LES PROVINCIALES: OR, THE MYSTERY OF JESVITISME, discovered in certain LETTERS, Written upon occasion of the present differences at SORBONNE, between the JANSENISTS and the MOLINISTS, from January 1656. to March 1657. S.N. Displaying the corrupt MAXIMS and POLITICS of that SOCIETY.  
Faithfully rendered into ENGLISH.  Sicut Serpents— 
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1657.   


Religion  
Les Provinciales Or the Mystery of jesuitism  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
By Lovis de Mortalte:   
Ro. Vaughan. Sculp. 1657   

THE PREFACE.  
THere are haply those who would expect in this place a certain character of JESUITISM. That is, they would fain see what the sharpness of Satire could truly say of a sort of people pretending to such a transcendency of holiness above all others, as not to content themselves with any other name than that of the holy JESUS, degenerated into such Monsters both as to Religion and Morality, as Barbarism itself cannot parallel. But this is the main design of the whole Treatise, and what it does with such life and conviction, as must needs work a strange alteration in mankind; that is, a body so powerfu l as as that of the JESUITS, and so scattered▪ over the face of the earth, will be looked on hereafter as the most abominable and most despicable thing in the world. Leaving therefore the Reader to discover what ever may be of horror, impiety, and extravagance in their MAXIMS, out of the LETTERS themselves, all that I conceive necessary in this place, is, to give a short account of the occasion of writing, and the main heads of these LETTERS, as also of the state of affairs at that time, and lastly to say something of the AUTHOR. To which is added, what effect they have had since; and this is thought but requisite, out of a reflection on those, who, in regard the scene lies in another Country, being unacquainted with some circumstances, would haply be glad of such satisfaction.  
I shall not need to unravel the whole difference between the Jansenists and the Molinists, since that, as well those that know it not, as those that do, may be sufficiently satisfied out of the LETTERS themselves. All then I shall note is the state of affairs at the College of SORBONNE when these Letters came first abroad. That was when the College had so many extraordinary assemblies about the examination of the second Letter of M. Arnauld, about the beginning of the year M.DC.LVI. What the College could not do, what all the writings that came abroad on both sides could not satisfy the world of, these Letters did, clearing up the difficulties, and telling us, that there were two Questions examined; one relating only to matter of fact, and consequently easily resolved, the other of faith, wherein all the difficulty lay. 
Pag. 44.  The question of Faith was, whether a Proposition which M. Arnauld had taken out of two Fathers of the Church, Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom, aught to be approved or condemned. The Doctors of all sides agreed that it was Catholic in the writings of the Fathers; but the Adversaries of M. Arnauld pretended he had changed it in the citation, so far as to have made it heretical. The business than was to discover the difference, which his adversaries endeavoured to make appear; but his defenders so confuted that pretended diversity, that the Molinists were forced to deny them the liberty of Answering, by limiting their discourses to half an hour, which was measured out by a glass. This breach of privilege was it that obliged them to forbear the Assembly, and to declare what ever were done there to be null.  
Monsieur Arnauld's adversaries being by this means left alone in Sorbonne, did what they pleased without any opposition, and insisted particularly on three points concerning grace, which are explicated in these Letters.  
The first, concerning that which they call next Power, is explicated in the first Letter.  
The second, concerning Sufficient Grace, is treated of in the second Letter.  
The last, relating to that which they call actual Grace, is cleared up in the fourth Letter.  
And the third Letter, written immediately upon the Censure, discovers the perfect conformity there is between the proposition of M. Arnauld and that of the Fathers, which is such, that the Doctors that censured it could not assign any difference: So that these four Letters clear up all these points by certain conferences which the Author pretends to have had with several Doctors.  
The six following Letters, viz. the V VI VII. VIII. IX. and X. explicate the Morality of the Jesuits, by certain discourses between the Author and a Casuist of theirs. The Author acts the part of a man desirous to be instructed; and, hearing such extravagant maxims, is startled, yet not thinking it convenient to discover the horror he conceived thereat, entertains them with all the moderation he could. That obliges the Jesuit to discover things more freely; not but that he often finds him at a loss, but attributing it to the novelty of the maxims, he goes on still, confirming what he said by the best reasons of the most eminent Authors of the Society.  
The Casuist is one that would haply abhor the lewdness of those principles, were it not for the implicit respect he hath for his Authors, whose opinions he thinks so sacred that he ever quotes their own words, not fearing to publish any thing for which he hath their Security. Upon this confidence does he discover their Morality as contributing much to the saving of a many souls; not considering that what they allow as a prudent and Christian expedient, is a base political compliance with the most irregular passions of men.  
These conferences are continued till they come to certain essential points, whereat the Author is so incensed that he cannot but exclaim against the insupportable profaneness they must needs introduce. So that the Father, being come to the highest excesses, as for instance, that of clearing Christian Morality of the obligation of Loving God, and affirming that it is enough if a man do not hate him, The Author breaks off, and so puts a period to that kind of entertainment with the X. Letter.  
Hence it appears of what concernment it was that this business should be treated of by way of Dialogue; since the Author does not only acquaint us with the maxims of the Jesuits, but also w●th the subtle insinuating ways whereby ●ey poison the world therewith.  
The main design of their Morality we find to be this; viz. to draw all the world to themselves by accommodation and compliance. To this end are their maxims leveled to the several humours of men. And because these contrary inclinations oblige them to have contrary op●n on's, they have been forced to change the true rule of manners, and foist in another that should be like a nose of wax, subject to any sense, and capable of all forms, a Monster, called THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILITY.  
According to this doctrine, a man may, with safety of conscience, follow an opinion maintained by 4. g●ave Doctors, or by 3. or by 2 or by 1. nay this one Doctor being consulted may give an advice held as probable by others, though he be really persuaded it is erroneous: quamvis ipse doctor ejusmodi sententiam sp●culativè sals●m esse c●rto sibi persuadeat, as Layman the Jesuit affirms▪ So that it being in his power to advise according to whethe● he please of two contrary opinions, it will be prudence in him to recommend that which shall be most acceptable to the Querent: Si haec illi savorabilior seu exoptatior sit.  
This corruption, which indeed is the souse of all the rest, is explicated in the V VI and XIII. Letters, whence it may clearly be inferred that all their present extravagances proceed from it, and that it may be the dam of a many other strange and monstrous opinions, there being no more needful to make them safe as to point of Conscience, the● the irregular imaginations of the Authors that invent them. Hither are to be also referred the incredible liberties they have given persons of all conditions, as Priests, Religious men, Benefice-Mongers, Gentlemen, Menial Servants, Merchants, Magistrates, rich, poor, Usurers, Bankrupts, thiefs, Naughty women, nay even Sorcerers.  
For the sixth Letter contains their degenerate principles concerning Alms, Simony and domestic frauds: the VII. those of Murder, on all occasions; the VIII. their dispensations from making any restitution. The IX. finds out easy ways to be saved, so that it may be done without any abatement of the delights and accommodations of life. And lastly the X. which, as I have said, ends with the dispensation from loving God, acquaints us with the mitigations of Confession, which are such that the sins they could not excuse, are so easily washed away by their new methods, that, as they say themselves, Crimes are now expiated with greater cheerfulness than they are committed.  
The Jesuits, sensible of the prejudice these Letters did them, and finding that their silence increased it, thought themselves obliged to make some answer thereto: but even in that they were infinitely at a loss.  
Two questions clear up the business: one, whether the Casuists have taught these opinions, and that is a truth in matter of fact not to be disacknowledged. The other, whether the opinions are not impious and unmaintainable; and that, their extravagances considered, is as much out of all controversy as the other. So they took pains to no purpose, and so unsuccessefully, that all their undertake have proved abortive. For the first thing they writ they called A first Answer, but there never came forth any second. They put out in like manner the first and second Letter to Philarchus, and never came to a third. Then they laid the foundations of a long work, which they ealled IMPOSTURES, whereof th●y promised four parts, but having littered the first and some part of the second, the dam miscarried, and we heard no more of them. At last Father Annat, rallying all he could to come in to the succour of these Fathers, hath sent out his last book called The Fair Dealing of the Jansenists, a mere repetition, ●nd questionless the weakest of their productions; so that the Author of the Letters hath found it no hard matter to make his party good.  
The XI. Letter is spent to answer the reproach they fasten on him for the Raillery there may be in his Letters. For besides that it is the most natural way to answer what is ridiculous by derision, it is not disconsonant to the practice of the Saints, and consequently does Religion no viulence, nor is guilty of any breach of charity.  
In the XII. XIII. and XIV. he comes to the reproaches they make him of not faithfully citing the passages of their Authors. And this, as a point of great concernment, he is the more careful to clear himself of. Nor indeed can any indifferent man conceive he should hazard his reputation with good men, so much as to urge a false citation, when it would have been so easy for his Adversaries to evince the contrary against him. But besides the many professions he makes of his diligence, to avoid not only the least false citations, but even the lest distortion of a sentence of theirs, I have an acknowledgement of his by way of Postscript to the XVI. Letter, which, to the confusion of the Jesuits, who are so free both to advance and maintain any, though ever so groundless calumny, I must here insert, as being omitted in its proper place. He in the XV. Letter, had suspected a certain person to be the Author of their Apologies; it proving otherwise he thus recants. I understand, saith he, that he whom all the world thought Author of your Apologies, disclaims them, and is troubled that they are fathered on him. He does well, and I was too blame to think him guilty of any such thing. For what assurance soever might have been given me of it, yet should I have thought him a person of too much judgement to believe your Impostures, and of too much honour to publish them if he did not. There are few in the world that dare once engage with those excesses that are familiar with you, and which carry but too much of your character to afford me any excuse, that I knew you not thereby. I was carried away with the common report. But this excuse which were haply too much for you is not enough for m●, who have made a profession not to say any thing without certain proof, and who have not said ought but that▪ I repent me of it, I disclaim it, and I wish you would make your advantage of my example.  
Having therefore discovered their foul play even in those particular calumnies wherewith they would have blasted him, he come● to the general principle thereof in the XV. viz. That according to their Divinity, they may, without crime, calumniate those by whom they think themselves unjustly meddled with, and charge them w●th crimes they know to be false, purposely to discredit them Th●s is so generally maintained by Doctors nay whole Universities, that as Caramuel, one of their best friends, says, If this opinion be not probable and secure in point of conscience, there's hardly any such in all Divinity.  
This Maxim being so firm, it were certainly no great wonder they should put it in practice upon the Author of the Letters, and all their Adversaries. But since it is so easy for them to load any one with calumnies, according to this principle, it is as easy for the Author to wash off those vain reproaches of imposture and heresy, by the assistance of truth. And this latter, though it fill up all their writings, yet does Father Annat very eagerly aggravate in his book of the Fair Dealing. This is answered in the XVII. Letter, where the Author clears not only himself but the Church from heresy, and makes it appear that the difference between the Jesuits and their Adversays about the five Propositions, condemned by Innocent X. amounts to no more than a question of fact, concerning the sense of Jansenius. That is also in some part the subject of the XVIII. Letter, which he concludes with several instances of Popes eluded and overreached by the false informations of Religious Sycophants.  
So much for the Letters, which, because the first ten were written to a Provincial, are called Les Provinciales. Something would be said of the Author, but there's no more known of him then what he hath been pleased to afford us of himself. He hath lately appeared under the name of Lovis de Montalte. He hath often declared that he is neither Priest nor Doctor, which the Jesuits would interpret, as if he were no Divine; but how well he is acquainted with true Divinity, there needs no more than his own Letters to prove.  
It will not be amiss, in a word, to give some little account of the effects of these Letters, that is, bring the Reader to the present posture of affairs, in relation to them. The Letters were no sooner abroad, but the Pastors of Paris and Roven would needs examine the citations, and consequently demand that either the Letters, or the Casuists cited therein, should be censured, according as they were either contrary or conformable thereto. The manner of proceeding by those of Roven, is thus described by one of them in a Letter to a friend of his. The Pastors of Roven, saith he, because they would not hastily, but with consideration, engage in this business, had a debate in one of their assemblies, about consulting the books, whence it was said that the propositions and pernicious Maxims preached against by the Pastor of Saint Maclou, had been taken, and that true copies and extracts should be made thereof. This done, that the condemnation thereof should be required by canonical ways, if they were found in the Casuists, what quality or condition soever they were of. And if they should not be found there, that the prosecution might determine as to them, and be directed to procure a censure of the LETTERS TO THE PROVINCIAL, wherein those doctrines with the Authors thereof were cited. Six of the Company were named to manage that business; they spent therein a whole month, doing all things with all possible fidelity and exactness: they sought out the places cited; they found them, word for word, as they were cited, in he Originals. They drew copies thereof, and reported the whole to their Brethren in a second assembly, wherein for further certainty it was ordered; That any among them that were desirous of further satisfaction as to those matters, should be at liberty to come to the persons deputed, into the places where the books were, to consult them and compare them as they pleased. This order was observed, and for five or six days after, there were ten or eleven Pastors at a time searching after the passages, and comparing them with the Authors, and were all satisfied. Can there be more circumspection used in any business? etc.  
After this search the Pastors unanimously demanded of their Archbishop the condemnation of these errors, and thereupon writ to those of Paris, who immediately joined with them and with all those of the Kingdom, to demand of their Prelates, that a censure might pass as well against the Maxims cited in those LETTERS, as against a great number of others which they had themselves discovered and presented to the Clergy of France.  
From what hath been said, may be, not impertinently, started this question, viz: What Idea men should conceive of these excellent JESUITS and other CASUISTS? To which it may be justly answered, That, it being proved against them, that they not only maintain these extravagant MAXIMS, but daily brood such as are yet more horrid and monstrous, they ought to be looked on as the vermin of Religion and humane Society, and consequently, accountable for all the inconveniences and mischiefs occasioned thereby.   


The Letters deciphered.  
OF Absolution. 225. 226.  
4. Rules to be observed by Adversaries. 259. etc.  
Of voluntary and involuntary action. 72. 73. etc.  
The story and trial of J. de Alba. 124. 125.  
Of Alms. 275. 279. etc.  
Ambition a venial sin. 197.  
Of Attrition and contrition. 231. &c,   

B.  
Bauny vindicated 2. ways. 374. 378.  
Bauny's method to avoid illicitous contracts. 163.   

C.  
It is lawful to calumniate where there is no crime. 363. etc.  
The names of certain famous Casuits. 100▪  
That a man may give or accept a challenge. 138. 139.  
Complacency, self-liking no sin but a gift of God. 198.  
The Contract MOHATRA. 165. 166. 167.  
Of Confession. 215. etc.  
Good cheer. 201.  
How the contradictions that are between the Jesuits and 104. etc.  
Popes, Councils and the Scripture are reconciled. 104. etc.  
How they convert China and the Indies. 83.   

D.  
A decree about the body of Saint Denys. 503  
A decree against Galileo. 504.  
Easy devotions. 187.  
The doctrine of PROBABLE OPINIONS. 92. 93. etc.  
How a man may fight a duel. 137.  
The difference between Saint Basil and Athanasius. 447.   

F.  
Of Fasting. 88 89. 90.   

G.  
When a man is obliged to love God. 237. 238.  
'tis enough if we do not hate him. 239.  
Actual grace what. 56. 57 etc.  
Sufficient and efficacious grace. 20. 21. etc.   

H.  
Pope Honorius condemned. 457.   

I.  
The reason why the Jesuits are so violent against Jansenius. 194.  
Whether the Jesuits may kill the Jansenists. 154.  
Direction of the Intention what, and how convenient. 133. etc.   

K.  
Jesuitical Tenants.  
A Religious man may kill a detractor. 153.  
'tis lawful to kill for a box o'th' ear. 143. 145. 302.  
'tis lawful to kill for the lie given, opprobrious speeches, and for affrontive 146. 147. 316.  
signs. When not allowable. 148.  
A man may be killed for 6. or 7. ducats, or a crown. 151.  
That an informer may be killed. 141.  
That the false witness: & the corrupt Judge may. 142.  
A man may be killed for an Apple. 343.  
To kill treacherously what. 140.   

L.  
The law and the Gospel compared. 240.  
Excellent ways to avoid lying. 202. 203.   

M.  
Of hearing mass. 209. etc.  
MAXIMS for all men▪ 114.  
For Bankrupts. 168. 295. etc.  
For Boutefeus' and such as set houses on fire 170.  
For Beneficed men as to Simony: 115. 285. etc.  
For rich men and Usurers. 162.  
For Gentlemen. 129. etc.  
For Priests. 116.  
For Judges. 159. 160.  
For Religious men. 120.  
For Servants. 122. 123.  
Le Moine's character of a melancholy fool. 195.  
When the occasions of sinning are to be avoided. 90.  
When sought. 91.  
The original and growth of opinions. 111.   

P.  
Next power what. p. 11. 12. 13. etc.  
The security of probable opinions in respect of the Laws. 126. 127.  
M. Arnaulds' proposition and censure. 44. 45. etc.  
Promises oblige not. 204.  
The story of M. Puys. 368.   

Q.  
The story of Father Quiroga. 362.   

R.  
Red things the best. 263. 264.  
Of restitution. 173. 175. etc.  
Of Revenge. 134.   

S.  
The conditions that make a Sin. 58. 59  
Transactions passing in the soul without which sin is not imputable. 6●  
Next occasions of sinning what. 227  
Sloth defined. 200  
Speculation and practice. 311. &c  
When lawful to steal. 171.  
When to go to the stews. 229.   

V  
The story of Father Valerian. 381:  
Virgilius excommunicated for holding there were Antipodes. 405.  
Of Virginity. 206.   

W.  
Fine clothes for women. 207. 208.    

THE MYSTERY OF JESVITISME discovered in certain LETTERS, Written upon occasion of the present differences at SORBONNE, between the JANSENISTS and the MOLINISTS.  

To a Provincial. LETTER I.  
Sir,  
WE have been extremely mistaken. Nor was I undeceived till yesterday, till which time I simply thought Religion had an extraordinary concernment in the disputes at Sorbonne. So many assemblies of a company so famous as that of the Faculty of Paris; and wherein things so strange and so much beyond example have passed, make the world conceive such a high Idea thereof, that men cannot be persuaded but the occasion is very extraordinary. In the mean time, you will not be a little surprised, when you shall find by the present account, what this so great noise amounts to; and that i● it I shall in few words acquaint you with, having myself searched into the bottom of the business.  
There are two Questions examined, one of Fact, the other of Right. That of fact consists in this, viz. whether Monsieur Arnauld be temerarious, for having affirmed in his second Letter, That he had very carefully read over Jansenius 's book, that notwithstanding, he had not found therein the propositions condemned by the last Pope; and that nevertheless, as he condemned those propositions, wheresoever they were found, so should he do it in Jansenius, if so be they were in him?  
The question is this, whether he could without temerity make such an expression of his being dissatisfied that the propositions were in Jansenius, when the Bishops had before declared they were there?  
The business is proposed in Sorbonne. Threescore and eleven Doctors undertake his vindication, and maintain that he could make no other answer to those, who by so many writings, put him to the question whether he held the propositions to be in that book, but that he had not seen them there, and nevertheless that if they be, he condemns them.  
There were some went a little further, declaring that notwithstanding the strict search they had made after them, they could never find them there; nay, that they had met with such as were quite contrary, and thereupon very earnestly entreated, That if there were any Doctor present who had found them there, he would be pleased to show them; a thing so easy, that it could not well be denied, as being the most certain way to convince them all; ●ay Monsieur Arnauld himself. But this they could never obtain. And so much as to what concerns that party.  
Of the other, were fourscore secular Doctors, and some half as many begging Friars, who have condemned the proposition of Monsieur Arnauld, without ever examining whether what he had affirmed were true or false, and that after it had been declared, that not the truth but the rashness of his proposition was under consideration.  
Besides all these were fifteen, who would not subscribe the Censure, and are accordingly termed Indifferents.  
Thus was the Question of Fact decided, whereat I am not troubled a jot, for whether Monsieur Arnauld be rash or no, my conscience is nothing concerned. Or were I so desirous to know whether these propositions are in Jansenius, his book is neither so scarce, nor of that bulk, but that for my own satisfaction I might read him all over, and never consult Sorbonne about it.  
But were I not afraid to be thought temerarious myself, I think I should be carried away with the opinion of the greatest part of those who having hitherto taken it upon the public faith, that these propositions are in Jansenius, begin now to mistrust the contrary from that fantastic refusal the others make to show them, which indeed is such, that I could never yet meet with any one who told me he had seen them there. Insomuch that it is my fear, this censure may do more hurt then good, and give those who shall come to the knowledge of it an impression thereof, quite contrary to the conclusion. The world is grown extremely mistrustful, and men believe not things till they see them. But as I have already said, that point is of no great consequence, since Faith is not at all concerned in it.  
For the Question of Right, it seems to be of greater concernment because it does relate to Faith; for which reason I have the more particularly informed myself thereof. But I shall give you such an account of it, that you will find it a thing of as little importance as the former.  
In this it is examined what Monsieur Arnauld says in the same Letter, viz. That the Grace without which a man cannot do any thing, had failed Saint Peter in his fall. Whence you and I conceived that the business was to examine the main principles of Grace, as whether it be not conferred on all men, or whether it be efficacious, but we were much mistaken. I am in a short time grown a great Divine, and you shall acknowledge as much.  
To know the truth of the business, I visited Monsieur N. a Doctor of the College of Navarre, who lives not far from me, and is, as you know, one of the most zealous against the Jansenists. But I, being then as violent out of curiosity as he out of zeal, asked him whether it would not be formally decided, that Grace is bestowed on all men, that so we may at length hear no more of that question. He gave me a scornful retort, and told me, that that was not the point; that there were some of his party who held that grace was not bestowed on all; That the examiners themselves had openly, before a full Assembly at Sorbonne, affirmed the opinion to be problematical; and that he himself was of that opinion; confirming it by a passage which he said was very remarkable in Saint Augustine, viz. we know that grace is not bestowed on all men.  
I desired him to excuse my misapprehension of his meaning, and entreated him to tell me, whether they would not at least condemn that other opinion of the Jansenists which makes so much noise in the world, that grace is efficacious, and that it determines our will to do that which is good. But I was no less unfortunate in this second question. You understand nothing at all of the business, said he to me, there's no heresy in that, 'tis an Orthodox opinion, all the Thomists maintain it, and I held it myself in my exercise at Sorbonne.  
I durst not presume to trouble him with any further doubts, nay was at a loss where the difficulty should be; but to be a little better satisfied, I entreated him to show me wherein consisted the heresy of Monsieur Arnauld's proposition. In this, said he, that he does not acknowledge that the just have a power to fulfil the Commandments of God in the manner that we understand it.  
Having learned so much I took my leave of him, and very much elevated that I knew what was most considerable in the business; I went to Monsieur N. who grows stronger every day than other, and was then arrived to that degree of health that he brought me to his brother in law, a Jansenist, if ever there were any, and yet a very honest man. To be the better entertained, I pretended to be of his side, and said to him, Can it be possible that the Doctors of Sorbonne should introduce into the Church such an error, as, That all the just have at all times a power to fulfil the Commandments? How do you speak, says the Doctor to me, do you call that an error which is a Catholic Tenent, and opposed by none but Lutherans and Calvinists? Why, said I, are not you of that opinion? No, said he, we anathematise it as heretical and impious. Awakened a little by this answer, I perceived that I had overacted the Jansenist now, as I had done the Molinist before. But being not fully satisfied with his answer, I desired him to tell me sincerely whether he held, that the just had always a real power to observe the Commandments. This set him a little on fire, but it was with a devout zeal; whereupon he told me that he would never dissemble his opinions for any man whatsoever, that it was his belief, and that he and all of his party would maintain it to the death, as being the uncorrupted doctrine of Saint Thomas, and of Saint Augustine their Master.  
This he spoke with so much earnestness, that I could not doubt his reality. With this confidence I returned to my former Doctor, and fully satisfied, told him that no question there would soon be a peace concluded in Sorbonne; that the Jansenists were agreed as to the power which the just have to fulfil the Commandments. Soft and fair, said he, a man must be a Divine ere he can see the end of the business. The difference which is between us is so subtle, that we can hardly discover it ourselves; it's a thing you will not so easily understand. It's enough for you to know that the Jansenists will indeed tell you, that all the just have at all times a power to fulfil the Commandments, that's not the thing we dispute about. But they will not tell you that this power is a next power. There's the point.  
This word was both new and harsh to me. Till than I had understood things well enough, but this term cast me into a cloud, and I think there was no other reason for the invention of it, then that of making a confusion. I thereupon desired him to give me the explication of it, but he making me believe there was something of mystery in it, sent me back again without any other satisfaction, to ask the Jansenists whether they would admit this next power. I burdened my memory with this term, for my understanding contributed nothing thereto; and for fear of forgetting it, I went immediately to my Jansenist, and as soon as our first compliments were over, bluntly asked him; Tell me I pray, said I, do you admit the next power? He began to laugh, and said to me somewhat faintly, do you tell pie in what sense you understand it, and I will give you my thoughts of it. My knowledge in the business was not so great, but that I saw myself in an incapacity to answer him, and yet to make advantage of my visit, I told him at random, I understand it, said I, according to the sense of the Molinists. At which being not at all moved, to whom among the Molinists, said he, do you refer me? I bid him take them altogether, as making all but one body, and that informed by one and the same spirit.  
You are much to seek in the business, said he, they are so far from maintaining the same opinions, that they hold such as are mere contraries. But being all united in the design to destroy Monsieur Arnauld, they have bethought them to agree in something, viz. the term, next, which both the one and the other make use of, though they understand it several ways, so to speak the same language; as also that by this seeming conformity they might form a considerable body, and make up the greatest number, so to be the more able to crush him.  
This answer I was startled at, but without taking much impression of the wicked designs of the Molinists, which I shall not credit upon his word, and wherein I am not at all concerned; I made it my endeavour only to know the several senses which they gave that mysterious word, next. I should be very glad to give you satisfaction, said he, but you will find such a manifest rerepugnance and contradiction in it, that you would hardly believe me, nay you would distrust me: Your surer way were to learn it from themselves, I will give you directions how to do it. You are only to visit at several times Monsieur le Moine, and Father Nicolai. I know neither, said I; then see, said he, whether you know any of those I shall now name to you; for they follow the sentiments of Monsieur le Moine. It happened that I knew some of them. Then, said he, see whether you know any of the Dominicans whom they call new Thomists, for they are all such as Father Nicolai. I also knew some among those he named to me; whereupon resolved to make the best advantage I could of this advice, and to get once out of the business, I took leave of him, and went first to one of the disciples of Monsieur le Moine.  
I entreated him to tell me what was meant by having the next power to do a thing. That's no hard matter to resolve, said he, it is to have whatsoever is necessary to do it, so that there be nothing wanting to act. According to which, said I, to have the next power to cross a river, is to have a boat, boat-men, oars, and the rest, so that nothing be wanting. Very right, said he. And to have the next power to see, said I, is to have a good sight, and light enough. For he who hath ever so good a sight in the dark, would not have the next power to see, according to your doctrine, since that light would be wanting, without which nothing can be seen. Very learnedly, said he. And consequently, added I, when you say that all the just have always a next power to observe the Commandments, your meaning is that they have at all times all the graces necessary for the accomplishment of them, so that there wants nothing on God's behalf. Hold, said he, they have at all times whatsoever is necessary for the observation of them, or at least for their praying to God for it. I apprehend you, said I, they have whatsoever is necessary to pray unto God to assist them, it being not necessary they should have any new grace from God so to pray. You are in the right, said he. But is it not necessary, said I, they should have an efficacious grace to pray unto God? Not at all, said he, according to Monsieur le Moine.  
To lose no time, I went to the Convent of the Dominicans, and asked for those whom I knew to be of the new Thomists. I entreated them to tell me what next power signified. Is it not that, said I to them, wherein there is nothing wanting for to act? No said they: how Father, said I, will you call that power next, when there is something wanting to it, and will you say, for example, that a man in the night, and without any light, hath the next power to see? we affirm that according to our doctrine he shall have such a power, if he be not blind. I am content, said I, but Monsieur le Moine understands it in a contrary manner. 'Tis true, said they, but we understand it thus. With all my heart, said I, for I never quarrel about the term, provided I have some account of the sense wherein it is taken. But I perceive hence, that when you say the just have always the next power to pray unto God, your meaning is that they stand in need of another assistance to engage them to pray, without which they never will. You apprehend excellently well, replied the Fathers, embracing me, excellently well. For they must have further an efficacious grace, which is not given to all, and which determines their will to pray. And it is a heresy to deny the necessity of this efficacious grace in order to prayer.  
Excellently well, said I to them, in my turn; but according to you, the Jansenists are Catholics, and Monsieur le Moine a Heretic. For the Jansenists affirm that the just have the power to pray, but that there is nevertheless requisite an efficacious grace, which tenet you approve. And Monsieur le Moine saith, that the just pray without efficacious grace, & that you condemn. Very right said they, yet Monsieur le Moine calls this power, a next power.  
How Fathers, said I, this is no more than to play upon words, to say, that you are agreed, because of the common terms you make use of, when you are contrary in the sense. The Fathers made no reply at all, when just upon the word comes in my disciple of Monsieur le Moine I had been with before, which I thought an extraordinary good fortune; but I have heard since that their meetings are not so seldom, and that there is almost a constant conversation between them.  
I know a man, said I, to my disciple of Monsieur le Moine, who says that all the just have always the power to pray unto God; but yet that they will never pray without an efficacious grace determining them, which God gives not to all the just at all times; is he an Heretic or no? Stay, says the Doctor, you may surprise me. Soft and fair, Distinguo, if he call this power a next power, he shall be a Thomist, and consequently a Catholik; if not, he shall be a Jansenist, and consequently an Heretic. He, said I, neither calls it next, nor not next. He is then an Heretic, said he, ask these good Fathers else. They shall be no Judges in this case, for they were already giving their consent by a nod with the head. But I told them, this man denies to admit the word next, because the authors thereof will not explain it. Upon that one of the Fathers would needs give it a definition, but he was interrupted by the disciple of Monsieur le Moine, who said to him, Must you needs renew our distractions? Are we not agreed not to explain that word next, and to make use of it on all sides, without saying what it signifies? whereupon the Dominican was silent.  
By this did I discover their design, and rising up to be gone, told them; In troth, Fathers, I am very much afraid that there is abundance of foul practice among you, and be what will the result of your Assemblies, I dare foretell that though the censure were given, peace would not be established. For take the word as you please, if there be no explication of it, either side may pretend to the victory. The Dom●nicans will say that the word is taken in their sense; Monsieur le Moine will have it in his, and so it will cost much more disputes to explain it, than it hath to introduce it. For, when all is done, there were no great danger to receive it without any sense, since it can do no hurt but by the sense. But it is a thing does not become Sorbonne and Theologie, to use equivocal and cavilling terms without any explication. And therefore in a word, Fathers, tell me once for all, what I ought to believe to be a Catholic; you must, said they altogether, affirm that the just have the next power, taking it abstractedly as to all sense; abstrahendo à sensu Thomistarum, & à sensu aliorum Theologorum.  
That is to say, said I, taking my leave, a man must pronounce that word with his lips, to avoid being an heretic in name. For in fine, have you the word out of the Scripture? No, said they. Have you it from Fathers, or Councils, or Popes? No. Is it Saint Thomas'? No. What necessity is there then, said I, to meddle with it, since it hath neither authority nor any sense of itself? You are very obstinate, said they, you shall either affirm it or be an heretic, and Monsieur Arnauld also; for we are the stronger party; and if there be occasion, we can bring in so many Franciscans that we shall clearly carry it.  
Upon this solid reason I left them for to write you this relation, whereby you perceive they meddle not with any of the ensuing points, and that they are not condemned by either side.  
1. That grace is not bestowed on all men.  
2. That all the just have the power to fulfil the Commandments of God.  
3. That nevertheless, for to fulfil them, and even to pray, they stand in need of an efficacious g●ace, which determines their will.  
4. That this efficacious grace is not at all times given to all the just, and that it depends on the pure mercy of God. So that there's only the word next without any sense which runs all the hazard of it.  
Happy are the people that know it not! Happy those who were before its birth! for I see no remedy for it, if the Gentlemen of the Academy do not by their Authority expel this barbarous word out of Sorbonne, where it causes so much distraction. Without this, the censure will certainly pass, but I perceive all the hurt it will do, is to make Sorbonne contemptible for this procedure, which will derogate from that authority which it is requisite it should have upon other occasions.  
In the mean time I will leave you at liberty to be for or against the word next, for I have more affection for my neighbour, then to persecute him under this pretence. If this relation finds you any entertainment, I shall be encouraged to continue my intelligence of what shall happen. I am, etc.  
Paris. Januar. 23. 1656. S. N.   

