, it discovers the spirit of your policy. For,

tell me, pray, what is the end you propose to yourselves in your writings? Is it to speak with honesty? No,

fathers; that cannot be, since your defences destroy each other. Is it to follow the truth of the faith? As little

can this be your end; since, according to your own showing, you authorize a "detestable" maxim. But, be it

observed that while you said the maxim was "detestable," you denied, at the same time, that it was the

property of Father Bauny, and so he was innocent; and when you now acknowledge it to be his, you maintain,

at the same time, that it is a good maxim, and so he is innocent still. The innocence of this monk, therefore,

being the only thing common to your two answers, it is obvious that this was the sole end which you aimed at

in putting them forth; and that, when you say of one and the same maxim, that it is in a certain book, and that

it is not; that it is a good maxim, and that it is a bad one; your sole object is to whitewash some one or other

of your fraternity; judging in the matter, not according to the truth, which never changes, but according to

your own interest, which is varying every hour. Can I say more than this? You perceive that it amounts to a

demonstration; but it is far from being a singular instance, and, to omit a multitude of examples of the same

You have been charged, at different times, with another proposition of the same Father Bauny, namely:.

"That absolution ought to be neither denied nor deferred in the case of those who live in the habits of sin

against the law of God, of nature, and of the Church, although there should be no apparent prospect of future

amendment etsi emendationis futurae spes nulla appareat." Now, with regard to this maxim, I beg you to tell

me, fathers, which of the apologies that have been made for it is most to your liking; whether that of Father

Pintereau, or that of Father Brisacier, both of your Society, who have defended Father Bauny, in your two

different modes the one by condemning the proposition, but disavowing it to be Father Bauny's; the other by

allowing it to be Father Bauny's, but vindicating the proposition? Listen, then, to their respective

deliverances. Here comes that of Father Pintereau (p. 8): "I know not what can be called a transgression of all

the bounds of modesty, a step beyond all ordinary impudence, if the imputation to Father Bauny of so

damnable a doctrine is not worthy of that designation. Judge, reader, of the baseness of that calumny; see

what sort of creatures the Jesuits have to deal with; and say if the author of so foul a slander does not deserve

to be regarded from henceforth as the interpreter of the father of lies." Now for Father Brisacier: "It is true,

Father Bauny says what you allege." (That gives the lie direct to Father Pintereau, plain enough.) "But," adds

he, in defence of Father Bauny, "if you who find so much fault with this sentiment wait, when a penitent lies

at your feet, till his guardian angel find security for his rights in the inheritance of heaven; if you wait till God

the Father swear by himself that David told a lie, when he said by the Holy Ghost that 'all men are liars,'

fallible and perfidious; if you wait till the penitent be no longer a liar, no longer frail and changeable, no

longer a sinner, like other men; if you wait, I say, till then, you will never apply the blood of Jesus Christ to a

What do you really think now, fathers, of these impious and extravagant expressions? According to them, if

we would wait "till there be some hope of amendment" in sinners before granting their absolution, we must

wait "till God the Father swear by himself," that they will never fall into sin any more! What, fathers! is no

distinction to be made between hope and certainty? How injurious is it to the grace of Jesus Christ to

maintain that it is so impossible for Christians ever to escape from crimes against the laws of God, nature,

and the Church, that such a thing cannot be looked for, without supposing "that the Holy Ghost has told a

lie"; and, if absolution is not granted to those who give no hope of amendment, the blood of Jesus Christ will

be useless, forsooth, and would never be applied to a single soul!" To what a sad pass have you come, fathers

by this extravagant desire of upholding the glory of your authors, when you can find only two ways of

justifying them by imposture or by impiety; and when the most innocent mode by which you can extricate

This may perhaps account for your having recourse so frequently to that very convenient practice. But this

does not complete the sum of your accomplishments in the art of selfdefence. To render your opponents

odious, you have had recourse to the forging of documents, such as that Letter of a Minister to M. Arnauld,

which you circulated through all Paris, to induce the belief that the work on Frequent Communion, which had

been approved by so many bishops and doctors, but which, to say the truth, was rather against you, had been

concocted through secret intelligence with the ministers of Charenton. At other times, you attribute to your

adversaries writings full of impiety, such as the Circular Letter of the Jansenists, the absurd style of which

renders the fraud too gross to be swallowed, and palpably betrays the malice of your Father Meynier, who has

the impudence to make use of it for supporting his foulest slanders. Sometimes, again, you will quote books

which were never in existence, such as The Constitution of the Holy Sacrament, from which you extract

passages, fabricated at pleasure and calculated to make the hair on the heads of certain good simple people,

who have no idea of the effrontery with which you can invent and propagate falsehoods, actually to bristle

with horror. There is not, indeed, a single species of calumny which you have not put into requisition; nor is

it possible that the maxim which excuses the vice could have been lodged in better hands.

But those sorts of slander to which we have adverted are rather too easily discredited; and, accordingly, you

have others of a more subtle character, in which you abstain from specifying particulars, in order to preclude

your opponents from getting any hold, or finding any means of reply; as, for example, when Father Brisacier

says that "his enemies are guilty of abominable crimes, which he does not choose to mention." Would you

not think it were impossible to prove a charge so vague as this to be a calumny? An able man, however, has

found out the secret of it; and it is a Capuchin again, fathers. You are unlucky in Capuchins, as times now go;

and I foresee that you may be equally so some other time in Benedictines. The name of this Capuchin is

Father Valerien, of the house of the Counts of Magnis. You shall hear, by this brief narrative, how he

answered your calumnies. He had happily succeeded in converting Prince Ernest, the Landgrave of

HesseRheinsfelt. Your fathers, however, seized, as it would appear, with some chagrin at seeing a sovereign

prince converted without their having had any hand in it, immediately wrote a book against the friar (for good

men are everywhere the objects of your persecution), in which, by falsifying one of his passages, they

ascribed to him an heretical doctrine. They also circulated a letter against him, in which they said: "Ah, we

have such things to disclose" (without mentioning what) "as will gall you to the quick! If you don't take care,

we shall be forced to inform the pope and the cardinals about it." This manoeuvre was pretty well executed;

and I doubt not, fathers, but you may speak in the same style of me; but take warning from the manner in

which the friar answered in his book, which was printed last year at Prague (p.112, "What shall I do," he says,

"to counteract these vague and indefinite insinuations? How shall I refute charges which have never been

specified? Here, however, is my plan. I declare, loudly and publicly, to those who have threatened me, that

they are notorious slanderers and most impudent liars, if they do not discover these crimes before the whole

world. Come forth, then, mine accusers! and publish your lies upon the housetops, in place of telling them

in the ear, and keeping yourselves out of harm's way by telling them in the ear. Some may think this a

scandalous way of managing the dispute. It was scandalous, I grant, to impute to me such a crime as heresy,

and to fix upon me the suspicion of many others besides; but, by asserting my innocence, I am merely

Truly, fathers, never were your reverences more roughly handled, and never was a poor man more completely

vindicated. Since you have made no reply to such a peremptory challenge, it must be concluded that you are

unable to discover the slightest shadow of criminality against him. You have had very awkward scrapes to get

through occasionally; but experience has made you nothing the wiser. For, some time after this happened,

you attacked the same individual in a similar strain, upon another subject; and he defended himself after the

same spirited manner, as follows: "This class of men, who have become an intolerable nuisance to the whole

of Christendom, aspire, under the pretext of good works, to dignities and domination, by perverting to their

own ends almost all laws, human and divine, natural and revealed. They gain over to their side, by their

doctrine, by the force of fear, or of persuasion, the great ones of the earth, whose authority they abuse for the

purpose of accomplishing their detestable intrigues. Meanwhile their enterprises, criminal as they are, are

neither punished nor suppressed; on the contrary, they are rewarded; and the villains go about them with as

little fear or remorse as if they were doing God service. Everybody is aware of the fact I have now stated;

everybody speaks of it with execration; but few are found capable of opposing a despotism so powerful. This,

however, is what I have done. I have already curbed their insolence; and, by the same means, I shall curb it

again. I declare, then, that they are most impudent liars mentiris impudentissime. If the charges they have

brought against me be true, let them prove it; otherwise they stand convicted of falsehood, aggravated by the

grossest effrontery. Their procedure in this case will show who has the right upon his side. I desire all men to

take a particular observation of it; and beg to remark, in the meantime, that this precious cabal, who will not

suffer the most trifling charge which they can possibly repel to lie upon them, made a show of enduring, with

great patience, those from which they cannot vindicate themselves, and conceal, under a counterfeit virtue,

their real impotency. My object, therefore, in provoking their modesty by this sharp retort, is to let the

plainest people understand that, if my enemies hold their peace, their forbearance must be ascribed, not to the

meekness of their natures, but to the power of a guilty conscience." He concludes with the following

sentence: "These gentry, whose history is well known throughout the whole world, are so glaringly iniquitous

in their measures, and have become so insolent in their impunity, that if I did not detest their conduct, and

publicly express my detestation too, not merely for my own vindication, but to guard the simple against its

seducing influence, I must have renounced my allegiance to Jesus Christ and his Church."

Reverend fathers, there is no room for tergiversation. You must pass for convicted slanderers, and take

comfort in your old maxim that calumny is no crime. This honest friar has discovered the secret of shutting

your mouths; and it must be employed on all occasions when you accuse people without proof. We have only

to reply to each slander as it appears, in the words of the Capuchin: "Mentiris impudentissime You are most

impudent liars." For instance, what better answer does Father Brisacier deserve when he says of his

opponents that they are "the gates of hell; the devil's bishops; persons devoid of faith, hope, and charity; the

builders of Antichrist's exchequer"; adding, "I say this of him, not by way of insult, but from deep conviction

of its truth"? Who would be at the pains to demonstrate that he is not "a gate of hell," and that he has no

In like manner, what reply is due to all the vague speeches of this sort which are to be found in your books

and advertisements on my letters; such as the following, for example: "That restitutions have been converted

to private uses, and thereby creditors have been reduced to beggary; that bags of money have been offered to

learned monks, who declined the bribe; that benefices are conferred for the purpose of disseminating heresies

against the faith; that pensioners are kept in the houses of the most eminent churchmen, and in the courts of

sovereigns; that I also am a pensioner of PortRoyal; and that, before writing my letters, I had composed

romances" I, who never read one in my life, and who do not know so much as the names of those which

your apologist has published? What can be said in reply to all this, fathers, if you do not mention the names

of all these persons you refer to, their words, the time, and the place, except Mentiris impudentissime? You

should either be silent altogether, or relate and prove all the circumstances, as I did when I told you the

anecdotes of Father Alby and John d'Alba. Otherwise, you will hurt none but yourselves. Your numerous

fables might, perhaps, have done you some service, before your principles were known; but now that the

whole has been brought to light, when you begin to whisper as usual, "A man of honor, who desired us to

conceal his name, has told us some horrible stories of these same people" you will be cut short at once, and

reminded of the Capuchin's "Mentiris impudentissime." Too long by far have you been permitted to deceive

the world, and to abuse the confidence which men were ready to place in your calumnious accusations. It is

high time to redeem the reputation of the multitudes whom you have defamed. For what innocence can be so

generally known, as not to suffer some injury from the daring aspersions of a body of men scattered over the

face of the earth, and who, under religious habits, conceal minds so utterly irreligious that they perpetrate

crimes like calumny, not in opposition to, but in strict accordance with, their moral maxims? I cannot,

therefore, be blamed for destroying the credit which might have been awarded you, seeing it must be allowed

to be a much greater act of justice to restore to the victims of your obloquy the character which they did not

deserve to lose, than to leave you in the possession of a reputation for sincerity which you do not deserve to

enjoy. And, as the one could not be done without the other, how important was it to show you up to the world

as you really are! In this letter I have commenced the exhibition; but it will require some time to complete it.

Published it shall be, fathers, and all your policy will be inadequate to save you from the disgrace; for the

efforts which you may make to avert the blow will only serve to convince the most obtuse observers that you

were terrified out of your wits, and that, your consciences anticipating the charges I had to bring against you,

I now come to consider the rest of your calumnies, and shall begin with those contained in your

advertisements, which remain to be noticed. As all your other writings, however, are equally well stocked

with slander, they will furnish me with abundant materials for entertaining you on this topic as long as I may

judge expedient. In the first place, then, with regard to the fable which you have propagated in all your

writings against the Bishop of Ypres, I beg leave to say, in one word, that you have maliciously wrested the

meaning of some ambiguous expressions in one of his letters which, being capable of a good sense, ought,

according to the spirit of the Gospel, to have been taken in good part, and could only be taken otherwise

according to the spirit of your Society. For example, when he says to a friend, "Give yourself no concern

about your nephew; I will furnish him with what he requires from the money that lies in my hands," what

reason have you to interpret this to mean that he would take that money without restoring it, and not that he

merely advanced it with the purpose of replacing it? And how extremely imprudent was it for you to furnish a

refutation of your own lie, by printing the other letters of the Bishop of Ypres, which clearly show that, in

point of fact, it was merely advanced money, which he was bound to refund. This appears, to your confusion,

from the following terms in the letter, to which you give the date of July 30, 1619: "Be not uneasy about the

money advanced; he shall want for nothing so long as he is here"; and likewise from another, dated January

6, 1620, where he says: "You are in too great haste; when the account shall become due, I have no fear but

that the little credit which I have in this place will bring me as much money as I require."

If you are convicted slanderers on this subject, you are no less so in regard to the ridiculous story about the

charitybox of St. Merri. What advantage, pray, can you hope to derive from the accusation which one of

your worthy friends has trumped up against that ecclesiastic? Are we to conclude that a man is guilty,

because he is accused? No, fathers. Men of piety, like him, may expect to be perpetually accused, so long as

the world contains calumniators like you. We must judge of him, therefore, not from the accusation, but from

the sentence; and the sentence pronounced on the case (February 23, 1656) justifies him completely.

Moreover, the person who had the temerity to involve himself in that iniquitous process, was disavowed by

his colleagues, and himself compelled to retract his charge. And as to what you allege, in the same place,

about "that famous director, who pocketed at once nine hundred thousand livres," I need only refer you to

Messieurs the cures of St. Roch and St. Paul, who will bear witness, before the whole city of Paris, to his

perfect disinterestedness in the affair, and to your inexcusable malice in that piece of imposition.

Enough, however, for such paltry falsities. These are but the first raw attempts of your novices, and not the

masterstrokes of your "grand professed." To these do I now come, fathers; I come to a calumny which is

certainly one of the basest that ever issued from the spirit of your Society. I refer to the insufferable audacity

with which you have imputed to holy nuns, and to their directors, the charge of "disbelieving the mystery of

transubstantiation and the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist." Here, fathers, is a slander worthy of

yourselves. Here is a crime which God alone is capable of punishing, as you alone were capable of

committing it. To endure it with patience would require an humility as great as that of these calumniated

ladies; to give it credit would demand a degree of wickedness equal to that of their wretched defamers. I

propose not, therefore, to vindicate them; they are beyond suspicion. Had they stood in need of defence, they

might have commanded abler advocates than me. My object in what I say here is to show, not their

innocence, but your malignity. I merely intend to make you ashamed of yourselves, and to let the whole

world understand that, after this, there is nothing of which you are not capable.