To the same. LETTER II.  
Sir,  
AS I was closing up the last I sent you, there came to give me a visit Monsieur N our ancient friend, the most fortunately in the world for my curiosity; for he is extremely well versed in the Questions of the times, and is perfectly well read in the secrets of the Jesuits, among whom he not only continually is, but hath the acquaintance of the most eminent. After a little discourse of the occasion that had brought him to me; I entreated him to tell me in a word what were the main points in controversy between the two parties.  
He presently informed me, and said, there were two principal points; the first concerning the next power; the second touching sufficient grace. Of the former you have an account in my last; in this you shall have of the latter.  
I understood then briefly that their difference concerning sufficient grace is this: That the Jesuits pretend there is a grace generally given to all, yet so far compliant with the , that this latter makes the other efficacious or inefficacious at its choice, without any new supply from God, on whose behalf there is not any thing wanting for to act effectually. For this reason they call it sufficient, because it alone sufficeth for to act. On the contrary, the Jansenists will not admit there should be any grace actually sufficient which is not also efficacious, that is to say, that all those graces which do not determine the will to act effectively are insufficient to act, because, as they say, a man never acts without efficacious grace. This is the difference between them.  
Enquiring afterwards of the doctrine of the new Thomists. 'Tis fantastic, says he, they agree with the Jesuits in admitting a sufficient grace given to all men; but withal hold, that men never act with that only grace; and that for to oblige them to act, it is requisite that God give them an efficacious grace, really determining their will to the action, which grace God gives not to all. So that according to this doctrine, said I to him, this grace is sufficient, and yet is not such. Very right, said he, for if it suffice, there were no need of any more for to act; and if it sufficeth not, it is not sufficient.  
But, said I, what difference then is there between them and the Jansenists? This, said he, that the Dominicans are at least so far in the right, that they confidently affirm all men have sufficient grace. I apprehend you, said I, but they say it before they are ware, since they add, that for to act, it is absolutely necessary to have an efficacious grace, such as is not given to all, and so they comply with the Jesuits by a term which hath no sense, and are contrary to them, and agree with the Jansenists in the substance of the thing. 'Tis very true, said he. How then comes there an union, said I, between them and the Jesuits? and why do not these latter oppose them as well as they do the Jansenists, since they will meet with among them such powerful adversaries, as maintaining the necessity of efficacious grace which determines, will hinder them from establishing that which you say is alone sufficient?  
That were too great an undertaking, said he, it is more advantageous for them to comply with those that are powerful in the Church. The Jesuits are well satisfied, that they have prevailed with them to admit the very term of sufficient grace, though they understand it as they please; for they make this advantage of it, that when they please, they make the contrary opinion ridiculous and unmaintainable. For it being once supposed that all men have sufficient grace; the conclusion is obvious, that efficacious grace is not necessary, since that such a necessity would exclude the sufficiency before supposed. Nor would it signify any thing to say that it is otherwise understood; the common acception of this term admits not any such explication: for he that says, sufficient, says all that is necessary, 'tis the proper and natural signification of it. Now were you but acquainted with what hath passed formerly, you would find that the Jesuits have been so far from having their doctrine established, that you would admire to see it advanced so much. Knew you but what rubs the Dominicans laid in their way under Clement VIII. and Paulus V you would not wonder so much that they are so loath to enter the lists against them, and that they are content they should continue in their opinion, conditionally that they may as freely hold theirs, and that especially when the Dominicans countenance it by those words which they have publicly agreed to make use of. They sit down very contentedly with their compliance; they do not press them to deny the necessity of efficacious grace, that were to be importunate; 'tis not good tyrannising over one's friends; the Jesuits are very well aforehand. The world is satisfied with words, few search into the depth of things, and so the term of sufficient grace being current on both sides, though in a different sense, there's not any, except the most acute Divines, but think that what that word signifies is as well held by the Dominicans as the Jesuits. And the sequel will discover that the latter are not the more easily overreached.  
I acknowledged they were indeed very excellent men; and to make the best I could of his advice, I went strait to the Dominicans, where I found at the gate a friend, and a great Jansenist, (for I have some in all parties) ask for another Father then him I came to speak with. But with much entreaty I prevailed with him to bear me company, and so asked for one of my new Thomists. Being come, he was extremely glad to see me. Well Father, said I, it is not then enough that all men have a next power, whereby they never act to any effect, but they must also have a sufficient grace wherewith they act as little. Is not this the opinion of your School? It is so, says the Father; I have maintained it this very morning in Sorbonne. I talked out my half hour there, and had it not been for the Sand, I would have altered that unhappy proverb which it already so rife in Paris; He votes as silently as Friar in Sorbonne. And what do you mean, replied I, by your half hour and your sand? Are your debates cut out by a certain measure? They are so, said he, within these few days. And are you obliged to speak for half an hour? No: a man may speak as little as he pleases; but not as much, said I? O the excellent encouragement of ignorance! the rare pretence for those who cannot say any thing worth the hearing! But in a word Father, is this grace which is given to all men sufficient or no? It is, said he. And yet it hath no effect without efficacious grace? Very right, said he. And all men have this sufficiency, continued I, and all have not the efficaciousness? Very true, said he. You mean, said I, that all have graces enough, and that all have not enough; that is to say, that this grace sufficeth although it doth not suffice; that is to say, is sufficient in name, and insufficient in effect. In troth, Father, this doctrine is very subtle. Have you forgot, because you have forsaken the world, what the word sufficient signifies among those that have not? Do you not remember that it comprehends whatever is necessary for to act? But it is impossible your memory should be so weak; for, to take a comparison which you must be the more sensible of, if you had to dinner but two ounces of bread and a single glass of water, would you be satisfied with your Prior, who should tell you that were sufficient to nourish you, under pretence, that with something else which he should not give you, you would have whatever were necessary for you to dine well? How then are you so much overseen as to affirm, that all men have sufficient grace to act, when you acknowledge that there is yet some other grace absolutely necessary to act, which all have not? Is it that this belief is of no great consequence, and that you leave men at liberty to believe that efficacious grace is necessary, or not? Is it a thing indifferent to affirm, that a man having sufficient grace, doth not act to any effect? How, says the good Friar, indifferent! 'Tis a heresy, 'tis a formal heresy; the necessity of efficacious grace to act effectively is of Faith. It is heresy to deny it.  
Where are we then, cried I, what side must I now take? If I deny sufficient grace, I am a Jansenist; if with the Jesuits I so admit it, that efficacious grace is not also necessary, I shall be an heretic, as you say. And if I admit it as you do, yet granting withal a necessity of efficacious grace, I offend against common sense, and am a madman, as the Jesuits affirm. What then must I do in this inevitable necessity of being either a madman, an heretic, or a Jansenist? And into what extremities are we reduced, if of all these, only the Jansenists offer no violence either to Faith or Reason, and are withal cleared from error and madness?  
My friend the Jansenist derived a good omen from this discourse, and thought me already convinced. However at that present he said nothing to me, but addressing himself to the Father, I would feign know, said he, wherein you and the Jesuits agree. In this, said he, that both the Jesuits and we do acknowledge sufficient graces given to all. But, said the other, there are two things in the word sufficient grace; there is the sound, which is only wind; and the thing it signifies, which is real and effective. So that when you agree with the Jesuits about the word [sufficient] and are contrary to them as to the sense, it is evident that you are contrary one to another as to the substance of that term, and agree only about the sound. Is this a sincere & cordial proceeding? But what reason have you to be troubled at it, says the good man, since we betray no man by this manner of speaking? For in our Schools we openly teach, that we understand it in a sense contrary to that of the Jesuits. I am troubled, said my friend, that you do not declare it every where, that by sufficient grace you understand that grace which is not sufficient. You are obliged in conscience, when you thus change the ordinary terms of Religion, to acknowledge that when you admit a sufficient grace in all men, your meaning is, that they have not sufficient graces in effect. All persons whatsoever take the word sufficient in the same sense, only the new Thomists understand it in another. All women, who make make up the best half of the world, all relating to Courts, all belonging to the wars; all Magistrates, all Lawyers, Merchants, Tradesmen, all people; in a word, all sorts of persons, except the Dominicans, understand by the word sufficient, that which comprehends whatever is necessary. No man hath yet taken notice of this singularity; it is only said every where that the Dominicans hold, that all men have graces sufficient. From whence what may be concluded, but that they hold all men have all the graces which are necessary to act, and that much more when they see them engaged in the same interests & designs with the Jesuits who understand it after that manner. The uniformity of expressions added to that union of parties, must certainly be an evident demonstration of the uniformity of your sentiments.  
All the faithful ask the Divines what is the true state of nature since its corruption. St Augustine and his Disciples answer, that it hath no more sufficient grace than God is pleased to bestow on it. The Jesuits come afterward, and say, that all have graces effectually sufficient. The Dominicans are consulted upon this contrariety; what do they? they close with the Jesuits; by that union they make up the greatest number. They separate from those who deny these graces to be sufficient. They declare that all men are furnished therewith. What can be said of this less than that they countenance the Jesuits? And yet after all this, they add, that however these sufficient graces are fruitless without the efficacious, which are not given to all.  
Would you have a representation of the Church amidst these different opinions? I look on her as a man who leaving his Country to go and travel, is set upon by robbers, from whom he receives several wounds and is left halfdead. He sends into the next towns for three Physicians: The first having searched his wounds thinks them mortal, and plainly tells him that none but God can restore him to his former strength. The second coming after him, flatters the distressed man, and tells him that he had yet strength sufficient to recover his own house; and crowed over the former, as being of an opinion contrary to him, and laid a plot to destroy him. The poor man in this doubtful condition spying the third coming afar off, reaches out his hands to him, as such as he expected should determine the business. This having looked on his wounds, and considered the judgements of the two former, embraces that of the second, is united with him, and both together conspire against the first, and shamefully force him away, for they are too strong by reason of their number. The wounded man concludes by this proceeding of his, that he is of the same opinion with the second, and ask him whether it were really so, he declares affirmatively that his strength is sufficient to go through his journey. But the other sensible of his own weakness, asked him whence he judged him to be so strong? From this, said he, that you still have your legs. Now the legs are organs naturally sufficient to go upon. But, says the sick-man, have I all the strength requisite to make use of them? for in the languishing condition I now am in, methinks they are useless: No certainly, you have not, says the Doctor, and you will never go effectively if God send you not his assistance from heaven to assist and guide you. How, says the sick, it seems I have not in myself that sufficient strength, such as to which there is nothing wanting, to walk effectively? Alas you are very far from it, said he. Why then, says the wounded man, you are of an opinion contrary to that of your companion, as touching the truth of my condition: I must needs acknowledge it, replied the other.  
What do you imagine this poor man said? He was troubled at the fantastic carriage of this third Doctor. He blamed him for joining with the second, to whom he was of a contrary opinion, and with whom he was but seemingly compliant; and discarding the first to whom he was conformable in effect. Whereupon trying his strength, and finding by experience the truth of his weakness, he dismissed them both, and calling for the first, put himself into his hands, and according to his advice, begged of God that strength which he confessed he had not himself; he found mercy at his hands, and by his assistance came safely to his own house.  
The good Father a little astonished at such a parable made no answer at all. Whereupon to revive him a little; But after all, Father, said I, calmly to him, upon what account did you give the name sufficient to a grace which you say it is a point of faith to believe insufficient in effect? You speak of it, said he, as your humour leads you. You are free, and a private person; I am a religious man, and live in community; know you not what a difference this makes? we depend on our superiors; they depend on others; those have promised our suffrages; what can I do? That half word was enough; we needed no more to put us in mind of his Brother-Frier who upon some such occasion was packed away like an exile to Abbeville.  
But, said I to him, how came your Order to be engaged to admit this grace? That's another discourse, said he. All that I can in a word tell you of it, is, that our Order hath to its utmost maintained the doctrine of St Thomas concerning efficacious grace. How violently did it oppose the first eruption of the doctrine of Molina? what pains hath it taken to establish the necessity of the efficacious grace of Jesus Christ? know you not what passed under Clement VIII. and Paul V and that the one prevented by death, and some affairs in Italy hindering the other to publish his Bull, our arms remain in the Vatican? But the Jesuits, who upon the first breaking forth of Luther and Calvin, making their advantage of the small light which the people have to discern error from the truth of Saint Thomas' his doctrine, had in a small time so generally dispersed their doctrine, that they were become absolute Masters of the popular belief, and we in a condition to be cried down as Calvinists, and treated as the Jansenists are at the present, if we did not moderate the truth of efficacious grace, by a seeming acknowledgement of a sufficient. Being in this extremity, what better course could we take to secure Truth and our own reputation, then to admit the term of sufficient grace, yet denying it to be such in effect? This is the true state of affairs.  
This he spoke with so much regret that I much pitied him. But my second not moved at it, Flatter not yourself, said he to him, with so much tenderness to Truth; if she had not met with other preservers, she had perished in such weak hands. You have received into the Church the name of her enemy; 'tis no less than to have received him in himself. Names are inseparable from things; if the word sufficient grace be once established, it will be to little purpose for you to say, that you there by understand a grace that is insufficient, you will not be heard. Your explication will be odious over all the world, where men speak with much more sincerity of things of less consequence; the Jesuits will triumph; it will be their sufficient grace in effect, and not yours, which is nothing but a name, that shall be established; and what is contrary to your belief, will become an article of faith.  
We will all suffer martyrdom, says the Father, ere we consent to the establishment of sufficient grace according to the sense of the Jesuits; Saint Thomas, whom we are sworn to follow, being directly opposite thereto. To which my friend being more eager than I, replied; Come, come, Father, your Order hath received an honour which it hath not managed well. It deserts that grace which was committed to its trust, and which was never forsaken since the beginning of the world. That victorious grace, which had been expected by the Patriarches, foretold by the Prophets, brought into the world by Jesus Christ, preached by St Paul, explained by St Augustine, the most eminent of the Fathers; maintained by those who have followed him, and confirmed by Saint Bernard, the last of the Fathers; supported by Saint Thomas▪ the Angel of the Schools; transmitted by him to your Order; kept up by so many of your Fathers, and so gloriously defended by those of your Order under the Pope's Clement and Paul: this efficacious grace, I say, which as a depositum hath been put into your hands, to the end that in an holy Order which was to last for ever, it might have preachers to publish it to the end of the world, it is now forsaken for such poor and unworthy concernments. It is now time that other hands be armed in its quarrel. It is time that God raise up to the Doctor of Grace, such bold disciples, as unacquainted with the engagements of the world, may serve God for his own sake. Grace is no longer safe under the banners of the Dominicans, but it shall never want defenders, for it forms them its self by its own Almighty power. It requires hearts that are pure and undefiled, and purifies, and disengages them from the interests of the world, as such as are incompatible with the truths of the Gospel. Prevent these threats, Father, and take heed that God remove not this torch out of its place, and leave you in in darkness, and without a crown.  
He had said more, for he grew more and more inflamed, but I interrupted him, and rising up, In troth Father, said I, were I a person in authority, I would have it cried with sound of Trumpet, KNOW ALL MEN, that when the Dominicans say that sufficient Grace is given to all, their meaning is, that all have not the grace which sufficeth effectively; which done, you should affirm it as much as you please; but not otherwise. And this closed our visit.  
You see that this is a political sufficiency suitable to the next power. But I shall presume to tell you, that if a man be not a Dominican, he may without any danger question not only the next power, but also this sufficient grace.  
As I make up this letter, word is brought me that the Censure is past, but not knowing upon what terms, as also that it will not be published till the fifteenth of February; I shall refer the account I intent you of it, to the next Post.  
I am, etc. Paris. Januar. 29. 1656. S. N.   

The Provincial's ANSWER to the two precedent LETTERS.  
Sir,  
YOur two Letters have not found me only entertainment; they are generally seen, generally heard, generally believed. They are not only esteemed by Divines; they are well received by those of a lower sphere in the world, nay they are understood even of Women.  
I here send you the thoughts of them, of a Gentleman of the Academy, one of the most eminent among those most illustrious persons, who had only seen the first. I wish that Sorbonne, which owes so great an obligation to the memory of the late Cardinal, would submit to the jurisdiction of his French Academy; The author of the Letter should not be unsatisfied. For as a member of it, I should exercise my authority to condemn, to banish, to proscribe, nay I should not stick to say, to exterminate with all my power this same next power, which makes so much noise to no purpose, and that without knowing otherwise what he desires. But the misfortune is, that our Academic power is limited, and cannot take cognizance of this case. I am sorry for it, and that so much the more, that all the little power I have is not able to acquit me as to what I owe you, etc.  
I shall add to that, what another person, of whom I shall not give you the least hint as to know him, hath written to a Lady who had sent him your first Letter. I am obliged to you, much beyond what you can imagine, for the Letter you sent me; 'tis infinitely ingenious, and excellently well penned. It discovers things without being too open; it clears up the cloudiest things in the world; it satyrises handsomely; it instructs even those who are not at all acquainted with the things, but extremely heightens their entertainments who know them. It is, besides all this, an excellent apology, and if you will, a subtle and ingenious censure. In a word, it discovers so much art, so much wit, and so much judgement, that I should very gladly be acquainted with the Author, etc.  
I doubt not but you would be as glad to know the person that gives it this character; but you must be content to honour him without knowing him, and when you shall know him, you will honour him much more.  
Be pleased therefore to continue your Letters upon my account; and let the censure come when it will, we are provided to entertain it. Those words of next power and sufficient grace though threatened with, we are nothing afraid of. We are better taught by the Jesuits, Dominicans, and Monsieur le Moine, as well concerning the many postures they are put into, as touching the solidity of these new words, then to trouble our heads about them.  
In the mean time I shall ever rest, etc.  
Paris, Febr. 2. 1656.   

To the Provincial by way of Answer to the Precedent. LETTER III.  
Sir,  
I Had no sooner received your Letter, but there was brought me a written copy of the Censure. I am as nobly treated in the one as Monsi●ur Arnauld is unworthily in the other. I fear me there may be excess on both sides, and that we are not well known by our Judges, for if we were, I am confident that Monsieur Arnauld would deserve the approbation of Sorbonne, and I the censure of the Academy. There is indeed a contrariety in our interests; he should make himself known that he might vindicate his innocence, whereas I should continue in obscurity, that so I might not lose my reputation. So that since I may not discover myself, I recommend it to your care, to make my acknowledgements to my noble Approbators, and it shall be mine to give you an account of the Censure.  
Sir, I must needs confess, I was extremely surprised at it. I expected to find the most abominable heresies in the world condemned in it; but you will second my admiration with your own, to see that so many extraordinary preparations should come to nothing just at the production of so great an effect.  
To understand it with more diversion, I shall desire you to reflect on the strange impressions have been given us for so many years of the Jansenists. Then call to mind the Cabals, the factions, the erroneous opinions, the schisms, the plots which have been for so long time laid to their charge. Add to that how much they have been traduced and defamed in books and pulpits, and how that this torrent, which hath been so violent and of so long continuance, hath nevertheless increased within these late times, wherein they are openly and publicly accused, not only as heretics and schismatics, but have been censured as Apostates and Infidels, denying the mystery of Transubstantiation, and renouncing Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  
From so many such horrid accusations might well be hatched the design of examining their books, so to conclude them really such. Among the rest they have fallen particularly on the second Letter of Monsieur Arnauld, which was given out to be fraught with the most detestable errors could be imagined. They appoint for his Examiner's his most professed enemies. Their main business is to sift out whatever they should think censurable; and they make report of a proposition concerning the doctrine thereof, which they expose to Censure.  
What could be less expected from all these proceed, then that that proposition, culled out from all the rest with such remarkable circumstances, should comprehend the essence of the blackest heresies imaginable? And yet it is such, that there cannot be any thing seen therein which is not so clearly and so formally expressed in those passages of the Fathers, cited by Monsieur Arnauld in that place, that I never yet meet with any man that could apprehend any the least difference. All which notwithstanding it was imagined there was some terrible one, since that, the passages out of the Father's being absolutely Catholic, it must needs follow, that the proposition of Monsieur Arnauld, to be heretical, should imply an inevitable contradiction thereto.  
It was from Sorbonne that this discovery was not without reason expected. The eyes of all Christendom were open to perceive in the censure of these Doctors that point which was so imperceptible to the community of mankind besides. In the mean time, Monsieur Arnauld makes his Apologies, wherein, in several columns he lays down his own proposition, and the passages out of the Fathers, whence he had taken it, so the better to discover the conformity, even to ordinary capacities.  
There we find Saint Augustine, in one place where he citys him, saying, That Jesus Christ shows us a just man in the person of Saint Peter, who by his fall teaches us to shun presumption. He brings another out of the same Father, saying, That God, to show us that we can do nothing without grace, hath left Saint Peter without grace. He citys another out of Saint chrysostom, saying, That the fall of Saint Peter happened not out of any coldness in him towards Jesus Christ; but because grace failed him, and that it happened ●ot so much through his negligence, as by Gods forsaking of him, purposely to teach the whole Church, that without God a man can do nothing. Out of all which he draws the condemned proposition, which is this; The Fathers show us a just man in the person of Saint Peter, to whom the grace without which a man cannot do any thing, was wanting.  
Upon this do some endeavour, though ineffectually, to discover how it can come to pass, that the expression of Monsieur Arnauld is as different from those of the Fathers, as Truth is from Error, and Faith from Heresy. For wherein consists the difference? Is it that he says, That the Fathers show us a just man in the person of Saint Peter? They are the very words of Saint Augustine. Is it that he says, that grace failed him? The same Saint Augustine who affirmed Saint Peter to be a just man, says also, that upon that particular occasion grace failed him. Is it that he says, that without grace a man can do nothing? But is it any more than what Saint Augustine says in the same place; nay, even what Saint chrysostom said before him, with this only difference, that he expresses it more fully, where he says, That his fall happened not through his coldness or negligence, but through a defect of grace, and the dereliction of God.  
All these considerations held the world in suspense, as desirous to know wherein this diversity consisted, when at last this so famous and so long expected censure appears after so many Assemblies. But alas! how strangely hath it eluded our expectation! For whether these good Molinists thought it below them to give us any information of it, or for some other reason known only to themselves, they have done no more then barely pronounced these words; This proposition is temerarious, impious, blasphemous, worthy to be anathematised, and heretical.  
Sir, could you believe it, that abundance of people seeing themselves eluded as to their hope, begin to grow quarrelsome, and would be revenged on the Censors themselves? They draw from their carriage strange consequences for the innocency of Monsieur Arnauld. What, say they, is this all so many Doctors so cruelly bend against one, could do in so long time, only to find in all his works but three lines they can object any thing against, which yet are taken out of the very words of the most eminent Doctors of the Greek and Latin Churches? Is there any Author that they had a mind to ruin, whose writings might not afford a more specious pretence? What greater argument can we expect of the true Faith of this illustrious though censured person?  
Whence comes it, say they, that that they are so liberal of imprecations in the censure, where they faggot together all the most terrible expressions of poison, pestilence, horror, temerity, impiety, blasphemy, abomination, execration, Anathema, heresy, which are the most horrid could be uttered against Arius, nay Antichrist himself, to confute an imperceptible heresy, and that without making any discovery thereof? If this proceeding be against the words of the Fathers, where is Faith and Tradition? If against Monsieur Arnauld's proposition; let them show us wherein it differs from the other, since we can perceive nothing but a perfect conformity. When we shall be made sensible of the evil it may contain, we shall abhor it; but while we see no such thing, and only find the sentiments of the holy Fathers comprehended and expressed in their proper terms, how can we avoid having an holy veneration for it?  
Thus you see how some are incensed, but they are such as are too sharp-sighted. For us who dive not very deeply into things, our best course is to be quiet and to comply. Would we be more learned than our Masters? Let us not undertake what they avoid, we should lose ourselves in this disquisition. If we should be too strict, it's to be feared the Censure itself would prove heretical. Truth is a thing so delicate, that when a man is at ever so little distance from it; he falls into error, but this latter is also of such a fine thread, that even before a man gets lose from it, he jumps into the truth. There is but an imperceptible point between this proposition and Faith. The distance is so insensible, that not perceiving it, I was afraid I should be opposite to the Fathers of the Church, by agreeing too well with the Doctors of Sorbonne.  
This fear made me address myself to one of those who were neuter in the first question, to inform myself truly of the business. I went to one I thought the ablest, whom I entreated to set down the circumstances of this difference, ingenuously confessing I could not perceive any. To which he replied laughing; How simple are you to imagine there is any! where should it be? Do you think if any such were, that the world should not have hear of it, and that they would not have be glad to expose it to the sight of all those in whose esteem they would discredit Monsieur Arnauld? By these few words I was satisfied that all those who were neuters in the first question would not have been such in the second. However I gave ear to his reasons, and asked him, Why they had set upon that proposition? Are you ignorant, replied he, how that Monsieur Arnauld hath ever been cautious of saying any thing which was not strongly gounded on the Tradition of the Church: That his adversaries are nevertheless resolved to cut him off from all benefit thereof upon any terms whatsoever; And consequently the writings of the one giving no advantage to the designs of the others, they have, to satisfy their passion, been forced to take any proposition, and to condemn it, without giving any account wherein or wherefore? For do you not see, how the Jansenists keep them still at check, and prosecute them so violently, that upon the least word they let fall against the principles of the Fathers, they are presently overwhelmed with whole volumes, or are forced to submit? So that after so many discoveries of their weakness, they have thought it more easy and convenient to censure then to reply, because it is less trouble to find Friars, than Arguments.  
But, said I, if it be so, the censure signifies nothing. For what credit will be given it, when it hath no ground, and is destroyed by the answers may be made thereto? Did you reflect on the imaginations of the people, says the Doctor, you would speak after another rate. Their Censure, how censurable soever it may be in itself, will for a season have its effect; and though it be certain there will be so much pains taken to show its invalidity, that it will at last be discovered, yet is it withal true, that at the beginning, it will have as great an influence over the most, as if it were the justest in the world. For there needs no more than to cry up and down the streets; Come, buy the Censure against Arnauld. Here's the condemnation of the Jansenists; the Jesuits have their will. How few are there that will read it? How few of those that do read it will understand it? How very few will perceive that it answers not the Objections? Who do you think will concern himself so much in the business as to undertake to examine it to the bottom? whence you may infer how advantageous it will be to such as are adversaries to the Jansenists. They are sure by this means to triumph, though as they are commonly wont, vainly, at least for some months. And that's very much as the case stands with them, by that time they will have bethought them of some other shift to subsist. They live but from hand to mouth. By these sleights have they kept above water all this time; as for instance, one while by a Catechism, wherein a child condemns their Adversaries: Another by a Procession, wherein sufficient grace leads the efficacious in triumph; one time by a Comedy, wherein the Devils carry away Jansenius; another by an Almanac, and now by this Censure.  
In troth, said I to him, I had erewhile much to object against this procedure of the Molinists, but having heard what you say, I admire their prudence and their policy. I now see they could not have done any thing more judiciously or more securely. You apprehend it right, said he, their surest way hath ever been to be silent; which haply gave a great Divine occasion to say, That the most able among them, are those who plot much, speak little, and write nothing.  
‛ I was by the suggestion of this spirit, that in the very beginning of the Assemblies, they had prudently ordered, that if Monsieur Arnauld came into Sorbonne, it should be simply to discover what he believed, not to engage in dispute with any one. The examiners not strictly observing this method were a little at a loss, whence haply it came they were so sharply refuted by the second Apologetic.  
From the same Spirit have they derived that rare and wholly new invention of the half-hour and the sand. They have by that means prevented the importunity of those tedious Doctors who thought it a certain pleasure to refute their reasons; to produce the books so to convince them of falsehood; to press them to answer, and to reduce them to such a nonplus that they had nothing to answer.  
Not but that they well saw that this want of freedom which had obliged so many Doctors to refrain the Assemblies, must needs derogate from the Censure, and that the act of Monsieur Arnauld would be an ill prologue to usher in a favourable reception of it. Nay they are satisfied that those who are not persons to be begged, will give as great weight to the judgement of 70. Doctors, who could not expect to get any thing by defending Monsieur Arnauld, then to that of an hundred others who could lose nothing by condemning him.  
But all considered, they thought it no small advantage to have a Censure out, though it were but of a part of Sorbonne, and not of the whole body; though it were passed with little or no freedom, and procured by little shifts, and those not the most regular; though it explain nothing of what might be in controversy; though it express not wherein this heresy consists; and that there is little said in it, for fear of mistake. Nay this silence is a mystery to the simple, and the Censure will have this singular advantage thereby that the greatest Critics and subtlest Divines cannot find any insufficient reason in it.  
You may therefore clear up your thoughts of all fear of being an Heretic, for admitting and adhering to the condemned proposition; it is not dangerous any where but in Monsieur Arnaulds second Letter. If you will not take my word, take Monsieur le Moines, the most violent of the Examiner's, who, to a Doctor of my acquaintance ask him wherein the difference in question consisted, and whether it were any longer lawful to say what the Fathers said, made this reply, This proposition were Catholic in any other mouth. 'Tis only in that of Monsieur Arnauld that Sorbonne hath condemned it. Whence admire the stratagems of Molinisme, whereby are wrought such strange hurly-burlies in the Church; That what was sound and Catholic in the Fathers, becomes heretical in Monsieur Arnauld that what was heretical in the Semipelagians, proves orthodox in the writings of the Jesuits; that the so ancient Doctrine of Saint Augustine is insupportable Novelty; and that the new Inventions which are hatched every day even before our eyes, pass current for the ancient Faith of the Church. Upon this he took leave of me.  
This instruction hath restored me to my sight. I learn by it that this heresy is of a new kind; they are not the opinions of Monsieur Arnauld that are heretical, 'tis only his person. 'Tis a personal Heresy. He's not an Heretic for any thing he hath either said or written, but only because he is Monsieur Arnauld. This is all can be objected against him. Let him do what he will, he shall never be otherwise, till he cease to be at all. The Grace neld by Saint Augustine shall never be the true grace, while Monsieur Arnauld maintains it. It would haply be such, did he but once oppose it. It were the surest way, haply the only means, to establish that, and destroy Molinisme; so much misfortune do the opinions he embraces derive from him.  
But let us have nothing to do with their differences, they are the disputes of Divines and not of Divinity. We who are no Doctors need not trouble our thoughts with their Controversies. Communicate the news of the Censure to all our friends, and afford me your affection so far as you conceive me, Sir,  
Paris, Feb. 9 1656. Your most humble and most dutiful Servant, E.A.A.B.P.A.F.D.E.P.   

To the same. LETTER IU.  
Sir,  
INcomparable men these Jesuits! I have seen Dominicans, Doctors, nay persons of most qualities; I wanted only this visit to make me complete. For I see other men are but their Copies, and things are ever most noble in their Originals. I had the happiness to meet with one of the most eminent among them, having no other company than that of my faithful Jansenist, who was with me at the Dominicans. Being extremely desirous to be better informed about the difference there is between them and the Jansenists, concerning what they call actual grace; I addressed myself to the good Father, desiring him to afford me some little instruction, and explain that term whereof I told him I knew not the meaning. With all my heart, replied he; I have a particular affection for the curious. Take the definition of it. By actual grace, we mean, an inspiration of God, whereby he discovers his will unto us, and stirs up in us a desire to accomplish it. And what controversy, said I, doth this breed between you and the Jansenists? This, replied he, that we would have God bestow actual graces on all men in every particular temptation; for we hold, that if a man have not in every temptation, that actual grace, to restrain him from sinning, what sin soever he may commit cannot be imputed to him. On the contrary, the Jansenists affirm, that sins committed without this presence of actual grace, are nevertheless imputable. But they are a sort of pitiful souls. I guessed at what he would say, yet to clear it a little more fully, Father, said I to him, this term of actual grace I know not how to digest, it's a meat I am not used to, would you but do me the favour to tell me the same thing without using that term, I should think it a great obligation. To do that said the Father, I am only to put the definition instead of the definitum, that altars not the sense of the discourse; with all my heart. We hold then as an undeniable principle. That an action cannot be imputed as sin, if God before it be committed, give us not a knowledge of the evil of it, and an inspiration exciting us to avoid it. Have I now expressed myself home?  
I was not a little astonished at the discourse; which granted, all sins of surprise, and all committed out of a pure oblivion of God, are not to be imputed: whereupon turning to my Jansenist, I knew by his countenance what little credit he gave it. But he continuing silent, Father, said I, I wish what you say were true, and that you could make it good. How? said he, you would have it proved? you shall be satisfied; be that upon my account. Upon that he went for his Books, while I and my friend fell into discourse. Did ever m●n talk thus, said I? Is this such news to you, replied he? Assure yourself, that neither Fathers, nor Popes, nor Councils, nor the Scriptures, nor any books of Devotion even in these last times ever spoke after this rate; but indeed for Casuists and new Schoolmen, he can easily furnish you. But such, replied I, if they clash ever so little with Tradition, I can as easily laugh at. You are in the right; said he to me; at which word, in comes the Father. loaden with books, and presenting me with the first came to his hand; There▪ said he, read Father Bauny's Summary of sins, 'tis the fifth Edition, whence you may infer the goodness of the Book. 'Tis pity, said my Jansenist to me whispering, that this should be condemned at Rome and by the Bishops of France. Turn, said the Father; to pag. 906. I did, and found these words, For a man to sin, and stand guilty in the sight of God, he must know that the thing he is about to do is naught, or at least doubt, fear, or imagine that God takes no pleasure in the action wherein he is employed, that he forbids it, and all this notwithstanding, to do it, to break through the hedge, and exceed his bounds.  
A very good beginning, said I to him. But note by the way what Envy is, replied he. This very passage gave Monsieur Haillor occasion, before he became one of us, to abuse Father Bauny, applying to him these words, Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi: Behold him that takes away the sins of the world. It is, said I, a new kind of redemption this of Father Bauny's.  
But would you have a more authentic proof, continued he? take this book of Father Annats. This is the last of his writing against Monsieur Arnauld, turn to pag. 34. where the leaf is turned down, and read the lines I have marked with black lead, they are golden ones. There I found these words, He who hath not any thought of God, nor yet of his own sins, nor any apprehension, that is, as he explained it, any knowledge, of the obligation lies upon him to exercise acts of the love of God, or of contrition, hath no actual grace to exercise those acts; but it must be also acknowledged, that he is not guilty of any sin if he omit them, and that if he be damned, it will not be for any thing relating to that omission. And some few lines lower, And the same thing may be affirmed of sins of commission.  
See now, says the Father, how he speaks of the sins of Omission and Commission; he forgets nothing; what say you to it? I am extremely well satisfied, replied I; what excellent consequences may be deduced from it, I am already over head and ears in them! O what what mysteries am I rapt into! I see a far greater number justified by this ignorance, and forgetfulness of God, then by Grace and the Sacraments. But, Father, does this any more than bring me into a fools paradise? Is not this something like that sufficiency which sufficeth not? I am extremely afraid of the Distinguo, I have been trepanned there already, do you speak sincerely? How, said the Father, a little inflamed; this is no jesting matter; here is not any equivocation. I am in earnest, said I to him; but the excess of my desire it should be so, puts me into some fear it may not.  
Take then for your better information, the writings of Monsieur le Moine, who hath taught it openly in Sorbonne. He indeed learned it first from us, but he hath unravelled the business excellently well. O what a noble structure hath he made of it! He shows that to make an action to be a sin, there is a necessity all these things be transacted in the soul. Read and weigh every word. I read in Latin what you find here in English. 1. On the one side God infuses into the soul a certain love which inclines her towards the thing commanded, and on the other the rebellious concupiscence presses her to the contrary. 2. God inspires her with a knowledge of her weakness. 3. God inspires her with a knowledge of the physician that must cure her. 4. God inspires her with a desire to be cured. 5. God instills into her a desire to pray to him, and implore his assistance. Now if all these things pass not in the soul, says the Jesuit, the action is not properly sin, and consequently not imputable, as Monsieur le Moine affirms in the same place, and all throughout the discourse. Are you not yet satisfied with Authorities?  
But all modern, whispered my Jansanist. 'Tis very well, said I, applying myself to the Father. What an happiness is this for many of my acquaintance, I must needs make them yours too. It may be you have not met with any burdened with fewer sins, for they never think of God; Vices have prevented their reason. They never had the knowledge of their infirmities, nor yet of the physician that should cure them. Such a desire as that of their souls welfare, never so much as came into their thoughts, much less that of begging it of God; so that according to Monsieur le Moine they are yet in their baptismal innocence. They never were guilty of a thought of loving God, or being sorry for their sins, insomuch, that according to Father Annat, they have not committed any sin, through want of charity and repentance. Their life is a continual study of all sorts of pleasures and enjoyments, never interrupted by the least remorse of Conscience. From these extravagances I inferred their infallible destruction; but Father, you convince me, that they are so many demonstrations of their salvation; happiness be your reward for this excellent way of justification. Others cure souls by painful austerities; but you show us, that those who were thought the most desperately sick, are the best in health. O the excellent method of living happily both in this and the other world! I ever was of opinion that a man sinned the more, the less he thought of God; but for aught I perceive now, when a man hath once learned the kn●ck of not minding him at all, things are in a secure posture for the time to come. Away, away, half-sinners, who have some little inclination to virtue, inevitable damnation is their lot. But for these free sinners, obdurate sinners, dischequered sinners, full and fat sinners, Hell cannot hold them; they have cheated the Devil by complying with him.  
The Father perceiving well the connexion of these consequences, made an handsome evasion, and without show of any disturbance, either through good nature or prudence; that you may see, said he, how we salve all these inconveniences, know we affirm, that all these impious persons you speak of, should be without sin, if they never had had thoughts of conversion, or desires to apply themselves too God. But we hold that they all have, and that God never suffered any man to sin, having not before given him a sight of the evil he intends to commit; and withal a desire either to avoid the sin, or at least to implore his assistance to enable him to shun it; and there are none but Jansenists that affirm the contrary.  
How, Father, replied I, is that the Heresy of the Jansenists, to deny that at every time a man commits a sin, a certain remorse troubles his Conscience, notwithstanding which, a man sticks not, as Father Bauny says, to break through the hedge, and exceed his bounds? It's very pleasant a man should be an Heretic for this. I thought men had been damned for not having good thoughts, but that they should for not believing that all the world have, is a thing I must confess never came into my thoughts.  
But Father, I think myself obliged in conscience to undeceive you; and tell you, there are thousands have not these desires, sin without the least regret, and do both rejoice and glory in it. And for this I appeal to yourself, who must needs know it well. No question but you hear the confessions of some of those I speak of, for it is among persons of quality that it ordinarily happens. But Father look you to the dangerous consequences of your doctrine. Do you not perceive what influence it may have on those Libertines who make it their business to raise doubts about Religion itself? what advantages do you give them, when you tell them, as an article of Faith, that at the commission of every sin, they feel a certain monition and internal desire to eschew it? For is it not evident, that being, by their own experience, convinced that your doctrine is erroneous even as to that point which you say is of faith, they will extend the consequences of it to all the rest? They will say, that if you are not orthodoxal in one article, you are to be mistrusted in all; and so they will be forced to conclude, either that Religion is false, or that you are but slenderly instructed in it.  
But my second taking up my discourse, it were, Father, said he, more for the security of your doctrine, not to make so obvious an interpretation, as you have done, of what you mean by actual grace. For how can you but expect to meet with the incredulity of many, if you openly declare, That no man sins but he hath beforehand the knowledge of his infirmity, as also that of his physician, with the desire of being cured, and that of begging it at God's hands? Will it be believed, upon your word, that those who are immersed in Avarice, unchastity, blasphemy, quarrels, revenge, robberies, Sacrileges, have any real desires to embrace chastity, humility, and the other Christian virtues?  
Can any one imagine that those Philosophers who so highly celebrated the power of nature knew the infirmities and the cure of it? Will you affirm that those who maintained it as an undeniable Maxim, that virtue is not the gift of God, and that there never was any person that craved it of him, ever bethought them to ask it of him themselves?  
Who can believe that the Epicureans, who did not acknowledge Divine Providence, had any motions to pray unto God? when they affirmed, that our addresses to him are derogatory to his Majesty, as if it were below him to trouble himself with any thoughts of us or our necessities.  
In a word, how can it be imagined that Idolaters and Atheists can have, in all their temptations, that is, an infinite number of times in their life, any inclination to pray to the true God, whom they know not, to bestow on them the true virtues they are ignorant of.  
All this, says the good Father very resolutely, we shall affirm, and rather than acknowledge that a man can sin and not have the sight of his evildoing, and an inclination to the contrary virtue, we shall maintain, that all the world, even Atheists and Infidels have these inspirations and desires in every temptation. For you cannot, at least by the Scripture, make it appear otherwise.  
Upon this I resumed the discourse. How, said I, Father, must we appeal to Scripture to evince a thing so evident? This is no point of faith, nor indeed of ratiocination, but merely matter of fact; we see, know, and feel it.  
But my Jansenist closing with the Father upon his own terms, If you will not, said he to him, be satisfied with any thing but Scripture, be it so: but I pray oppose it not, and since it is written, That God hath not revealed his judgements to the Gentiles, and hath suffered them to err in their own ways, do not affirm that God hath enlightened those, whom the holy Writ assures us, to have been left in darkness and the shadow of death.  
Does it not sufficiently convince you that your principle is erroneous, to see that Saint Paul calls himself the chiefest of sinners, for a sin which he professes committed out of ignorance, not without zeal?  
Is not the Gospel clear enough, that those who crucified Jesus Christ stood in need of the pardon he begged for them, though they were not sensible of the malice of their action, and that, according to Saint Paul, they had never done it if they had known so much?  
Is it not Christ's forewarning us, that there will be those that shall persecute his Church, yet believe they do God service in their endeavours to ruin it, enough to let us understand, that this sin, which, according to the Apostle, is the greatest, may be committed by such as are so far from knowing they offend, that they believe they should if they did it not? In a word, is it not enough that Jesus Christ himself hath taught us, that there are two kinds of sinners, one sinning with knowledge, the other without, yet shall be both punished, though in a different measure?  
The good Father pressed by so many proofs out of Scripture, whereto he had appealed, began to give ground, and admitting impious persons to sin without inspiration, you will not certainly deny, said he, that the Righteous never sin but God gives them— You retreat, you retreat, Father said I to him, and quit the general principle; and perceiving that it holds not in respect to sinners, you would compound the business, and make it compatible to the Righteous. But, that granted, the advantage you will make of it will be very inconsiderable, for the benefit of it will reach to very few; insomuch that it is not worth the disputing for.  
But my second, who had, as I conceive, by his readiness to take all advantages, studied the question very much that morning, gave him this answer. You are now, said he to him, gotten into that redoubt which all of your party that run the hazard of a dispute are forced to: but you lie as open to all assault as ever, for your example of the just is soon defeated. Who makes it any question but that even they very frequently fall into sins of surprise, and when they are not sensible of it. Do we not learn even from the Saints themselves what trapdoors concupiscence laier for them, and that it often happens, notwithstanding a vigilant sobriety, they sacrifice that to pleasure which they thought to have bestowed only on necessity, as Saint Augustine acknowledgeth of himself in his Confessions.  
How ordinary is it to see even the most zealous transported with passion & bitterness in dispute through an over-reflection on their own interests; though their Consciences give them not at that time any other notice save that they behave themselves so out of a tenderness to truth, and they themselves are not sensible of it till a long time after?  
But what will be said of those who are violently inclined to things really bad, as believing them really good, (whereof we have many instances in the Ecclesiastical History) which yet hinders not, but that as the Father's hold, they have sinned in those occasions?  
Moreover, this not granted, how could the righteous be guilty of secret sins? How should it be true that God alone knows their greatness and number? insomuch that no man knows whether he deserve love or hatred, and that the greatest Saints should always walk in fear and trembling, even though they find not themselves guilty of any thing, as Saint Paul affirms of himself.  
You are therefore to conceive, Father, that the examples as well of the righteous as sinners do equally overthrow the necessity you suppose there is in sin, of knowing the evil, and loving the contrary virtue, since the earnestness of impious persons in their vices, sufficiently discovers they have not the least inclination to virtue; and that the affection which the righteous have for virtue, argues very much that they have not always a knowledge of the sins they daily commit, as is clear out of Scripture.  
And that the righteous do sin after this manner it is so certain, that it seldom happens great Saints offend otherwise. For how can it be imagined that those sublimated souls, which with so much ardour and aversion, eat the least things that may displease God, as soon as they are sensible of it, and who yet commit many sins daily, should have every time, before they fell, the knowledge of their infirmity on that occasion, as also that of their Physician, together with the desires of their health and praying to God for his assistance; and that, notwithstanding all these inspirations, these zealous souls cannot but exceed their bounds, and commit the sin?  
Conclude then, Father, that neither sinners, nor yet the righteous have always these knowledges, these desires, and all these inspirations as often as they sin; that is, to use your term, have not always actual grace in all occasions wherein they sin. And affirm not with your upstart Authors that it is impossible a man should sin, when he knows not justice; but acknowledge rather with Saint August●ne and the ancient Fathers, that it is impossible he should not sin, when he is not acquainted with justice. Necesse est ut peccet à quo ignoratur justitia.  
The good Father perceiving his opinion almost defeated as well in regard of the righteous as sinners, would not yet quit the field; well, said he, after a little meditation, I have forces enough to rout you yet. Whereupon taking up Father Bauny in the same place he had sh●wn us before; See, see but the reason on which he grounds his position; I knew he was not unfurnished with good proofs. Read there what he citys out of A●istotle, and you shall acknowledge, that, a●ter so express an authority, you must either bu●n the book of that Prince of Philosophers, or be of our opinion. Note then the principles Father B●u●y grounds thereupon. He says in the first place, that an action cannot be imputed as unblameable when it is involuntary. I grant it, said my friend to him. This is the first time, said I to them, that ever I knew you agree about any thing; if you value my advice, Father, go no further. That would amount to nothing, said he; for we are to know what conditions are requisite to make an action voluntary. I am extremely afraid, answered I, that you will fall out about it. Fear nothing said he, the case is clear, Aristotle is on my side. Pray mark what Father Bauny says; That an action be voluntary, it is requisite it should proceed from a man that sees, that knows, that considers well what there is of good, what of evil in it. Voluntarium est, say we commonly with this Philosopher (you know, said he to me, wring me by the hand, who Aristotle is) quoth fit à principio cognoscente singula in quibus est actio. So that when the will is at random and without any discussion, inclined to desire, or abhor, to do, or omit a thing, before the understanding could possibly come in to see whether the evil of it were in prosecuting or eschewing it, doing or not doing of it, such an action is neither good nor evil, in as much as before that disquisition, that sight and reflection of the mind upon the good and bad qualities of the thing wherein a man is employed, the action whereby it is done is not voluntary.  
Now, said the Father, are you not yet satisfied? I should think, replied I, that Aristotle is of Father Bauny's opinion, yet can I not but much wonder at it. How, Father, to act voluntarily, is it not enough that the Agent knows what he does, and that he does it not but because he will do it? but it seems, it is further requisite, that he see, that he know, & consider well what there is of good and evil in the action. This granted, humane life will afford but few voluntary actions, for a man seldom thinks of all this. How many oaths in gaming, excesses and extravagances in our debauches and enjoyments, which being not voluntary, are consequently neither good nor bad, because not attended by these reflections of the mind upon the good and bad qualities of what a man does? But is it possible, Father, that this should come from Aristotle? I have heard say, he was a very excellently learned person. I'll clear up the business to you, says my Jansenist. Whereupon calling for Aristotle's Ethics, he opened it at the beginning of the third book, whence Father Bauny had taken the words he had cited out of him: Father, said he, I excuse you for taking it upon the credit of Father Bauny, that Aristotle was of this opinion; but you would have been of another mind, had you read him yourself. 'Tis very true he teaches, that to make an action voluntary a man should know the particularities of that action, singula in quibus est actio. But what does he mean by this, but the particular circumstances of the action? as the instances he gives clearly demonstrate, he producing none but those of such as are ignorant of some one of the circumstances; as that of a person, who being to show an engine, let's fly a dart out of it and casually hurts some body; and that of Meropus, who killed his own son, when he thought to have killed his enemy; and such like.  
Hence you may perceive what kind of Ignorance that is which makes an action involuntary, and that is no other than that of the particular circumstances, called by Divines, as you very well know, Father, the ignorance of the fact. But for that of right, that is the ignorance of the good and evil which are in an action, whereof the present discourse is, let us see whether Aristotle be of Father Bauny's opinion. These are the words of the Philosopher. All impious persons are ignorant of what they should do, and what they should avoid; and this is the very thing that makes them impious and wicked. It cannot therefore be affirmed, that, because a man is ignorant of what in prudence he ought to do, to perform his duty, his action is involuntary: For this ignorance which consists in the election of good and evil, does not cause an action to be involuntary, but only makes it vicious. The same thing may by said of him who is genenerally ignorant of the rules of his duty, since such an ignorance renders him blame-worthy and uncapable of excuse. In like manner the ignorance which makes actions involuntary and excusable, is only that which regards matter of fact in particular, and in its singular circumstances. For then, a man is pardoned, and excused, and looked on as a person that hath done a thing against his will.  
Now, Father, will you still affirm th●● Aristotle is of your opinion? And who but may very well be astonished, to see a heathen Philosopher more illuminated, than your Doctors, in a business, wherein not only Morality, but even the conduct of men's souls is so highly concerned, as that of the knowledge of the conditions which make actions voluntary, or involuntary, & consequently render them excusable or inexcusable as to matter of sin? Have then, no more to do, Father, with the Prince of Philosophers, but submit to the Prince of Divines, who thus decides this controversy, in his Retractations, Lib. 1. c. 15. Those who sin out of ignorance, do not their action but because they will do it, though they sin, when they would not sin. And so this sin of of ignorance cannot be committed but through the will of him that does commit it, but by a will inclining to the action and not to the sin, which yet does not exempt the action from being a sin, because, for that, there needs no more than that a man do what he is obliged not to do.  
Here the Father was at a loss, but much more for the passage out of Aristotle, then that out of St Augustine. But while he was pumping for something to say, word was brought him that the Lady— and the Lady Marchioness— stayed to speak with him. Whereupon, leaving us in haste, I shall acquaint our Fathers with it, said he, no question but they will find something to reply; we have those here that are very subtle.  
We gave him the hearing; upon which being alone with my friend, I discovered to him my astonishment at the confusion which this doctrine would breed in Morality. To which he answered, that he wondered at my astonishment; are you yet ignorant that their extravagances are far greater in Morality then in doctrine? He gave very strange instances, and adjourned the rest till another time. I hope it will be the subject of our next conference.  
I am, etc. Paris. Febr. 25. 1656. S. N.   