You will not fail, I am certain, notwithstanding all this, to say that I belong to PortRoyal; for this is the first

thing you say to every one who combats your errors: as if it were only at PortRoyal that persons could be

found possessed of sufficient zeal to defend, against your attacks, the purity of Christian morality. I know,

fathers, the work of the pious recluses who have retired to that monastery, and how much the Church is

indebted to their truly solid and edifying labours. I know the excellence of their piety and their learning. For,

though I have never had the honour to belong to their establishment, as you, without knowing who or what I

am, would fain have it believed, nevertheless, I do know some of them, and honour the virtue of them all. But

God has not confined within the precincts of that society all whom he means to raise up in opposition to your

corruptions. I hope, with his assistance, fathers, to make you feel this; and if he vouchsafe to sustain me in the

design he has led me to form, of employing in his service all the resources I have received from him, I shall

speak to you in such a strain as will, perhaps, give you reason to regret that you have not had to do with a

man of PortRoyal. And to convince you of this, fathers, I must tell you that, while those whom you have

abused with this notorious slander content themselves with lifting up their groans to Heaven to obtain your

forgiveness for the outrage, I feel myself obliged, not being in the least affected by your slander, to make you

blush in the face of the whole Church, and so bring you to that wholesome shame of which the Scripture

speaks, and which is almost the only remedy for a hardness of heart like yours: "Imple facies eorum

ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O

A stop must be put to this insolence, which does not spare the most sacred retreats. For who can be safe after

a calumny of this nature? For shame, fathers! to publish in Paris such a scandalous book, with the name of

your Father Meynier on its front, and under this infamous title, PortRoyal and Geneva in concert against the

most holy Sacrament of the Altar, in which you accuse of this apostasy, not only Monsieur the abbe of St.

Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also Mother Agnes, his sister, and all the nuns of that monastery, alleging that

"their faith, in regard to the eucharist, is as suspicious as that of M. Arnauld," whom you maintain to be "a

downright Calvinist." I here ask the whole world if there be any class of persons within the pale of the

Church, on whom you could have advanced such an abominable charge with less semblance of truth. For tell

me, fathers, if these nuns and their directors had been "in concert with Geneva against the most holy

sacrament of the altar" (the very thought of which is shocking), how they should have come to select as the

principal object of their piety that very sacrament which they held in abomination? How should they have

assumed the habit of the holy sacrament? taken the name of the Daughters of the Holy Sacrament? called

their church the Church of the Holy Sacrament? How should they have requested and obtained from Rome

the confirmation of that institution, and the right of saying every Thursday the office of the holy sacrament, in

which the faith of the Church is so perfectly expressed, if they had conspired with Geneva to banish that faith

from the Church? Why would they have bound themselves, by a particular devotion, also sanctioned by the

Pope, to have some of their sisterhood, night and day without intermission, in presence of the sacred host, to

compensate, by their perpetual adorations towards that perpetual sacrifice, for the impiety of the heresy that

aims at its annihilation? Tell me, fathers, if you can, why, of all the mysteries of our religion, they should

have passed by those in which they believed, to fix upon that in which they believed not? and how they

should have devoted themselves, so fully and entirely, to that mystery of our faith, if they took it, as the

heretics do, for the mystery of iniquity? And what answer do you give to these clear evidences, embodied not

in words only, but in actions; and not in some particular actions, but in the whole tenor of a life expressly

dedicated to the adoration of Jesus Christ, dwelling on our altars? What answer, again, do you give to the

books which you ascribe to PortRoyal, all of which are full of the most precise terms employed by the

fathers and the councils to mark the essence of that mystery? It is at once ridiculous and disgusting to hear

you replying to these as you have done throughout your libel. M. Arnauld, say you, talks very well about

transubstantiation; but he understands, perhaps, only "a significative transubstantiation." True, he professes to

believe in "the real presence"; who can tell, however, but he means nothing more than "a true and real

figure"? How now, fathers! whom, pray, will you not make pass for a Calvinist whenever you please, if you

are to allowed the liberty of perverting the most canonical and sacred expressions by the wicked subtleties of

your modern equivocations? Who ever thought of using any other terms than those in question, especially in

simple discourses of devotion, where no controversies are handled? And yet the love and the reverence in

which they hold this sacred mystery have induced them to give it such a prominence in all their writings that I

defy you, fathers, with all your cunning, to detect in them either the least appearance of ambiguity, or the

Everybody knows, fathers, that the essence of the Genevan heresy consists, as it does according to your own

showing, in their believing that Jesus Christ is not contained in this sacrament; that it is impossible he can be

in many places at once; that he is, properly speaking, only in heaven, and that it is as there alone that he ought

to be adored, and not on the altar; that the substance of the bread remains; that the body of Jesus Christ does

not enter into the mouth or the stomach; that he can only be eaten by faith, and accordingly wicked men do

not eat him at all; and that the mass is not a sacrifice, but an abomination. Let us now hear, then, in what way

"PortRoyal is in concert with Geneva." In the writings of the former we read, to your confusion, the

following statement: That "the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are contained under the species of bread and

wine"; that "the Holy of Holies is present in the sanctuary, and that there he ought to be adored"; that "Jesus

Christ dwells in the sinners who communicate, by the real and veritable presence of his body in their

stomach, although not by the presence of his Spirit in their hearts"; that "the dead ashes of the bodies of the

saints derive their principal dignity from that seed of life which they retain from the touch of the immortal

and vivifying flesh of Jesus Christ"; that "it is not owing to any natural power, but to the almighty power of

God, to whom nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ is comprehended under the host, and under

the smallest portion of every host"; that "the divine virtue is present to produce the effect which the words of

consecration signify"; that "Jesus Christ, while be is lowered and hidden upon the altar, is, at the same time,

elevated in his glory; that he subsists, of himself and by his own ordinary power, in divers places at the same

time in the midst of the Church triumphant, and in the midst of the Church militant and travelling"; that "the

sacramental species remain suspended, and subsist extraordinarily, without being upheld by any subject; and

that the body of Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, and that it does not depend upon these, as

substances depend upon accidents"; that "the substance of the bread is changed, the immutable accidents

remaining the same"; that "Jesus Christ reposes in the eucharist with the same glory that he has in heaven";

that "his glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of the Church, under the species of bread, which forms

its visible covering; and that, knowing the grossness of our natures, he conducts us to the adoration of his

divinity, which is present in all places, by the adoring of his humanity, which is present in a particular place";

that "we receive the body of Jesus Christ upon the tongue, which is sanctified by its divine touch"; "that it

enters into the mouth of the priest"; that "although Jesus Christ has made himself accessible in the holy

sacrament, by an act of his love and graciousness, he preserves, nevertheless, in that ordinance, his

inaccessibility, as an inseparable condition of his divine nature; because, although the body alone and the

blood alone are there, by virtue of the words vi verborum, as the schoolmen say his whole divinity may,

notwithstanding, be there also, as well as his whole humanity, by a necessary conjunction." In fine, that "the

eucharist is at the same time sacrament and sacrifice"; and that "although this sacrifice is a commemoration

of that of the cross, yet there is this difference between them, that the sacrifice of the mass is offered for the

Church only, and for the faithful in her communion; whereas that of the cross has been offered for all the

I have quoted enough, fathers, to make it evident that there was never, perhaps, a more imprudent thing

attempted than what you have done. But I will go a step farther, and make you pronounce this sentence

against yourselves. For what do you require from a man, in order to remove all suspicion of his being in

concert and correspondence with Geneva? "If M. Arnauld," says your Father Meynier, p.93, "had said that, in

this adorable mystery, there is no substance of the bread under the species, but only the flesh and the blood of

Jesus Christ, I should have confessed that he had declared himself absolutely against Geneva." Confess it,

then, ye revilers! and make him a public apology. How often have you seen this declaration made in the

passages I have just cited? Besides this, however, the Familiar Theology of M. de St. Cyran having been

approved by M. Arnauld, it contains the sentiments of both. Read, then, the whole of lesson 15th, and

particularly article 2d, and you will there find the words you desiderate, even more formally stated than you

have done yourselves. "Is there any bread in the host, or any wine in the chalice? No: for all the substance of

the bread and the wine is taken away, to give place to that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the which

substance alone remains therein, covered by the qualities and species of bread and wine."

How now, fathers! will you still say that PortRoyal teaches "nothing that Geneva does not receive," and that

M. Arnauld has said nothing in his second letter "which might not have been said by a minister of

Charenton"? See if you can persuade Mestrezat to speak as M. Arnauld does in that letter, on page 237. Make

him say that it is an infamous calumny to accuse him of denying transubstantiation; that he takes for the

fundamental principle of his writings the truth of the real presence of the Son of God, in opposition to the

heresy of the Calvinists; and that he accounts himself happy for living in a place where the Holy of Holies is

continually adored in the sanctuary" a sentiment which is still more opposed to the belief of the Calvinists

than the real presence itself; for, as Cardinal Richelieu observes in his Controversies (p. 536): "The new

ministers of France having agreed with the Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus Christ in the

eucharist; they have declared that they remain in a state of separation from the Church on the point of this

mystery, only on account of the adoration which Catholics render to the eucharist." Get all the passages

which I have extracted from the books of PortRoyal subscribed at Geneva, and not the isolated passages

merely, but the entire treatises regarding this mystery, such as the Book of Frequent Communion, the

Explication of the Ceremonies of the Mass, the Exercise during Mass, the Reasons of the Suspension of the

Holy Sacrament, the Translation of the Hymns in the Hours of PortRoyal, in one word, prevail upon them to

establish at Charenton that holy institution of adoring, without intermission, Jesus Christ contained in the

eucharist, as is done at PortRoyal, and it will be the most signal service which you could render to the

Church; for in this case it will turn out, not that PortRoyal is in concert with Geneva, but that Geneva is in

Certainly, fathers, you could not have been more unfortunate than in selecting PortRoyal as the object of

attack for not believing in the eucharist; but I will show what led you to fix upon it. You know I have picked

up some small acquaintance with your policy; in this instance you have acted upon its maxims to admiration.

If Monsieur the abbe of St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld, had only spoken of what ought to be believed with great

respect to this mystery, and said nothing about what ought to be done in the way of preparation for its

reception, they might have been the best Catholics alive; and no equivocations would have been discovered in

their use of the terms real presence and transubstantiation. But, since all who combat your licentious

principles must needs be heretics, and heretics, too, in the very point in which they condemn your laxity, how

could M. Arnauld escape falling under this charge on the subject of the eucharist, after having published a

book expressly against your profanations of that sacrament? What! must he be allowed to say, with impunity,

that "the body of Jesus Christ ought not to be given to those who habitually lapse into the same crimes, and

who have no prospect of amendment; and that such persons ought to be excluded, for some time, from the

altar, to purify themselves by sincere penitence, that they may approach it afterwards with benefit"? Suffer no

one to talk in this strain, fathers, or you will find that fewer people will come to your confessionals. Father

Brisacier says that "were you to adopt this course, you would never apply the blood of Jesus Christ to a single

individual." It would be infinitely more for your interest were every one to adopt the views of your Society,

as set forth by your Father Mascarenhas, in a book approved by your doctors, and even by your reverend

FatherGeneral, namely: "That persons of every description, and even priests, may receive the body of Jesus

Christ on the very day they have polluted themselves with odious crimes; that, so far from such communions

implying irreverence, persons who partake of them in this manner act a commendable part; that confessors

ought not to keep them back from the ordinance, but, on the contrary, ought to advise those who have

recently committed such crimes to communicate immediately; because, although the Church has forbidden it,

this prohibition is annulled by the universal practice in all places of the earth."

See what it is, fathers, to have Jesuits in all places of the earth! Behold the universal practice which you have

introduced, and which you are anxious everywhere to maintain! It matters nothing that the tables of Jesus

Christ are filled with abominations, provided that your churches are crowded with people. Be sure, therefore,

cost what it may, to set down all that dare to say a word against your practice as heretics on the holy

sacrament. But how can you do this, after the irrefragable testimonies which they have given of their faith?

Are you not afraid of my coming out with the four grand proofs of their heresy which you have adduced?

You ought, at least, to be so, fathers, and I ought not to spare your blushing. Let us, then, proceed to examine

"M. de St. Cyran," says Father Meynier, "consoling one of his friends upon the death of his mother (tom. i.,

let. 14), says that the most acceptable sacrifice that can be offered up to God, on such occasions, is that of

patience; therefore he is a Calvinist." This is marvellously shrewd reasoning, fathers; and I doubt if anybody

will be able to discover the precise point of it. Let us learn it, then, from his own mouth. "Because," says this

mighty controversialist, "it is obvious that he does not believe in the sacrifice of the mass; for this is, of all

other sacrifices, the most acceptable unto God." Who will venture to say now that the do not know how to

reason? Why, they know the art to such perfection that they will extract heresy out of anything you choose to

mention, not even excepting the Holy Scripture itself! For example, might it not be heretical to say, with the

wise man in Ecclesiasticus, "There is nothing worse than to love money"; as if adultery, murder, or idolatry,

were not far greater crimes? Where is the man who is not in the habit of using similar expressions every day?

May we not say, for instance, that the most acceptable of all sacrifices in the eyes of God is that of a contrite

and humbled heart; just because, in discourses of this nature, we simply mean to compare certain internal

virtues with one another, and not with the sacrifice of the mass, which is of a totally different order, and

infinitely more exalted? Is this not enough to make you ridiculous, fathers? And is it necessary, to complete

your discomfiture, that I should quote the passages of that letter in which M. de St. Cyran speaks of the

sacrifice of the mass as "the most excellent" of all others, in the following terms? "Let there be presented to

God, daily and in all places, the sacrifice of the body of his Son, who could not find a more excellent way

than that by which he might honour his Father." And afterwards: "Jesus Christ has enjoined us to take, when

we are dying, his sacrificed body, to render more acceptable to God the sacrifice of our own, and to join

himself with us at the hour of dissolution; to the end that he may strengthen us for the struggle, sanctifying,

by his presence, the last sacrifice which we make to God of our life and our body"? Pretend to take no notice

of all this, fathers, and persist in maintaining, as you do in page 39, that he refused to take the communion on

his deathbed, and that he did not believe in the sacrifice of the mass. Nothing can be too gross for

Your second proof furnishes an excellent illustration of this. To make a Calvinist of M. de St. Cyran, to

whom you ascribe the book of Petrus Aurelius, you take advantage of a passage (page 80) in which Aurelius

explains in what manner the Church acts towards priests, and even bishops, whom she wishes to degrade or

depose. "The Church," he says, "being incapable of depriving them of the power of the order, the character of

which is indelible, she does all that she can do: she banishes from her memory the character which she cannot

banish from the souls of the individuals who have been once invested with it; she regards them in the same

light as if they were not bishops or priests; so that, according to the ordinary language of the Church, it may

be said they are no longer such, although they always remain such, in as far as the character is concerned ob

indelebilitatem characteris." You perceive, fathers, that this author, who has been approved by three general

assemblies of the clergy of France, plainly declares that the character of the priesthood is indelible; and yet

you make him say, on the contrary, in the very same passage, that "the character of the priesthood is not

indelible." This is what I would call a notorious slander; in other words, according to your nomenclature, a

small venial sin. And the reason is, this book has done you some harm by refuting the heresies of your

brethren in England touching the Episcopal authority. But the folly of the charge is equally remarkable; for,

after having taken it for granted, without any foundation, that M. de St. Cyran holds the priestly character to

be not indelible, you conclude from this that he does not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the

Do not expect me to answer this, fathers. If you have got no common sense, I am not able to furnish you with

it. All who possess any share of it will enjoy a hearty laugh at your expense. Nor will they treat with greater

respect your third proof, which rests upon the following words, taken from the Book of Frequent

Communion: "In the eucharist God vouchsafes us the same food that He bestows on the saints in heaven,

with this difference only, that here He withholds from us its sensible sight and taste, reserving both of these

for the heavenly world." These words express the sense of the Church so distinctly that I am constantly

forgetting what reason you have for picking a quarrel with them, in order to turn them to a bad use; for I can

see nothing more in them than what the Council of Trent teaches (sess. xiii, c. 8), namely, that there is no

difference between Jesus Christ in the eucharist and Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled, and

there he is not. M. Arnauld does not say that there is no difference in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ,

but only that there is no difference in Jesus Christ who is received. And yet you would, in the face of all

reason, interpret his language in this passage to mean that Jesus Christ is no more eaten with the mouth in this

world than he is in heaven; upon which you ground the charge of heresy against him.