To the same. LETTER V.  
Sir,  
I Am now to perform the promise I made in my last, that is, to give you an essay of the Morality of our good Fathers the Jesuits, those eminent men for learning and prudence; a sort of people that have the pillar of divine wisdom going before them, a surer guide than any thing of Philosophy. You haply think I do but jest; no, I speak it seriously, or indeed they speak it themselves. I do but transcribe their own words, and that, as truly as in the ensuing panegyrics. It is that society of men, Angel● I should have said, whereof Isaiah hath prophesied in these words, Go you swift and ready Angels. Is not the Prophecy clear enough? They are Eaglelike spirits, a flight of Phenixes, there being an Author, who not long since hath demonstrated that there are more than one. They have changed the face of all Christendom. This must be believed when they affirm it; you shall find it so in the sequel of this discourse, which will acquaint you with their Maxims.  
I have taken a great deal of pains to inform myself, as being not over-confident of what I had learned of my friend. I would needs be an ocular witness, but am satisfied he told me nothing but what was true. I think he is never mistaken, as you shall find by the account you have of these conferences.  
In that I had with my friend, he entertained me with things so infinitely pleasant that my Faith was as the eye of a needle in respect of a Camel; but showing them to me in the Father's books, I had nothing to say by way of alleviation, but that they were the sentiments of some few among them, which it were not just to charge the whole body with. To give it the more weight, I assured him of my acquaintance with some of them as remarkable for their severity as those he quoted were for their circumspection. With that he drew the curtain and discovered the interior of the Society, known to few in the world, which haply you will be glad to understand.  
You imagine, said he to me, that you have done them abundance of right by showing that there are some Fathers among them as conformable to evangelical maxims as others are disconsonant, and thence conclude that these extravagant opinions ought not to be put upon the score of the whole society. I easily grant it. For if they were, they would not suffer among them such as should be so contrary thereunto. But since there are among them such as advance principles so licentious, there's the same obligation to infer, that the spirit of the society is not that of Christian austerity. For if it were, they would not admit members that should so much oppose it. What then, answered I, is the main design of the whole body? It must certainly be thought they have not any assured scope, and that every one is at liberty to speak at random what he thinks. That cannot be, replied he; such a vast body cannot subsist by a temerarious conduct, and without a soul to dispose and regulate its motions: Besides that there is a particular order among them that nothing be printed without consultation with their superiors. But how, said I, can the same superiors approve Maxims so different? That, replied he, I shall easily clear up to you.  
Know then, that they do not endeavour the corruption of good manners; no, that's not their design; but note withal, that it is not their main drift to reform them. That were no good policy. Take then their grounds. They are so well opinioned of themselves as to believe, it is for the advantage and benefit of Religion that their reputation be universal, and that they have the disposal of all Consciences. And whereas the maxims of Evangelical severity are more convenient for the government of some, they make use of them upon such occasions as contribute to their design; but the same maxims being not equally serviceable as to a many others, when they are to deal with such, they omit them, that so they may comply with all.  
Being therefore engaged to deal with all sorts of persons, & those of several conditions & nations, it is but requisite they should have Casuists suitable to this diversity.  
From this principle you may easily judge, that if they had not any but these licentious Casuists, their main design wou●d be soon frustrated, which is, to grasp all the world, since those who are truly pious put themselves under another conduct. But as there are not many of this humour, so need they but few severe directions to guide them. Few sheep require fewer shepherds; whereas the swarm of remiss Casuits are employed to satisfy those who seek after remissness and Liberty.  
It is by this obliging and complying conduct, as Father Pe●avius calls it, that they embrace all the world. For if there come to them one resolved to make restitution of goods unjustly gotten, it is not to be feared they will divert him. On the contrary, they will encourage and confirm him in so holy a resolution. But let another come who would be absolved without restitution, it shall go very hard but they will contrive a way to dismiss him well satisfied.  
Thus do they preserve their friends and oppose their enemies. For if they are charged with any more than ordinary remissness, they immediately bring upon the stage their austere directors, and certain books they have published concerning the rigour of the Christian law; and the simple, and those who make no deep scrutinies into things, patiently swallow it down for good satisfaction.  
Thus are they furnished for all customers, and answer so pertinently what they are asked, that when they are in a Country where the belief of a crucified God is accounted extravagance, they smother the scandal of the Cross, and preach up a glorified Jesus Christ, not a suffering Jesus Christ. This course they took in the Indies and in China, where they have permitted the Christians to commit Idolatry, by a subtle invention, viz. that of enjoining them to hid under their  an image of Jesus Christ, to which they teach them, by a mental reservation, to direct those public adorations, which they render the Idol Oachim-choan, and their Keum-fucum, as Gravina, a Dominican lays it to their charge, and as may be seen in certain papers in the Spanish tongue, presented to Philip the Fourth of Spain, by the Franciscans of the Philippine Islands, cited by Thomas Hurtado in his book of Martyrdom for the Faith, pag. 427. Insomuch that the Congregation of Cardinals, de propagandâ fide, was forced to give the Jesuits a particular prohibition, that they should not, under any pretence whatsoever, upon pain of Excommunication, permit those idolatrous adorations, and so conceal the mystery of the Cross from those they instructed in Christian Religion; enjoining them expressly not to admit any to Baptism till after that knowledge, as also to expose in their Churches the image of the Crucifix, as may be seen in the Decree of that Congregation, dated the 9 of July 1646. signed by the Cardinal Caponi.  
By these means do they, like Locusts, cover the face of the earth, with the help of a Monster called, The doctrine of probable opinions, the source of this torrent of irregularities. This you must understand from themselves. For they are not so  as to conceal it from any, no more than what you have already heard, with this difference nevertheless, that they disguise their humane prudence and policy under the notion of Divine and Christian wisdom, as if Faith, and the Tradition whereby it is maintained, were not always the same and unchangeable in all times and all places; as if the rule should apply itself to the thing that is to be measured by it; and as if souls, to be cleansed from their imperfections, were only to corrupt the Law of the Lord, whereas the Law of the Lord is holy and without blemish, such as doth convert souls, and make them conformable to his saving instructions.  
Do but go among those good Fathers, and I am confident, your own observation will satisfy you, that their doctrine concerning Grace proceeds from looseness in Morality. You will find Christian virtues such strangers, both to them and charity, whereby they live and are informed; you will find such palliations of crimes, and such disorders countenanced, that it will be no longer a miracle to you, their maintaining that all men have at all times grace enough to live piously, as they understand it. But their Morality not exceeding that of Pagans, it is within the reach of Nature to observe it. When we affirm a necessity of efficacious grace, we assign other virtues for its object. It is not simply to cure some vices by others; it is not only to engage men in the exercises of the external duties of Religion; it is to arrive at a higher virtue then that of the Pharisees, and the wisest Heathens. The law and reason are graces sufficient to produce these effects. But to disengage the soul from the love of this world; to deprive her of what she thinks dearest; to work in her a self-mortification; to elevate and unite her absolutely and unchangeably to her God; this, this is not the work of any but an Almighty hand. And it were irrational for a man to pretend, that he hath always full power, a● it were to deny, that these virtues, destistitute of the love of God, which these good Fathers confound with Christian virtues, are not in our power.  
This was his discourse, burdened with abundance of passion, for he is extremely troubled at these disorders. For my part, I had a certain esteem for these good Fathers, for the excellency of their Politics; and so, according to his advice I went to an honest Casuist of the Society, whom having known a long time, I thought this a good occasion to renew my acquaintance with him. Being well enough instructed how they are to be treated; I found it no hard matter to do it. His entertainment was infinitely kind, for he loves me still; and after some indifferent discourse, I took occasion, from the season we now are in, to learn something of him concerning Fasting, so to enter insensibly into the business. I told him it was very burdensome to me to fast; he exhorted me to do myself a little violence, but I continuing my complaints, he was moved at it, and fell to bethink him of some reasons of dispensation. He indeed found a many, which yet I could not make any advantage of, till at last he bethought him to ask me, whether, going to bed supperless, I was not much troubled to sleep. I am indeed, Father, said I, which forces me many times to make a collation at noon, and sup at night. I am very glad, replied he, that I have found out this way to ease you, without sin; go, go you are not obliged to fast at all. But you shall not take it upon my word neither, come into the Library. I went; and there taking out a book, here's that will prove it, said he, (God knows how!) This is Escobar. Who is that Escobar, said I? How? do you not know one Escobar, of our Society, who hath compiled this Moral Divinity, out of twenty four of our Fathers; whereupon he hath in the Preface, made an allegory between this book, and that of the Apocalypse, which was sealed with seven seals. And he says, that Jesus offers it so sealed to the four living creatures, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, Valentia, in the presence of twenty four J●suites who represent the twenty four Elders. He read the whole Allegory which he found very pat, and by which he gave a great Idea of the excellency of that work. Having afterward sought out his passage concerning fasting; here, I have it, said he; Is he, who having not supped, cannot sleep, obliged to fast, or no? Not at all. Are you not satisfied? Not absolutely said I, for I can make a shift to fast if I but take a collation in the morning and sup at night. Why then take the consequence along with you, said he, they have omitted nothing. And what will you say, if a man can content himself with a collation in the morning so he sup at night? That's my case. He is never the more obliged to fast. For no man is obl g'd to break the order of his meals. A most pregnant reason, said I to him; But tell me I pray, continued he, do you drink much wine? No Father, said I, my constitution will not bear it. This I said, replied he, purposely to give you notice that you might drink of it in the morning, and at any other time of the day without breaking your fast; and you know, that nourishes somewhat. Take the question decided. May a man drink wine at any time when he pleases, and that in a considerable quantity, without breaking his fast? He may, nay if he please, Hippocras. I had clearly forgot that same Hippocras, said he, I must needs put it into my Catalogue. 'Twas an honest fellow, and a good fellow, this Escobar, said I. All the world's in love with him, replied the Father, he starts out such pleasant questions. Here's another of them in the same place▪ If a man doubts whether he be 21 years of age, is he obliged to fast or no? No. But put the case I am 21 years of age just at one of the clock this night, and that to morrow be a fasting day, shall I be obliged to fast to morrow? No. for you may eat as much as you please from midnight till one of the clock, for you are not yet arrived to the 21 year of your age; and consequently having a right to break the fast, you are not obliged to keep it. Excellent diversion, said I! The best in the world, replied he, I read him day and night; nay can hardly do any thing else The good Father was almost out of himself to see me so pleased with it; and continuing, observe, says he, this touch of Filiutius, one of those 24 Jesuits. He who hath overwearied himself about any thing, as for instance, in satisfying a Wench, is he obliged to fast or no? By no means. But suppose he hath so overwearied himself out of a set purpose to be dispensed withal from fasting, shall he nevertheless be excused? Though what he did was merely the effect of such a formal design, yet shall he not be obliged to fast. Well, could you have believed so much, said he? In troth, Father, said I, I am not yet fully persuaded of it. What, is it not a sin, not to fast when a man may do it? Or is it lawful to hunt ou● the opportunities of firming? Or is not a man rather obliged to eschew them? This certainly were a great convenience. Not always, said he, it is according— Accord to what, said I? This, replied the Father, if a man should find any inconvenience in avoiding those opportunities, were a man in your judgement obliged to avoid them? Father Bauny holds the negative. They, says he, ought not be denied absolution, who remain in the very next degrees to sinning, if they are in such a condition that they cannot quit them without giving the world occasion to talk of them, or running into some inconvenience thereby. You tell me very good news, Father, said I, there's no more now to be said, but that a man may make it his business to seek out those opportunities, since it is lawful for him not to avoid them. Nay it is lawful to do so, added he; the famous Casuist Bazilius Pontius affirms it; and Father Bauny citing him, confirms his judgement, which in his Treatise Of Repentance, Qu. 4 pag. 94. is this, A man may seek out an opportunity, directly and out of set purpose (primò & per se) when the spiritual or temporal concernment of ourselves or our neighbour inclines him thereto.  
In troth, Father, said I, I think myself not awake when I hear religious men talk after this rate! speak conscientiously, are you of this opinion? No truly, said the Father. Then, said I, you speak against your conscience? Not at all, said he; I did not speak in that according to my conscience, but according to that of Pontius and Father Bauny. And you may safely follow where they lead, for they are excellent men. How, Father, because they have put these three lines into their books, shall it be lawful to seek the opportunities of sinning? I thought we should have taken no other rule then that of the Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, not that of your Casuists. Nay then, cries out the Father, you put me in mind of these Jansenists. Do you think that Father Bauny and Bazilius Pontius cannot make good their opinions, as probable? I am not satisfied with probability. I look for security. I see then, says the good Father, you understand nothing of the Doctrine of Probable Opinions, which if you did, you would talk after another rate. I must needs take a little pains with you, as to that point, you will not repent your coming hither, for without that, you can understand nothing, it being the foundation, and A. B. C. of all our Morality. I was very glad to see him fallen upon the subject where I would have had him; whereupon I took occasion to entreat him to explain what a probable opinion was. Our Authors, said he, will give you a better accout of it then I can. Thus they generally describe it all, and among others our twenty four. An Opinion is then called probable, when it is grounded upon reasons of some consideration. Whence it sometimes comes to pass, that the authority of one grave Doctor may render an opinion probable. The reason this; That a man absolutely devoted to study, would not maintain an opinion, if he were not induced to do it, by a good and sufficient reason. Which granted, said I, one only Doctor may turn men's consciences topsie turvy, and yet all will be secure. You must neither laugh at, nor think to oppose this doctrine; the ●●deavours of the Jansenists to do it, proved ineffectual; no, it is too well grounded to be so shaken. Mark what Sanchez, one of the most eminent of our Fathers, says; You haply question whether the authority of one good and learned Doctor renders an opinion probable? To Which I answer, it does. And this is affirmed by Angelus, Sylu. Navarr. Emanuel Sa. etc. It is thus proved. A probable opinion is that which is grounded upon something considerable, But the authority of a knowing and godly man is of no small consideration, but rather of great consideration. For, take the reason along with you; if the testimony of such a man be of great weight to assure us that such a thing happened, for instance, at Rome, why shall it not have the same effect in a question of Morality?  
The comparison, said I, deduced from the things of this world to matters of conscience, is very pleasant! Have patience, replied he; Sanchez answers that in the lines next ensuing. And the restriction which some Authors make in this case, I do not approve, viz. that the Authority of such a Do●tor is sufficient as to the things of humane right, but not in those of Divine. For it is of great weight in both.  
Father, said I, to deal freely with you▪ I shall not stand to this rule. What assurance have I, that your Doctors taking so much freedom to examine things by reason, what seems certain to one will seem such to all the rest, there being such a strange diversity of judgements;— You understand not the case, says the Father, interrupting my discourse; they are indeed often of several opinions, but that breaks no squares. Every one makes his own good and probable. There's nothing so clear as that they are not all of the same judgement; nay, on the contrary, they never almost agree, and yet all this makes for the best. There are few questions, wherein one does not hold the affirmative, the other the negative, yet in all these cases both the one and the other of the contradictory opinions, is probable. Whence Diana upon a certain occasion, said, Pontius and Zanchez are of contrary opinions, but, being both learned men, either makes his opinion probable.  
But, Father, said I, a man must needs be at a great loss which to embrace. Not at all, says he, he is only to follow the opinion he is most inclined to. What though the other be the more probable? It matters not, said he. And the other more certain? It matters not, says the Father again; take it explained by Emanuel Sa, of our Society. A man may do what he conceives lawful, according to a probable opinion, though the contrary be the more certain. For this the opinion of one grave Doctor is sufficient. But if an opinion be both less probable and less certain, may a man lawfully follow it, discarding what he believes more probable and more sure? Once more, he may, said he: hear Filiutius, that great Jesuit of Rome. It is lawful to follow the less probable opinion, though it be the less certain. It is the common opinion of the more modern Authors. Are you not satisfied? We are indeed now at random, Father, said I, gramercy your probable opinions. This is an excellent liberty of conscience. But for you Casuists, may you take the same freedom in your Answers? We do, says he, and so answer what we think good, or rather what we conceive will prove most satisfactory to those that ask us. For these are our directions, taken out of our Fathers, Layman, Vasquez, Sanchez, and our 24. These are the words of Layman, whom the book of our 24 hath followed. A Doctor being consulted, may give an advice, not only such as is probable according to his own opinion, but what is contrary to his opinion, if so it be accounted probable by others, especially when this advice, though contrary to his judgement, happens to be more acceptable, and more for the interest of him that consults him; (Simo fortè haec illi favorabilior seu exoptatior sit.) But I hold further, that it will be prudence in him, to give those who come to him, such advice as is held as probable by some knowing person, though he himself be convinced that it is absolutely false.  
In troth, Father, your doctrine will fall on its feet. May a man answer affirmatively or negatively as he pleases? 'Tis an advantage cannot well be valued. You have wrought a miracle on me, I now see what benefit you make of these contrary doctrines which your Doctors advance upon all occasions. For one you may make your advantages of, and the other never hurts you. Your bets are so secure, that if you lose by the one side, you get by the other. 'Tis very true, says he, and we may at any time say with Diana, who, having Father Bauny for him, when Father Lugo was against him, said, Sapè prement Deo, fert D●us alter opem; if one God charges us too h●●d▪ another relieves us.  
I am illuminated, said I; yet still there sticks one thing in my stomach. When a man hath consulted one of your Doctors, and received from him an opinion somewhat too large, he will be merely trepanned, if he meet a Confessor, who, not being of the same, will deny him absolution if he altar not his judgement. Have you made no provision in that case? Do you question it, replied he? All Confessors are obliged to absolve their penitents holding probable opinions, under pain of mortal sin, the more to mind them of their duty, this is clear out of our Fathers, and among others, Father Bauny. When the patiented, says he, follows a probable opinion, the Confessor is bound to absolve him, though his judgement be contrary to that of the penitent. But he does not affirm it a mortal sin not to absolve him. How ready you are to catch? says he, take what follows; he categorically concludes, That to deny absolution to a penitent who walks according to a probable opinion, is a sin, in its own nature mortal. And to confirm this opinion he citys three of our most eminent Fathers, Suarez, Vasquez, and Sanchez.  
O Father, said I, with what prudence do you order all things! We need not fear any thing now, the Confessor must do his duty. I knew not before that you had the power to ordain any thing under pain of Damnation. I thought your Commission reached no further than to take away sins, & never imagined you could introduce any. But for aught I see you are omnipotent. You do not speak properly, said he; we do not introduce sins, we only take notice of them. I have already observed twice or thrice that you are no good School-man. Howe'er it be, Father, said I, I am satisfied as to that doubt, but I have another to propose to you, which is, that I know not what shift to make when the ancient Fathers are contrary to the opinions of any of your Casuists.  
You are extremely to seek in the business, said he. The Fathers were good for the Morality of their times; but they are far short of that of ours. It is not therefore to be regulated by them, but by the new Casuists. Hear our Father Cellot, who, as to this point, seconds our famous Father Reginaldus; In Questions of Morarality the modern Casuists are to be preferred before the ancient Fathers, though they were nearer the times of the Apostles. And it is according to this tenant, that Diana speaks after this manner: Are beneficed persons obliged to make restitution of their revenue, when they mis-imploy it? The Ancients affirmed they were, but the Modern hold they are not; let us not therefore quit this opinion which acquits a man from the obligation of making restitution. These are excellent good words, said I, and furnished with consolations for the goods of this world. For the Fathers, said he, we deliver them up to those that handle positive Divinity, but for us who govern men's consciences, we seldom read them, and, in our writings quote only the modern Casuists. What an extravagant writer is our Diana! There is before his books a lift of all the Authors he citys. There you will find two hundred ninety and six, whereof the most ancient is within eighty years. This then is an humour come into the world since your Society, said I: Thereabouts, replied he. My meaning, Father, is, that at your appearance, Saint Augustine, Saint chrysostom, Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierome, and the rest, vanished out of sight, as to matter of Morality. But I would fain know the names of those that have succeeded them; who are those modern Authors? They are very excellent men, and very famous, said he; They are, Villalobos, Conink, Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer, Dellacruz, Vera-Cruz, ugolin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, Suarez, Henriquez, Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez, Sanchez, De Vecchis, De Grassis, De Grassalis, De Pitigianis, De Graphacis, Squilanti, Bizozeri, Barcola, De Bobadilla, Simancha, Perez, De Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, De Scarcia, Quaranta, Scophra, Pedrezza, Cabrezza, Bisbe, Dias, De Clavasio, Villagut, Adam à Manden, Itibarn, Binsfeld, Volfangi à Vorberg, Vosthery, Strevesdorf. O Father, said I, a little frighted, were all these Christians? How, Christians, replied he? Did I not tell you that these are the men by whom we govern Christendom at this day? This somewhat troubled me, but not discovering any thing of disturbance, I only asked him whether all those Authors were Jesuits. No, said he, but it matters not, they have left excellent things behind them. Not but that the greatest part of them have either derived from, or imitated our Fathers; but we stand not upon terms of honour: Besides, they cite our Fathers ever and anon, and that very honourably. Thus Diana, who is not of our Society, speaking of Vasquez, calls him, the Phoenix of Wits; and sometimes he says, that, Vasquez all ne amounts to as much with him, as all man kind besides, instar omnium. In like manner our Fathers often quote this gallant Diana; for if you well understand our doctrine of probability, you will find this will breed no controversy. On the contrary, we hearty wish others, besides the Jesuits, were able to render their opinions probable, that all such might not be imputed to us. And when any Author whatsoever hath advanced any one, we have a right to take it by the doctrine of probable opinions, yet so that we are not accountable for it, when the Author is not of our body. All this I understand ve●● well, said I, and see that any thing will find entertainment among you, but the ancient Fathers, and that you are the Masters of the field, and need no more than drive all before you.  
But I foresee three or four great inconveniences and strong turn-pikes which will check your pursuit. What, I pray, says the Father amazed? Scripture, said I, Popes and Councils, whom you cannot give the lie to, and who are all in the only way of the Gospel. And is that all, said he? you have put me into a cold sweat. Do you imagine that a thing so visible hath not been foreseen, and that we have not made provision for it accordingly? I cannot but wonder you should think that we are opposite to the Scripture, Popes, and Councils. I must convince you of the contrary. It would trouble me you should think we are forgetful of the duty we own them. Certainly you have this imagination from some opinions of our Fathers, which seem to offer some violence to their Decisions, when indeed there's no such thing. But to understand the Harmony there is between them, requires more leisure. I wish you should not entertain any sinister thoughts of us. If we meet to morrow, I shall clear up the business to you. Here the conference ended, and so shall this discourse; 'tis pretty fair for a Letter. With a confidence you will content yourself with this, till you have what is behind. I rest, etc.  
Paris, March 20. 1656.   

To the same. LETTER VI.  
Sir,  
IN the conclusion of my last Letter, I told you how that the good Father, the Jesuit, promised to acquaint me how the Casuists reconcile the contrarieties which happen between their opinions and the D●cisions of the Popes, Councils, and the Scripture. And indeed he hath given me good satisfaction as to that point in my second visit, of which you have this present account; wherein you will find me more exact than in the other. For I brought a Table-book with me, to set down the citations of passages, being not a little troubled I had not done it the first time. But if you make any doubt of those I have cited in the other Letter, let me know so much, and I shall easily give you satisfaction.  
The good Father's discourse was to this effect. One of the ways whereby we reconcile these apparent contradictions, is, by the interpretation of some term. For instance. Pope Gregory XIV. hath declared that Murderers are unworthy the benefit of taking sanctuary in Churches, and that they are to be forced from thence; whereas our 24 Ancients, pag. 660. affirm, That those who kill any one treacherously ought not to incur the penalty of that Bull. This, to you, seems contradictory, but it is reconciled, by interpreting the word Murderer as is done, by these words: Are Murderers unworthy to enjoy the privilege of taking sanctuary in Churches? According to the Bull of Gregory XIV. they are. But we understand, by the word Murderers, those, who have received money to kill any one treacherously. Whence it comes to pass, that those who kill without receiving any reward, but do it only to oblige their friends, are not called Murderers. In like manner, it is said in the Gospel, Give Alms of your superfluities. 
Luke 11.41. Vulg. Lat.  And yet divers Casuists have found out a way to exempt even the richest persons from this obligation of giving alms. This you think another contradiction, but the reconciliation is easily discovered, by interpreting the word superfluity, insomuch that it seldom or never happens that any one is troubled with any such thing. And this is done by the learned Vasquez in this manner, in his treatise of Alms, cap. 4. Whatever men lay up out of a design to raise their own fortunes or those of their relations, is not called superfluous. For which reason it will be hard to find any among those that are worldly-minded, that have aught superfluous, no, not even among Kings.  
With him agrees Diana, citing these very words of Vasquez, for he ordinarily grounds all he says on our Fathers, and so concludes very handsomely; That, in this question, Wheteer rich men are obliged to give alms out of their supe fluity? though the affirmative be true, yet it will seldom or never happen, that it is obligatory in point of practice.  
I am satisfied, Father, said I, that this must follow out of the doctrine of Vasqu●z. But if it be objected, that, for a man to work out his salvation, it were as sure a way for him, according to Vasquez, to be guilty of ambition enough that so he may have nothing superfluous, as it is according to the Gospel, not to be ambitious at all, that so he may give alms out of his superfluities, how will you answer it? It may be answered, said he, that both these ways are equally secure according to the same Gospel; one, according to the Gospel, in the more literal, and more obvious sense; the other according to the same Gospel interpreted by Vasquez. Whence you see the benefit of these interpretations.  
But when the terms are so clear as not to admit any explanation, than we make the best advantage we can of the most favourable circumstances, as you shall see in this example. The Popes have excommunicated those Religious men that quit their habit, and yet our 24 Ancients stick not to discourse thus, pag. 704. In what cases may a Religious man quit his habit without running the hazard of Excommunication? He instances in many, and among others this. If he quit it upon some infamous occasion, as for to go and steal, or to go, incognitò, to uncivil places, as the Stews, intending to resume it again as soon as he hath done. And indeed it is evident the Bulls mention not any of these cases.  
This I could hardly believe, and therefore entreated the Father to show it me in the original, and found that the Chapter wherein these words are, is entitled; The Practice according to the School of the Society of Jesus, Praxis ex Societatis Jesu scholâ: and here I found these words, si habitum dimittat, ut furetur occultè, vel fornicetur. The same thing he also shown me out of Diana, in these terms, ut eat incognitus ad Lupanar. But how comes it, Father, said I, that they acquit them of excommunication in this case? Do you not apprehend the reason, said he? Do you not perceive how scandalous it were to surprise a religious man in that condition with his religious habit on? And have you not heard what answer was made to the first Bull, Contra sollicitantes? And how our twenty four in a particular chapter, Of the Practice of the School of our Society, explain the Bull of Pius Quintus, Co●tra Clericos, etc. I know nothing of all this, replied I. Then you are not much versed in Escobar, said he. I had it not till yesterday, said I, and I had much ado to find one. I know not what is happened lately, that all the world inquires after him. No other reason, replied the Father, than what I told you, in pag. 117. see it at your leisure. You will there find an excellent example of the manner of interpreting Bulls favourably. I indeed looked into him that very night, but I dare not give you any account of it, 'tis a thing so horrid and abominable.  
The good Father proceeded in his discourse. You now understand what use we make of favourable circumstances. But there are sometimes such as are so precise, that they contribute nothing to the reconciliation of the contradictions, insomuch that in such a case you might well think there really were some. For example; three Popes have decided, that the Religious, who, by a particular vow, are obliged to observe a quadragesimal life, are not dispensed of that vow, though they should be made Bishops. And yet Diana says, that notwithstanding their decision they are dispensed of it. How, I pray, does he salve it, said I? By the most subtle of all the new methods, replied the Father, and the most refined part of Probability. I'll explain it to you: It is as you observed the other day, that both the affirmative and negative of most opinions have a certain probability, according to the judgement of our Doctors, that is, enough to induce a man to follow them with a safe conscience. Not that the pro and con are equally true in the same sense, that being impossible, but only that they are probable, and secure in their consequences.  
According to this principle it is, that our good Friend Diana speaks thus, part 5. tr. 13. R. 39 As to the decision of these three Popes, since it is contrary to my opinion; I answer, that they have spoken in that manner out of their inclination to the affirmative, which indeed is probable, even in my judgement; but it does not follow thence but that the negative may also have its probability. And in the same Treatise, R. 65. upon another occasion, wherein, as before, he is of an opinion contrary to that of a Pope, he speaks thus; That the Pope hath said it, as head of the Church, I acknowledge; but what he hath done, is, as to his judgement, within the sphere of probability. You see then that this derogates nothing from the judgements of Popes, for if it did, it would not be suffered at Rome, where Diana is in so great reputation. For he does not affirm that what the Popes have decided is not probable, but, comprehending their opinion within the sphere of probability, he sticks not to hold the contrary to be also probable. This speaks abundance of respect in him, said I. Nay it is more subtle, replied he, than the answer which Father Bauny made when they had censured his books at Rome. For he let fall this word against Monsieur Hallier, who persecuted him tooth and nail; what community is there between the censure of Rome and that of France? Whence you may easily perceive, that, either by the interpretation of the terms, or by observation of the favourable circumstances, or lastly by the cross-probability of the pro and con, we reconcile all these imaginary contradictions which you were startled at before, without doing any violence to the decisions of the Scripture, Councils, and Popes, as you plainly see. Well, reverend Father, said I, the Church is infinitely happy that you are her defenders. How advantageous are these probabilities? I knew not upon what ground you had taken so much pains to establish, that one only Doctor, if grave, may render an opinion probable, but that the contrary might be so too, and then a man may choose either pro or con as he thinks best, although he do not believe it certain, and all with so much safety of conscience, that a Confessor, who should deny absolution upon the credit of these Casuists, were in the state of damnation. Whence I apprehend that one particular Casuist, may, at his pleasure, make new rules in Morality, and dispose, according to his humour, whatever relates to the conduct of the Church. You must, said the Father, admit some moderation in what you say. Observe well what I am going to tell you; it is our method, wherein you will see the progress of an opinion, from its first beginnings to its maturity.  
In the first place, the grave Doctor who hath found it out, exposes it to the world, and casts it abroad as a seed to take root. While it is in this condition, it is weak, but time must ripen it by degrees. Upon which account, Diana, who hath introduced a many, says in one place, I advance this opinion, but because it is as yet new, I leave it to be ripened by time; relinquo tempori maturandam. Accordingly in a few years it insensibly gathers strength, and after a considerable time, it is authorised by the silent approbation of the Church, according to that excellent maxim of Father Bauny; That an opinion being advanced by some Casuists, if the Church oppose it not, it is an evident argument that she approves it. And indeed by this principle doth he confirm an opinion of his, in his sixth Treatise, pag. 312. How, said I, Father, by this account▪ the Chu ch would be thought to approve all those abuses which she suffers, and all those erroneous opinions in books which she censures not? Dispute it, said he, with Father Bauny; I only give you a relation, and you would debate the business with me. You must never dispute matter of fact. I was telling you, that when time hath thus brought an opinion to maturity, then is it absolutely porbable and sure. And thence it comes, that the learned Caramuel, in the Letter wherein he directs his fundamental Theologies to Diana, says, that that great Diana, had rendered divers opinions probable which were not such before, quae ante anon erant; & consequently that a man sins no longer in following them, whereas before he did sin, jam non peccant, l●cèt antè peccaverint.  
Truly Father, said I, there is much edification to be got by your Doctors. Of two pe●sons that do the same things, he who knows not their doctrine, sins; he who does, sins not. It is therefore at the same time both instructive and justificative. The law of God made men sinners, according of Saint Paul; but this makes almost all innocent. I beseech you, Father, instruct me fully as to this point, I will not leave you till you have acquainted me with the principal maxims which your Casuists have established.  
Alas! said the Father to me, it should have been our principal end, not to establish any other maxims than those of the Gospel in all their severity. Nor is it less evident from the regulation of our Manners, that if we suffer any freedom in others, it is rather out of compliance than design; we are indeed forced to it. Men are now arrived to such a height of corruption, that we, not able to prevail with them to come to us, are obliged to go over to them. Otherwise they would forsake us, they would do worse, they would be absolutely cast away. It is therefore to restrain them that our Casuists have considered the vices whereto men, in their several conditions, are most inclined, that they might establish maxims so gentle, (without injury to truth) as if they should not be satisfied with, they must needs be very hard to please. For the main drift of our Society, for the advantage of Religion, is not to turn away any whatsoever, so to keep the world as much as may be together.  
We have therefore Maxims suitable to all sorts of persons, to such as have Benefices to dispose to Priests, to Religious men, to Gentlemen, to Menial Servants, to the Rich, to Merchants, to those who are in troubles, to those who are in necessity, to devout women, to such of that Sex as are not so, to married people, to such as are disordered. In a word, they have made provision for all things▪ That is, said I, you are furnished for the Clergy, the Nobility and the Commons. I am extremely desirous to know them.  
Let us begin, says the Father, with the first. You know what trading there is at this day, about Benefices; and if we should measure things by the writings of Saint Thomas and the Ancients, the Church would be found well stored with Simonists. Which considered, it is necessary our Fathers should, by their prudence, moderate things, as these words of Valentia, one of Escobars four living creatures, will show you. It is the conclusion of a long Discourse where he gives many expedients, among which the best in my judgement is this; in pag. 2042. of the third Tome. If a man give a temporal good for a spiritual, (that is to say, money for a Benefice) and that a man give money as the price of the Benefice, it is apparent Simony. But if he gives it as the motive inclining the will of the Incumbent to resign his interest, non tanquam pretium beneficii, sed tanquam motivum ad resignandum, it is not Simony, though he that resigns consider, and look on the money as his principal end. Tannerus, who is also of our Society affirms the same thing, Tom. 3. pag. 1519. confessing withal, that Saint Thomas is of a contrary opinion, in that he absolutely maintains that it is undeniable Simony to give a spiritual good for a temporal, if the temporal be the end thereof: By this means we do salve abundance of Simonies. For who would be so wicked, as, when he gives money for a benefice, to refuse to do it out of an inclination to give it as a motive obliging the incumbent to resign, instead of giving it as the price of the benefice? No man is so far forsaken of God. I agree with you, said I, that all the world have graces sufficient, to make such a bargain. It is very certain, replied the Father.  
You see then how we have mitigated things in regard of persons that take benefices. As for the Priests, we have divers Maxims that are no less favourable to them. For instance, take this of our twenty four, pag. 143. A Priest that hath once received money to say Mass, may he take other money upon the account of the same mass? Filliutius affirms he may, by applying that part of the sacrifice which belongs to himself as Priest, to him who pays him last, provided he receive not as much as a whole mass amounts to, but only for one part, as haply for a third of the mass.  
This, Father, is certainly one of those cases wherein the pro and con are very probable. For what you affirm must needs be so, after the authority of Filliutius and Escobar. But leaving it in the sphere of probability, the contrary, methinks, might very well be maintained, and made good by these reasons. When the Church allows Priests that are poor to receive money for their Masses, it being just that those who serve the Altar should live of the Altar; her meaning is, not that they should make an exchange of the sacrifice for money, much less, that they should be deprived of all those graces which they should first derive thence themselves. Nay, I might further urge, that the Priests, according to Saint Paul, are obliged to offer sacrifice first for themselves, and then for the people; that is, it is lawful for them to communicate to others the fruit of the sacrifice, but not voluntarily to exempt themselves of all advantage thereof, to bestow it on another for the third part of the Mass, that is, four or five pence. Truly, Father, as little gravity as I pretend to, I could render this opinion probable. It would cost you no great pains, said he. That is apparently such already. All the difficulty were to find out probability in the contrary. And that's the work of the most eminent, among whom Father Bauny is highly considerable. 'Tis infinitely pleasant to see this able Casuist diving into the pro and con of the same Question, wherein the Priests are still concerned, and fastening on reason every way, he is so subtle and ingenious. He says in a certain place, 'tis in his tenth Treatise, pag. 474. There cannot any such Law be made, as shall oblige a beneficed Priest to say Mass every day, because such a law would infallibly, haud dub è, expose them to the danger of saying it sometimes in mortal sin. And yet in the same Treatise 10. pag. 441. he says, That the Priests who have received money to say Mass every day, aught to say it every day, and that they cannot be dispensed with, upon pretence that they are not always sufficiently well prepared for to say it, because it is in their power, at any time, to make an act of contrition, which if they neglect to do, it is their own fault, and not his upon whose account they are to say Mass. And to take away the greatest difficulties which might divert them from doing it, he thus resolves the question in the same Treatise, Qu. 32. pag. 457. May a Priest say Mass the same day wherein he hath committed a mortal sin, haply one of the most enormous, he making his confession beforehand? Villalobos says, not, because of his uncleanness. But Sanchez affirms, he may, and that without sin; and I think his opinion safe, and that it ought to be followed in practice; & tuta, & sequenda in praxi.  
How Father, said I, may this opinion be put into practice? May a Priest guilty of such a disorder, presume, the same day, to approach the Altar upon Father Bauny's word? Or should he not rather submit to the ancient laws of the Church, which absolutely excluded, from the sacrifice, those Priests who had committed sins of that nature, than the new opinions of Casuists, who readmit them thereto, on the very day that they are so fallen? You have a very treacherous memory, says the Father, have I not sometime told you, That in matters of Morality we are not to be guided by the ancient Fathers, but the modern Casuists? as our Fathers, Cellot, and Reginaldus affirm. I remember it very well, answered I, but this is a business of greater consequence, for the Laws of the Church are therein concerned. You speak reason, said he, but, it seems, you are not yet acquainted with this excellent maxim of our Fathers, That the Laws of the Church are of no force when they are no longer observed, cùm jam desuetudìne abierunt, as Filliutius affirms, Tom. 2. Tr. 25. N. 33. We see, better than the Ancients, the present exigences of the Church. If there were so much rigour observed in excluding Priests from the Altar, you easily apprehend the consequence, that there would not be so great a number of Masses. Now the abundance of Masses brings so much glory to God and so much profit to souls, that I dare affirm, with our Father Cellot, in his book of The Hierarchy, pag. 611. of the Roüen impression, that there could not be too many Priests, though not only all men and women, were it possible, but even all inanimate bodies, and brute beasts, bruta animalia, were turned Priests to celebrate the Mass. I was so surprised at that fantastic imagination, that I could not say any thing, so that he kept on his discourse.  
But there's enough as to the Priests; I should be too tedious else, we come now to the Religious. The greatest difficulties they meet with consist in the obedience they own their superiors, see what gentle pills our Fathers prescribe them. Castrus Palaus, of our Society, op. mor. pag. 1. disp. 2. pag. 6. says; It is out of all controversy, (non est controversia) that the Religious man, who of his side hath a probable opinion, is not bound to obey his Superior, though the Superiors opinion be the more probable. For in such a case, it is lawful for the religious man to embrace that which is most acceptable to him, quae sibi gratior fuerit, as Sanchez affirms. Nay though the commandment of the Superior be just, you are not thereby engaged to obey him, for it is not just as to all points, and in all circumstances; non undequaque justè praecipit, but only probably, and so you are probably engaged to obey him, & you are probably disengaged from obeying him, probabiliter obligatus, & probabiliter deobligatus. In troth Father, said I, a man cannot have too high an esteem for so excellent a fruit as that of the double probability! 'Tis of extraordinary use, said he, but to proceed. I shall trouble you but with this one passage of our famous Molina, in favour of those religious men, who, for their disorders▪ are turned out of their Convents. Our Father Escobar quotes him, pag. 705. in these terms; Molina affirms, that a religious man turned out of his Monastery is not obliged to any reformation in order to his return into it again, and that he is not any longer tied by his vow of Obedience.  
Well, Father, said I, the ecclesiastics are well provided for; your Casu●sts, I see, have dealt very favourably with them, nay as well as they would have done for themselves. I Fear me they have not been so tender of people of other conditions. 'Tis but just a man should do well for himself. Nay even those others could not have done better for themselves, replied the Father; all have been treated with equal charity, from the greatest even to the least. To make good which assertion, you engage me to acquaint you with our Maxims concerning Servants.  
We have considered, as to their particular, the trouble they are in, when, being conscientious people, they serve disordered Masters, For if they do not all the messages they employ them in, they lose their services and fortunes; and if they obey them, they are troubled in conscience. To comfort them in this condition, our twenty four Fathers, in pag. 77. have exemplified the services which they may perform with safety of Conscience; whereof these are some. To deliver Letters and Presents; to open doors and windows; to help their Master to get in at a window; to hold the ladder while he gets up; all this is allowable and indifferent. But indeed to hold the ladder, it is requisite they be threatened more than ordinary, in case they do not. For it is an injury to the Master of the house, for any man to come into it through the window.  
Do you observe how judiciously this provision is made? I expected no less, said I, from a book extracted out of the works of twenty four Jesuits. But our Father Bauny, added the Father, hath further taught servants to do their Masters all these services innocently, by obliging them to direct their intention, not to the sins wherein they are agents, but only to their own profit thereby. This he hath handsomely expressed in his Summary of sins, p. 710. of the first edition. Let the Confessors, saith he, take good notice, that they may not absolve servants who do dishonest M ssages, if they consent to the sins of their Masters; but we must say the contrary, if they do them for their own temporal advantages. And this is easy for them to do, for why should they be so ready to give their consent to sins, which only put them to a great deal of trouble both of body and conscience?  
Besides, the same Father Bauny hath established this great Maxim, to oblige those that are not content with their wages. 'Tis in his Summary pag. 213, and 214. of the sixth Edition. May Servants who are not content with their wages advance them of themselves by filching and purloining as much from th●ir Masters as they imagine necessary to make their wages proportionable to their services? In some occasions they may, as when they are so poor when they come into service, that they are obliged to accept any proffer that's made to them, and that other Servants of their quality get more elsewhere.  
This Father, said I, is just the case of John d' Alba. What John d' Alba, says the Father, what do you mean? How, Father, have you forgot what happened in the year 1647. where were you then? I read, says he, Cases of Conscience at a College of ours, far from Paris. Then Father, said I, I perceive you know not this story, and therefore must needs tell it you. I heard it in a place where I was the other day from a person of good quality. He told us that this John d' Alba, being a servant to your Fathers of the College of Cle mont in Saint James street, and thinking his wages too low, stole something from them to make it up. That upon this, your Fathers put him in prison, charging him with felony, and that he came to be tried at the Chastelet, if my memory fail me not, the sixth of April, 1647. For the Gentleman gave all these particulars without which we should hardly have believed him. This poor rogue, being examined, confess d, that he had taking away certain Pewter-pl●tes from the Fathers, but pleaded that he was not guilty of any felony for so doing, alleging for his justification, this doctrine of Father Bauny, ● which he presented to the Judges, with an attestation from one of your Fathers, under whom he had studied the cases of Conscience, and who had taught him the s●me thing. Whereupon Monsieur De Montrouge, one of the sagest of the Judges of that Court, gave his judgement thus; That he was not of opinion, that, upon the writing of those Fa●thers, containing a doctrine so unlawful, pernicious, and contrary to all Laws, natural, divine and humane, such as is able to confound all Family's, and to authorize all domestic frauds and infidelities, the prisoner should be acquitted. But his judgement was, that that over-faithful disciple should be whipped before the College-gate of Clermont by the common Hangman, who at the same time should but n all the writings of those Fathers treating of theft & that they should be prohibited to teach any such doctrine again, upon pain of death.  
Men expected the effect of this generally approved judgement, where happens an accident which caused an arrest of it. But in the mean time, the prisoner vanishes, (none knows how) and with him all discourse of the business, so that John d' Alba got out, and made no restitution of the plates. This was his relation, to which he added that this judgement of Monsieur De Montrouge is upon record in the Chastelet, where any one may see it. The story we thought very pleasant.  
What do you take all this pains for, says the Father? what does all this signify? I entertain you with the maxims of our Casuists, and was just falling upon those that regard Gentlemen, and you interrupt me with impertinent stories. I only told it you by the way, said I, besides that you may thence take notice of a thing of great importance as to what we discourse of, which I perceive you had forgotten, when you established your doctrine of Probability. And what, I pray, says the Father, can there be wanting, when the business hath passed through the hands of so many excellent men? This replied I, that you have secured all those who follow your opinions in respect of God and their own Consciences; for, as you affirm, a man is safe enough so far, by adhering to one grave Doctor. You have also given them good security, as to what concerns their Confessors; for you have obliged the Priests to absolve them, upon a probable opinion, upon pain of mortal sin. But you have not put them into a safe posture in relation to the Judges, insomuch, that while they follow your probabilities, they are exposed to the whip and the halter. This was an extraordinary oversight. You are in the right, says the Father, you oblige me very much. But the reason of it is, that we have not so much power over the Magistrates as over the Confessors, who are obliged to submit to us in all cases of Conscience; for we are the sovereign Judges there. That I understand very well, said I, but if, on the one side, you are Judges of the Confessors, are you not, on the other, Confessors to the Judges? your power is of a large extent: oblige them to acquit Criminals who go upon a probable opinion, upon pain of exclusion from the Sacraments; lest it happen, to the great contempt and scandal of probability, that those, whom you make innocent in the Theory, be whipped and hanged in the practic. If you do not this, how can you expect Disciples? Some course must be taken, said he, it is no slight matter. I will propose it to our Father Provincial. But you may keep this advice till another time, and not interrupt what I have to say to you of the maxims we have established to oblige Gentlemen, which therefore I shall not acquaint you with, but upon condition that you tell me no more stories. This is all you are like to have for the present, for it requires more than one Letter to give you a full account of one Conference. In the mean, I am, etc.  
Paris, April 10. 1656.   