You really make me sorry for you, fathers. Must we explain this further to you? Why do you confound that

divine nourishment with the manner of receiving it? There is but one point of difference, as I have just

observed, betwixt that nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is that here it is hidden under veils

which deprive us of its sensible sight and taste; but there are various points of dissimilarity in the manner of

receiving it here and there, the principal of which is, as M. Arnauld expresses it (p.3, ch.16), "that here it

enters into the mouth and the breast both of the good and of the wicked," which is not the case in heaven.

And, if you require to be told the reason of this diversity, I may inform you, fathers, that the cause of God's

ordaining these different modes of receiving the same food is the difference that exists betwixt the state of

Christians in this life and that of the blessed in heaven. The state of the Christian, as Cardinal Perron observes

after the fathers, holds a middle place between the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews. The spirits in

bliss possess Jesus Christ really, without veil or figure. The Jews possessed Jesus Christ only in figures and

veils, such as the manna and the paschal lamb. And Christians possess Jesus Christ in the eucharist really and

truly, although still concealed under veils. "God," says St. Eucher, "has made three tabernacles: the

synagogue, which had the shadows only, without the truth; the Church, which has the truth and shadows

together; and heaven, where there is no shadow, but the truth alone." It would be a departure from our present

state, which is the state of faith, opposed by St. Paul alike to the law and to open vision, did we possess the

figures only, without Jesus Christ; for it is the property of the law to have the mere figure, and not the

substance of things. And it would be equally a departure from our present state if we possessed him visibly;

because faith, according to the same apostle, deals not with things that are seen. And thus the eucharist, from

its including Jesus Christ truly, though under a veil, is in perfect accordance with our state of faith. It follows

that this state would be destroyed, if, as the heretics maintain, Jesus Christ were not really under the species

of bread and wine; and it would be equally destroyed if we received him openly, as they do in heaven: since,

on these suppositions, our state would be confounded, either with the state of Judaism or with that of glory.

Such, fathers, is the mysterious and divine reason of this most divine mystery. This it is that fills us with

abhorrence at the Calvinists, who would reduce us to the condition of the Jews; and this it is that makes us

aspire to the glory of the beatified, where we shall be introduced to the full and eternal enjoyment of Jesus

Christ. From hence you must see that there are several points of difference between the manner in which he

communicates himself to Christians and to the blessed; and that, amongst others, he is in this world received

by the mouth, and not so in heaven; but that they all depend solely on the distinction between our state of

faith and their state of immediate vision. And this is precisely, fathers, what M. Arnauld has expressed, with

great plainness, in the following terms: "There can be no other difference between the purity of those who

receive Jesus Christ in the eucharist and that of the blessed, than what exists between faith and the open

vision of God, upon which alone depends the different manner in which he is eaten upon earth and in

heaven." You were bound in duty, fathers, to have revered in these words the sacred truths they express,

instead of wresting them for the purpose of detecting an heretical meaning which they never contained, nor

could possibly contain, namely, that Jesus Christ is eaten by faith only, and not by the mouth; the malicious

perversion of your Fathers Annat and Meynier, which forms the capital count of their indictment.

Conscious, however, of the wretched deficiency of your proofs, you have had recourse to a new artifice,

which is nothing less than to falsify the Council of Trent, in order to convict M. Arnauld of nonconformity

with it; so vast is your store of methods for making people heretics. This feat has been achieved by Father

Meynier, in fifty different places of his book, and about eight or ten times in the space of a single page (the

54th), wherein he insists that to speak like a true Catholic it is not enough to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ

is really present in the eucharist," but we must say, "I believe, with the council, that he is present by a true

local presence, or locally." And, in proof of this, he cites the council, session xiii, canon 3d, canon 4th, and

canon 6th. Who would not suppose, upon seeing the term local presence quoted from three canons of a

universal council, that the phrase was actually to be found in them? This might have served your turn very

well, before the appearance of my Fifteenth Letter; but, as matters now stand, fathers, the trick has become

too stale for us. We go our way and consult the council, and discover only that you are falsifiers. Such terms

as local presence, locally, and locality, never existed in the passages to which you refer; and let me tell you

further, they are not to be found in any other canon of that council, nor in any other previous council, not in

any father of the Church. Allow me, then, to ask you, fathers, if you mean to cast the suspicion of Calvinism

upon all that have not made use of that peculiar phrase? If this be the case, the Council of Trent must be

suspected of heresy, and all the holy fathers without exception. Have you no other way of making M. Arnauld

heretical, without abusing so many other people who never did you any harm, and, among the rest, St.

Thomas, who is one of the greatest champions of the eucharist, and who, so far from employing that term, has

expressly rejected it "Nullo modo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. By no means is the body

of Christ in this sacrament locally"? Who are you, then, fathers, to pretend, on your authority, to impose new

terms, and ordain them to be used by all for rightly expressing their faith; as if the profession of the faith,

drawn up by the popes according to the plan of the council, in which this term has no place, were defective,

and left an ambiguity in the creed of the faithful which you had the sole merit of discovering? Such a piece of

arrogance, to prescribe these terms, even to learned doctors! such a piece of forgery, to attribute them to

general councils! and such ignorance, not to know the objections which the most enlightened saints have

made to their reception! "Be ashamed of the error of your ignorance," as the Scripture says of ignorant

Give up all further attempts, then, to act the masters; you have neither character nor capacity for the part. If,

however, you would bring forward your propositions with a little more modesty, they might obtain a hearing.

For, although this phrase, local presence, has been rejected, as you have seen, by St. Thomas, on the ground

that the body of Jesus Christ is not in the eucharist, in the ordinary extension of bodies in their places, the

expression has, nevertheless, been adopted by some modern controversial writers, who understand it simply

to mean that the body of Jesus Christ is truly under the species, which being in a particular place, the body of

Jesus Christ is there also. And in this sense M. Arnauld will make no scruple to admit the term, as M. de St.

Cyran and he have repeatedly declared that Jesus Christ in the eucharist is truly in a particular place, and

miraculously in many places at the same time. Thus all your subtleties fall to the ground; and you have failed

to give the slightest semblance of plausibility to an accusation which ought not to have been allowed to show

But what avails it, fathers, to oppose their innocence to your calumnies? You impute these errors to them, not

in the belief that they maintain heresy, but from the idea that they have done you injury. That is enough,

according to your theology, to warrant you to calumniate them without criminality; and you can, without

either penance or confession, say mass, at the very time that you charge priests, who say it every day, with

holding it to be pure idolatry; which, were it true, would amount to sacrilege no less revolting than that of

your own Father Jarrige, whom you yourselves ordered to be hanged in effigy, for having said mass "at the

What surprises me, therefore, is not the little scrupulosity with which you load them with crimes of the

foulest and falsest description, but the little prudence you display, by fixing on them charges so destitute of

plausibility. You dispose of sins, it is true, at your pleasure; but do you mean to dispose of men's beliefs too?

Verily, fathers, if the suspicion of Calvinism must needs fall either on them or on you, you would stand, I

fear, on very ticklish ground. Their language is as Catholic as yours; but their conduct confirms their faith,

and your conduct belies it. For if you believe, as well as they do, that the bread is really changed into the

body of Jesus Christ, why do you not require, as they do, from those whom you advise to approach the altar,

that the heart of stone and ice should be sincerely changed into a heart of flesh and of love? If you believe

that Jesus Christ is in that sacrament in a state of death, teaching those that approach it to die to the world, to

sin, and to themselves, why do you suffer those to profane it in whose breasts evil passions continue to reign

in all their life and vigour? And how do you come to judge those worthy to eat the bread of heaven, who are

Precious votaries, truly, whose zeal is expended in persecuting those who honour this sacred mystery by so

many holy communions, and in flattering those who dishonour it by so many sacrilegious desecrations! How

comely is it, in these champions of a sacrifice so pure and so venerable, to collect around the table of Jesus

Christ a crowd of hardened profligates, reeking from their debauchcries; and to plant in the midst of them a

priest, whom his own confessor has hurried from his obscenities to the altar; there, in the place of Jesus

Christ, to offer up that most holy victim to the God of holiness, and convey it, with his polluted hands, into

mouths as thoroughly polluted as his own! How well does it become those who pursue this course "in all

parts of the world," in conformity with maxims sanctioned by their own general to impute to the author of

Frequent Communion, and to the Sisters of the Holy Sacrament, the crime of not believing in that sacrament!

Even this, however, does not satisfy them. Nothing less will satiate their rage than to accuse their opponents

of having renounced Jesus Christ and their baptism. This is no airbuilt fable, like those of your invention; it

is a fact, and denotes a delirious frenzy which marks the fatal consummation of your calumnies. Such a

notorious falsehood as this would not have been in hands worthy to support it, had it remained in those of

your good friend Filleau, through whom you ushered it into the world: your Society has openly adopted it;

and your Father Meynier maintained it the other day to be "a certain truth" that PortRoyal has, for the space

of thirtyfive years, been forming a secret plot, of which M. de St. Cyran and M. d'Ypres have been the

ringleaders, "to ruin the mystery of the incarnation to make the Gospel pass for an apocryphal fable to

exterminate the Christian religion, and to erect Deism upon the ruins of Christianity." Is this enough, fathers?

Will you be satisfied if all this be believed of the objects of your hate? Would your animosity be glutted at

length, if you could but succeed in making them odious, not only to all within the Church, by the charge of

"consenting with Geneva, of which you accuse them, but even to all who believe in Jesus Christ, though

But whom do you expect to convince, upon your simple asseveration, without the slightest shadow of proof,

and in the face of every imaginable contradiction, that priests who preach nothing but the grace of Jesus

Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the obligations of baptism, have renounced at once their baptism, the

Gospel, and Jesus Christ? Who will believe it, fathers? Wretched as you are, do you believe it yourselves?

What a sad predicament is yours, when you must either prove that they do not believe in Jesus Christ, or must

pass for the most abandoned calumniators. Prove it, then, fathers. Name that "worthy clergyman" who, you

say, attended that assembly at BourgFontaine in 1621, and discovered to Brother Filleau the design there

concerted of overturning the Christian religion. Name those six persons whom you allege to have formed that

conspiracy. Name the individual who is designated by the letters A. A., who you say "was not Antony

Arnauld" (because he convinced you that he was at that time only nine years of age), "but another person,

who you say is still in life, but too good a friend of M. Arnauld not to be known to him." You know him,

then, fathers; and consequently, if you are not destitute of religion yourselves, you are bound to delate that

impious wretch to the king and parliament, that he may be punished according to his deserts. You must speak

out, fathers; you must name the person, or submit to the disgrace of being henceforth regarded in no other

light than as common liars, unworthy of being ever credited again. Good Father Valerien has taught us that

this is the way in which such characters should be "put to the rack" and brought to their senses. Your silence

upon the present challenge will furnish a full and satisfactory confirmation of this diabolical calumny. Your

blindest admirers will be constrained to admit that it will be "the result, not of your goodness, but your

impotency"; and to wonder how you could be so wicked as to extend your hatred even to the nuns of

PortRoyal, and to say, as you do in page 14, that The Secret Chaplet of the Holy Sacrament, composed by

one of their number, was the first fruit of that conspiracy against Jesus Christ; or, as in page 95, that "they

have imbibed all the detestable principles of that work"; which is, according to your account, a lesson in

Deism." Your falsehoods regarding that book have already been triumphantly refuted, in the defence of the

censure of the late Archbishop of Paris against Father Brisacier. That publication you are incapable of

answering; and yet you do not scruple to abuse it in a more shameful manner than ever, for the purpose of

Cruel, cowardly persecutors! Must, then, the most retired cloisters afford no retreat from your calumnies?

While these consecrated virgins are employed, night and day, according to their institution, in adoring Jesus

Christ in the holy sacrament, you cease not, night nor day, to publish abroad that they do not believe that he is

either in the eucharist or even at the right hand of his Father; and you are publicly excommunicating them

from the Church, at the very time when they are in secret praying for the whole Church, and for you! You

blacken with your slanders those who have neither ears to hear nor mouths to answer you! But Jesus Christ,

in whom they are now hidden, not to appear till one day together with him, hears you, and answers for them.

At the moment I am now writing, that holy and terrible voice is heard which confounds nature and consoles

the Church. And I fear, fathers, that those who now harden their hearts, and refuse with obstinacy to hear

him, while he speaks in the character of God, will one day be compelled to hear him with terror, when he

speaks to them in the character of a judge. What account, indeed, fathers, will you be able to render to him of

the many calumnies you have uttered, seeing that he will examine them, in that day, not according to the

fantasies of Fathers Dicastille, Gans, and Pennalossa, who justify them, but according to the eternal laws of

truth, and the sacred ordinances of his own Church, which, so far from attempting to vindicate that crime,

abhors it to such a degree that she visits it with the same penalty as wilfull murder? By the first and second

councils of Arles she has decided that the communion shall be denied to slanderers as well as murderers, till

the approach of death. The Council of Lateran has judged those unworthy of admission into the ecclesiastical

state who have been convicted of the crime, even though they may have reformed. The popes have even

threatened to deprive of the communion at death those who have calumniated bishops, priests, or deacons.

And the authors of a defamatory libel, who fail to prove what they have advanced, are condemned by Pope

Adrian to be whipped, yes, reverend fathers, flagellentur is the word. So strong has been the repugnance of

the Church at all times to the errors of your Society a Society so thoroughly depraved as to invent excuses

for the grossest of crimes, such as calumny, chiefly that it may enjoy the greater freedom in perpetrating them

itself. There can be no doubt, fathers, that you would be capable of producing abundance of mischief in this

way, had God not permitted you to furnish with your own hands the means of preventing the evil, and of

rendering your slanders perfectly innocuous; for, to deprive you of all credibility, it was quite enough to

publish the strange maxim that it is no crime to calumniate. Calumny is nothing, if not associated with a high

reputation for honesty. The defamer can make no impression, unless he has the character of one that abhors

defamation as a crime of which he is incapable. And thus, fathers, you are betrayed by your own principle.

You establish the doctrine to secure yourselves a safe conscience, that you might slander without risk of

damnation, and be ranked with those "pious and holy calumniators" of whom St. Athanasius speaks. To save

yourselves from hell, you have embraced a maxim which promises you this security on the faith of your

doctors; but this same maxim, while it guarantees you, according to their idea, against the evils you dread in

the future world, deprives you of all the advantage you may have expected to reap from it in the present; so

that, in attempting to escape the guilt, you have lost the benefit of calumny. Such is the selfcontrariety of

evil, and so completely does it confound and destroy itself by its own intrinsic malignity.

You might have slandered, therefore, much more advantageously for yourselves, had you professed to hold,

with St. Paul, that evil speakers are not worthy to see God; for in this case, though you would indeed have

been condemning yourselves, your slanders would at least have stood a better chance of being believed. But,

by maintaining, as you have done, that calumny against your enemies is no crime, your slanders will be

discredited, and you yourselves damned into the bargain; for two things are certain, fathers: first, That it will

never be in the power of your grave doctors to annihilate the justice of God; and, secondly, That you could

not give more certain evidence that you are not of the Truth than by your resorting to falsehood. If the Truth

were on your side, she would fight for you she would conquer for you; and whatever enemies you might

have to encounter, "the Truth would set you free" from them, according to her promise. But you have had

recourse to falsehood, for no other design than to support the errors with which you flatter the sinful children

of this world, and to bolster up the calumnies with which you persecute every man of piety who sets his face

against these delusions. The truth being diametrically opposed to your ends, it behooved you, to use the

language of the prophet, "to put your confidence in lies." You have said: "The scourges which afflict mankind

shall not come nigh unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves."

But what says the prophet in reply to such? "Forasmuch," says he, "as ye have put your trust in calumny and

tumult sperastis in calumnia et in tumultu this iniquity and your ruin shall be like that of a high wall whose

breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is

shivered in pieces" with such violence that "there shall not be found in the bursting of it a shred to take fire

from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit." "Because," as another prophet says, "ye have made the

heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and ye have flattered and strengthened the malice of

the wicked; I will therefore deliver my people out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am their Lord and

Yes, fathers, it is to be hoped that if you do not repent, God will deliver out of your hands those whom you

have so long deluded, either by flattering them in their evil courses with your licentious maxims, or by

poisoning their minds with your slanders. He will convince the former that the false rules of your casuists

will not screen them from His indignation; and He will impress on the minds of the latter the just dread of

losing their souls by listening and yielding credit to your slanders, as you lose yours by hatching these

slanders and disseminating them through the world. Let no man be deceived; God is not mocked; none may

violate with impunity the commandment which He has given us in the Gospel, not to condemn our neighbour

without being well assured of his guilt. And, consequently, what profession soever of piety those may make

who lend a willing ear to your lying devices, and under what pretence soever of devotion they may entertain

them, they have reason to apprehend exclusion from the kingdom of God, solely for having imputed crimes

of such a dark complexion as heresy and schism to Catholic priests and holy nuns, upon no better evidence

than such vile fabrications as yours. "The devil," says M. de Geneve, "is on the tongue of him that slanders,

and in the ear of him that listens to the slanderer." "And evil speaking," says St. Bernard, "is a poison that

extinguishes charity in both of the parties; so that a single calumny may prove mortal to an infinite numbers

of souls, killing not only those who publish it, but all those besides by whom it is not repudiated."

Reverend fathers, my letters were not wont either to be so prolix, or to follow so closely on one another.

Want of time must plead my excuse for both of these faults. The present letter is a very long one, simply

because I had no leisure to make it shorter. You know the reason of this haste better than I do. You have been

unlucky in your answers. You have done well, therefore, to change your plan; but I am afraid that you will

get no credit for it, and that people will say it was done for fear of the Benedictines.

I have just come to learn that the person who was generally reported to be the author of your Apologies,

disclaims them, and is annoyed at their having been ascribed to him. He has good reason, and I was wrong to

have suspected him of any such thing; for, in spite of the assurances which I received, I ought to have

considered that he was a man of too much good sense to believe your accusations, and of too much honour to

publish them if he did not believe them. There are few people in the world capable of your extravagances;

they are peculiar to yourselves, and mark your character too plainly to admit of any excuse for having failed

to recognize your hand in their concoction. I was led away by the common report; but this apology, which

would be too good for you, is not sufficient for me, who profess to advance nothing without certain proof. In

no other instance have I been guilty of departing from this rule. I am sorry for what I said. I retract it; and I

Your former behaviour had induced me to believe that you were anxious for a truce in our hostilities, and I

was quite disposed to agree that it should be so. Of late, however, you have poured forth such a volley of

pamphlets, in such rapid succession, as to make it apparent that peace rests on a very precarious footing when

it depends on the silence of Jesuits. I know not if this rupture will prove very advantageous to you; but, for

my part, I am far from regretting the opportunity which it affords me of rebutting that stale charge of heresy

It is full time, indeed, that I should, once for all, put a stop to the liberty you have taken to treat me as a

heretic a piece of gratuitous impertinence which seems to increase by indulgence, and which is exhibited in

your last book in a style of such intolerable assurance that, were I not to answer the charge as it deserves, I

might lay myself open to the suspicion of being actually guilty. So long as the insult was confined to your

associates I despised it, as I did a thousand others with which they interlarded their productions. To these my

Fifteenth Letter was a sufficient reply. But you now repeat the charge with a different air: you make it the

main point of your vindication. It is, in fact, almost the only thing in the shape of argument that you employ.

You say that, "as a complete answer to my fifteen letters, it is enough to say fifteen times that I am a heretic;

and, having been pronounced such, I deserve no credit." In short, you make no question of my apostasy, but

assume it as a settled point, on which you may build with all confidence. You are serious then, father, it

would seem, in deeming me a heretic. I shall be equally serious in replying to the charge.

You are well aware, sir, that heresy is a charge of grave a character that it is an act of high presumption to

advance, without being prepared to substantiate it. I now demand your proofs. When was I seen at

Charenton? When did I fail in my presence at mass, or in my Christian duty to my parish church? What act of

union with heretics, or of schism with the Church, can you lay to my charge? What council have I

contradicted? What papal constitution have I violated? You must answer, father, else You know what I

mean. And what do you answer? I beseech all to observe it: First of all, you assume "that the author of the

letters is a PortRoyalist"; then you tell us "that PortRoyal is declared to be heretical"; and, therefore, you

conclude, "the author of letters must be a heretic." It is not on me, then, father, that the weight of this

indictment falls, but on PortRoyal; and I am only involved in the crime because you suppose me to belong

to that establishment; so that it will be no difficult matter for me to exculpate myself from the charge. I have

no more to say than that I am not a member of that community; and to refer you to my letters, in which I have

declared that "I am a private individual"; and again in so many words, that "I am not of PortRoyal, as I said

You must fall on some other way, then, to prove me heretic, otherwise the whole world will be convinced

that it is beyond your power to make good your accusation. Prove from my writings that I do not receive the

constitution. My letters are not very voluminous there are but sixteen of them and I defy you or anybody

else to detect in them the slightest foundation for such a charge. I shall, however, with your permission,

produce something out of them to prove the reverse. When, for example, I say in the Fourteenth that, "by

killing our brethren in mortal sin, according to your maxims, we are damning those for whom Jesus Christ

died, do I not plainly acknowledge that Jesus Christ died for those who may be damned, and, consequently,

declare it to be false "that he died only for the predestinated," which is the error condemned in the fifth

proposition? Certain it is, father, that I have not said a word in behalf of these impious propositions, which I

detest with all my heart. And even though PortRoyal should hold them, I protest against your drawing any

conclusion from this against me, as, thank God, I have no sort of connection with any community except the

Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, in the bosom of which I desire to live and die, in communion with

the Pope, the head of the Church, and beyond the pale of which I am persuaded there is no salvation.

How are you to get at a person who talks in this way, father? On what quarter will you assail me, since

neither my words nor my writings afford the slightest handle to your accusations, and the obscurity in which

my person is enveloped forms my protection against your threatenings? You feel yourselves smitten by an

invisible hand a hand, however, which makes your delinquencies visible to all the earth; and in vain do you

endeavour to attack me in the person of those with whom you suppose me to be associated. I fear you not,

either on my own account or on that of any other, being bound by no tie either to a community or to any

individual whatsoever. All the influence which your Society possesses can be of no avail in my case. From

this world I have nothing to hope, nothing to dread, nothing to desire. Through the goodness of God, I have

no need of any man's money or any man's patronage. Thus, my father, I elude all your attempts to lay hold of

me. You may touch PortRoyal, if you choose, but you shall not touch me. You may turn people out of the

Sorbonne, but that will not turn me out of my domicile. You may contrive plots against priests and doctors,

but not against me, for I am neither the one nor the other. And thus, father, you never perhaps had to do, in

the whole course of your experience, with a person so completely beyond your reach, and therefore so

admirably qualified for dealing with your errors one perfectly free one without engagement, entanglement,

relationship, or business of any kind one, too, who is pretty well versed in your maxims, and determined, as

God shall give him light, to discuss them, without permitting any earthly consideration to arrest or slacken his

Since, then, you can do nothing against me, what good purpose can it serve to publish so many calumnies, as

you and your brethren are doing, against a class of persons who are in no way implicated in our disputes?

You shall not escape under these subterfuges: you shall be made to feel the force of the truth in spite of them.

How does the case stand? I tell you that you are ruining Christian morality by divorcing it from the love of

God, and dispensing with its obligation; and you talk about "the death of Father Mester" a person whom I

never saw in my life. I tell you that your authors permit a man to kill another for the sake of an apple, when it

would be dishonourable to lose it; and you reply by informing me that somebody "has broken into the

poorbox at St. Merri!" Again, what can you possibly mean by mixing me up perpetually with the book On

the Holy Virginity, written by some father of the Oratory, whom I never saw any more than his book? It is

rather extraordinary, father, that you should thus regard all that are opposed to you as if they were one person.

Your hatred would grasp them all at once, and would hold them as a body of reprobates, every one of whom

There is a vast difference between Jesuits and all their opponents. There can be no doubt that you compose

one body, united under one head; and your regulations, as I have shown, prohibit you from printing anything

without the approbation of your superiors, who are responsible for all the errors of individual writers, and

who "cannot excuse themselves by saying that they did not observe the errors in any publication, for they

ought to have observed them." So say your ordinances, and so say the letters of your generals, Aquaviva,

Vitelleschi, We have good reason, therefore, for charging upon you the errors of your associates, when we

find they are sanctioned by your superiors and the divines of your Society. With me, however, father, the case

stands otherwise. I have not subscribed to the book of the Holy Virginity. All the almsboxes in Paris may be

broken into, and yet I am not the less a good Catholic for all that. In short, I beg to inform you, in the plainest

terms, that nobody is responsible for my letters but myself, and that I am responsible for nothing but my

Here, father, I might fairly enough have brought our dispute to an issue, without saying a word about those

other persons whom you stigmatize as heretics, in order to comprehend me under the condemnation. But, as I

have been the occasion of their ill treatment, I consider myself bound in some sort to improve the occasion,

and I shall take advantage of it in three particulars. One advantage, not inconsiderable in its way, is that it will

enable me to vindicate the innocence of so many calumniated individuals. Another, not inappropriate to my

subject, will be to disclose, at the same time, the artifices of your policy in this accusation. But the advantage

which I prize most of all is that it affords me an opportunity of apprising the world of the falsehood of that

scandalous report which you have been so busily disseminating, namely, "that the Church is divided by a new

heresy." And as you are deceiving multitudes into the belief that the points on which you are raising such a

storm are essential to the faith, I consider it of the last importance to quash these unfounded impressions, and

distinctly to explain here what these points are, so as to show that, in point of fact, there are no heretics in the

I presume, then, that were the question to be asked: Wherein consists the heresy of those called Jansenists?

the immediate reply would be, "These people hold that the commandments of God are impracticable to men,

that grace is irresistible, that we have not free will to do either good or evil, that Jesus Christ did not die for

all men, but only for the elect; in short, they maintain the five propositions condemned by the Pope." Do you

not give it out to all that this is the ground on which you persecute your opponents? Have you not said as

much in your books, in your conversations, in your catechisms? A specimen of this you gave at the late

Christmas festival at St. Louis. One of your little shepherdesses was questioned thus:

"Indeed, my child; so you are not one of those new heretics who say that he came only for the elect?"

Thus children are led to believe you, and many others besides children; for you entertain people with the

same stuff in your sermons as Father Crasset did at Orleans, before he was laid under an interdict. And I

frankly own that, at one time, I believed you myself. You had given me precisely the same idea of these good

people; so that, when you pressed them on these propositions, I narrowly watched their answer, determined

This, however, they have done in the most unequivocal way. M. de SainteBeuve, king's professor in the

Sorbonne, censured these propositions in his published writings long before the Pope; and other Augustinian

doctors, in various publications, and, among others, in a work On Victorious Grace, reject the same articles as

both heretical and strange doctrines. In the preface to that work they say that these propositions are "heretical

and Lutheran, forged and fabricated at pleasure, and are neither to be found in Jansenius, nor in his defenders.

" They complain of being charged with such sentiments, and address you in the words of St. Prosper, the first

disciple of St. Augustine their master, to whom the semiPelagians of France had ascribed similar opinions,

with the view of bringing him into disgrace: "There are persons who denounce us, so blinded by passion that

they have adopted means for doing so which ruin their own reputation. They have, for this purpose,

fabricated propositions of the most impious and blasphemous character, which they industriously circulate, to

make people believe that we maintain them in the wicked sense which they are pleased to attach to them. But

our reply will show at once our innocence, and the malignity of these persons who have ascribed to us a set of

Truly, father, when I found that they had spoken in this way before the appearance of the papal constitution

when I saw that they afterwards received that decree with all possible respect, that they offered to subscribe

it, and that M. Arnauld had declared all this in his second letter, in stronger terms than I can report him, I

should have considered it a sin to doubt their soundness in the faith. And, in fact, those who were formerly

disposed to refuse absolution to M. Arnauld's friends, have since declared that, after his explicit disclaimer of

the errors imputed to him, there was no reason left for cutting off either him or them from the communion of

the Church. Your associates, however, have acted very differently; and it was this that made me begin to

You threatened first to compel them to sign that constitution, so long as you thought they would resist it; but

no sooner did you see them quite ready of their own accord to submit to it than we heard no more about this.

Still however, though one might suppose this ought to have satisfied you, you persisted in calling them

heretics, "because," said you, "their heart belies their hand; they are Catholics outwardly, but inwardly they

This, father, struck me as very strange reasoning; for where is the person of whom as much may not be said at

any time? And what endless trouble and confusion would ensue, were it allowed to go on! "If," says Pope St.

Gregory, "we refuse to believe a confession of faith made in conformity to the sentiments of the Church, we

cast a doubt over the faith of all Catholics whatsoever." I am afraid, father, to use the words of the same

pontiff when speaking of a similar dispute this time, "that your object is to make these persons heretics in

spite of themselves; because to refuse to credit those who testify by their confession that they are in the true

faith, is not to purge heresy, but to create it hoc non est haeresim purgare, sed facere." But what confirmed

me in my persuasion that there was, indeed, no heretic in the Church, was finding that our socalled heretics

had vindicated themselves so successfully that you were unable to accuse them of a single error in the faith,

and that you were reduced to the necessity of assailing them on questions of fact only, touching Jansenius,

which could not possibly be construed into heresy. You insist, it now appears, on their being compelled to

acknowledge "that these propositions are contained in Jansenius, word for word, every one of them, in so

many terms," or, as you express it, "Singulares, individuae, totidem verbis apud Jansenium contentae."