To the same. LETTER VII.  
Sir,  
I Had no sooner appeased the good Father, whose discourse I had a little disordered by the story of John d' Alba, but he resumed it upon my promise to him not to start any such again, and so entertained me with the maxims of his Casuist● concerning Gentlemen, much to this effect.  
You know, said he, that the passion which is most predominant in persons of this rank, is, that punctilio of Honour, which ever and anon engages them to do those violences that seem to be contrary to Christian piety, which indeed are such, that there were no way▪ but to exclude them from Confession, i● our Fathers had not remitted somewhat of the severity of Religion, the better to comply with humane frailty. But, their duty toward God obliging them to a submission to the Gospel, and their charity towards their neighbour to an indulgence to the world, they had need of all their abilities to find out expedients, such as should moderate things with so much equality, that men might maintain and repair their honour, by the ways ordinarily used in the world, yet without burdening the Conscience, so to make a certain provision for two things which seem to be so much opposite, as piety and honour.  
But if the design be advantageous, the execution of it is proportionably troublesome; nor do I doubt but you are sensible of the greatness and difficulty of the enterprise. It startles me, said I. It startles you, replied he? I believe it. It would startle othergate people than you are. Do you not know, that on the one side it is provided by the Evangelical Law, not to return evil for evil, but to leave vengeance to God? And on the other, the Laws of the world forbidden a man to suffer injuries, but admit him to endeavour his own satisfaction, and that many times by the death of his enemies? Have you ever seen any thing that seems to be more contrary? And yet when I tell you that our Fathers have reconciled these things, you can make no other answer, then that it startles you. My expression, said I, was a little too scanty; For indeed I should think it absolutely impossible, if having seen so much of your Fathers as I have, I were not satisfied they could easily do what is impossible to other men. Upon this ground it is that I conceive they may haply have found out some expedient, which I admire before I know it, and which I would entreat you to d scover to me.  
If that be your meaning, said he, I am ready to serve you. Know then that this miraculous principle, is nothing else but our grand method of directing the intention, a thing of so great consequence in our Morality, that I durst almost compare it with the Doctrine of Probability. You have seen several slight touches of it in those Maxims I have already entertained you with. For when I explicated to you the manner how servants may conscientiously do certain unhandsome messages, did you not observe that all the difficulty was in the diversion of the intention from the evil, whereof they are the abetters, to direct it to the advantage accrueing to themselves thereby? This is the meaning of directing the intention. And you have, in like manner, seen that those who give money for Benefices were inexcusably Simonists, were it not for a like diversion. But now I will display this grand method in its full lustre, upon the subject Murder, which it justifies upon a thousand occasions, that by such an effect you may judge what it is able to produce. I already perceive, said I, a general permission to do any thing, nothing shall escape it. You always jump out of one extremity into another, replied the Father, amend that fault. For, to satisfy you, that we do not permit all things, know, for instance, that we never suffer a man should have no other design in sinning, than a formal intention to sin; and that, if any one be so obdurate, as in an evil action to limit his desire by the evil itself, we have no more to do with him; this is diabolical, and admits not any exception of age, sex, or quality. But if a man be not sunk into that wretched condition, we endeavour to put in practice our method of directing the intention, which consists in a man's proposing to himself, as the end of his actions; an allowable object. Not but that we, as far as lies in our power, divert men from doing things fordidden; but when we cannot hinder the action, we at least purify the intention, and so correct the viciousness of the means, by the purity of the end.  
Thus, you see, have our Fathers found out a means to permit the violences men ordinarily commit in maintaining their honour. For there's no more to be done, then to divert the intention from the desire of revenge, which is sinful, to incline it to a desire of maintaining one's honour, which, according to our Fathers, is allowable. And thus they acquit themselves of a l obligations both towards God and towards men. For they satisfy the world by permitting the actions, and satisfy the Gospel by purifying the intentions. This is a thing the Ancients never knew; the world is engaged for it only to our Fathers. Do you now understand the business? Very well, said I. You allow men the gross substance of things, and give God that spiritual motion of the intention, and by this equal division, make an alliance between divine and humane Laws. But Father, to deal freely with you, I am a little distrustful of your promises, and question whether your Authors affirm as much as you do. You do me wrong, said the Father, I advance nothing but what I prove, and that by so many passages, that their number, their authority, and their reasons will fill you with admiration.  
For to let you see the Harmony our Fathers have made between the maxims of the Gospel and those of the world, by the means of this direction of the intention; hear what our Father Reginaldus saith, in praxi, l. 21. n. 62. p. 260 It is forbidden, that private men should revenge themselves. For Saint Paul saith Rom. 12. Render not unto any man evil for evil. And Eccles. 28. He who will revenge himself will bring upon himself the vengeance of God, and his sin shall not be forgotten Besides what is said in the Gospel concerning the forgiving of offences, as in the 6. and 18. Chapter of Saint Matthew. Certainly, Father, said I, if, this premised, he say any thing but what is in the Scripture, it cannot be for want of knowing it. What's his conclusion, I pray? This, said he, From all these things it is evident, that a man of courage may immediately pursue another that hath hurt him, not indeed out of any intention to render evil for evil, but out of that of preserving his honour, Non ut malum pro malo reddat, sed ut conservet honorem.  
See you then how careful they are to forbid a man to have an intention to render evil for evil, because the Scripture condemns it. No, they never permit that. See Lessius de Just. l. 2. c. 9 d. 12. n. 79. He who hath had a box o'th' ear given him may not have the intention to revenge himself; but he may be permitted that of avoiding infamy, and to that end, may immediately put back the injury, and that with his sword, etiam cum gladio. We are so far from admitting that men should entertain any design to be revenged of their enemies, that our Fathers will not so much as allow them to wish their death, out of any motive of hatred. See our Father Escobar, tr. 5. Ex. 5. n. 145. If your enemy have some intention to do you a mischief, you ought not to wish his d●ath out of any intention of hatred, but you may justly do it to avoid your own disadvantage. For that is so far lawful, with this intention, that our great Hurtado de Mend za saith, That a man may pray unto God to send sudden destruction on those who endeavour to persecute us, if he cannot avoid it otherwise. 'Tis in his book de spe, vol. 2. di 15. 3 Sect. 4.55.48.  
Reverend Father, said I, the Church hath forgotten to put a prayer to this purpose among those she makes use of. There is not indeed, said he, laid down there all that a man may ask of God. Besides that in this case it could not be, for this opinion is later than the Breviary; you are no good Chronologer. But to keep to the business in hand, take this other passage of our Father Gasper Hurtad●, de sub pecc. diff. 9 cited by Diana, p. 5. tr. 14. R. 99 He is one of the 24▪ Father's; of Escobar. An incumbent may without any mortal sin w●sh the death of him that hath a pension out of his living; and●● son that of his father, and may rejoice wh●n it happens, p ovided it proceed only from a consideration of the advantage accrues to him thereby, a●d not out of any personal hatred.  
O Father, said I, what excellent advantages may there be made of the direction of the intention! I see it must needs be of a large ex●ent. And yet there are certain cases which were not easily resolved, though such as persons of quality are extremely concerned in. Propose them, says the Father, that we may see what may be said thereto. Show me, said I, with all your direction of intention, how a man may be permitted to fight a duel. Our great Father Hurtado de Mendoza, will give you satisfaction immediately, says the Father, in the passage cited by Diana, p 5 tr. 14. R. 99 If a Gentleman that is challenged be known not to be much precise, and that it may be judged from the sins he ordinarily commits widow hout any scruple of conscience, that if he accept not the challenge, it is not out of any fear of God, but merely out of cowardice, and consequently that people would thence take occasion to say of him, that he was a hen hearted fellow, and no man, gallina & non vir; this man, may, for the maintenance of his honour, come to the place appointed, not indeed with an express intention to fight the duel, but only with that of defending himself, if he by whom he was challenged, come thither, unjustly to set upon him. And his action shall be in itself indifferent. For what hurt can there be for a man to go into a field, to walk there in expectation of another, and to defend himself if any one set upon him? So that he commits not any sin at all, for when the intention is directed to other circumstances, the challenge is not at all accepted, for the acceptation of a challenge consists in the express intention of fight, which such a man hath not.  
You are not as good as your word Father, said I, this is not properly to permit duels; on the contrary, he by a shift does not acknowledge it to be any, so to make the thing the more lawful; so far does he think it forbidden. Ho, ho, said the Father, you begin to grow a sophister, I am extremely glad of it. To answer you, I might affirm that in that he allows all that they desire who fight duels. But since you expect such punctual satisfaction, our Father Layman shall give it you for me, who permits duels in express terms, provided that a man direct his intention to accept the challenge for to preserve his honour, or his fortune. It is, l. 3. p. 3. c. 3. n. 2, and 3. If a Soldier of the Army, or a Courtier, must in likelihood lose his reputation or his fortune if he accept not a challenge, I see no reason why he should be condemne● who doth accept it to defend himself. Petrus Hurtado affirms the same thing, as he is cited by our famous Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 96. and n. 98. where he adds these words of Hurtado, That a man may fight a duel even to defend his estate, if there be no other means to preserve it, because every man hath a right to secure what is his own, and that even by the death of his enemies.  
These passages gave me occasion to admire the difference there is between the piety of the King and that of the Jesuits; the former using all his power to prohibit and abolish Duelling in his Dominions, the latter employing all their subtlety to make it allowable, and to countenance it in the Church. But the Father was in such an excellent good humour, that it would have been unhandsome to interrupt him, so that he proceeded thus. In a word, says he, Sanchez, (pray consider what persons I cite) goes further; for he allows a man not only to accept, but also to give a challenge, if so be the direction of the intention be right. And our Escobar seconds him in the place , n. 97. Father, said I, if it be so, I am convinced, but I shall not believe he writ any such thing till I see it. Then read it yourself, said he; whereupon I read words to this effect in Sanchez's Moral Theology, l. 2. c. 39 n. 7. It is but rational to affirm, that a man may fight a duel to save his life, his reputation, nay his estate, if it be any thing considerable, when it is clear that others endeavour to take them away from him unjustly by foul practice and vexatious suits at Law, and that there is no other way to preserve them. And Nava rus says very well, that in such an occasion it is lawful either to accept or give the challenge, licet accep tore est offer duellum. Nay further, that a man may dispatch his enemy at unawares; nay yet more, that in such occurrences a man need not confine himself to the ordinary way of Duels, if he can secretly murder his adversary, and thereby put an end to the business. For by that means he shall not only avoid the hazard he may be in, by exposing his life in fight, but also not participate of the sin which his enemy would commit by the duel.  
This Father, said I, is a pious Treachery; but, how pious soever, it is still a Treachery, since a man is permitted to kill his enemy treacherousty. Did I say, replied the Father, that one man might kill another treacherously? God forbidden: I told you, he might do it secretly, and thence you conclude that it may be done treacherously, as if it were but one and the same thing. Learn of Escobar, tr. 6. exa. 4. n. 26. what it is to kill treacherously, and then you will say something. A man is said to kill treacherously, when he kills him who hath not the least suspicion that such a thing will happen to kim. He therefore that kills his enemy is not said to kill treacherously, though he do it behind his back or by way of ambush, licèt per insidias, aut à tergo percutiat. And in the same treatise, n. 56. He who kills his enemy with whom he had been reconciled, though under promise never to attempt his life again, is not absolutely said to k ll him treacherously, unless there had been a very intimate friendship between them before; arctior amicitia.  
You are now sensible that you do not so much as understand the terms, and yet will needs speak as confidently as a Doctor. I must indeed confess, said I, that this is new to me, and I learn from this definition, that, haply, there never was any man killed treacherously; for a man seldom assassinates any but his enemies. But, however it be, a man according to Sanchez, (I do not say, treacherously, but behind the back or in an ambush) may confidently kill an Informer that prosecutes us in any Court, may he not? No doubt but he may, says the Father, provided there be a right direction of the intention; you ever forget what is most considerable. It is also the opinion of Molina, to. 4. tr. 3. disp. 12. nay, according to our learned Reginaldus, l. 21. c. 5. n. 57 a man may kill the false witnesses which such a prosecutor produceth against him. In a word, if we credit our eminent and celebrious Fathers, Tamerus and Emanuel Sa; a man may kill both the false witnesses and the Judge too, if there be any correspondence between them. Take his own words, tr. 3. disp. 4. q. 8. n. 83. Sotus, saith he, and Lessius affirm that it is not lawful for a man to kill the false witnesses, and the Judge which conspire the death of an innocent person; but Emanuel Sa and other authors do, with reason, impugn that opinion, so far at least, as it relates to matter of Conscience. And he further maintains, in the same place, that a man may kill both witnesses and Judge.  
I am now Father, said I, sufficiently instructed in your principle of the direction of the intention, but I would fain understand also the consequences of it, and be acquainted with all those cases wherein this method arms a man with a power to kill. Let us therefore run over those you have put already, for fear of mistake; for equivocation were here very dangerous. I take it then upon your security, that there being a right direction of the intention, a man, to preserve his reputation, or his estate, may, according to your Fathers, accept a challenge, sometimes give one, he may secretly kill an unjust prosecutor, and with him the witnesses he should make use of, nay the corrupt Judge that favours them; you have further told me, that he who hath received a box o'th' ear, may, abstracting all thoughts of revenge, right himself with his sword. But, Father, you have not assigned a proportion how far this may be done. A man cannot be mistaken in that, replied the Father, for a man may proceed so far as to kill him. 'Tis excellently well proved by our learned Henriquez, l. 14. c. 10. n. 3. and by divers others of our Fathers, cited by Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 48. in these words. One man may kill another who hath given him a box o'th' ear, though he run away for it, provided he do it not out of hatred or revenge, and that by that means there be a gap opened for excessive murders, such as are destructive to the state. And the reason of it is, that a man may as well do that in pursuance of his reputation, as of his goods, taken away from him. For though your reputation be not so in the possession of your enemy as would be the goods he had taken away from you, yet may it be recovered in the same manner, besides that it is a certain expression of height of spirit, and authority, and that a man gains esteem among men for doing it. And indeed is it not confessed that he who hath so received a box o'th' ear, is accounted dishonourable, till such time as he hath killed his enemy?  
This I thought a tenant so horrid, that I had much ado to keep myself in; but, out of a desire to know that followed, I let him go on. Nay, said he, a man may, to prevent a box o'th' ear, kill him that is going to give it, if there be no other way to avoid it. This is obvious in our Fathers. For instance, Azor. inst. mor. part. 3. pag. 105. (he is one of the 24. Ancients) puts this case. Is it lawful for a person of quality to kill one that would give him a box o'th' ear, or a bang with a stick? Some say, not, and their reason is, that the life of our neighbour is more precious than our honour, besides the barbarism it were to kill a man out of no other motive then that of avoiding a blow. But others affirm it lawful; and for my part, I think it probable, when it cannot be avoided otherwise. For if it were not, the reputation of innocent persons were perpetually exposed to the insolences of the malicious. This is further maintained by our great Filiutius, to. 2. tr. 29. c. 3. n. 50. by Father Hereau in his writings concerning murder; Hurtado de Mendoza, to. 2. disp. 170. Sect. 16. § 137. and Becanus, Somm. t. 1. q 64. the homicide. Add to these our Fath●rs Flahaut and Le Court, in those writings of theirs, which the University [of Paris] quoted at length in their third Petition, purposely to have them publicly censured, though ineffectually; and Escobar, in the same place, n. 48. affirming the same things. In a word, it is so generally maintained, that Lessius, l. 2. c. 9 d. 12. n. 77. speaks of it as a tenant made absolutely sterling, by the unanimous consent of all Casuists. It is lawful, saith he, according to the consent of all Casu sts, ex sententiâ omnium, to kill him who would give a box o'th' ear, or a blow with a stick when a man cannot other ways avoid it. What would you have more?  
I gave him thanks, for indeed I had heard but too much. Yet to see how far he would stretch this pernicious doctrine. But Father, said I to him, may it not be lawful for one man to kill another for something less than a box? May he not so direct his intention, that he may kill him for the Li●? No question but he may, says the Father, witness our Father Baldellus, l. 3. disp. 24. n. 24. cited by Escobar in the same place, n. 49. it is lawful to kill him who says to you, you Lie, if a man cannot right himself otherwise. And that a man may in like manner kill for opprobrious speeches, we have the authority of the same Fathers. For Lessius whom Father Hereau among others follows word for word, says in the place before cited. If you endeavour to ruin my reputation by opprobrious speeches spoken before persons of honour, and that I cannot avoid them otherwise then by killing you, may I do it? According to modern Authors I may, nay though the crime you lay to my charge, be such as I am really guilty of, it being supposed to have been so secretly committed that you cannot discover it according to the ways of justice. 'Tis thus proved. If when you would take away my reputation by giving me a box o'th' ear, it is in my power to prevent it by force of arms, the same defence is certainly lawful when you would do me the same injury with your tongue. Besides, a man may avoid the affronts of those whose ill language he cannot hinder. In a word, Honour is more precious than Life; but a man may kill in defence of his life, ergo, he may also kill in defence of his honour. There's Arguments in form for you; this is not discourse, but demonstration. To conclude, this great Lessius in the same place, n. 78. shows that one man may kill another for a simple gesture, or expression of contempt. There are, saith he, several ways to derogate from, and to take away a man's reputation, wherein yet it is but just a man should right himself; as by giving a man a bang with a stick, or a box o'th' ear, or if a man should affront us by words or by signs; sive per signa.  
O Father, said I, you have said as much as need be wished for the security of a man's honour, but certainly their lives must run many a hazard, if for ill language and disobliging gestures, a man may kill at random, and that with a safe conscience. All this is true, said he, but our Fathers out of their extraordinary circumspection, have thought it convenient this doctrine should not be put in practice in certain emergencies, as, for defamatory speeches. For they hold at least, That it should ha●dly be practised; practicè vix probari potest. And this not without some reason, which is this. I know it, said I, 'tis because murder is forbidden by the Law of God. No, said the Father, they go not upon that ground; they find it lawful in point of Conscience, considering only the truth in itself. Why then do they forbidden it, sa●d I? Mark, says he, 'tis because a Country would in a small time be utterly depopulated, if all Detractors were put to death. Take it from our Father R●ginaldus, l. 21. n. 63. pag. 260. Though this opinion, that one man may kill another for ill language want not its probability in the Theory▪ yet is the contrary to be followed in the practic. For a man aught, in the manner of his defence, consider the prejudice may h●ppen the State. Now it is evident that by k ●l●ing people after this rate there would be too many murders committed. Lessius says as much in the place before cited; Heed must be taken that practice ce of this maxim prove not prejudicial to the State; for than it is not to be permitted; tunc enim non est permittendus.  
How Father, said I, this prohibition is merely political, and proceeds not at all from Religion? Few people will stick at it, especially being in heat of blood, for a man might probably imagine that it were no injury to the State to rid it of a wicked man. Upon which consideration, said he, it is, that our Father Filiutius adds to the former reason another of no small weight, tr. 29. c. 3. n 51. That a man would be punished by the hand of justice for kill people upon th●t account. I told you Father, said I, that all you can do will amount to nothing if you have not the Judges of your side. The Judges, says the Father, who dive not into men's Consciences, proceed only according to the external circumstances of an action, whereas we principally consider the extension. Thence comes it to pass, that our maxims are sometimes different from theirs. However it be, Father, said I, it is easily concluded from you, that a man may, with safety of Conscience, kill such as are evil speakers, provided he mind the safety of his person.  
But Father, since you have made such excellent provision for a man's honour, have you made none for his estate? I know it is of less importance, but it matters not. Methinks a man may very well direct his intention so as to kill another, to preserve that. He may, says the Father, and I have given you some hints whence you might infer as much. All our Casuists affirm it; nay it is lawful, though we are so far from fearing any violence from those that have taken away our goods, that they endeavour to avoid us. Azor, one of our Society proves it, p 3. l. 2. c. 1 q. 20.  
But I would know, Father, what value the thing should be of that may engage us to that extremity? It is requisite according to Reginaldus, l. 21. c. 5. n. 66. and Tannerus in 2. 2. disp. 4. q. 8. d. 4. n. 69. that the thing be of great p●ice, in the judgement of a prudent man: which is confirmed by Layman and Filiutius. That signifies nothing, said I, where shall we go to find a prudent man, a thing so seldom met with, to make this estimation? Why do they not fix on a certain sum? How, says the Father, do you think it so easy a matter to assign a sum of money proportionable to the life of a man, and a Christian? Here it is that I have a fair occasion to show you the necessity there is of our Casuists. Do you find out in the ancient Fathers, for how much money it may be lawful to kill a man? What will they tell you, but, non occides, thou shalt not k ll? Who then, said I, hath been so presumptuous as to determine the sum? Our great and incomparable Molina, says he, the glory of our Society, who by his inimitable prudence hath valued it at six or seven Ducats, for which he assures us that it is lawful to kill a man, though he who hath taken them fly for it. 'Tis in his to. 4. tr. 3. disp 16. d. 6. adding further in the same place, that he durst not charge that man with any sin who kills another who had taken from him a thing of the value of a Crown or less, unius aurei, vel minoris adhuc valoris. Which gave Escobar occasion to lay down this general Rule, n. 44. That regularly it is lawful to kill a man for the value of a Crown, according to Molina.  
O Father, said I, how came Molina to be so illuminated as to determine a thing of this importance without any assistance of either Scripture, Councils, or Fathers? I must needs conceive that he was led by a particular light, much different from that of Saint Augustine, as well upon the subject of Homicide, as that of grace. I am perfectly illuminated thus far, and withal fully satisfied, that there are none but those of the Clergy which a man may injure both as to point of honour and estate, without any fear that they will kill him for such injury. What's that you would say, replied the Father? Were it, in your opinion, rational that those whom of all the world we ought to respect the most, should be the only men exposed to the insolences of the wicked? No, our Fathers have provided against that disorder. For Tannerus, to 2. d. 4. q. 8 d. 4. n. 76. says, That it is lawful for Clergie-m●n nay for even Religious men to kill, in defence, not o●●ly of their lives, but also of their own goods or that of thei● community. Molina, cited by Escobar, n. 43. Becanus, in 2 2. t. 2. q. 7. de Hom. concls 2. n. 5. Regin●ldus▪ l. 21. c. 5. n. 68 Layman, l. 3. tr 3. c. 3. n. 4. L ssius, l. 2. c. 9 d. 11. n. 72. and others, affirm it in the same words.  
It is also maintained by our eminent Father Amicus, that it is lawful for Priests and Religious men to prevent those that would disgrace them by opprobrious speeches, by killing them beforehand. But there must ever be a right direction of the intention. Take his own expressions, t. 5. disp. 36. n. 118. It is lawful for an Ecclesiastic or a Religious man to kill a Detractor that threatens to divulge the scandalous crimes of his Community or himself, when there is no other means left to hinder him from doing it, as if he be ready to scatter his calumnies, if not suddenly dispatched out of the way. For the case being such, as it were lawful for that Religious man to kill him who would take away his life, it is equally lawful for him to kill him who would take away his own honour, or that of the Community, whereof he is a member, with as much reason as there is for those that are of the world to do the like. This indeed I was ignorant of, said I, and was simply persuaded to the contrary without making any reflection thereon, minding only what I heard said that the Church is so far from having aught to do with blood, that she permits not Ecclesiastical Judges to be present at criminal Judgements. Let not that breed any worms in your Conscience, says he, our Father Amicus proves this doctrine fully, though out of an excess of humility well becoming so great a person, he submits it to the prudent Reader. Add to this, that Caramouël, our illustrious defender, citing it in his Fundamental Theology, pag. 543. believes it to be so certain that he maintains the contrary not to be so much as probable; and he draws from it most admirable conclusions, as among others this which he calls the Conclusion of Conclusions, conclusionum conclusio; That a Priest not only may upon certain occasions kill a Detractor, but that there are some wherein he is OBLIGED to do it, etiam aliquando d●bet occidere. He examines divers new questions according to this principle, for instance, this, WHETHER THE JESUITS MAY KILL THE JANSENISTS? This Father, cried I, is a strange point of Divinity! I hold the Jansenists already dead according to the doctrine of Father Amicus. See, said the Father, how y●u are mistaken; he concludes the contrary out of the same principles. And how can that be Father, said I? Because, says he, they derogate nothing from our reputation; take his own words, n. 1146. and 1147. p. 547, 548. The Jansenists call the Jesuits Pelagians; may they be killed for so doing? Not: because the Jansenists do no more darken the Lustre of the Society than an Owl does that of the Sun: on the contrary, they have added thereto, though contrary to their intention. Occidi non possunt, quia nocere non potuerunt.  
Alas, Father said I, do the lives of the Jansenists depend merely upon the question, whether they prejudice your reputation? I think them very insecure, if it be so. For if it prove ever so weakly probable that they do injure you, they are in a condition to be dispatched without any difficulty. You will reduce it into an argument in form; and there needs no more than that, with a little direction of the intention, to send a man out of this world, with safety of Conscience. O how happy were they, whose natures cannot brook injuries, to be instructed in this Doctrine! But what a sad condition are they in that offend them! Certainly Father, a man might as safely deal with people that have no Religion as those who are trained up according to this Dire●●ion. For to conclude, the intention of him who hurteth lessens not the pain of him that is hurt. He perceives not that secret direction, and is only sensible of the blow he receives. Nay I see not but that a man may with less indignation see himself barbarously murdered by persons purposely set to do it, then feel the conscientious stillettoes of people pretending to devotion.  
To be free with you, Father, I am a little startled at this, and these questions of Father Amicus and Caramuel I cannot digest. Why says the Father, are you a Jansenist? I have another reason for it, said I, which is this, that I ever and anon write to a friend I have in the Country whatever I learn of the maxims of your Fathers. And though all my business be simply to relate and faithfully to cite their words, yet am I doubtful they should come to the sight of some unsettled mind, who must either imagjne you very much injured, or draw from your principles some abominable conclusion. Go, go, says the Father, they are such as will never cause you any hurt, I warrant you. Know, that whatsoever our Fathers have printed themselves and that with the approbation of our Superiors, is neither evil in itself, nor dangerous in the publishing.  
What I writ therefore is upon the reputation of the good Father, but my paper fails me, and not passages; for there are so many others, and those so pregnant, that it would require whole volumes to say all that might be said. I am, etc.  
Paris, April 25. 1656.   