Thenceforth your dispute became, in my eyes, perfectly indifferent. So long as I believed that you were

debating the truth or falsehood of the propositions, I was all attention, for that quarrel touched the faith; but

when I discovered that the bone of contention was whether they were to be found word for word in Jansenius

or not, as religion ceased to be interested in the controversy, I ceased to be interested in it also. Not but that

there was some presumption that you were speaking the truth; because to say that such and such expressions

are to be found word for word in an author, is a matter in which there can be no mistake. I do not wonder,

therefore, that so many people, both in France and at Rome, should have been led to believe, on the authority

of a phrase so little liable to suspicion, that Jansenius has actually taught these obnoxious tenets. And, for the

same reason, I was not a little surprised to learn that this same point of fact, which you had propounded as so

certain and so important, was false; and that, after being challenged to quote the pages of Jansenius in which

you had found these propositions "word for word," you have not been able to point them out to this day.

I am the more particular in giving this statement, because, in my opinion, it discovers, in a very striking light,

the spirit of your Society in the whole of this affair; and because some people will be astonished to find that,

notwithstanding all the facts above mentioned, you have not ceased to publish that they are heretics still. But

you have only altered the heresy to suit the time; for no sooner had they freed themselves from one charge

than your fathers, determined that they should never want an accusation, substituted another in its place.

Thus, in 1653, their heresy lay in the quality of the propositions; then came the word for word heresy; after

that we had the heart heresy. And now we hear nothing of any of these, and they must be heretics, forsooth,

unless they sign a declaration to the effect "that the sense of the doctrine of Jansenius is contained in the

Such is your present dispute. It is not enough for you that they condemn the five propositions, and everything

in Jansenius that bears any resemblance to them, or is contrary to St. Augustine; for all that they have done

already. The point at issue is not, for example, if Jesus Christ died for the elect only they condemn that as

much as you do; but, is Jansenius of that opinion, or not? And here I declare, more strongly than ever, that

your quarrel affects me as little as it affects the Church. For although I am no doctor, any more than you,

father, I can easily see, nevertheless, that it has no connection with the faith. The only question is to ascertain

what is the sense of Jansenius. Did they believe that his doctrine corresponded to the proper and literal sense

of these propositions, they would condemn it; and they refuse to do so, because they are convinced it is quite

the reverse; so that, although they should misunderstand it, still they would not be heretics, seeing they

To illustrate this by an example, I may refer to the conflicting sentiments of St. Basil and St. Athanasius,

regarding the writings of St. Denis of Alexandria, which St. Basil, conceiving that he found in them the sense

of Arius against the equality of the Father and the Son, condemned as heretical, but which St. Athanasius, on

the other hand, judging them to contain the genuine sense of the Church, maintained to be perfectly orthodox.

Think you, then, father, that St. Basil, who held these writings to be Arian, had a right to brand St. Athanasius

as a heretic because he defended them? And what ground would he have had for so doing, seeing that it was

not Arianism that his brother defended, but the true faith which he considered these writings to contain? Had

these two saints agreed about the true sense of these writings, and had both recognized this heresy in them,

unquestionably St. Athanasius could not have approved of them without being guilty of heresy; but as they

were at variance respecting the sense of the passage, St. Athanasius was orthodox in vindicating them, even

though he may have understood them wrong; because in that case it would have been merely an error in a

matter of fact, and because what he defended was really the Catholic faith, which he supposed to be

I apply this to you, father. Suppose you were agreed upon the sense of Jansenius, and your adversaries were

ready to admit with you that he held, for example, that grace cannot be resisted, those who refused to

condemn him would be heretical. But as your dispute turns upon the meaning of that author, and they believe

that, according to this doctrine, grace may be resisted, whatever heresy you may be pleased to attribute to

him, you have no ground to brand them as heretics, seeing they condemn the sense which you put on

Jansenius, and you dare not condemn the sense which they put on him. If, therefore, you mean to convict

them, show that the sense which they ascribe to Jansenius is heretical; for then they will be heretical

themselves. But how could you accomplish this, since it is certain, according to your own showing, that the

To elucidate the point still further, I shall assume as a principle what you yourselves acknowledge that the

doctrine of efficacious grace has never been condemned, and that the pope has not touched it by his

constitution. And, in fact, when he proposed to pass judgement on the five propositions, the question of

efficacious grace was protected against all censure. This is perfectly evident from the judgements of the

consulters to whom the Pope committed them for examination. These judgements I have in my possession, in

common with many other persons in Paris, and, among the rest, the Bishop of Montpelier, who brought them

from Rome. It appears from this document that they were divided in their sentiments; that the chief persons

among them, such as the Master of the Sacred Palace, the commissary of the Holy Office, the General of the

Augustinians, and others, conceiving that these propositions might be understood in the sense of efficacious

grace, were of opinion that they ought not to be censured; whereas the rest, while they agreed that the

propositions would not have merited condemnation had they borne that sense, judged that they ought to be

censured, because, as they contended, this was very far from being their proper and natural sense. The Pope,

It is certain, then, father, that efficacious grace has not been condemned. Indeed, it is so powerfully supported

by St. Augustine, by St. Thomas, and all his school, by a great many popes and councils, and by all tradition,

that to tax it with heresy would be an act of impiety. Now, all those whom you condemn as heretics declare

that they find nothing in Jansenius, but this doctrine of efficacious grace. And this was the only point which

they maintained at Rome. You have acknowledged this yourself when you declare that "when pleading before

the pope, they did not say a single word about the propositions, but occupied the whole time in talking about

efficacious grace." So that, whether they be right or wrong in this supposition, it is undeniable, at least, that

what they suppose to be the sense is not heretical sense; and that, consequently, they are no heretics; for, to

state the matter in two words, either Jansenius has merely taught the doctrine of efficacious grace, and in this

case he has no errors; or he has taught some other thing, and in this case he has no defenders. The whole

question turns on ascertaining whether Jansenius has actually maintained something different from

efficacious grace; and, should it be found that he has, you will have the honour of having better understood

It is matter of thankfulness to God, then, father, that there is in reality no heresy in the Church. The question

relates entirely to a point of fact, of which no heresy can be made; for the Church, with divine authority,

decides the points of faith, and cuts off from her body all who refuse to receive them. But she does not act in

the same manner in regard to matters of fact. And the reason is that our salvation is attached to the faith

which has been revealed to us, and which is preserved in the Church by tradition, but that it has no

dependence on facts which have not been revealed by God. Thus we are bound to believe that the

commandments of God are not impracticable; but we are under no obligation to know what Jansenius has

said upon that subject. In the determination of points of faith, God guides the Church by the aid of His

unerring Spirit; whereas in matters of fact He leaves her to the direction of reason and the senses, which are

the natural judges of such matters. None but God was able to instruct the Church in the faith; but to learn

whether this or that proposition is contained in Jansenius, all we require to do is to read his book. And from

hence it follows that, while it is heresy to resist the decisions of the faith, because this amounts to an

opposing of our own spirit to the Spirit of God, it is no heresy, though it may be an act of presumption, to

disbelieve certain particular facts, because this is no more than opposing reason it may be enlightened

reason to an authority which is great indeed, but in this matter not infailible.

What I have now advanced is admitted by all theologians, as appears from the following axiom of Cardinal

Bellarmine, a member of your Society: "General and lawful councils are incapable of error in defining the

dogmas of faith; but they may err in questions of fact." In another place he says: "The pope, as pope, and

even as the head of a universal council, may err in particular controversies of fact, which depend principally

on the information and testimony of men." Cardinal Baronius speaks in the same manner: "Implicit

submission is due to the decisions of councils in points of faith; but, in so far as persons and their writings are

concerned, the censures which have been pronounced against them have not been so rigourously observed,

because there is none who may not chance to be deceived in such matters." I may add that, to prove this

point, the Archbishop of Toulouse has deduced the following rule from the letters of two great popes St.

Leon and Pelagius II: "That the proper object of councils is the faith; and whatsoever is determined by them,

independently of the faith, may be reviewed and examined anew: whereas nothing ought to be reexamined

that has been decided in a matter of faith; because, as Tertullian observes, the rule of faith alone is immovable

Hence it has been seen that, while general and lawful councils have never contradicted one another in points

of faith, because, as M. de Toulouse has said, "it is not allowable to examine de novo decisions in matters of

faith"; several instances have occurred in which these same councils have disagreed in points of fact, where

the discussion turned upon the sense of an author; because, as the same prelate observes, quoting the popes as

his authorities, "everything determined in councils, not referring to the faith, may be reviewed and examined

de novo." An example of this contrariety was furnished by the fourth and fifth councils, which differed in

their interpretation of the same authors. The same thing happened in the case of two popes, about a

proposition maintained by certain monks of Scythia. Pope Hormisdas, understanding it in a bad sense, had

condemned it; but Pope John II, his successor, upon reexamining the doctrine understood it in a good sense,

approved it, and pronounced it to be orthodox. Would you say that for this reason one of these popes was a

heretic? And must you not consequently acknowledge that, provided a person condemn the heretical sense

which a pope may have ascribed to a book, he is no heretic because he declines condemning that book, while

he understands it in a sense which it is certain the pope has not condemned? If this cannot be admitted, one of

I have been anxious to familiarize you with these discrepancies among Catholics regarding questions of fact,

which involve the understanding of the sense of a writer, showing you father against father, pope against

pope, and council against council, to lead you from these to other examples of opposition, similar in their

nature, but somewhat more disproportioned in respect of the parties concerned. For, in the instances I am now

to adduce, you will see councils and popes ranged on one side, and Jesuits on the other; and yet you have

never charged your brethren for this opposition even with presumption, much less with heresy.

You are well aware, father, that the writings of Origen were condemned by a great many popes and councils,

and particularly by the fifth general council, as chargeable with certain heresies, and, among others, that of

the reconciliation of the devils at the day of judgement. Do you suppose that, after this, it became absolutely

imperative, as a test of Catholicism, to confess that Origen actually maintained these errors, and that it is not

enough to condemn them, without attributing them to him? If this were true, what would become of your

worthy Father Halloix, who has asserted the purity of Origen's faith, as well as many other Catholics who

have attempted the same thing, such as Pico Mirandola, and Genebrard, doctor of the Sorbonne? Is it not,

moreover, a certain fact, that the same fifth general council condemned the writings of Theodoret against St.

Cyril, describing them as impious, "contrary to the true faith, and tainted with the Nestorian heresy"? And yet

this has not prevented Father Sirmond, a Jesuit, from defending him, or from saying, in his life of that father,

It is evident, therefore, that as the Church, in condemning a book, assumes that the error which she condemns

is contained in that book, it is a point of faith to hold that error as condemned; but it is not a point of faith to

hold that the book, in fact, contains the error which the Church supposes it does. Enough has been said, I

think, to prove this; I shall, therefore, conclude my examples by referring to that of Pope Honorius, the

history of which is so well known. At the commencement of the seventh century, the Church being troubled

by the heresy of the Monothelites, that pope, with the view of terminating the controversy, passed a decree

which seemed favourable to these heretics, at which many took offence. The affair, nevertheless, passed over

without making much disturbance during his pontificate; but fifty years after, the Church being assembled in

the sixth general council, in which Pope Agathon presided by his legates, this decree was impeached, and,

after being read and examined, was condemned as containing the heresy of the Monothelites, and under that

character burnt, in open court, along with the other writings of these heretics. Such was the respect paid to

this decision, and such the unanimity with which it was received throughout the whole Church, that it was

afterwards ratified by two other general councils, and likewise by two popes, Leo II and Adrian II, the latter

of whom lived two hundred years after it had passed; and this universal and harmonious agreement remained

undisturbed for seven or eight centuries. Of late years, however, some authors, and among the rest Cardinal

Bellarmine, without seeming to dread the imputation of heresy, have stoutly maintained, against all this array

of popes and councils, that the writings of Honorius are free from the error which had been ascribed to them;

"because," says the cardinal, "general councils being liable to err in questions of fact, we have the best

grounds for asserting the sixth council was mistaken with regard to the fact now under consideration; and

that, misconceiving the sense of the Letters of Honorius, it has placed this pope most unjustly in the rank of

heretics." Observe, then, I pray you, father, that a man is not heretical for saying that Pope Honorius was not

a heretic; even though a great many popes and councils, after examining his writings, should have declared

I now come to the question before us, and shall allow you to state your case as favourably as you can. What

will you then say, father, in order to stamp your opponents as heretics? That "Pope Innocent X has declared

that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?" I grant you that; what inference do you

draw from it? That "it is heretical to deny that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?"

How so, father? Have we not here a question of fact exactly similar to the preceding examples? The Pope has

declared that the error of the five propositions is contained in Jansenius, in the same way as his predecessors

decided that the errors of the Nestorians and the Monothelites polluted the pages of Theodoret and Honorius.

In the latter case, your writers hesitate not to say that, while they condemn the heresies, they do not allow that

these authors actually maintained them; and, in like manner, your opponents now say that they condemn the

five propositions, but cannot admit that Jansenius has taught them. Truly, the two cases are as like as they

could well be; and, if there be any disparity between them, it is easy to see how far it must go in favour of the

present question, by a comparison of many particular circumstances, which as they are selfevident, I do not

specify. How comes it to pass, then, that when placed in precisely the same predicament, your friends are

Catholics and your opponents heretics? On what strange principle of exception do you deprive the latter of a

liberty which you freely award to all the rest of the faithful? What answer will you make to this, father? Will

you say, "The pope has confirmed his constitution by a brief." To this I would reply, that two general

councils and two popes confirmed the condemnation of the letters of Honorius. But what argument do you

found upon the language of that brief, in which all that the Pope says is that "he has condemned the doctrine

of Jansenius in these five propositions"? What does that add to the constitution, or what more can you infer

from it? Nothing, certainly, except that as the sixth council condemned the doctrine of Honorius, in the belief

that it was the same with that of the Monothelites, so the Pope has said that he has condemned the doctrine of

Jansenius in these five propositions, because he was led to suppose it was the same with that of the five

propositions. And how could he do otherwise than suppose it? Your Society published nothing else; and you

yourself, father, who have asserted that the said propositions were in that author "word for word," happened

to be in Rome (for I know all your motions) at the time when the censure was passed. Was he to distrust the

sincerity or the competence of so many grave ministers of religion? And how could he help being convinced

of the fact, after the assurance which you had given him that the propositions were in that author "word for

word"? It is evident, therefore, that in the event of its being found that Jansenius has not supported these

doctrines, it would be wrong to say, as your writers have done in the cases before mentioned, that the Pope

has deceived himself in this point of fact, which it is painful and offensive to publish at any time; the proper

phrase is that you have deceived the Pope, which, as you are now pretty well known, will create no scandal.

Determined, however, to have a heresy made out, let it cost what it may, you have attempted, by the

following manoeuvre, to shift the question from the point of fact, and make it bear upon a point of faith. "The

Pope," say you, "declares that he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions;

therefore it is essential to the faith to hold that the doctrine of Jansenius touching these five propositions is

heretical, let it be what it may." Here is a strange point of faith, that a doctrine is heretical be what it may.

What! if Jansenius should happen to maintain that "we are capable of resisting internal grace" and that "it is

false to say that Jesus Christ died for the elect only," would this doctrine be condemned just because it is his

doctrine? Will the proposition, that "man has a freedom of will to do good or evil," be true when found in the

Pope's constitution, and false when discovered in Jansenius? By what fatality must he be reduced to such a

predicament, that truth, when admitted into his book, becomes heresy? You must confess, then, that he is

only heretical on the supposition that he is friendly to the errors condemned, seeing that the constitution of

the Pope is the rule which we must apply to Jansenius, to judge if his character answer the description there

given of him; and, accordingly, the question, "Is his doctrine heretical?" must be resolved by another question

of fact, "Does it correspond to the natural sense of these propositions?" as it must necessarily be heretical if it

does correspond to that sense, and must necessarily be orthodox if it be of an opposite character. For, in one

word, since, according to the Pope and the bishops, "the propositions are condemned in their proper and

natural sense," they cannot possibly be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, except on the understanding that

the sense of Jansenius is the same with the proper and natural sense of these propositions; and this I maintain

The question, then, still rests upon the point of fact, and cannot possibly be tortured into one affecting the

faith. But though incapable of twisting it into a matter of heresy, you have it in your power to make it a

pretext for persecution, and might, perhaps, succeed in this, were there not good reason to hope that nobody

will be found so blindly devoted to your interests as to countenance such a disgraceful proceeding, or inclined

to compel people, as you wish to do, to sign a declaration that they condemn these propositions in the sense

of Jansenius, without explaining what the sense of Jansenius is. Few people are disposed to sign a blank

confession of faith. Now this would really be to sign one of that description, leaving you to fill up the blank

afterwards with whatsoever you pleased, as you would be at liberty to interpret according to your own taste

the unexplained sense of Jansenius. Let it be explained, then, beforehand, otherwise we shall have, I fear,

another version of your proximate power, without any sense at all abstrahendo ab omni sensu. This mode of

proceeding, you must be aware, does not take with the world. Men in general detest all ambiguity, especially

in the matter of religion, where it is highly reasonable that one should know at least what one is asked to

condemn. And how is it possible for doctors, who are persuaded that Jansenius can bear no other sense than

that of efficacious grace, to consent to declare that they condemn his doctrine without explaining it, since,

with their present convictions, which no means are used to alter, this would be neither more nor less than to

condemn efficacious grace, which cannot be condemned without sin? Would it not, therefore, be a piece of

monstrous tyranny to place them in such an unhappy dilemma that they must either bring guilt upon their

souls in the sight of God, by signing that condemnation against their consciences, or be denounced as heretics

But there is a mystery under all this. You Jesuits cannot move a step without a stratagem. It remains for me to

explain why you do not explain the sense of Jansenius. The sole purpose of my writing is to discover your

designs, and, by discovering, to frustrate them. I must, therefore, inform those who are not already aware of

the fact that your great concern in this dispute being to uphold the sufficient grace of your Molina, you could

not effect this without destroying the efficacious grace which stands directly opposed to it. Perceiving,

however, that the latter was now sanctioned at Rome and by all the learned in the Church, and unable to

combat the doctrine on its own merits, you resolved to attack it in a clandestine way, under the name of the

doctrine of Jansenius. You were resolved, accordingly, to get Jansenius condemned without explanation; and,

to gain your purpose, gave out that his doctrine was not that of efficacious grace, so that every one might

think he was at liberty to condemn the one without denying the other. Hence your efforts, in the present day,

to impress this idea upon the minds of such as have no acquaintance with that author; an object which you

yourself, father, have attempted, by means of the following ingenious syllogism: "The pope has condemned

the doctrine of Jansenius; but the pope has not condemned efficacious grace: therefore, the doctrine of

efficacious grace must be different from that of Jansenius." If this mode of reasoning were conclusive, it

might be demonstrated in the same way that Honorius and all his defenders are heretics of the same kind.

"The sixth council has condemned the doctrine of Honorius; but the council has not condemned the doctrine

of the Church: therefore the doctrine of Honorius is different from that of the Church; and therefore, all who

defend him are heretics." It is obvious that no conclusion can be drawn from this; for the Pope has done no

more than condemn the doctrine of the five propositions, which was represented to him as the doctrine of

But it matters not; you have no intention to make use of this logic for any length of time. Poor as it is, it will

last sufficiently long to serve your present turn. All that you wish to effect by it, in the meantime, is to induce

those who are unwilling to condemn efficacious grace to condemn Jansenius with less scruple. When this

object has been accomplished, your argument will soon be forgotten, and their signatures, remaining as an

eternal testimony in condemnation of Jansenius, will furnish you with an occasion to make a direct attack

upon efficacious grace by another mode of reasoning much more solid than the former, which shall be

forthcoming in proper time. "The doctrine of Jansenius," you will argue, "has been condemned by the

universal subscriptions of the Church. Now this doctrine is manifestly that of efficacious grace" (and it will

be easy for you to prove that); "therefore the doctrine of efficacious grace is condemned even by the

Behold your reason for proposing to sign the condemnation of a doctrine without giving an explanation of it!

Behold the advantage you expect to gain from subscriptions thus procured! Should your opponents, however,

refuse to subscribe, you have another trap laid for them. Having dexterously combined the question of faith

with that of fact, and not allowing them to separate between them, nor to sign the one without the other, the

consequence will be that, because they could not subscribe the two together, you will publish it in all

directions that they have refused the two together. And thus though, in point of fact, they simply decline

acknowledging that Jansenius has maintained the propositions which they condemn, which cannot be called

heresy, you will boldly assert that they have refused to condemn the propositions themselves, and that it is

Such is the fruit which you expect to reap from their refusal, and which will be no less useful to you than

what you might have gained from their consent. So that, in the event of these signatures being exacted, they

will fall into your snares, whether they sign or not, and in both cases you will gain your point; such is your

dexterity in uniformly putting matters into a train for your own advantage, whatever bias they may happen to

How well I know you, father! and how grieved am I to see that God has abandoned you so far as to allow you

such happy success in such an unhappy course! Your good fortune deserves commiseration, and can excite

envy only in the breasts of those who know not what truly good fortune is. It is an act of charity to thwart the

success you aim at in the whole of this proceeding, seeing that you can only reach it by the aid of falsehood,

and by procuring credit to one of two lies either that the Church has condemned efficacious grace, or that

The world must, therefore, be apprised of two facts: first, That by your own confession, efficacious grace has

not been condemned; and secondly, That nobody supports these errors. So that it may be known that those

who refuse to sign what you are so anxious to exact from them, refuse merely in consideration of the question

of fact, and that, being quite ready to subscribe that of faith, they cannot be deemed heretical on that account;

because, to repeat it once more, though it be matter of faith to believe these propositions to be heretical, it

will never be matter of faith to hold that they are to be found in the pages of Jansenius. They are innocent of

all error; that is enough. It may be that they interpret Jansenius too favourably; but it may be also that you do

not interpret him favourably enough. I do not enter upon this question. All that I know is that, according to

your maxims, you believe that you may, without sin, publish him to be a heretic contrary to your own

knowledge; whereas, according to their maxims, they cannot, without sin, declare him to be a Catholic, unless

they are persuaded that he is one. They are, therefore, more honest than you, father; they have examined

Jansenius more faithfully than you; they are no less intelligent than you; they are, therefore, no less credible

witnesses than you. But come what may of this point of fact, they are certainly Catholics; for, in order to be

so, it is not necessary to declare that another man is not a Catholic; it is enough, in all conscience, if a person,

Reverend Father, if you have found any difficulty in deciphering this letter, which is certainly not printed in

the best possible type, blame nobody but yourself. Privileges are not so easily granted to me as they are to

you. You can procure them even for the purpose of combating miracles; I cannot have them even to defend

myself. The printinghouses are perpetually haunted. In such circumstances, you yourself would not advise

me to write you any more letters, for it is really a sad annoyance to be obliged to have recourse to an

Long have you laboured to discover some error in the creed or conduct of your opponents; but I rather think

you will have to confess, in the end, that it is a more difficult task than you imagined to make heretics of

people who, are not only no heretics, but who hate nothing in the world so much as heresy. In my last letter I

succeeded in showing that you accuse them of one heresy after another, without being able to stand by one of

the charges for any length of time; so that all that remained for you was to fix on their refusal to condemn

"the sense of Jansenius," which you insist on their doing without explanation. You must have been sadly in

want of heresies to brand them with, when you were reduced to this. For who ever heard of a heresy which

nobody could explain? The answer was ready, therefore, that if Jansenius has no errors, it is wrong to

condemn him; and if he has, you were bound to point them out, that we might know at least what we were

condemning. This, however, you have never yet been pleased to do; but you have attempted to fortify your

position by decrees, which made nothing in your favour, as they gave no sort of explanation of the sense of

Jansenius, said to have been condemned in the five propositions. This was not the way to terminate the

dispute. Had you mutually agreed as to the genuine sense of Jansenius, and had the only difference between

you been as to whether that sense was heretical or not, in that case the decisions which might pronounce it to

be heretical would have touched the real question in dispute. But the great dispute being about the sense of

Jansenius, the one party saying that they could see nothing in it inconsistent with the sense of St. Augustine

and St. Thomas, and the other party asserting that they saw in it an heretical sense which they would not

express. It is clear that a constitution which does not say a word about this difference of opinion, and which

only condemns in general and without explanation the sense of Jansenius, leaves the point in dispute quite

You have accordingly been repeatedly told that as your discussion turns on a matter of fact, you would never

be able to bring it to a conclusion without declaring what you understand by the sense of Jansenius. But, as

you continued obstinate in your refusal to make this explanation, I endeavored, as a last resource, to extort it

from you, by hinting in my last letter that there was some mystery under the efforts you were making to

procure the condemnation of this sense without explaining it, and that your design was to make this indefinite

censure recoil some day or other upon the doctrine of efficacious grace, by showing, as you could easily do,

that this was exactly the doctrine of Jansenius. This has reduced you to the necessity of making a reply; for,

had you pertinaciously refused, after such an insinuation, to explain your views of that sense, it would have

been apparent to persons of the smallest penetration that you condemned it in the sense of efficacious grace

a conclusion which, considering the veneration in which the Church holds holy doctrine, would have

You have, therefore, been forced to speak out your mind; and we find it expressed in your reply to that part of

letter in which I remarked, that "if Jansenius was capable of any other sense than that of efficacious grace, he

had no defenders; but if his writings bore no other sense, he had no errors to defend." You found it impossible

to deny this position, father; but you have attempted to parry it by the following distinction: "It is not

sufficient," say you, "for the vindication of Jansenius, to allege that he merely holds the doctrine of

efficacious grace, for that may be held in two ways the one heretical, according to Calvin, which consists in

maintaining that the will, when under the influence of grace, has not the power of resisting it; the other

orthodox, according to the Thomists and the Sorbonists, which is founded on the principles established by the

councils, and which is, that efficacious grace of itself governs the will in such a way that it still has the power

All this we grant, father; but you conclude by adding: "Jansenius would be orthodox, if he defended

efficacious grace in the sense of the Thomists; but he is heretical, because he opposes the Thomists, and joins

issue with Calvin, who denies the power of resisting grace." I do not here enter upon the question of fact,

whether Jansenius really agrees with Calvin. It is enough for my purpose that you assert that he does, and that

you now inform me that by the sense of Jansenius you have all along understood nothing more than the sense

of Calvin. Was this all you meant, then, father? Was it only the error of Calvin that you were so anxious to

get condemned, under the name of "the sense of Jansenius?" Why did you not tell us this sooner? You might

have saved yourself a world of trouble; for we were all ready, without the aid of bulls or briefs, to join with

you in condemning that error. What urgent necessity there was for such an explanation! What a host of

difficulties has it removed! We were quite at a loss, my dear father, to know what error the popes and bishops

meant to condemn, under the name of "the sense of Jansenius." The whole Church was in the utmost

perplexity about it, and not a soul would relieve us by an explanation. This, however, has now been done by

you, father you, whom the whole of your party regard as the chief and prime mover of all their councils, and

who are acquainted with the whole secret of this proceeding. You, then, have told us that the sense of

Jansenius is neither more nor less than the sense of Calvin, which has been condemned by the council. Why,

this explains everything. We know now that the error which they intended to condemn, under these terms

the sense of Jansenius is neither more nor less than the sense of Calvin; and that, consequently, we, by

joining with them in the condemnation of Calvin's doctrine, have yielded all due obedience to these decrees.

We are no longer surprised at the zeal which the popes and some bishops manifested against "the sense of

Jansenius." How, indeed, could they be otherwise than zealous against it, believing, as they did, the

declarations of those who publicly affirmed that it was identically the same with that of Calvin?

I must maintain, then, father, that you have no further reason to quarrel with your adversaries; for they detest

that doctrine as heartily as you do. I am only astonished to see that you are ignorant of this fact, and that you

have such an imperfect acquaintance with their sentiments on this point, which they have so repeatedly

expressed in their published works. I flatter myself that, were you more intimate with these writings, you

would deeply regret your not having made yourself acquainted sooner, in the spirit of peace, with a doctrine

which is in every respect so holy and so Christian, but which passion, in the absence of knowledge, now

prompts you to oppose. You would find, father, that they not only hold that an effective resistance may be

made to those feebler graces which go under the name of exciting or inefficacious, from their not terminating

in the good with which they inspire us; but that they are, moreover, as firm in maintaining, in opposition to

Calvin, the power which the will has to resist even efficacious and victorious grace, as they are in contending

against Molina for the power of this grace over the will, and fully as jealous for the one of these truths as they

are for the other. They know too well that man, of his own nature, has always the power of sinning and of

resisting grace; and that, since he became corrupt, he unhappily carries in his breast a fount of concupiscence

which infinitely augments that power; but that, notwithstanding this, when it pleases God to visit him with

His mercy, He makes the soul do what He wills, and in the manner He wills it to be done, while, at the same

time, the infallibility of the divine operation does not in any way destroy the natural liberty of man, in

consequence of the secret and wonderful ways by which God operates this change. This has been most

admirably explained by St. Augustine, in such a way as to dissipate all those imaginary inconsistencies which

the opponents of efficacious grace suppose to exist between the sovereign power of grace over the freewill

and the power which the freewill has to resist grace. For, according to this great saint, whom the popes and

the Church have held to be a standard authority on this subject, God transforms the heart of man, by shedding

abroad in it a heavenly sweetness, which surmounting the delights of the flesh, and inducing him to feel, on

the one hand, his own mortality and nothingness, and to discover, on the other hand, the majesty and eternity

of God, makes him conceive a distaste for the pleasures of sin which interpose between him and incorruptible

happiness. Finding his chiefest joy in the God who charms him, his soul is drawn towards Him infallibly, but

of its own accord, by a motion perfectly free, spontaneous, loveimpelled; so that it would be its torment and

punishment to be separated from Him. Not but that the person has always the power of forsaking his God,

and that he may not actually forsake Him, provided he choose to do it. But how could he choose such a

course, seeing that the will always inclines to that which is most agreeable to it, and that, in the case we now

suppose, nothing can be more agreeable than the possession of that one good, which comprises in itself all

other good things? "Quod enim (says St. Augustine) amplius nos delectat, secundum operemur necesse est

Our actions are necessarily determined by that which affords us the greatest pleasure."

Such is the manner in which God regulates the free will of man without encroaching on its freedom, and in

which the free will, which always may, but never will, resist His grace, turns to God with a movement as

voluntary as it is irresistible, whensoever He is pleased to draw it to Himself by the sweet constraint of His

These, father, are the divine principles of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, according to which it is equally true

that we have the power of resisting grace, contrary to Calvin's opinion, and that, nevertheless, to employ the

language of Pope Clement VIII in his paper addressed to the Congregation de Auxiliis, "God forms within us

the motion of our will, and effectually disposes of our hearts, by virtue of that empire which His supreme

majesty has over the volitions of men, as well as over the other creatures under heaven, according to St.