To the same. LETTER VIII.  
Sir,  
YOu little imagined that any one had the curiosity to know who we are, and yet there are those who would feign guests at it; but they are much mistaken. Some take me for a Doctor of Sorbonne; others father my Letters on four or five persons, who, as myself, are neither Priests nor ecclesiastics. From all these misconjectures I learn, that all goes well as to the design I had to be known only to you, and the good Father, who still admits my visits, and whose discourse I still endure, though not without some trouble. But I am forced to a compliance, for he would soon break them off, if he thought me so glutted therewith as I am; & consequently I should not perform the promise I made to acquaint you with their Morality. I assure you, the violence I do myself is such as you should not think inconsiderable; It is no small torment to see Christian Morality turned topsy-turvy by such strange extravagances, and not dare openly to contradict it. But since I have endured so much for your satisfaction, I think it but just I should at length discover my own, when he shall have no more to say to me. In the interim, I shall humour him as much as lies in my power; for the more silent I am, the more liberal is he of his discourse, nay so prodigal was he of his instructions the last time, that I shall find it no easy task to tell you all. You will find, that as to matter of Money they are the same stewards as they were before in matter of Life. For however he may palliate his Maxims, those I have now to acquaint you with are, in effect, laid down for the encouragement of corrupt Judges, Usurers, Bankrupts, Thiefs, common prostitutes, and Sorcerers, who are all very indulgently dispensed with as to any restitution they should make of what they get by their employments. Which the good Father taught me by this d scorse.  
It was my engagement, said he, in the beginning of our meetings, to explicate to you the Maxims of our Authors, for persons of all qualities. You have already seen those that concerned persons that have to do with Benefices, Priest's, Religious men, Servants, and Gentlemen; let us now proceed to the rest, and begin with the Judges.  
To enter into the business, I will give you one of the most considerable and most advantageous Maxims which our Fathers ever taught in their favour. We have it from our learned Castro Palao, one of our twenty four Ancients. Take his own words; May a Judge in a question of right, give sentence according to a probable opinion, quitting that opinion which is more probable? He may, and that contrary to his own judgement; imo contra propriam opinionem. And 'tis no more than our Father Escobar citys, tr. 6. ex 6. n. 45. A very excellent beginning Father, said I! The Judges are much your servants for it, which makes me think it very strange that they should oppose your probabilities, as we have heretofore observed, when they may make such advantages thereof. For by this accou●t you furnish them with a power over men's fortunes; proportionable to that you pretend to yourselves over their Consciences. You see then, said he, that we act not with any reflection on our own interest herein; we only endeavour the quiet of their Consciences; upon which account it was that our great Molina took so much pains, upon occasion of the Presents that are made them. For, to take away all scruples they might make to receive any in some cases, he hath been so liberal of his endeavours, as to give a catalogue of all those cases wherein they conscientiously may receive them, unless th●re be a particular provision made to the contrary. 'Tis in his to. 1. tr. 2. disp. 88 n. 6. They are these, Judges may receive presents from the parties, when they make them either out of friendship, or out of gratitude for the justi●● they have done them, or for to oblige them to do it for the future, or for to engage them to take a particular care of their business, or to give them a sudden dispatch. Our learned Escobar speaks to the same purpose, tr. 6. ex. 6. n. 43. If there are several persons whereof one hath no more right to be dispatched then another, is the Judge who shall receive any thing from one of them, upon condition, ex pacto, to dispatch h●m first, guilty of any sin thereby? Not, certainly, according to Layman; for he does the others no injury according to natural right, when he grants that to one by way of acknowledgement for his present, which it was in hi● power to grant any of th' m he should think fit. So that being before equally obliged to all by the equality of their right, h● becomes so much the more to him who makes him the present, so far that he is engaged to prefer him before the rest; and this preferring seems to be such as might be valued worth money; quae obligatio videtur pretio aestimabilis.  
Under your Reverence's favour, said I, I am a little surprised at this permission, which the chief Magistrates of the Kingdom are yet ignorant of. For Monsieur the first Precedent brought a Bill into the Parliament to hinder certain Registers from taking money for this kind of preferring men; which certainly is enough to persuade us that he was very far from thinking it allowable in Judge's; and indeed it was generally commended as a piece of reformation very advantageous to all parties. The good Father surprised at this discourse replied; Is it true what you say? For my part, I knew nothing of it. Our opinion is only probable: the contrary is also probable. Truly Father, said I, men find that the first Precedent hath done more then probably well in this case, and that he hath stopped the course of a public corrupt on grown ordinary by length of time. I am of your mind, says the Father, but let that pass, we have no more to say to the I dges. You do very well, said I, since they have so little consideration for what you have done for them, That's not it, skies the Father; but there are so many things, to be said on each subject, that we must be brief on every one in particular.  
We come now to Rich men and Money-mongers. You know the greatest trouble there is with them is to dissuade them from Usury, wherein indeed our Fathers have been extremely careful; for they have such an extraordinary aversion for their vice, that Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 5. n. 1, says, That to affirm Usury to be no sin is Heresy. And Father Bauny in his Summary of sins, c. 14. fills-up several pages with the punishments due to usurers. He declares them to be infamous while they live, and unworthy of burial when they are dead. O Father, said I, I did not imagine he could have been so rigorous! He is so, when there is a necessity for it, says he; but withal, this learned Casuist having observed that men are not inclined to usury but out of a desire of gain, says in the same place. It were therefore no small obl gation put upon the world, if, rescuing mankind from the ill ●ffects of Usury, and withal from the sin which is the cause thereof, some way were found out for men to make as great, if not greater, advantages of their money by some good and lawful employment thereof, then may be done by usury. No question, Father, said I, we should have no more usurers. To do which, said he, he hath furnished us with a General method for all sorts of persons, Gentlemen, Precedents, Counsellors, etc. and that so easy withal, that it consists only in the use of certain words which a man must pronounce as he lends his money, which done, he may take what profit thereof he pleases without any fear of being an Usurer, as he must needs have been otherwise. And I pray what are these mysterious terms, said I? Take his own words, says he; as near as they can be rendered out of the French, in which language he writ his book of the Summary of sins, that he might be understood by all the world, as he confesses in his Preface. He who is desired to lend money, may answer in this manner; I have no money to lend, but, to make an honest and lawful profit of, I have. If you would have the sum you desire to improve it by your industry at half gain, half loss, I may haply furnish you. But since it would prove a hard matter to ascertain the profit you may make of it, if you will allow me a certain advantage, and withal give me good security for the principal, that it be in no danger, we shoul● sooner come to an agreement; and you shall ha●e the money paid down immed ately. Is not this an easy way to get money without sinning? And had not Father Bauny reason to say those words whereby he concludes this method? This, in my opinion, is a means whereby abundanc● of people in the world wh● by their usu ies, extortions, and illicitous contracts draw on themselves the ●ust indignation of God, may be sa●ed by making considerable, honest ●nd lawful advantages.  
Ah Father, said I, how powerful are these words! I profess to you, that had I them not from a good hand, I should take them for some of those enchanted words that are able to dissolve charms. They must certainly have some secret virtue to chase away usury, which I understand not, for I ever thought that sin consisted in a man's receiving of more money than he had lent. You understand it but little then, replies the Father. Usury, according to our Fathers, consists not in any thing almost, but the intention to take that profit as usurious. Whence, our Father Escobar makes a man avoid usury by a simple shifting of the Intention. 'Tis in tr. 3. ex. 5. n. 4 33.44. It were usury, says he, for a man to receive any profit from those to whom he lends his money, if it be exacted as due by law; but if it be exacted as due only out of gratitude, it is not usury. And n. 3. I● is not lawful for a man to have the intention to make advantage of the money l●nt immediately; but to receive it upon the account of affection and goodwill, media benevolentiâ, is not usury.  
These indeed are subtle methods; but, in my judgement, one of the b●st (for we have choice enough) is that of the Contract Mohatra. The contract Mohatra, Father, said I! I perceive, says he, you know not what it is. There's nothing strange in it but the name. Esc●b●r shall explain it to you, tr. 3. ex. 3. n. 36. The Contract Mohatra is that whereby a man buys some commodity, as stuffs or the like, at a very dear rate and upon trust, for to sell it again immediately to the same person for ready money, and at a very easy rate. This is the Contract Mohatra; whereby you see, a man receives a sum of money in hand, yet is obliged for a far greater. But Father, said I, I think never any but Escobar made use of that word; is it to be found in any other books? How are you to seek in these things, says the Father? The book last mentioned of Moral Divinity, Printed this very year at Paris, speaks of the Mohatra, and that very learnedly. The ttile of it is Epilogus Summarum. It is an Epitome of all the Sums of Divinity taken out of our Fathers, Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius, Fagundez, Hurtado, and other famous Casuists, as the title shows. You will find in the 54 page these words, The Mohatra is, when a man having occasion for 20. l. buys of a Mercer as many Stuffs as amount to 30. l. to be paid within a year, and sells them to him again immediately for 20. l. ready money. Hence you may perceive that the Mohatra is not so strange a word. Very well Father, said I; but is this a lawful contract? Escobar, replies the Father, says in the same place, that there are some Laws that forbidden it under very great penalties. Then it signifies nothing, Father, said I: you are mistaken, says he; for Escobar in the same passage assigns certain expedients to render it lawful, even though, saith he, that he who sells and buys again looks on his profit as his main intention, provided only that when he sells he exceed not the highest prices of Stuffs of that kind, and that when he buys again, he fall not below the lowest, and that there be no agreement beforehand either in express terms or otherwise. But L●ssius, de Just. l. 2. c. 21. d. 16. says, that though there were such an agreement, a man is never obliged to make restitution of the profit, unless it be by way of charity, in case he of whom it is exacted, be in want, yet with this proviso, that a man can restore it without inconvenience to himself; si commodè potest. What could any man say more? In troth Father, said I, were the indulgence but a little larger, I should think it naught and not to be tolerated. Our Fathers, says he, are not to learn where they should make a halt. You see then the advantages of the Mohatra.  
I have divers other methods to acquaint you with; but these are sufficient; and therefore I now come to those who are behind hand in point of estate, or in trouble. Our Fathers have, their condition considered, made the best provision they could for them. For if they have not wherewithal to live handsomely, and to pay their debts too, it is lawful for them to secure one half of what they have, and then turn Bankrupts and so elude their Creditors. The controversy is decided by our L●ssius, confirmed by Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 2. n. 163. May he, who turns Bankrupt, with a safe conscience, retain as much of his own goods as is requisite to maintain himself handsomely, ne indecorè vivat? I, with Lessius, affirm he may; and that even though they were gotten by violences and crimes known to all the world, ex injustitia, & notorio delicto: although that i● such a case he should not retain as much as otherwise he might. How Father, said I, by what strange kind of charity would you have those goods remain in the possession of him who had got them together by rapine and extortion, in order to his honourable subsistence, rather they should be scattered among his Creditors to whom they of right belong, and whom you have by that means reduced to poverty? 'Tis impossible, replied he, to satisfy all, and our Fathers have particularly made it their business to comfort this miserable sort of people. It is further out of tenderness to the indigent, that our famous Vasquez, cited by Castro Palao, t. 1. tr. 6. d. 6. p. 6. n. 12. says, that when a man sees a thief resolved and ready to rob a poor body, he may, to divert him from so doing, assign him some rich person in particular, whom he may rob instead of the other. If you have neither Va●qu●z nor Castro Palao at hand, you may find the ●ame thing in your Escobar. For, as you know, he affirms nothing but what is taken out of twenty four of the most eminent of our Fathers. 'Tis in tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 120. in the practice of our Society, concerning charity towards our neighbour.  
This charity, Father, is certainly very great, said I, to rescue one from robbing, by exposing another to the mercy of the Thief. But I should think that to make this piece of charity perfect, he, who had assigned the rich man to be rob should be accordingly obliged in conscience to restore to him that which he had caused to be taken away from him. No such matter, replies he, for he did not rob him himself, he only directed another to do it. Now mark this excellent resolution of Father Bauny upon a case at which you will be much more astonished, and wherein you would think there were a greater obligation to make restitution. 'Tis in his Summary, ch. 13. A certain man entreats a Soldier to beat his neighbour, or to fire the barn of one that hath offended him; the question 〈◊〉; whether, the Soldier doing as he was bidden, the other, who had entreated him to do all those outrages, aught, out of his own, to make good the damage happening thereby. My opinion is, he ought not: for no man is obliged to make restitution, if he hath not done that which is unjust. Does a man do that which is unjust when he only entreats another to do him a courtesy? Whatever may be desired of him, he is still at liberty either to grant or deny it. Which way soever he may incline, whether to restore, or not, he is guided merely by his own will. There's no obligation lies upon him but that of goodness, sympathy, and the easiness of his own nature. If therefore the Soldier make not satisfaction for the mischief he hath done, there's no reason the other should be forced to do it, at whose entreaty he had so injured the innocent. This passage was like to break off our discourse, for I could hardly refrain laughing at the good nature of a fellow that can so easily set a barn on fire, and those extravagant ratiocinations, which exempt from making restitution the first and true Author of such a mischief as that of fire, whom the civil Magistrate would not exempt from the halter; but if I had not withheld myself, the good Father would haply have taken snuff; for he spoke very earnestly, and so went on after the same rate, to this effect.  
You may, says he, by so many proofs, easily perceive how frivolous your objections are, and that they amount to nothing but to make us digress from the business we have in hand. Proceed we then to persons that are in necessity, for whose comfort and encouragement our Fathers, and among others Lessius, l. 2. c. 12. n. 29. affirm, that it is lawful to steal, not only in an extreme necessity, but also in such a necessity as is hard to be endured, though it be not extreme. Escobar citys him, tr. 1. ex. 9 n. 29. This is very strange, Father, said I; there are few in the world who think not their necessity hard to be endured, whom yet you would not allow the liberty to steal with a safe Conscience. Nay though you should limit this permission to those only who really are in that condition, yet must you needs open a gap for abundance of thefts, which the Magistrate would punish notwithstanding that, so hard to be endured, necessity; whereas you should rather endeavour to suppress them, since it is your duty to promote not only justice among men, but also charity, which by this principle is clearly destroyed. For is it not an open violation of charity, and an injury to ones neighbour, for a man to deprive him of what is his, and convert it to his own use and advantage? This is the doctrine I have been hitherto brought up in. It does not hold always true, replies the Father, for our great Molina hath taught us, t. 2. tr. 2. disp. 328. n. 8. That the order of charity doth not require that a man should deprive himself of an advantage to save his neighbour from a prejudice proportionable thereto. This he says to make good what he had undertaken to prove in that place, viz. that a man is not obliged in conscience to restore the goods which another had deposited in his hands purposely to defraud his Creditors. And Lessius maintaining the same opinion, confirms it by the same principles, l. 2. c 20. d, 19 n. 168.  
You haply have little compassion for such as are put to their sh fts, but our Fathers have been more tender than so. They do justice as well to the poor as the rich; nay they do it ever to sinners. For though they are infinitely at a distance with those that commit crimes, yet are they so charitable towards them, as to teach, that goods purchased by crimes may lawfully be retained. Lessius affirms it, l. 2. c. 10. d. 6 n. 46. certain it is that goods gotten by Adultery are purchased by an unlawful way; yet is the possession thereof lawful; quamvis mulier illicitè acquirat, licitè retinet acquisita. Whence it comes that the most eminent of our Fathers do formally decide, that what a Judge receives from one of the parties that hath no justice of his side to favour him with an unjust sentence; and the reward a soldier receives for killing a man and whatsoever is gotten by infamous crimes, may lawfully be detained. This Escobar gathers out of our Authors whom he summons together, in tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 23. where he lays down this general rule: Goods gotten by d shonourable ways, as murder, an un●ust sentence, a dishonest action, etc. are lawfully possessed by him that hath so gotten them, and he is not obliged to make any restitution. And further in tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 53. A man may dispose of what he hath received for murders, unjust sentences, infamous sins, etc. because the possession thereof is just, & that the possessor hath a title and propriety to the things he hath gotten thereby. Father said I, I never before heard of this way of purchasing, and question whether the Law will allow any such, and look on assassination, injustice and Adultery as sufficient titles. I know not, says the Father, what law-books may say as to this point, but am certain, that ours, which are the infallible rules of Consciences, speak as I do. 'Tis true they except one case, wherein they oblige to make restitution; viz. when a man hath received money of those who are not in a capacity to dispose of what they have, such as are persons under age, and Religious men. For these are by our great Molina, excepted in t. 1. de Just. tr. 2. disp. 94. nisi mulier accepisset ab eo qui alienare non potest; ut à religioso, & filio familias. In this case their money is to be restored. Escobar citys this passage in tr. 1. ex. 8. n. 59 and confirms the same thing tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 23.  
But under your fatherly correction, said I, methinks you are more tender of Religious men in this case than others. Not at all, says the Father, is there not the same care had for all generally underage, of which number Religious men are while they live? There's much reason they should be excepted. But for what concerns all others, there's no obligation to return them what they have given for the doing of an evil action. Lessius proves it at large, l. 2. the just. c. 14. d. 8. n. 52. What a man receives, says he, for any criminal action, is not subject to restitution by any natural justice, because a wicked action may be set at a certain value, out of a consideration of the advantage which he receives thereby who was the occasion of the doing of it; as also of the pains which he takes who puts it in execution. For this reason a man does not lie under any obligation to return what he hath received for performing it, be the action of what nature it will, as murder, an unjust sentences, incontinence, unless it be received of such as are incapable of disposing of what they have. You will haply say, that he who receives money for doing a mischief or an ill-turn, commits a sin, and consequently that he can neither receive nor retain it: but I answer, that when the blow is once given and the business done, there is then no sin at all either to pay or receive the payment. Our great Filiutius minces this business yet a little smaller; for he further presses, that a man is obliged in conscience to make different satisfactions for good turns on actions of this kind, according to the different qualities of those that commit them, and that some are to be better considered than others. And that it is he establishes upon solid reasons, in tr. 31. c. 9 n. 231. Occultae fornicariae debetur pretium in conscientiâ, & multò majore ratione quàm publicae. Copia enim quam occulta facit mulier sui corporis, multò plus valet quam ea quam publica facit meretrix: nec ulla est lex positiva quae reddat eam incapacem pretii. Idem dicendum de pretio promisso Virgini, conjugatae, Moniali, & cuicunque alii. Est enim omnium eadem ratio.  
To second which passage he turned over his Authors, and showed me some things of this nature so horrid and infamous that I durst not repeat them, and such as he would have been startled at himself (for he is a good honest man) were it not for the implicit respect he hath to his Fathers, which makes him look on whatever comes from them with a certain veneration. I in the mean time was silent, not so much out of any design to engage him in the pursuance of that subject, as out of amazement to see the books of Religious men fraught with decisions so horrid, so unjust, and withal so extravagant. He therefore went freely on with his discourse, whereof the conclusion was this. For this reason is it, says he, that our illustrious Molina, (I suppose after him you will look for no further satisfaction) decides this question thus. When a man hath received mon●y to do a wicked action, is he obliged to return it? We must distinguish, says this excellent man; if he have not done the action for the doing of which he had before hand been paid, he ought to return the money; but if he hath done it, he is not obliged to any restitution: si non fecit hoc malum tenetur restituere, secùs, si fecit. This passage is cited by Escobar, tr. 3 ex. 2. n. 138.  
Thus have you heard some of our Principles concerning Restitution. I have kept you very hard at it to day; I would now see how you profit under these instructions. Answer me then. Is a Judge who hath received a bribe from one of the parties▪ to give sentence on his side, obliged to return it? You just now told me, said I, that he was not. I thought as much; did I affirm it generally? I only told you that he was not obliged to restore, if by his means the cause went of his side who had no right. But when a man hath right on his side, would you have him further purchase the carrying on of his cause, which is but his due in justice? There's no reason for that. Do you not apprehend that justice is a debt due from the Judge, and that consequently he cannot sell it; but that unjustice is not any way due from him, and that consequently he may receive money for it. This doctrine is generally and unanimously taught by all our principal Authors, as, Molina disp. 94. and 99 Reginaldus, l. 10. n. 184, 185. and 178. Filiutius, tr. 31. n. 220. and 228. Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 21. and 23. Lessius, l. 2. c. 14. d. 8. n 52. That a Judge may well be obliged to return what he hath received by way of bribe for to do justice, unless it be bestowed on him out of Liberality; but that he is never obliged to return what he hath received of a man, in whose favour he hath given an unjust sentence.  
This fantastical decision put me a little out of my bias; but while I reflected on the pernicious consequences of it, the Father had provided another question for me. Answer now, said he, with more circumspection than before. I ask you, whether a man who pretends to Fortune-telling, be obliged to make restitution of the money he hath gotten by that employment? What your Reverence pleases, Father, said I. How, what I please, replied he? You are certainly an admirable Scholar! According to your expression, it should seem that the truth depended on our will. But I see you could never have found out this of yourself. See then how Sanchez resolves the difficulty; but note it is no meaner man than Sanchez. In the first place he distinguishes, in his Summary, l. 2. c. 38. n. 9●, 95, and 96. Either this Fortune-teller makes use of Astrology and other natural means, or he does his work by the Black-art. For he says, he is obliged to restitution in one case, and not in the other. But in which do you think he is obliged? There's no great difficulty in that, said I. I perceive, said he, what you would say; you think he is obliged to restitution, in the case wherein he hath made use of some diabolical assistance: But you are far from the business; it is but quite the contrary. See Sanchez's resolution in the same place. If this Fortune teller hath not been at the pains and trouble to find out by the help of the Devil, what he could not otherwise have attained the knowledge of; si nullam operam apposuit, ut arte diaboli id sciret, he ought to make restitution; but if he have taken that pains, he is not obliged to any at all. And how comes that Father, said I? Do you not apprehend it, says he? 'Tis because a man may well foretell by some Diabolical art, whereas Astrology is nothing but imposture and deceit. But Father, said I, put the case the Devil do not answer truly, for he is not much more to be credited then Astrology, shall not the Fortune teller upon the same ground, be obliged to make restitution? Not always, replied he. Distinguo, says Sanchez to that point. For if the Fortune teller be ignorant of Diabolical Arts, si sit artis diabolicae ignarus, he is obliged to make restitution, bt if he be an experienced Conjurer, and hath done all that lay in his power to find out the truth, he is not obliged to any at all. For then the diligence of such a Conjurer may well be thought worth a reweard, dilig●ntia à mago apposita est pretio aestimabilis. This is but reason Father, said I, for it is the only way to engage Wizards and Conjurers to endeavour ability and perfection in their art, out of hopes of enriching themselves lawfully, according to your maxims, by proving faithful servants to the public. You speak methinks a little satirically, says the Father; 'tis not handsome. For if you speak so freely, in some places where you are not known, there might haply be such as would take your discourses very much amiss, and would charge you with making yourself a sport of Religion. I should easily avoid that reproach, said I, for I am of opinion, that if men would take the pains to examine the true meaning of my words, there will not be found any, whence the contrary may not clearly be deduced, and a day may haply come that our discourse may minister some occasion to make it appear. Ho, ho, says the Father, you are it seems in very good earnest? I must tell you, said I, that to imagine I make sport with holy things, is a jealousy I should as easily resent, as it is in itself unjust. I only said it in jest, replied the Father, but let's be more serious. I stand ready to do what you please Father, said I, it depends altogether on you. But I must confess I was a little surprised to see that your Fathers have been so universally careful of persons of all ranks and qualities, that they would needs regulate the lawful advantages of Magicians. The world is wide, says the Father, a man cannot write too much for it, nor be over-particular in putting cases, nor repeat too often the same thing in several books. How true this is you will find by this passage out of one of the greatest of our Fathers. You may well allow him to be such, when he is at this present, our Father Provincial. 'Tis R. F. Cellot in his eighth book of the Hierarch. c. 16 §. 2. We know, says he, a certain person, who carried a considerable sum of mon●y to make restitution thereof in obedience to the command of his Confessor. Calling in, by the way, at a Bookseller's, and ask what news ab oad, numquid novi? the Bookseller showed him a book newly come forth of Moral Divinity. The other turning it over carelessly and not minding any thing what he did, falls accidentally upon his own Case, and there learned that he was not obliged to make restitution; so that shaking off the burden of a scrupulous Conscience, and still retaining that of his money, he returned with a light heart home again, abjectâ scrupuli sarcinâ, retento auri pondere, levior domum repetiit.  
Now tell me whether it contributes not much to one's advantage to be acquainted with our maxims? will you now laugh at them? And will you not rather, with Father Cellot make this pious reflection upon so fortunate an adventure? Occurrences of this nature are, in God, the d dispensations of his providence, in the Angel-Guardian, the influence of his conduct, and in th●se to whom they happen, the effect of their predestination. God had from all eternity ordained that the golden chain of their salvation should depend on such a particular Author, and not on an hundred others who yet deliver the same things, because it happens not that they meet with them. If such a man had not written, such another man had not been saved. Let us therefore by the bowels of Jesus Christ, prevail with those who quarrel at the multitude of our Authors, not to envy others the books which the eternal election of God and blood of Jesus Christ h●th purchased for them. What excellent expressions are these, whereby this learned man proves so solidly the proposition he had advanced, viz. How beneficial it is that a many several Authors writ upon the subject of Moral Divinity. Quàm utile sit de Theologia Morali multos scribere.  
Father, said I, for my own sentiment upon this passage, I shall refer it to another time, and shall say no more at present, then that, since your maxims are so advantageous, and that it is so much requisite they should be published, you ought to continue your Lectures therein. For I assure you, the p●rson I send them to communicates them to a many others. Not that we have any design to make advantage thereof, but that we are really satisfied the world will think itself much obliged by a faithful account of them. That it may, says he, you see I conceal them not; and therefore in pursuance of your design, I shall at our next meeting entertain you with those conveniences and accommodations of life which our Fathers allow, to make salvation more feasible, and the business of the devotion more easy: so that having already gone through what relates to several particular conditions, you may learn what provision is made in general for all, and consequently that there may nothing be wanting to your perfect instruction.  
Paris, May 28. 1656.  
I ever forget to acquaint you that there are Escobars of several Editions. If you buy any, take those of Lions, which in the frontispiece have the figure of a Lamb laid over a book sealed with seven seals; or, if you will, those of Brussels, printed in the year 1651. These being the last that are come abroad, are better and larger than those of the former Editions of Lions in the years 1644. 1646.  
I am, etc.   