On the same principle, it follows that we act of ourselves, and thus, in opposition to another error of Calvin,

that we have merits which are truly and properly ours; and yet, as God is the first principle of our actions, and

as, in the language of St. Paul, He "worketh in us that which is pleasing in his sight"; "our merits are the gifts

By means of this distinction we demolish the profane sentiment of Luther, condemned by that Council,

namely, that "we cooperate in no way whatever towards our salvation any more than inanimate things"; and,

by the same mode of reasoning, we overthrow the equally profane sentiment of the school of Molina, who

will not allow that it is by the strength of divine grace that we are enabled to cooperate with it in the work of

our salvation, and who thereby comes into hostile collision with that principle of faith established by St. Paul:

In fine, in this way we reconcile all those passages of Scripture which seem quite inconsistent with each other

such as the following: "Turn ye unto God" "Turn thou us, and we shall be turned" "Cast away iniquity

from you" "It is God who taketh away iniquity from His people" "Bring forth works meet for repentance"

"Lord, thou hast wrought all our works in us" "Make ye a new heart and a new spirit" "A new spirit will I

The only way of reconciling these apparent contrarieties, which ascribe our good actions at one time to God

and at another time to ourselves, is to keep in view the distinction, as stated by St. Augustine, that "our

actions are ours in respect of the free will which produces them; but that they are also of God, in respect of

His grace which enables our free will to produce them"; and that, as the same writer elsewhere remarks, "God

enables us to do what is pleasing in his sight, by making us will to do even what we might have been

It thus appears, father, that your opponents are perfectly at one with the modern Thomists, for the Thomists

hold with them both the power of resisting grace, and the infallibility of the effect of grace; of which latter

doctrine they profess themselves the most strenuous advocates, if we may judge from a common maxim of

their theology, which Alvarez, one of the leading men among them, repeats so often in his book, and

expresses in the following terms (disp. 72, n. 4): "When efficacious grace moves the free will, it infallibly

consents; because the effect of grace is such, that, although the will has the power of withholding its consent,

it nevertheless consents in effect." He corroborates this by a quotation from his master, St. Thomas: "The will

of God cannot fail to be accomplished; and, accordingly, when it is his pleasure that a man should consent to

the influence of grace, he consents infallibly, and even necessarily, not by an absolute necessity, but by a

necessity of infallibility." In effecting this, divine grace does not trench upon "the power which man has to

resist it, if he wishes to do so"; it merely prevents him from wishing to resist it. This has been acknowledged

by your Father Petau, in the following passage (Book i, p.602):. "The grace of Jesus Christ insures infallible

perseverance in piety, though not by necessity; for a person may refuse to yield his consent to grace, if he be

so inclined, as the council states; but that same grace provides that he shall never be so inclined."

This, father, is the uniform doctrine of St. Augustine, of St. Prosper, of the fathers who followed them, of the

councils, of St. Thomas, and of all the Thomists in general. It is likewise, whatever you may think of it, the

doctrine of your opponents. And, let me add, it is the doctrine which you yourself have lately sealed with

your approbation. I shall quote your own words: "The doctrine of efficacious grace, which admits that we

have a power of resisting it, is orthodox, founded on the councils, and supported by the Thomists and

Sorbonists." Now, tell us the plain truth, father; if you had known that your opponents really held this

doctrine, the interests of your Society might perhaps have made you scruple before pronouncing this public

approval of it; but, acting on the supposition that they were hostile to the doctrine, the same powerful motive

has induced you to authorize sentiments which you know in your heart to be contrary to those of your

Society; and by this blunder, in your anxiety to ruin their principles, you have yourself completely confirmed

them. So that, by a kind of prodigy, we now behold the advocates of efficacious grace vindicated by the

advocates of Molina an admirable instance of the wisdom of God in making all things concur to advance the

Let the whole world observe, then, that, by your own admission, the truth of this efficacious grace, which is

so essential to all the acts of piety, which is so dear to the Church, and which is the purchase of her Saviour's

blood, is so indisputably Catholic that there is not a single Catholic, not even among the Jesuits, who would

not acknowledge its orthodoxy. And let it be noticed, at the same time, that, according to your own

confession, not the slightest suspicion of error can fall on those whom you have so often stigmatized with it.

For so long as you charged them with clandestine heresies, without choosing to specify them by name, it was

as difficult for them to defend themselves as it was easy for you to bring such accusations. But now, when

you have come to declare that the error which constrains you to oppose them, is the heresy of Calvin which

you supposed them to hold, it must be apparent to every one that they are innocent of all error; for so

decidedly hostile are they to this, the only error you charge upon them, that they protest, by their discourses,

by their books, by every mode, in short, in which they can testify their sentiments, that they condemn that

heresy with their whole heart, and in the same manner as it has been condemned by the Thomists, whom you

acknowledge, without scruple, to be Catholics, and who have never been suspected to be anything else.

What will you say against them now, father? Will you say that they are heretics still, because, although they

do not adopt the sense of Calvin, they will not allow that the sense of Jansenius is the same with that of

Calvin? Will you presume to say that this is matter of heresy? Is it not a pure question of fact, with which

heresy has nothing to do? It would be heretical to say that we have not the power, of resisting efficacious

grace; but would it be so to doubt that Jansenius held that doctrine? Is this a revealed truth? Is it an article of

faith which must be believed, on pain of damnation? Or is it not, in spite of you, a point of fact, on account of

Drop this epithet, then, father, and give them some other name, more suited to the nature of your dispute. Tell

them, they are ignorant and stupid that they misunderstand Jansenius. These would be charges in keeping

with your controversy; but it is quite irrelevant to call them heretics. As this, however, is the only charge

from which I am anxious to defend them, I shall not give myself much trouble to show that they rightly

understand Jansenius. All I shall say on the point, father, is that it appears to me that, were he to be judged

according to your own rules, it would be difficult to prove him not to be a good Catholic. We shall try him by

the test you have proposed. "To know," say you, "whether Jansenius is sound or not, we must inquire whether

he defends efficacious grace in the manner of Calvin, who denies that man has the power of resisting it in

which case he would be heretical; or in the manner of the Thomists, who admit that it may be resisted for

then he would be Catholic." judge, then, father, whether he holds that grace may be resisted when he says:

"That we have always a power to resist grace, according to the council; that free will may always act or not

act, will or not will, consent or not consent, do good or do evil; and that man, in this life, has always these

two liberties, which may be called by some contradictions." Judge. likewise, if he be not opposed to the error

of Calvin, as you have described it, when he occupies a whole chapter (21st) in showing "that the Church has

condemned that heretic who denies that efficacious grace acts on the free will in the manner which has been

so long believed in the Church, so as to leave it in the power of free will to consent or not to consent;

whereas, according to St. Augustine and the council, we have always the power of withholding our consent if

we choose; and according to St. Prosper, God bestows even upon his elect the will to persevere, in such a way

as not to deprive them of the power to will the contrary." And, in one word, judge if he does not agree with

the Thomists, from the following declaration in chapter 4th: "That all that the Thomists have written with the

view of reconciling the efficaciousness of grace with the power of resisting it, so entirely coincides with his

judgement that to ascertain his sentiments on this subject we have only to consult their writings."

Such being the language he holds on these heads my opinion is that he believes in the power of resisting

grace; that he differs from Calvin and agrees with the Thomists, because he has said so; and that he is,

therefore, according to your own showing, a Catholic. If you have any means of knowing the sense of an

author otherwise than by his expressions; and if, without quoting any of his passages, you are disposed to

maintain, in direct opposition to his own words, that he denies this power of resistance, and that he is for

Calvin and against the Thomists, do not be afraid, father, that I will accuse you of heresy for that. I shall only

say that you do not seem properly to understand Jansenius; but we shall not be the less on that account

How comes it, then, father, that you manage this dispute in such a passionate spirit, and that you treat as your

most cruel enemies, and as the most pestilent of heretics, a class of persons whom you cannot accuse of any

error, nor of anything whatever, except that they do not understand Jansenius as you do? For what else in the

world do you dispute about, except the sense of that author? You would have them to condemn it. They ask

what you mean them to condemn. You reply that you mean the error of Calvin. They rejoin that they

condemn that error; and with this acknowledgement (unless it is syllables you wish to condemn, and not the

thing which they signify), you ought to rest satisfied. If they refuse to say that they condemn the sense of

Jansenius, it is because they believe it to be that of St. Thomas, and thus this unhappy phrase has a very

equivocal meaning betwixt you. In your mouth it signifies the sense of Calvin; in theirs the sense of St.

Thomas. Your dissensions arise entirely from the different ideas which you attach to the same term. Were I

made umpire in the quarrel, I would interdict the use of the word Jansenius, on both sides; and thus, by

obliging you merely to express what you understand by it, it would be seen that you ask nothing more than

the condemnation of Calvin, to which they willingly agree; and that they ask nothing more than the

vindication of the sense of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, in which you again perfectly coincide.

I declare, then, father, that for my part I shall continue to regard them as good Catholics, whether they

condemn Jansenius, on finding him erroneous, or refuse to condemn him, from finding that he maintains

nothing more than what you yourself acknowledge to be orthodox; and that I shall say to them what St.

Jerome said to John, bishop of Jerusalem, who was accused of holding the eight propositions of Origen:

"Either condemn Origen, if you acknowledge that he has maintained these errors, or else deny that he has

maintained them Aut nega hoc dixisse eum qui arguitur; aut si locutus est talia, eum damna qui dixerit."

See, father, how these persons acted, whose sole concern was with principles, and not with persons; whereas

you who aim at persons more than principles, consider it a matter of no consequence to condemn errors,

unless you procure the condemnation of the individuals to whom you choose to impute them.

How ridiculously violent your conduct is, father! and how ill calculated to insure success! I told you before,

and I repeat it, violence and verity can make no impression on each other. Never were your accusations more

outrageous, and never was the innocence of your opponents more discernible: never has efficacious grace

been attacked with greater subtility, and never has it been more triumphantly established. You have made the

most desperate efforts to convince people that your disputes involved points of faith; and never was it more

apparent that the whole controversy turned upon a mere point of fact. In fine, you have moved heaven and

earth to make it appear that this point of fact is founded on truth; and never were people more disposed to call

it in question. And the obvious reason of this is that you do not take the natural course to make them believe a

point of fact, which is to convince their senses and point out to them in a book the words which you allege are

to be found in it. The means you have adopted are so far removed from this straightforward course that the

most obtuse minds are unavoidably struck by observing it. Why did you not take the plan which I followed in

bringing to light the wicked maxims of your authors which was to cite faithfully the passages of their

writings from which they were extracted? This was the mode followed by the cures of Paris, and it never fails

to produce conviction. But, when you were charged by them with holding, for example, the proposition of

Father Lamy, that a "monk may kill a person who threatens to publish calumnies against himself or his order,

when he cannot otherwise prevent the publication," what would you have thought, and what would the public

have said, if they had not quoted the place where that sentiment is literally to be found? or if, after having

been repeatedly demanded to quote their authority, they still obstinately refused to do it? or if, instead of

acceding to this, they had gone off to Rome and procured a bull, ordaining all men to acknowledge the truth

of their statement? Would it not be undoubtedly concluded that they had surprised the Pope, and that they

would never have had recourse to this extraordinary method, but for want of the natural means of

substantiating the truth, which matters of fact furnish to all who undertake to prove them? Accordingly, they

had no more to do than to tell us that Father Lamy teaches this doctrine in Book 5, disp.36, n.118, page 544.

of the Douay edition; and by this means everybody who wished to see it found it out, and nobody could doubt

about it any longer. This appears to be a very easy and prompt way of putting an end to controversies of fact,

How comes it, then, father, that you do not follow this plan? You said, in your book, that the five

propositions are in Jansenius, word for word, in the identical terms iisdem verbis. You were told they were

not. What had you to do after this, but either to cite the page, if you had really found the words, or to

acknowledge that you were mistaken. But you have done neither the one nor the other. In place of this, on

finding that all the passages from Jansenius, which you sometimes adduce for the purpose of hoodwinking

the people, are not "the condemned propositions in their individual identity," as you had engaged to show us,

you present us with Constitutions from Rome, which, without specifying any particular place, declare that the

I am sensible, father, of the respect which Christians owe to the Holy See, and your antagonists give

sufficient evidence of their resolution ever to abide by its decisions. Do not imagine that it implied any

deficiency in this due deference on their part that they represented to the pope, with all the submission which

children owe to their father, and members to their head, that it was possible he might be deceived on this

point of fact that he had not caused it to be investigated during his pontificate; and that his predecessor,

Innocent X, had merely examined into the heretical character of the propositions, and not into the fact of their

connection with Jansenius. This they stated to the commissary of the Holy Office, one of the principal

examiners, stating that they could not be censured according to the sense of any author, because they had

been presented for examination on their own merits; and without considering to what author they might

belong: further, that upwards of sixty doctors, and a vast number of other persons of learning and piety, had

read that book carefully over, without ever having encountered the proscribed propositions, and that they

have found some of a quite opposite description: that those who had produced that impression on the mind of

the Pope might be reasonably presumed to have abused the confidence he reposed in them, inasmuch as they

had an interest in decrying that author, who has convicted Molina of upwards of fifty errors: that what renders

this supposition still more probable is that they have a certain maxim among them, one of the best

authenticated in their whole system of theology, which is, "that they may, without criminality, calumniate

those by whom they conceive themselves to be unjustly attacked"; and that, accordingly, their testimony

being so suspicious, and the testimony of the other party so respectable, they had some ground for

supplicating his holiness, with the most profound humility, that he would ordain an investigation to be made

into this fact, in the presence of doctors belonging to both parties, in order that a solemn and regular decision

might be formed on the point in dispute. "Let there be a convocation of able judges (says St. Basil on a

similar occasion, Epistle 75); let each of them be left at perfect freedom; let them examine my writings; let

them judge if they contain errors against the faith; let them read the objections and the replies; that so a

judgement may be given in due form and with proper knowledge of the case, and not a defamatory libel

It is quite vain for you, father, to represent those who would act in the manner I have now supposed as

deficient in proper subjection to the Holy See. The popes are very far from being disposed to treat Christians

with that imperiousness which some would fain exercise under their name. "The Church," says Pope St.

Gregory, "which has been trained in the school of humility, does not command with authority, but persuades

by reason, her children whom she believes to be in error, to obey what she has taught them." And so far from

deeming it a disgrace to review a judgement into which they may have been surprised, we have the testimony

of St. Bernard for saying that they glory in acknowledging the mistake. "The Apostolic See (he says, Epistle

180) can boast of this recommendation, that it never stands on the point of honour, but willingly revokes a

decision that has been gained from it by surprise; indeed, it is highly just to prevent any from profiting by an

Such, father, are the proper sentiments with which the popes ought to be inspired; for all divines are agreed

that they may be surprised, and that their supreme character, so far from warranting them against mistakes,

exposes them the more readily to fall into them, on account of the vast number of cares which claim their

attention. This is what the same St. Gregory says to some persons who were astonished at the circumstance of

another pope having suffered himself to be deluded: "Why do you wonder," says he, "that we should be

deceived, we who are but men? Have you not read that David, a king who had the spirit of prophecy, was

induced, by giving credit to the falsehoods of Ziba, to pronounce an unjust judgement against the son of

Jonathan? Who will think it strange, then, that we, who are not prophets, should sometimes be imposed upon

by deceivers? A multiplicity of affairs presses on us, and our minds, which, by being obliged to attend to so

many things at once, apply themselves less closely to each in particular, are the more easily liable to be

imposed upon in individual cases." Truly, father, I should suppose that the popes know better than you

whether they may be deceived or not. They themselves tell us that popes, as well as the greatest princes, are

more exposed to deception than individuals who are less occupied with important avocations. This must be

believed on their testimony. And it is easy to imagine by what means they come to be thus overreached. St.