To the same. LETTER IX.  
Sir,  
I Shall be as frugal of my Compliments to you now, as the good Father was to me the last time I saw him. He had no sooner eyed me, but he comes towards me, and looking into a book he had in his hand, broke forth with these words. Would not he put an extraordinary obligation on you that should open Paradise to you? Would you not give millions of gold to have a key to it, and so get in when you pleased yourself? There's no necessity of being at so great charge; h●re's one, nay an hundred, at a far easier rate. I was in some doubt whether the good Father read, or spoke of himself; but he soon put me out of it, saying, These are the first words of an excellent book of Father Barry's, of our Society; for I never say any thing of myself. What book is it Father, said I? See the title of it, said he; Paradise opened to the lovers of Holiness, by an hundred devotions to the Mother of God, easy to be practised. How Father, said I, any one of th●se easy Devotions is enough to open Heaven? It is so, said he; take it further affirmed in the sequel of the words you have heard. As many Devotions to the Mother of God as you find in this book, so many celestial keys are there to set open the gates of Paradise to you, if so be you practise them; and therefore he says at last, that he is satisfied if a man practise but one of them.  
I would gladly know some of the easiest, Father, said I. They are all such, replied he; for instance. To salute the blessed Virgin when ever you meet with any Image of hers; to say over ten Ave-maries' for the ten pleasures of the Virgin; often to pronounce the name of Mary; to give Commission to the Angels to do her reverence as from us; to wish one's self able to build her more churches, than all Kings and Princes have, put together; to bid her good morrow every morning, and good night every evening; to say every day on Ave-Mary in honour of the heart of Mary. Nay he affirms this last Devotion to be so effectual, that the practiser thereof may assure himself of the Virgin's heart. It may be Father, said I, but certainly with this proviso, that he present her with his? There's no necessity of that, said he, specially when a man is too much taken up with the things of this world; take his own words. Heart for heart, were indeed but what ought to be; but yours haply is too much taken up with the world, and is ever filled with the creature. For which reason I dare not invite you immediately to offer up that little slave which you call your heart. And so he is satisfied with the Ave-Mary he at first desired. These are the Devotions of pag. 33. 59 145. 156. 172. 258. and 420. of the first Edition. This is an extraordinary convenience, said I, such, as I conceive, there will not any be damned hereafter. Alas, alas! says the Father, I perceive you know not how far the hardness of heart of some people may extend! There are those in the world, who would never be obliged to say every day these two words, good morrow, good night, as being a thing cannot be done without some application of the memory. So that Father Barry hath been forced to furnish them with exercises of much more ease, as, to have always a pair of Beads about the arms after the manner of a Bracelet, or to have a Rosary about them, or some picture of the Virgin. These are the Devotions of pag. 14. 326. and 447. And then tell me whether I have not furnished you with Devotions easy enough to obtain the favour of Mary, as Father Ba●ry says, pag. 106. This, Father, said I, is certainly easiness in extremity. 'Tis indeed▪ said he, as much as possibly could be done, and I think will serve the turn. For that were a wretched Christian indeed, who would not set aside one moment in all his life to put a pair of Beads about his arm, or a Rosary in his pocket, and by that means secure his salvation. And that it so infallibly does, that those who have made trial thereof, have never been disappointed, after what manner soever they have lived, though we still exhort people to good life. Of this I shall give you no other instance then what is in pag, 34. of a woman who practising daily the devotions of saluting the images of the Blessed Virgin, lived nevertheless all her life in mortal sin; at last dies in that condition, and yet was saved by the merit of that devotion. How could that possibly be, cried I? thus, said he, our Saviour raised her again for that very purpose. So certain is it that a man cannot miscarry if he practise any of these devotions.  
I must confess Father, said I, that the Devotions done to the Virgin are a powerful means, conducing much to salvation, and that the least among them are of great merit when they are the effects of Faith and charity, such as they were in the Saints that practised them; but to think to persuade those who use them without any change of their ill lives, that they shall be converted at the hour of death, or that God shall raise them again, is a proceeding, in my judgement, fit to encourage sinners in their evil courses, by the treacherous peace which this rash confidence brings with it, then to recall them by a true real conversion, which is the work of Grace only. What matters it, says the Father, how we get into Paradise, so we can but once get in, as upon some such occasion, says the famous Father Binet, sometime our Provincial, in his excellent book, Of the mark of Predestination, n. 31. p. 130. of the fifteenth Edition. By hook or by crook it matters it not whether, so we can but gain the city of glory; as the same Father says in the same place. It matters not indeed I must confess, said I, but the question is, whether a man shall get in. The Virgin, said he, is your security for that. You have it in the close of Father Barry's book. If it happen that at the hour of death, the enemy of mankind should pretend some interest in you, and that it might occasion some disturbance in the little Republic of your resolution, you have no more to say, then that Mary is responsible for you, and that it is to her that he must apply himself.  
But Father, said I, if a man would press this further, you would be at a little loss. For, in one word, who hath assured us that the Virgin will be responsible? Father Barry, says he, is engaged for her, pag. 465. As for the happiness and advantage you shall receive thereby, I will be responsible to you, and pass my word for that good Mother. But Father, said I, who shall be engaged for Father Barry? How, says the Father? he is one of us, and are you yet to learn that our Society is responsible for all the books of our Fathers? This is a thing worthy your knowledge. There is then a certain order in our Society, containing a prohibition to all Booksellers to print any work of our Fathers, without the approbation of the Divines of our Society, and the permission of our Superiors. It is an Order made by Henry III. dated May 10. 1583. and confirmed by Henry IU. December 20. 1603. and by Lewis XIII. February ●4. 1612. So that our whole body is responsible for the books of any one of our Fathers. This is a particular privilege of our Society. And thence it comes to pass, that there comes not any work of ours abroad which proceeds not from the spirit of the Society. Thus much it was very fit you knew. I look on it Father, said I, as a great obligation, and all I am troubled at, is, that I knew it not sooner. For this knowledge engages a man to be much more attentive to your Authors. I should have done it before, said he, had but the least occasion offered itself, but make the best advantage you can of it for the future, and let us go on with our discourse.  
I conceive, said he, I have furnished you with ways how a man may secure his salvation sufficient, as to easiness, certainty and number; yet our Fathers wish men would not satisfy themselves with this first degree, wherein a man does no more than what is precisely necessary in order to future happiness. For as it is their main design to promote as much as may be the glory of God, so do they think nothing contributes so much thereto as to encourage mankind to greater piety. And whereas the children of this world are the more diverted from Devotion by the strange representation is made of it, our Fathers have thought it a thing of extraordinary consequence, absolutely to take away that fundamental obstacle. This is it that Father le Moine hath got abundance of reputation for in his book of EASY DEVOTION, which he writ merely to that purpose. There he gives us a most excellent representation of Devotion, for indeed no man ever understood it so well as he did. You have it in the first words of that Treatise. Virtue never yet appeared to any▪ never was there any portraiture made thereof that was like her. It is not at all to be admired that so few have endeavoured to climb up her rock. They have made her so ill company as to affect nothing so much as solitude. They have appointed for her attendants, grief and labour; in a word, they have made her the greatest enemy of divertisement and recreation, wherein consist the only comfort and enjoyment of humane life. This he says, page 92.  
But Father, said I, this I am certain of, that there are very eminent Saints whose lives have been extremely austere. 'Tis very true, said he, but there have been withal some Polite Saints, and Courtier-like Puritans, according to the same Father, pag. 191. And you will find pag. 86. that the difference of their manners proceeds from that of their humours. Hear what he says. I deny not but there are some devout persons who are pale and melancholy by complexion, such as affect nothing so much as silence and solitude, and have nothing but phlegm in their veins, and earth in their faces. But there are also a many others of a more happy constitution, such as have abundance of that gentle and warm moisture, and of that temperate and rectified blood which causes joy.  
You see then that the love of silence and retirement is not common to all the devout, and that, as I told you, it is rather the effect of their complexion, then of piety; whereas indeed those austere kinds of lives you speak of are the proper characters of savage and uncivilised persons. Accordingly you have them disposed among the ridiculous and brutish deportments of a melancholy fool, in the description which Father le Moine hath made of such an one in the seventh book of his Moral Representations; whereof take these touches. He wants eyes to contemplate the beauties either of art or nature. He would think himself over-pressed with a heavy burden, should he but take the least enjoyment or recreation. Upon Festival days, his conversation is among the dead. He is more in love with himself, when lodged within a tree, or in a grot, then if he were in a palace or upon a throne. For injuries and affronts, he is as insensible of them, as if his eyes and ears were no other than those of a Statue. Honour and reputation are Idols he hath no acquaintance with, and which he hath nothing to sacrifice to. A beautiful woman is a ghost to him; nay those imperious and sovereign looks, those inviting Tyrants, who, wherever they come, m●ke voluntary and chainless slaves, have no more influence over his eyes, than the Sun hath over those of Owls. etc.  
With your Reverences favour, said I, I must needs say, that had you not told me that Father le Moine was the Author of that Representation, I should have thought it had been some Reprobate that had done it, purposely to make the Saints ridiculous. For if this be not the character of a man absolutely disengaged from the sentiments which the Gospel obliges him to renounce; I must confess, I know not what it means. See then, says he, how strangely you are to seek in it. For these are the Symptoms of a weak and unrefined disposition, such as hath not those generous and natural affections it ought to have, as Father le Moine affirms in the conclusion of that description. By this means it is that he teaches Christian virtue and Philosophy, according to the design he had in that work, as he declares in his preface. Nor indeed can it be denied, but that this method of treating of Devotion is much better received in the world, than what was practised before us. There's no comparison between them, said I, and I now begin to hope that you will make good your word to me. You will find it much more clear, saith he, by what follows; I have as yet spoken only of piety in general. But that you may understand by particulars what difficulties our Fathers have weeded out of it, is it not a business of extraordinary comfort for the ambitious to be persuaded that true devotion is not inconsistent with an inordinate love fo● honour and greatness? How Father, said I, though they endeavour it with ever so much excess? Though they did, says he; for it were still but a venial sin, unless a man should desire that greatness purposely to offend God, or prejudice his Country with greater convenience. Now venial sins do not hinder a man from being devout, since the greatest Saints have not been free from them. Hear what Escobar says tr. 2 ex. 2. num. 17. Ambition, which is an inordinate desire of dignity and greatness, is of itself a venial sin; but when a man covets that greatness to prejudice the State, or to have greater convenience to offend God, these external circumstances make it mortal.  
This gins excellently well, said I. But is it not also, continued he, a very gentle doctrine for the covetous, to affirm, as Escobar does, tr. 5. ex. 5. num. 154. I know that rich men do not sin mortally, when they do not give alms of their abundance, in the great necessities of the poor: Scio in gravi pauperum necessitate divites, non dando superflua, non peccare mortaliter▪ Certainly if this be true, said I, I am extremely to seek what sin is. To make it more clear to you, says he, do you not think that the good opinion a man hath of himself, and the complacency he takes in his own works, is a sin, and that one of the most dangerous? And will you not be astonished if I make it appear, that though this good opinion or self love be absolutely groundless, yet is it so far from being a sin, that, on the contrary, it is a gift of God? Is it possible, said I? We have it, says he, in our great Father Garassus, in his book entitled, The Summary of the principal Truths of Religion, part 2. page 419. It is, saith he, an effect of commutative justice, that all honest labour should be rewarded either with praise, or satisfaction—. When great wits are delivered of some excellent work, they are justly recompensed with public acclamations. But when an ordinary ingenuity takes a great deal of pains to do somewhat that amounts to very little or nothing, and so consequently cannot pretend to any public applause, that his labour may not go without reward, God gives him a certain personal complacency, which, without an injustice more than barbarous, cannot be envied him. Thus doth God, who is just, give the very frogs a certain satisfaction in their croaking.  
These are, said I, excellent decisions for the encouragement of vanity, ambition, and avarice; but for Envy, Father, is there any more difficulty to excuse that? That is a very nice point, says the Father. We must use that distinction of Father Bauny in his Summary of Sins. For his opinion, c. 7. p. 123. of the fifth and sixth Edition, is, That envy at the spiritual good of ones neighbour is mortal, but envy at the temporal is but venial. And upon what ground Father, said I? You shall hear, says he. For the good th●t is in temporal things is so slight a●d of so little consequence in relation to heaven, that i● is of no consideration a● all in the sight of God and his Saints. But Father, said I, if this good be so slight and inconsiderable, how comes it that you permit men to kill one another to preserve it? You misunderstand things, says the Father, you are told, that that good is of no consideration only in the sight of God, not in the account of men There indeed I was mistaken, said I, and it is to be hoped that these distinctions will in time rid the world of all mortal sins. Entertain no such imagination, says the Father, for there are nevertheless some in their own nature mortal, as for example, Sloth.  
Nay then Father, said I, all the accommodations of life are lost. Have a little patience, says the Father, when you have seen the definition which Escobar gives this vice tr. 2. ex. 2. Numb. 81. you will haply be of another opinion: hear it. Sloth is a certain grief that spiritual things are spiritual things, as if a man should be grieved that the Sacraments are the sources of grace. And that is a mortal sin: I cannot imagine Father, said I, that there ever hath been any one so fantastic as to bethink himself of a sloth of that nature. Escobar indeed, replies he, does soon after say, n. 105. I must confess, it seldom happens that any one ever falls into the sin of sloth. Do you not perceive hereby of what consequence it is to define things well? I do indeed, said I, and it puts me in mind of your other definitions of assassination, treacherous lying in wait, and superfluity. But how comes it Father, that you do not extend this method to all manner of cases, and assign all sins definitions of your own coining? that so men may not offend any more, while they only pursue their pleasures.  
It is not always necessary, replied he, upon this ground to change the definitions of things. You will find it so upon the subject of good cheer, which undoubtedly is one of the greatest enjoyments of life, is in this manner allowed by Escobar, n. 102. in his Practice according to our Society. Is it lawful for a man to eat and drink as much as he can, without any necessity, but merely for his pleasure? Certainly it is, according to our Father Sanchez, provided he do not thereby prejudice his health; Because it is allowable in the natural appetite to be taken up with those actions that are proper thereto. An comedere & bibere usque ad sati●tatem, absque necessitate, ab solam voluptatem, si● peccatum? Cum Sanctio, negatiuè respondeo, modo non obsit valetudini; quia licitè potest appetitus naturalis suis actibus frui. This Father, said I, is certainly the most absolute passage, the most fundamental principle of all your Morality; and whence may be drawn very advantageous conclusions. Is Gluttony then not so much as a venial sin? It is not, says he, in the manner I have expressed it to you; but it were, according to Escobar, n. 56. a venial sin, if a man without any necessity should so overload himself with eating and drinking as to cast up all again; Si quis se usque ad vomitum ingurgitet.  
So much for that point, I come now to the easy contrivances we have found out to avoid sins in conversation and the affairs of the world. That which of all is the most d ffis ult, is, to avoid lying, and that especially when a man would have a thing that is false to be believed for a truth. To this purpose is our doctrine of EQUIVOCATION admirably serviceable, whereby it is lawful to use ambiguous terms, which the hearer shall understand in another sense than he doth from whom they proceed, as Sanchez says, Op. mor. p. 2. l. 3. e. 6. n. 13. That, Father, said I, you shall not need tell me any thing of, I know it already. We have indeed made it so public, continued he, that at length all the world is sufficiently instructed therein. But do you know what course is to be taken in a case when no equivocal words are to be had? No, said I. I thought no less, replied he; this indeed is new; it is the doctrine of MENTAL RESERVATION. Sanchez hath it in the same place. A man may swear, saith he, that he hath not done a thing, though he really h●ve by understanding within himself that he did it not on such ●r such a day, or before he was born, or by reflecting on some other circumstance of the like nature, and yet the words he makes use of shall not have a sense implying any such thing. And this is a thing of great convenience on many occasions, and is always justifiable, when it is necessary or advantageous in any thing that concerns a man's health, honour or estate.  
How Father, said I, is not that a lie, nay indeed perjury? No, replied he; Sanchez proves it in the same place, and our Father Filiutius also, tr. 25. c. 11. n. 331. because, saith he, it is the intention that regulates the quality of the action. Nay n. 328. he assigns a way to avoid Lying, much more secure than the former. And that is when a man having said aloud, I swear that I have not done such a thing, he adds, whispering to himself, this day. Or that after he hath said aloud, I swear, he whispers, that I say and then going on aloud, that I have not done such a thing. You see that the man says nothing but what is true, You are in the right, said I▪ but we should haply find out the cheat, that it is to speak truth to one's self, and to 〈◊〉 a●●ud; besides that it is to be feared there are a many people who have not so much wit at will as to make use of these Methods. For that, says he, our Fathers have taught in the same place, for their encouragement who cannot bethink them of these reservations, that there is no more required of them, to avoid lying, then simply to say, they have not done that which indeed they have, provided they have in general an intention to give their discourse that sense which a prudent man would.  
Speak ingenuously, have not you been often at a loss for want of this knowledge? Now and then, said I, And will you not acknowledge, that it were many times no small advantage to be dispensed in conscience, and that by the mere observation of certain words? It were indeed, Father, said I, the greatest convenience in the world. Hear Escobar then, tr. 3. ex. 3. n. 48. where he gives this general rule. Promises oblige not, when a man hath no intention to engage himself when he makes them. Now it seldom happens that a man hath that intention, unless he be bound by oath or Contract. So that when one says simply, I will do such a thing, it is conceived he will do it if his mind altar not. For no man will upon that account deprive himself of his liberty. He furnishes you with other ways which you may consult yourself, and so concludes, saying, that all is taken out of Molina and other Authors of ours; omnia ex Molina & aliis, and consequently it is a thing not to be called into question.  
Well Father, said I, I knew not that the direction of the intention had the faculty to null promises. And yet you see, says the Father, what an ease this is in the affairs of the world. But that wherein we met with most trouble was to regulate the conversation between men and women; for our Fathers have been very strict as to what relates to chastity. Not but that they treat of questions of much curiosity and niceness as to that point, and particularly when they have to do with persons that are either married or contracted. This brought into play the most extravagant, and the most obscene questions that can fall into man's imagination. He cited as many as might very well furnish me with matter for divers Letters, but I shall not so much as give you the citations, because you show my Letters to all persons indifferently, and I should be loath to find entertainment for such as make no other advantage of their reading then their diversion.  
The only thing I dare quote to you of all he shown me in their books, is, what you have in Father Bauny's Summary of Sins, pag. 165 concerning certain little privacies which be there explains, provided a man direct his intention aright, as to pass for a Gallant; and you will wonder to find in pag. 148 a principle of Morality concerning the power which he says that Virgins have to dispose of their virginity without the consent of Parents; to this effect. When that is done with the consent of the Maid, though the Father have just cause to be troubled at t● yet neither she nor the person to whom she hath prostituted herself hath done him any injury, nor, as to what concerns him, violated any law. For the Maid is in possession of her virginity as well as of her body▪ she may dispose of it as she pleases, to whom she pleases, death or mutilation of members only excepted. But this pattern judge of the whole piece. This put me in mind of a passage in a Heathen Poet, who was certainly a better Casuist than these Fathers, since he affirms, that a Maid's Virginity does not absolutely belong to herself; that one part belongs to the Father, and another to the Mother, without whom she cannot dispose of it, no, not in order to marriage. And I much question whether there be any Judge, that being to make a Law in this case would not take the clear contrary to this Maxim of Father Bauny.  
This is all I can afford you of the whole discourse that passed between us; and which lasted so long that I was forced to entreat the Father to pitch upon another subject. He did so, and entertained me with certain regulations about women's , to this effect. We shall say nothing of those who are guilty of any dishonest inclinations, but the rest; Escobar says, tr 1. ex. 8. n. 5. If a woman dress herself gorgeously without any evil intention, but only to comply with the natural inclination she hath to be vain, ob naturalem fastûs inclinationem, either it is but a venial sin, or it is no sin at all. And Father Bauny in his Summary of Sins, c. 46. pag. 1094. says, that, though a woman be sensible of the ill effect her curiosity in dressing herself would work both in the bodies and souls of those who should see her in rich and gorgeous apparel yet were it no sin at all in her to make use thereof▪ And he citys, among others, our Father Sanchez, as being of the same opinion.  
But Father, said I, what answer can your Authors make to those passages of Scripture which speak so expressly against the least things of that kind? Lessius, replied he, hath fully salved all, in his book de Just. l. 4. c. 4. d. 14. n. 11. saying, that those places of Scripture were precepts directed only to the women of that time, that by their modesty they might give such example as should be for the edification of the heathen. And whence took he that note, said I? It matters not whence he had it, replied he; it is sufficient that the sentiments of these great men do always imply a probability in themselves. But Father le Moine does somewhat moderate that general permission; for he will not allow it in ancient women: it is in his Easy Devotion; and among other places, in pag. 127. 157. 163. Youth, says he, may, by a certain natural right, dress itself more then ordinary. Gorgeous attire is allowable in an age▪ which is, as it were, the flower and prime of life. But a man must accordingly confine himself thereto; it were as extravagant to do it in a season contrary to that, as to think to gather roses in the snow. It is a prerogative of the stars only to be always as it were in the Ball, as flourishing in perpetual youth. The safest course than were, for a man to take the advice of his reason and a good looking-glass, and comply as well with decency as necessity; and then withdraw when night approaches. This indeed argues abundance of judgement, said I. But that you may see, continued he, how generally provident our Fathers have been, I am to tell you, that in regard it would be many times to no purpose to allow young women to trim up themselves, if they have not money at their own disposal, there is another maxim established for their encouragement. You have it in Escobar, in the Chapter of Theft. tr. 1. ex: 9 n. 13. A woman, says he, may take money from her h●sband upon divers occasions, and among others, she may take it to game withal, to buy her clothes, and to get other things that she stands in need of.  
In troth Father, this comes off excellently well. There are a many other things, replied he, might be insisted on, but we must omit them, to speak of those important Maxims which facilitate the exercise of holy things, as for instance, the manner of hearing Mass. Our greatest Divines, Gasper Hurtado, de Sacr. to. 2. d. 5. dist. 2. and Conink q. 83. a. 6. n. 197▪ have taught as to this business; That it is enough to be bodily present at Mass, though a man be absent as to the mind; provided he behave himself with a certain external respectfulness. Nay Vasquez is a little more indulgent; for he says, that a man fulfils the precept of hearing Mass, even though he have not the least in●ention to hear it. All this you may find also in Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 11. num. 74. and 107. and further in tr. 1. ex. 1. n. 116. where, to make the business more evident, he exemplifies in those that are brought by force to Mass, and are fully resolv●d not to hear it. I should never have believed it, said I, if another had told me so much. To be short, says he, this is a thing which stands in some need of the authority of these great men; as also what Escobar says in tr. 1. ex. 11. num. 31. That a wicked intention, as haply that of looking on women with an impure desire, joined with that of hearing Mass as a man aught, hinders not a man from fully performing the duty; nec obest alia prava intentio, ut aspiciendi libidinosè faeminas.  
But there is yet a thing of extraordinary convenience in our learned Turrianus, Select. p. 2. d. 16. dub 7. That a man may hear one half of a Mass from one Priest, and afterward: the other half from another; nay that he may first hear the latter part of one, and afterwards the beginning of another. Nay to be free with you, it is further allowable to hear two halves of a Mass at the same time, from two several Priests, as if one gins Mass, when the other is at the elevation, because a man may direct his attention both those ways at the same time; and two halves of a Mass make a whole one. Duae medietates unam missam constituunt. And this hath been decided by our Fathers, Bauny, tr. 6. q. 9 p. 312. Hurt●do, de Sacr. To 2. de Missâ, d. 5. diff. 4. Azorius, p. 1. l. 7. cap. 3. q. 3. Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 11. num. 73. in the Chapter, Of the exercise of hearing Mass according to our Society. And you shall see what consequences he draws thence, in the same book of the Edition of Lions, in the year 1644. and 1646. to this effect. Whence I conclude that you may hear Mass in a very short time, if, for example, you meet with four Masses celebrated at the same time, which issued out one after another, in such manner, as that when one began, another was at the Gospel, a third at the consecration, and the last at the Communion. I must confess Father, said I, that by this method, a man might hear Mass in an instant at Nostre-Dame. You see then, replied he, that we could do no more, as to what concerns the quick and easy hearing of Mass.  
But I come now to acquaint you how we have mitigated the rigour of the Sacraments and particularly that of Penance. There you will find the extraordinary indulgence of our Fathers, and must admire to see, how Devotion, whereat all the world was startled, hath been treated of by our Fathers with such prudence, that having overthrown that scarecrow which the Devils had set up at her gate, they have rendered it less troublesome than vice, and more easy than pleasure, insomuch, that simply to live is incomparably much more difficult then to live well, to use the expression of Father le Moine, p. 244. and 291. of his Easy Devotion Is not this a miraculous chnge? In troth Father, said I, I rannot forbear giving you my thoughts of it, I fear me you over-shoot yourselves, and that this indulgence is much more likely to frighten the world from you then to draw them to you. For the Mass, for instance, is a thing so high and so holy, that it were enough to discredit your Authors with most people, but to show them after what manner they speak of it. This is very true, says the Father, in relation to some people; but do you not know that we accommodate ourselves to all? You seem to have forgotten what I have so often told you to this purpose. That therefore shall be your entertainment at our next conference, putting off for that reason our discourse of the mitigations of Confession. I shall make you so perfect in it that it shall never out of your memory. Thereupon we parted; and so I conceive our next Dialogue will be concerning their POLITICS. I am, etc.  
Paris, June 3. 1656.  
Since the writing of this Letter I have seen the book of PARADISE opened, by an hundred Devotions easy to be practised, by Father Barry, as also that of the Mark of Predestination, by Father Binet. They are pieces worthy the perusal.   