Bernard, in the letter which he wrote to Innocent II, gives us the following description of the process: "It is no

wonder, and no novelty, that the human mind may be deceived, and is deceived. You are surrounded by

monks who come to you in the spirit of lying and deceit. They have filled your ears with stories against a

bishop, whose life has been most exemplary, but who is the object of their hatred. These persons bite like

dogs, and strive to make good appear evil. Meanwhile, most holy father, you put yourself into a rage against

your own son. Why have you afforded matter of joy to his enemies? Believe not every spirit, but try the

spirits whether they be of God. I trust that, when you have ascertained the truth, all this delusion, which rests

on a false report, will be dissipated. I pray the spirit of truth to grant you the grace to separate light from

darkness, and to favour the good by rejecting the evil." You see, then, father, that the eminent rank of the

popes does not exempt them from the influence of delusion; and I may now add, that it only serves to render

their mistakes more dangerous and important than those of other men. This is the light in which St. Bernard

represents them to Pope Eugenius: "There is another fault, so common among the great of this world that I

never met one of them who was free from it; and that is, holy father, an excessive credulity, the source of

numerous disorders. From this proceed violent persecutions against the innocent, unfounded prejudices

against the absent, and tremendous storms about nothing (pro nihilo). This, holy father, is a universal evil,

from the influence of which, if you are exempt, I shall only say you are the only individual among all your

I imagine, father, that the proofs I have brought are beginning to convince you that the popes are liable to be

surprised. But, to complete your conversion, I shall merely remind you of some examples, which you

yourself have quoted in your book, of popes and emperors whom heretics have actually deceived. You will

remember, then, that you have told us that Apollinarius surprised Pope Damasius, in the same way that

Celestius surprised Zozimus. You inform us, besides, that one called Athanasius deceived the Emperor

Heraclius, and prevailed on him to persecute the Catholics. And lastly, that Sergius obtained from Honorius

that infamous decretal which was burned at the sixth council, "by playing the busybody," as you say, "about

It appears, then, father, by your own confession, that those who act this part about the persons of kings and

popes do sometimes artfully entice them to persecute the faithful defenders of the truth, under the persuasion

that they are persecuting heretics. And hence the popes, who hold nothing in greater horror than these

surprisals, have, by a letter of Alexander III, enacted an ecclesiastical statute, which is inserted in the

canonical law, to permit the suspension of the execution of their bulls and decretals, when there is ground to

suspect that they have been imposed upon. "If," says that pope to the Archbishop of Ravenna, "we sometimes

send decretals to your fraternity which are opposed to your sentiments, give yourselves no distress on that

account. We shall expect you eitherto carry them respectfully into execution, or to send us the reason why

you conceive they ought not to be executed; for we deem it right that you should not execute a decree which

may have been procured from us by artifice and surprise." Such has been the course pursued by the popes,

whose sole object is to settle the disputes of Christians, and not to follow the passionate counsels of those

who strive to involve them in trouble and perplexity. Following the advice of St. Peter and St. Paul, who in

this followed the commandment of Jesus Christ, they avoid domination. The spirit which appears in their

whole conduct is that of peace and truth. In this spirit they ordinarily insert in their letters this clause, which

is tacitly understood in them all: "Si ita est; si preces veritate nitantur If it be so as we have heard it; if the

facts be true." It is quite clear, if the popes themselves give no force to their bulls, except in so far as they are

founded on genuine facts, that it is not the bulls alone that prove the truth of the facts, but that, on the

contrary, even according to the canonists, it is the truth of the facts which renders the bulls lawfully

In what way, then, are we to learn the truth of facts? It must be by the eyes, father, which are the legitimate

judges of such matters, as reason is the proper judge of things natural and intelligible, and faith of things

supernatural and revealed. For, since you will force me into this discussion, you must allow me to tell you

that, according to the sentiments of the two greatest doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and St. Thomas,

these three principles of our knowledge, the senses, reason, and faith, have each their separate objects and

their own degrees of certainty. And as God has been pleased to employ the intervention of the senses to give

entrance to faith (for "faith cometh by hearing"), it follows, that so far from faith destroying the certainty of

the senses, to call in question the faithful report of the senses would lead to the destruction of faith. It is on

this principle that St. Thomas explicitly states that God has been pleased that the sensible accidents should

subsist in the eucharist, in order that the senses, which judge only of these accidents, might not be deceived.

We conclude, therefore, from this, that whatever the proposition may be that is submitted to our examination,

we must first determine its nature, to ascertain to which of those three principles it ought to be referred. If it

relate to a supernatural truth, we must judge of it neither by the senses nor by reason, but by Scripture and the

decisions of the Church. Should it concern an unrevealed truth and something within the reach of natural

reason, reason must be its proper judge. And if it embrace a point of fact, we must yield to the testimony of

So general is this rule that, according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas, when we meet with a passage even in

the Scripture, the literal meaning of which, at first sight, appears contrary to what the senses or reason are

certainly persuaded of, we must not attempt to reject their testimony in this case, and yield them up to the

authority of that apparent sense of the Scripture, but we must interpret the Scripture, and seek out therein

another sense agreeable to that sensible truth; because, the Word of God being infallible in the facts which it

records, and the information of the senses and of reason, acting in their sphere, being certain also, it follows

that there must be an agreement between these two sources of knowledge. And as Scripture may be

interpreted in different ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must in these matters adopt

as the true interpretation of Scripture that view which corresponds with the faithful report of the senses. "Two

things," says St. Thomas, "must be observed, according to the doctrine of St. Augustine: first, That Scripture

has always one true sense; and secondly, That as it may receive various senses, when we have discovered one

which reason plainly teaches to be false, we must not persist in maintaining that this is the natural sense, but

St. Thomas explains his meaning by the example of a passage in Genesis where it is written that "God created

two great lights, the sun and the moon, and also the stars," in which the Scriptures appear to say that the

moon is greater than all the stars; but as it is evident, from unquestionable demonstration, that this is false, it

is not our duty, says that saint, obstinately to defend the literal sense of that passage; another meaning must

be sought, consistent with the truth of the fact, such as the following, "That the phrase great light, as applied

to the moon, denotes the greatness of that luminary merely as it appears in our eyes, and not the magnitude of

An opposite mode of treatment, so far from procuring respect to the Scripture, would only expose it to the

contempt of infidels; because, as St. Augustine says, "when they found that we believed, on the authority of

Scripture, in things which they assuredly knew to be false, they would laugh at our credulity with regard to its

more recondite truths, such as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life." "And by this means," adds St.

Thomas, "we should render our religion contemptible in their eyes, and shut up its entrance into their minds.

And let me add, father, that it would in the same manner be the likeliest means to shut up the entrance of

Scripture into the minds of heretics, and to render the pope's authority contemptible in their eyes, to refuse all

those the name of Catholics who would not believe that certain words were in a certain book, where they are

not to be found, merely because a pope by mistake has declared that they are. It is only by examining a book

that we can ascertain what words it contains. Matters of fact can only be proved by the senses. If the position

which you maintain be true, show it, or else ask no man to believe it that would be to no purpose. Not all the

powers on earth can, by the force of authority, persuade us of a point of fact, any more than they can alter it;

It was to no purpose, for example, that the monks of Ratisbon procured from Pope St. Leo IX a solemn

decree, by which he declared that the body of St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris, who is generally held to

have been the Areopagite, had been transported out of France and conveyed into the chapel of their

monastery. It is not the less true, for all this, that the body of that saint always lay, and lies to this hour, in the

celebrated abbey which bears his name, and within the walls of which you would find it no easy matter to

obtain a cordial reception to this bull, although the pope has therein assured us that he has examined the affair

"with all possible diligence (diligentissime), and with the advice of many bishops and prelates; so that he

strictly enjoins all the French (districte praecipientes) to own and confess that these holy relics are no longer

in their country." The French, however, who knew that fact to be untrue, by the evidence of their own eyes,

and who, upon opening the shrine, found all those relics entire, as the historians of that period inform us,

believed then, as they have always believed since, the reverse of what that holy pope had enjoined them to

believe, well knowing that even saints and prophets are liable to be imposed upon.

It was to equally little purpose that you obtained against Galileo a decree from Rome condemning his opinion

respecting the motion of the earth. It will never be proved by such an argument as this that the earth remains

stationary; and if it can be demonstrated by sure observation that it is the earth and not the sun that revolves,

the efforts and arguments of all mankind put together will not hinder our planet from revolving, nor hinder

Again, you must not imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary, excommunicating St. Virgilius for maintaining

the existence of the antipodes, have annihilated the New World; nor must you suppose that, although he

declared that opinion to be a most dangerous heresy, the King of Spain was wrong in giving more credence to

Christopher Columbus, who came from the place, than to the judgement of the pope, who had never been

there, or that the Church has not derived a vast benefit from the discovery, inasmuch as it has brought the

knowledge of the Gospel to a great multitude of souls who might otherwise have perished in their infidelity.

You see, then, father, what is the nature of matters of fact, and on what principles they are to be determined;

from all which, to recur to our subject, it is easy to conclude that, if the five propositions are not in Jansenius,

it is impossible that they can have been extracted from him; and that the only way to form a judgement on the

matter, and to produce universal conviction, is to examine that book in a regular conference, as you have been

desired to do long ago. Until that be done, you have no right to charge your opponents with contumacy; for

they are as blameless in regard to the point of fact as they are of errors in point of faith Catholics in

Who can help feeling astonishment, then, father, to see on the one side a vindication so complete, and on the

other accusations so outrageous! Who would suppose that the only question between you relates to a single

fact of no importance, which the one party wishes the other to believe without showing it to them! And who

would ever imagine that such a noise should have been made in the Church for nothing (pro nihilo), as good

St. Bernard says! But this is just one of the principal tricks of your policy, to make people believe that

everything is at stake, when, in reality, there is nothing at stake; and to represent to those influential persons

who listen to you that the most pernicious errors of Calvin, and the most vital principles of the faith, are

involved in your disputes, with the view of inducing them, under this conviction, to employ all their zeal and

all their authority against your opponents, as if the safety of the Catholic religion depended upon it; Whereas,

if they came to know that the whole dispute was about this paltry point of fact, they would give themselves

no concern about it, but would, on the contrary, regret extremely that, to gratify your private passions, they

had made such exertions in an affair of no consequence to the Church. For, in fine, to take the worst view of

the matter, even though it should be true that Jansenius maintained these propositions, what great misfortune

would accrue from some persons doubting of the fact, provided they detested the propositions, as they have

publicly declared that they do? Is it not enough that they are condemned by everybody, without exception,

and that, too, in the sense in which you have explained that you wish them to be condemned? Would they be

more severely censured by saying that Jansenius maintained them? What purpose, then, would be served by

exacting this acknowledgment, except that of disgracing a doctor and bishop, who died in the communion of

the Church? I cannot see how that should be accounted so great a blessing as to deserve to be purchased at the

expense of so many disturbances. What interest has the state, or the pope, or bishops, or doctors, or the

Church at large, in this conclusion? It does not affect them in any way whatever, father; it can affect none but

your Society, which would certainly enjoy some pleasure from the defamation of an author who has done you

some little injury. Meanwhile everything is in confusion, because you have made people believe that

everything is in danger. This is the secret spring giving impulse to all those mighty commotions, which

would cease immediately were the real state of the controversy once known. And therefore, as the peace of

the Church depended on this explanation, it was, I conceive, of the utmost importance that it should be given

that, by exposing all your disguises, it might be manifest to the whole world that your accusations were

without foundation, your opponents without error, and the Church without heresy.

Such, father, is the end which it has been my desire to accomplish; an end which appears to me, in every

point of view, so deeply important to religion that I am at a loss to conceive how those to whom you furnish

so much occasion for speaking can contrive to remain in silence. Granting that they are not affected with the

personal wrongs which you have committed against them, those which the Church suffers ought, in my

opinion, to have forced them to complain. Besides, I am not altogether sure if ecclesiastics ought to make a

sacrifice of their reputation to calumny, especially in the matter of religion. They allow, you, nevertheless, to

say whatever you please; so that, had it not been for the opportunity which, by mere accident, you afforded

me of taking their part, the scandalous impressions which you are circulating against them in all quarters

would, in all probability, have gone forth without contradiction. Their patience, I confess, astonishes me; and

the more so that I cannot suspect it of proceeding either from timidity or from incapacity, being well assured

that they want neither arguments for their own vindication, nor zeal for the truth. And yet I see them

religiously bent on silence, to a degree which appears to me altogether unjustifiable. For my part, father, I do

not believe that I can possibly follow their example. Leave the Church in peace, and I shall leave you as you

are, with all my heart; but so long as you make it your sole business to keep her in confusion, doubt not but

that there shall always be found within her bosom children of peace who will consider themselves bound to

If I have caused you some dissatisfaction, in former Letters, by my endeavours to establish the innocence of

those whom you were labouring to asperse, I shall afford you pleasure in the present by making you

acquainted with the sufferings which you have inflicted upon them. Be comforted, my good father, the

objects of your enmity are in distress! And if the Reverend the Bishops should be induced to carry out, in

their respective dioceses, the advice you have given them, to cause to be subscribed and sworn a certain

matter of fact, which is, in itself, not credible, and which it cannot be obligatory upon any one to believe

you will indeed succeed in plunging your opponents to the depth of sorrow, at witnessing the Church brought

Yes, sir, I have seen them; and it was with a satisfaction inexpressible! I have seen these holy men; and this

was the attitude in which they were found. They were not wrapt up in a philosophic magnanimity; they did

not affect to exhibit that indiscriminate firmness which urges implicit obedience to every momentary

impulsive duty; nor yet were they in a frame of weakness and timidity, which would prevent them from either

discerning the truth, or following it when discerned. But I found them with minds pious, composed, and

unshaken; impressed with a meek deference for ecclesiastical authority; with tenderness of spirit, zeal for

truth, and a desire to ascertain and obey her dictates: filled with a salutary suspicion of themselves, distrusting

their own infirmity, and regretting that it should be thus exposed to trial; yet withal, sustained by a modest

hope that their Lord will deign to instruct them by his illuminations, and sustain them by his power; and

believing that that of their Saviour, whose sacred influences it is their endeavour to maintain, and for whose

cause they are brought into suffering, will be at once their guide and their support! I have, in fine, seen them

maintaining a character of Christian piety, whose power . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I found them surrounded by their friends, who had hastened to impart those counsels which they deemed the

most fitting in their present exigency. I have heard those counsels; I have observed the manner in which they

were received, and the answers given: and truly, my father, had you yourself been present, I think you would

have acknowledged that, in their whole procedure, there was the entire absence of a spirit of insubordination

and schism; and that their only desire and aim was to preserve inviolate two things to them infinitely

LETTER XIX. FRAGMENT OF A NINETEENTH PROVINCIAL LETTER, ADDRESSED TO FATHER ANNAT 136

For, after due representations had been made to them of the penalties they would draw upon themselves by

their refusal to sign the Constitution, and the scandal it might cause in the Church, their reply was . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LETTER XIX. FRAGMENT OF A NINETEENTH PROVINCIAL LETTER, ADDRESSED TO FATHER ANNAT 137

23. LETTER XIX. FRAGMENT OF A NINETEENTH PROVINCIAL LETTER, ADDRESSED TO FATHER ANNAT, page = 139