To the same. LETTER X.  
Sir,  
I Am not yet come to the Politics of the Society, but have to do with one of their greatest principles. Here you shall find the Mitigations of Confession, which certainly must needs have been the most fortunate course that th●se Fathers could have taken to insinuate into all the world, never refusing any. This is a thing must needs be known before we proceed any further; for which reason the Father thought fit to afford the ensuing instruction.  
You may have gathered, said he, from my former discourses, with what success our Fathers have taken the pains, by a certain gift of illumination proper only to them, to discover abundance of things as allowable which were heretofore forbidden. But in regard there yet remain certain sins which cannot be excused. and whereof the only remedy is Confession, it was but requisite to soften the difficulties of it, by the ways I am now to acquaint you withal. So that having, through all our precedent Conferences shown how they have taken away the scruples which troubled men's consciences, by making them perceive that what they thought ill was not such, all my business in this is, to discover to you the manner how easily to expiate what is really sin▪ by rendering Confession as easy as it hath formerly been difficult. And how is this done, Father, sa●d I? By a sort of admirable subtleties, replies he, proper only to our Society, such a● our Fathers of Flanders, in the ●mage of our first age, l. 3. or. 1. p. 401. and l. 1. c. 2. call pious and holy sleights; and a kind of sanctified artifice of Devotion; p●am & religiosam calliditatem. Et pietatis solet●iam, l. 3. c. 8. 'Tis by the assistance of these inventions that crimes are new adays expiated alacriùs, with greater cheerfulness and fervency th●n they were heretofore committed: insomuch that many sh●k●●ff their poll●i n wi●h much more expedition than they contract th●m; plurimi v● 〈…〉 macula● contra●●unt quàm eluunt, as it is ●aid in the same place. Father, said I, would you do me the favour to teach me these so beneficial sleights? There are a great number of them, replied he, for as there are a many things in Confession, not easy to be endured, so are there easy provisions made against them. And whereas the main trouble of it consists in these heads, the shame it is to confess some certain sins, the exactness requisite in particularising the circumstances, the penance a man must undergo for the same, the resolution to be made not to fall into the like again, the care to avoid the next occasions whereby a man comes to be ensnared, and the remorse which he should be guilty of for the committing of them, I doubt not but I shall this day so far satisfy you, that there shall be nothing irksome in all this, so extremely careful have they been to leave out of a remedy so necessary and sovereign, whatever were harsh and indigestible.  
For, to begin with the trouble or confusion that attends the confession of certain sins; it being, as you are not to learn, a thing of no small consequence for a man to keep himself as right as he can in the esteem of his Confessor, is it not an extraordinary convenience for him to be permitted (according to our Fathers, and among the rest Escobar, who citys for it Suarez, tr. 7. a. 4. n. 135) to have two Confessors, one for mortal, and another for venial sins, so to be in good reputation with his ordinary Confessor: uti bonam famam apud ordinarium tucatur, provided he do not thence take any encouragement to go still on in mortal sin. And this he seconds with another ingenious contrivance to show a man how he may confess a sin even to his ordinary Confessor, who yet shall not perceive that it was committed since his last confession. That is, says he, to make a general Confession and to shuffle in that last sin among all the rest which he charges himself withal in gross. He affirms the same thing princip. ex. 2. n. 73. And I fear not but you will acknowledge that this decision of Father Bauny Thiol. Mor. tr. 4. q. 15 p. 137. takes away much of the shame it is to a man to confess his frequent relapses; That unless it be upon some certain occasions, which happen very seldom, there is no reason the Confessor should ask whether the sin a man charges himself with be an habitual sin, and that he is not obliged to answer to that point, because he hath no such privilege as to put his penitent to the shame of declaring his frequent relapses.  
How Father, said I, this amounts to as much as if one should say, that a Physician hath not the privilege to ask his Patient, whether it be long since his fever took him. Does not the difference of sins consist in their different circumstances, and is it not the main design of a true Penitent to lay open the state of his Conscience before his Confessor, with a sincerity and clearness, such as if he were speaking to ●. Christ himself, whose person the Priest at that time represents? And is not a man extremely a stranger to this disposition when he conceals his frequent relapses, so to smother the greatness of his sin? This put the good Father to a little loss, who yet endeavoured rather to shift off the difficulty then resolve it, by bringing upon the stage another rule of theirs, which introduces a fresh confusion, and does not in the least confirm this decision of Father Bauny, which, in my judgement is one of their most pernicious maxims, and such as is only fit to encourage wicked men in their evil courses. I grant you, said he, that the habit of sinning adds to the malice of sin, but it changes not its nature; and that is the reason why a man is not obliged to make confession thereof, according to the direction of those Fathers of ours, whom Escobar citys princ. ex. 2. n. 39 That a man is obliged to confess only the circumstances that altar the species of the sin, and not those that aggravate it.  
This rule does our Father Granados walk by, when he says in part. 5. cont. 7. tr. 9 d. 9 num. 22. that if a man hath eaten flesh in Lent, it is sufficient if he accuse himself only of having broken the fast, without particularising whether it was in eating flesh, or in making two fasting day meals. And according to our Father Reginaldus, tr. l. 6. c. 4. n. 114. A Fortune-teller, making use of the black Art, is not obliged to discover that circumstance, but it is sufficient if he say, he hath practised Divination, without expressing whether it were by chiromancy, or by contract with the Devil. And Fagundez, another of our Society, affirms, part. 2. l. 4. c. 3. n. 17. To carry away a maid is a circumstance t●t a man is not obliged to declare when the maid had consented thereto. Our Father Escobar citys all this in the same place; num● 41, 61, 62. with a many other very curious decisions, concerning the circumstances which a man is not obliged to confess. There you may find them yourself. These indeed, said I, are artifices of Devotion of very great convenience.  
And yet all this, replied he, would come to nothing if there were not also a mitigation of Penance, which is that that most of all deters men from Confession. But now it is so qualified, that even the most delicate need not be frighted at it, after what we have maintained in our Theses of the College of Clermont; That if the Corfessor impose a penance proportionable to the offence, convenientem, and that a man will not submit thereto, he may be quit by renouncing both the absolution and the Penance imposed. So Escobar in the practice of Penance according to our Society tr. 7. ex. 4. Num. 188. affirms, that if the Penitent declare himself willing to have his penance adj urned to the next wo●ld, and to suffer in Purgatory the whole punishment due to him, then is the Confessor obliged to impose a very light penance upon him for satisfaction of the Sacrament, but more especially if he discover any aversion to undergo a greater. That granted, said I, there's no reason Confession should be called the Sacrament of Penance. You are mistaken, replied he for there is still something imposed by way of penance for form sake. But Father, said I, Do you think that man fit to receive absolution, that is unwilling to suffer any thing that is painful or afflict ve to expiate his offences? And when men are in such a condition, should you not rather bind their sins then lose them? Have you the true Idea of your Ministry, and know not that you are therein to exercise the power of binding and losing? Do you think it lawful to give absolution indifferently to all that desire it, without ever examining before hand whether I. Christ loses those in Heaven whom you absolve on earth? How replied the Father, do you imagine us ignorant, That the Confessor ought to judge of the disposition of his Penitent, as well because he is obliged not to dispense the Sacraments to those that are unworthy thereof, I. Christ having enjoined him to be a faithful Steward, and not to cast that which is holy unto Dogs; as also because he is a Judge, and that it is the duty of a Judge to do justice in losing those that deserve it, and binding those that do not: and lastly because he ought not to acquit those whom 1 Christ condemns. Whose words are these Father, said I? Our Father Filiutiu's; replied he, to 1. tr. 7. Num. 354. You make me admire, said I, I should rather have taken them to be one of the Fathers of the Church. But Father, this passage might well startle all Confessors and make them very circumspect in the dispensation of this Sacrament, so as to examine well, whether their Penitents be sufficiently contrite, and see that the promises they make not to sin for the future be admittable. There's no difficulty at all in it, replies the Father, Filiutius hath been more careful then to leave Confessors in any trouble, and therefore gives them immediately after those words this easy method to avoid it. The Confessor shall not need be in any trouble as concerning the disposition of his Penitent. For if he discover not sufficient expressions of his remorse, the Confessor hath no more to do then to ask him whether he doth not in his soul detest his sin: to which if he answer that he doth, he is obliged to believe him. The same thing is to be said of Resolutions made for the future, unless there happen to be some obligation to make restitution, or to avoid some next occasion. For this passage Father, said I, it is easily seen it comes from Filiutius. You are mistaken, says the Father, he hath taken it verbatim out of Suazez in 3. part. to. 4. disp. 32. sect. 2. num. 2. But Father, said I, this latter passage of Filiutius destroys what he had asserted in the former. For he utterly devests the Confessors of all power of being Judges of the disposition of their penitents, when he obliges them to take their own words, even when they do not discover a sufficient remorse of conscience. Or is there such an infallibility in their bare assertions that that simple expression is conclusive? I much fear me, your Fathers have but too much experience that all those who make such promises keep them not so exactly, nay, I am mistaken if they do not often find the contrary. It matters not, says the Father, the Confessors are nevertheless obliged to believe them. For Father Bauny who hath sifted this question very narrowly in his Summary of sins, chap. 46. p. 1090. 1091. and 1092. concludes, that whensoever those, who are so far guilty of frequent relapses, that no amendment can be perceived, cast themselves at the feet of the Confessor, and tell him that they are sorry for what is past, and will be reform for the future, he ought to believe them though upon no other ground than that of their bare assertions, though it may well be presumed that such resolutions proceed not but from the teeth outward. Nay though they are afterwards more violently carried away with the same sins, yet ought they not, in my opinion, to be denied absolution. Now am I confident that all your doubts are dispersed.  
But Father, said I, me thinks you put the Confessors to a great inconvenience when you oblige them to believe the contrary to what they see. You apprehend not, said he, the business right, that signifies no more than that they are to act and absolve as if they did believe that resolution to be good and firm, though in effect they believe the contrary. And so are the forerecited passages explained by our Father's Suarez and Filiutius. For having affirmed, that the Priest is obliged to believe his penitent upon his own word, they add, that there is no necessity the Confessor should be persuaded that the resolution of his Penitent will be executed, nor indeed that he think it probably may: but it is sufficient, that he imagine that at that instant he hath some such intention in general, though he expect he should fall again in a short time. And this is unanimously the doctrine of all our Authors. Ita docent omnes authores. Will you doubt of a thing taught by all our Authors? What then Father, said I, will become of that acknowledgement which Father Petavius was forced to make in the preface before his book of Public Penance p. 4. That the holy Fathers, Doctors, and Counsels unanimously agree and hold as an infallible truth, that the Penance which is preparatory to the Eucharist, aught to be full of reality, constancy and courage, not lazy and lukewarm, or subject to backslidings and relapses? Do you not perceive, replied he, that Father Petavius speaks of the ancient Church? but this now is so far unseasonable, to use the expressions of our Fathers, that, according to Father Bauny, the contrary only is true, 'tis in tr. 4. q. 15. p. 95. Some Authors affirm that Absolution ought to be denied those who fall often into the same sins, and that especially when, after they had been divers times absolved, there is not the least appearance of any amendment; and there are others that hold the contrary. But the only true opinion, is▪ that they ought not to be denied absolution. And though they make no● any advantage of the good instructions that are many times given them; though they have not performed the promises they had made to reform their lives; though they have not endeavoured to become more sanctified, it matters not, and, let others say what they will, the opinion that is most true, and consequently most to be embraced, is that even in all these cases, they ought to be absolved. And tr. 4. q. 22. p. 100 That they ought not to be denied or delayed absolution who continue in habitual sins against the Laws of God, Nature, and the Church, though they discover not the least hope of amendment. Etsi ●mendationis futurae nulla spes appareat. But Father, said I, this confidence of never missing absolution might very well induce and encourage sinners— I know what you would say, replied the Father, interrupting me, but hear Father Bauny, q. 15. Absolution is not to be denied him who acknowledges that the very presumption of being absolved had encouraged him to sin with much more freedom than he might have done had it not been for that presumption. And Father Caussin, maintaining this proposition, says pag. 211. of his Answer to Theol. Mor. That if it were not true, there were no use of Confession as to the greatest part of the world, and there were no other remedy for sinners then the bough of a tree and a ●alt●r. O Father, said I, what shoals of people must these maxims needs draw to your Confession-Seats! Nor indeed, replied he, can you easily believe what multiplies do come; we are ●ortwhelm'd, and ●r-run, as it were with the throngs of our Penitents; Poenitentium numero obruimur, as it is said in The Image of our first age, l. 3. c. 8. I know, said I, an easy way to ease you of that importunate trouble. You need do no more than oblige sinners, to avoid the next occasions of sinning. This only invention would put you into perfect ease. We do not desire that ease, replied he, for as it is said in the same book l. 3. c. 7. p. 374. The main design of our Society is to endeavour the establishment of virtue, to carry on the war against vice, and to cultivate an infinite number of souls. And whereas they are very few who are willing to avoid the next occasions, it was but requisite to define what we meant by a next occasion, as may be seen in Escobar, in the practice of our Society, tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 226. That is not called a next occasion wherein a man sins but seldom, as, for instance, to make use of a woman that lives in the same house with one, three or four times in a year, when it proceeds from a sudden temptation coming u●on him; or according to Father Bauny, once or twice a month, pag. 1082. and further pag. 1089. where he starts a question, viz, what course is to be taken between Masters and their Maids, and Cousins of both sexes living together, and by that means mutually induced to sin? It is fit they should be separated, said I. He indeed affirms they should, replied he, in case their relapses be frequent and in a manner quotidian; but if their enjoyments are but seldom, as haply once or twice a month, and that they cannot be separated without incurring some great prejudice and inconvenience, they ought to be absolved according to his Authors, and among others Suarez, provided they make good promises not to sinne any more, and be tively sorry for what is past. I understood him so, for he had taught me before what the Confessor must be satisfied with to judge of that sorrow. And Father Bauny, continued he, pag. 1083. and 1084. permits those that are engaged in the next occasions, to continue therein, when they cannot avoid them without finding the world matter of discourse, or running into some inconvenience thereby. In like manner, in his Moral Theology, tr. 4. de poenit. q. 14. pag. 94. and q. 13. pag. 93. he says that a Confessor may and aught to absolve a woman, who entertains in her house, a man with whom she sins often, if she cannot disengage him without loss of reputation, or that there 〈◊〉 some reason he should be still retained; si non potest honestè ejicere, aut habeat al●qam causam retinendi, provided she make a resolution not to commit evil with him any more.  
Well Father, said I, the obligation to quit occasions of sinning is certainly attended with very easy conditions, if the least ensuing inconvenience makes it void; but if I mistake not, a man is obliged thereto, even according to your Fathers, when there is no trouble at all. 'tis very true, replied he, though this, as a general rule, is not without some exception. For Father Bauny says in the same place: It is lawful for persons of all qualities, conditions and sexes to go into the places of common prostitution, there to convert sinful women, though it be very probable that they will commit sin there themselves, nay haply though they have found by frequent experience that they are drawn into sin by the very sight and insinuations of such women. And though there are some Doctors who approve not of this opinion, and do absolutely believe, that it is not lawful for a man to hazard his own salvation, to relieve his neighbour, yet shall I not stick to embrace the opinion they oppose. These, Father, said I, are a new sort of Evangelists; but upon what ground is it that Father Bauny gives them this Mission? upon a certain principle of his own, cited by him out of Basilius Pontius. I have given you an account of it formerly, and I think you cannot but remember it. ti's this, that a man may directly, and for itself, primò & per se, seek after such an occasion, for either the temporal or spiritual good of himself or his neighbour.  
These passages I thought so horrid, that I was almost in a mind to break off the discourse; but I smothered that sentiment to give him way to proceed, and, accordingly, only asked him, what consonancy is there Father, between this doctrine & that of the Gospel, which obliges a man to pluck out his eyes, and to cut off that which is most necessary, when it is obstructive as to salvation? And how can you imagine that a man voluntarily continuing in the occasions of sinning can sincerely detest sin? Is not the contrary apparent, that is, that he hath not the sense thereof which he ought to have, and that he hath not yet attained that true conversion of the heart, which begets in a man as great a love for God as he had had for the Creatures? How, said he, that were little less than true contrition. It seems you are yet to learn, that, as Father Pintere●u says in part. 2. pag. 50. of his Abbot of Boisi●, All our Fathers unanimously teach, that it is an error, nay almost a heresy, to affirm, that contrition is necessary, and that attrition alone, and that grounded upon no other motive than the torments of Hell which excludes the desire of offending, is not sufficient with the Sacrament. How Father, said I, is it almost an article of faith, that attrition proceeding from the fear of torment sufficeth with the Sacrament? I presume this tenet is particularly held only by your Fathers. For others who believe attrition with the Sacrament to be sufficient, do yet require there should be something in it of the love of God. Further, some of your own Authors held not this doctrine so certain heretofore. For your F. Suarez hath this expression, De poenit. q. 90. ar. 4. disp. 15. sect. 4. num. 17. Though it be a probable opinion, saith he, that Attrition is sufficient with the Sacrament, yet is it not certaine●, nay it may be erroneous, non est certa, & potest esse falsa. If it be erroneous▪ Attrition is not sufficient to effect a man's Salvation; He therefore that dies wittingly in that condition, voluntarily runs the moral hazard of eternal damnation. For this opinion is neither very ancient, nor very common. Nec valdè antiqua, nec multum commùnis Neither was Sanchez▪ over-confident of the certainty of it; since he says in his Summary, l. 1. c. 9 nu. 34. That the sick person and the Confessor, who at the point of death should be satisfied with Attrition with the Sacrament, were guilty of mortal sin, by reason of the great hazard of damnation wherein the Penitent should be, if the opinion, affirming that Attrition is sufficient with the Sacrament, be not certainly true. Of the same was Comitolus, when he says, Resp. mor. l. 1. q. 32. n. 7.8. that it is not over-certain, that attrition is sufficient with the Sacrament.  
How is that, says the good Father, interrupting me at those words, it seems then you read our Authors? 'tis very well done; but it were better that when you do read them, it were with some of us. Do you not perceive, that, because you have read them alone you conclude that those passages do somewbat prejudice those who now maintain our doctrine of attrition, whereas we should have shown you that nothing adds more to their reputation. For what glory is it to our present Fathers, that they have of a sudden so generally spread their opinion, that, Divines excepted there's hardly any one but imagines, that what we now hold concerning attrition, was, from the beginning, the absolute Creed of the faithful. So that when you demonstrate by our very Fathers, that not many years since, this opinion was not certain, what do you but attribute the honour of this establishment to our latest Authors?  
Thus our intimate Friend Diana thought he put an obligation upon us, by laying down the several degrees whereby it is come to this height. This he does p. 5. tr. 13. where he saith, That heretofore the ancient Schoolmen held that a man had no sooner committed a mortal sin, but he stood in need of contrition. But since it hath been believed that a man is not obliged thereto but only on festival days. Afterwards it was thought necessary only when the people stood in fear of some great calamity. That according to others, a man was obliged not to delay it long when near death. But that our Fathers Hurtado and Vasques have very excellently confuted all these opinions, and demonstrate that a man is not obliged thereto save when he cannot be absolved any other way, or at the point of death. But to proceed to the miraculous progress of this doctrine, I shall add, that our Fathers, Fagundez, praec. 2 c. 4. n. 13. Granados, in 3. p. contr. 7. tr. 3. d. 3. sect. 4. num. 17. and Escobar, tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 88 in the Practice of our Society, have decided, That contrition is not necessary even at the point of death, because, say they, if attrition with the Sacrament be not sufficient at the point of death, it would follow that attrition were not sufficient with the Sacrament. And our learned Hurtado, de sacr. d. 6. cited by Diana. part 4. tr. 4. Miscell. R. 193. and by Escobar. tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 91. goes yet further, for he says. Is that remorse which proceeds purely from a man's reflection on the temporal inconvenience following upon the sin he hath committed (as the loss of health, or money) sufficient or no? We must distinguish. If he look not on that evil or inconvenience as coming from the hand of God, the remorse is not sufficient; but if he believe that it does come from God, as in effect▪ all evil, as Diana says, except that of sin, comes from him, such a remorse is sufficient. Escobar says the same thing in The Practice of our Society. Our Father Franciscus Amicus affirms also the same thing, T. 8. disp. 3. num. 13. This startles me Father, said I. For I see not any thing in this kind of attrition but what is natural; and so a sinner may become worthy absolutions, without any supernatural grace; now there's not any one but knows this to be a heresy condemned by the Council. I should indeed have thought so, as well as you, replied he, and yet there is a necessity it should be otherwise. For our Fathers of the College of Clermont, have maintained in their Theses of May 23. and Jun. 6. 1644. Col. 4. n. 1. That attrition may be holy and sufficient for the Sacrament though it be not supernatural. And in those of August, 1643. that a purely-natural attrition is sufficient for the Sacrament, provided it be honest. Ad Sacramentum sufficit attritio naturalis, modò honesta. There can no more be said to this point, unless I should add a consequence easily drawn from these principles, which is, that contrition is of so little concernment as to the Sacrament, that, on the contrary it would prove prejudicial thereto, in that, taking away sins of itself, it would leave nothing for the Sacrament to do. This is affirmed by our Father Valentia, that eminent Jesuit, Tom. 4. disp. 7. qu. 8. p. 4. Contrition is not requisite at all in order to obtain the prin ipal effect of the Sacrament▪ nay on the contrary, it is rather obstructive: imò obstat potiùs quo minù● effectus sequatur. There cannot any thing be said more to the advantage of Attrition.  
I am of your mind, Father, said I, but give me leave to give you my thoughts of it, and discover to you what excesses this doctrine runs into, when you affirm that Attrition wrought in a man by the mere fear of torment, is, with the Sacrament, sufficient to justify sinners, does it not clearly follow, that people may expiate their sins all their life in that manner, and consequently be saved without ever having loved God in their lives? Durst your Fathers maintain this? I see well enough by what you say, replied the Father, that you are not much skilled in the doctrine of our Fathers concerning the love of God. It is the last draught of their Morality, and that of the greatest consequence of any. You might have apprehended something of it by the passages I have cited touching contri ion. But I shall furnish you with others, and therefore interupt me not, for they are very considerable in the sequel.  
Hear then Escobar, who citys the different opinions of our Authors upon this subject in the exercise of the love of God, according to our Society, tr. 1. ex. 2. n. 21. and tr. 5. ex. 4. n. 8. upon this question; When is a man obliged to have actually an affection for God? Suarez says, it is sufficient a man love him before he dies, not assigning any particular time. Vasqu●z, that it is sufficient even at the point of death. Others, when a man receives his baptism. Others, when he is obliged to be contrite. Others, upon holy-days. But our Father Castro Palao disputes against all those opinions, and that justly, merito. Hurtado de Mendoza pretends that a man is obliged to do it once every year, and that we are very gently dealt withal to be dispensed with from doing it oftener. Our Father Coninch believes a man to be obliged once in three or four years. Henriquez, once in five years. But Filiutius affirms, it is probable, that in rigour, a man not obliged every five years. When then? He refers it to the judgement of the wise. I took no notice of this Drollery, where the spirit of man does so insolently sport it with the love of God. But continued he, our Father Anthony Sirmond, who triumphs upon this subject in his admirable book of the de●nce of virtue, in tr. 2. sect. 1. pag. 12, 13, 14, etc. discourses thus; Saint Thomas saith, that a man is obliged to love God as soon as he is grown up to be master of his reason and discretion. But that's a little too soon. Scotus, every sunday, upon what ground? Others, when a man is in some grievous temptation. True, in case there be no other way to avoid the temptation. Sotus, when a man receives some benefit from God. 'tis good to be thankful. Others, at the point of death. That's somewhat of the latest I cannot be persuaded it ought to be done at every reception of some sacrament. For in that case, Attrition with Confession is sufficient, if it stand with a man's convenience. Suarez says, that a man is obliged thereto at some certain time. But what? Of that he leaves you to be judge yourself, as not knowing what to say to it. Now what that Doctor knew not, I know not who does know. And in fine, he concludes, that a man is not, in rigour, obliged to any thing but the observation of the other commandments without any affection towards God, or resignation of our hearts to him, provided that we do not hate him. This is that he would prove throughout all his second Treatise. You cannot but see it in every page, and among the rest in the 16.19.24.28. where he hath these words. God, when he commands us to love him, is satisfied if we do but obey him in his other Commandments. If God had said, I will destroy you, how obedient soever you may be to me, if you do not withal give me your hearts, were this a motive proportionable to the end which God might and ought to propose to himself? It is therefore said, that we shall love God by doing his will, as if we had for him all the affection that could be, that is, as if the motive of charity inclined us thereto. If this really happen, 'tis so much the better; if not, we shall nevertheless, in rigour, still obey the commandment of Love▪ by doing the works thereof. So that, (do but observe the goodness of God) we are not so much commanded to love him, as not to hate him.  
And thus have our Fathers disengaged men from that irksome obligation of loving God actually. And this doctrine is of so great importance, that our Fathers Annat, Pintereau, le Moine, and A. Sirmond himself, have very vigorously maintained it, when some made it very much their business to oppose it. I refer you to their Answers to the Moral Theology: and particularly to that of Father Pintereau in the 2. p. of the Abbot of Boisie pag. 53. you may judge of the consequence of this Dispensation, according to the price which he says it cost, which is the blood of JESUS CHRIST. This is the consummation of this Doctrine. There you will find that to be dispensed from the troublesome obligation of loving God, is the privilege of the Evangelical Law above the Judaical. It was but reasonable, saith he, that God in the Law of Grace of the New Testament, should take away that troublesome and difficult obligation, (which was in sore● under the Law of tig●r) of ●xe cising acts of perfect contrition in order to Justification; and ●t h should uld institute Sacraments, such as, in its stead, might carry on a more eas● dispensation. Otherwise, Christians, who are the children, could not be reconciled unto, and received into the embraces of their Father, upon so easy te mes, as the Jews, who were slaves, could obtain mercy from their Lord.  
O Father, said I, there's no patience in the world but you are able to overcome, nor can a man possibly without horror hear the things you have entertained me with. They come not from me, replied the Father. I know it very well, said I. But I see not any aversion you have for them, nay you are so far from detesting the Authors of these Maxims, that you highly esteem them. Do you not fear, left your compliance with them may make you a partaker of their guilt? Or can you be ignorant, that Saint Paul thinks worthy of death▪ not only those who are the Authors of evils, but also those that consent thereto?  
Was it not sufficient, that by your palliations you have permitted men to do many things which were forbidden, but you must further give them occasion to commit even those crimes, which, by the easiness and assurance of Absolution so freely by you proffered to them for the same, you cannot ex use, by divesting, to that purpose, the Priests of all Power, and obliging them, rather like thenslves then Judges, to absolve the most inveterate sinners, without requiring the l hast love towards God, amendment of life, or expression of remorse, other than Promises, thousands of times broken, without doing any penance, but what they themselves shall think fit to submit to, and without enjoining them to avoid the occasions of sinning, if they receive the least inconvenience thereby? But you are yet more extravagant and the liberty you have taken to unsettle the most sacred rules of Christian conduct extends to an absolute overturning of the law of God. You violate the great Commandment on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. You give Piety an assault in the very heart; you deprive it of that spirit whence it derives all vigour and life. You affirm the love of God not to be necessary to salvation; nay your excess is such as to pretend that this dispensation from the love of God is the advantage that the world derives from JESUS CHRIST. This certainly is the very height of impiety. The price of the blood of Jesus Christ shall be to procure us a dispensation from loving him. Before the Incarnation men were obliged to love God, but since that God hath so loved the World as to bestow on it his only Son, the world redeemed by him, shall be discharged from loving him. Strange Divinity of our days! That men should presume to take away that Anathema which Saint Paul pronounces against those who love not the Lord JESUS. That which Saint John says is clearly blown away, that he who loveth not remains in death; nay what is said by Jesus Christ himself, that, he who loves him not keepeth not his commandemenss. Thus do they make those worthy the enjoyments of God in Eternity who never loved God in their lives. Behold the Mystery of iniquity accomplished! Open your eyes at length, Father, and if you have not been moved by the other extravagances of your Casuists, let the extraordinariness of those last draw you out of them. 'tis my hearty prayer for you, and all your Fathers, and withal, that God would be pleased, so to enlighten them that they may see how uncertain that light is whereby they have been led into such precipices, and fill those with his love who give men a dispensation from it.  
After some other discourse of this kind, I took leave of the Father. And I see no great likelihood of ever visiting him again, but be not at all troubled at it; for if there be any necessity I should entertain you further with their Maxims, I am so well read in their books, that I am able to acquaint you with as much of their Morality, and haply more of their Politics, than he would have done himself. I am, etc.  
Paris, Aug. 2. 1656.   

To the Reverend Fathers of the Society of JESUS. From the Author of the Letters to the PROVINCIAL. LETTER XI.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
I have met with the letters which you scatter abroad in answer to those I have written to one of my friends, a PROVINCIAL, upon occasion of your Morality, wherein one of the principal points of your vindication, is, that I have not been serious enough when I have treated of your maxims. And this you repeat over and over in all your writings, and press so much as to affirm I make sport with holy things.  
This reproach, Fathers, as it is very much unexpected, so is it no less unjust. For where do you find me sporting with holy things? you particularly instance in in the Contract MOHATRA, and the story of JOHN D'ALBA. But are those the things which you call holy?  
Do you look on the Mohatra as a thing that requires so much veneration that it is blasphemy not to speak of it with respect? and for Father ' Bauny's Lectures, concerning Theft, whereby John'd Alba was induced to commit it against yourselves, are they so sacred, that you have a privilege to treat those as Reprobates that laugh at them?  
What, Fathers, must the imaginations of your Authors be received for such truths as wherein our Faith is concerned; and people cannot make sport with the passages of Escobar, and the fantastic and dis-christian-like decisions of your other Authors, but they must be charged with scoffing at Religion? Is it possible you should presume to repeat so often a thing so irrational? Or are you not afraid, when you blame me for censuring your extravagancies, to give me fresh occasion to laugh at the reproach, and to return it upon your own heads, by showing, that I have not taken occasion to laugh at any thing but what is ridiculous in your books; and consequently that when I make sport with your Morality, I am so far from jesting with holy things, as the doctrine of your Casuists is different from the holy precepts of the Gospel.  
There is certainly, Fathers, a vast difference between laughing at Religion and laughing at those that profane it by their extravagant opinions. It were impiety to want a respect for the truths which the spirit of God hath revealed; but it were no less impiety to want a contempt for the falsities which the spirit of man opposes thereto.  
For, Fathers, since you force me to engage in this discourse, I beseech you consider, that a● Christian verities require love and respect, so the errors contrary thereto deserve only scorn and detestation. The reason whereof, is, that as there are two things in the Truths of Religion, a divine beauty, that renders them amiable and inviting, and a sacred Majesty, which makes them dreadful and venerable; so are there likewise two things in Errors; impiety rendering them horrid; and impertinence, making them ridiculous. And therefore as the Saints have ever, for truth, these two sentiments of love and fear, and that their wisdom is comprehended between Fear, the beginning, and Love the end of it; so have they for error these two sentiments, of detestation and contempt, and their zeal is equally taken up to oppose, by force, the malice of the impious, and, with scoffing, to confute their folly and extravagance.  
Flatter not yourselves therefore Fathers, with any hope to make the world believe, that it is a thing unbeseeming a Christian to treat errors with scorn, since it is an easy matter to satisfy those that know not so much, that this kind of proceeding is very justifiable, that it is frequent among the Fathers of the Church, and is authorised by the Scripture, and the examples of the greatest Saints, nay by God himself.  
For do we not find, that God at the same time both hates and scorns sinners, nay so far, that even at the hour of their death, a time when their condition is most sad and deplorable, the divine wisdom joins laughter and scorn to that vengeance and indignation which shall turn them over into eternal punishment? I will also laugh at your destruction, and mock when your fear cometh. And the Saints actuated by the same spirit shall do the like, since that, according to David, when they see the destruction of the wicked, they shall fear and laugh at it the same time; Videbunt justi, & timebunt, & super ●um ridebunt. And Job hath the li●e expression; the righteous man shall laugh them to scorn.  
But it is a thing very remarkable upon this occasion, that in the first words which God said to man after his fall, we find a scoffing discourse, and, according to the Fathers, a bitter Irony. For when Adam had broken the commandment out of the hope which the Devil had put him into of being made like unto God, it is apparent out of the Scripture, that God, for his punishment made him subject to death, and yet after he had brought him into that condition, as the reward of his sin, he yet laughed at him in that posture with these scoffing expressions. Behold man is become like one of us. Which is a sharp and biting Irony, wherewith God reproved him most bitterly, according to Saint chrysostom a●d his interpreters. Adam, says Rupertus, deserved to be scoffed at by that Irony, and this ironical expression made him more fully sensible of his indiscretion then a serious one could have done. And Hugo de Saint Victor, having affirmed the same thing, adds, that this irony was a just reward for his sottish credulity, and that this kind of raillery is an act of justice when he on whom it is bestowed hath deserved it.  
You see then, Fathers, that derision is sometimes the fittest way to reduce men out of their extravagances, and that it is at that time an action of justice, because as Jeremy saith, the actions of those who go astray, are worthy to be laughed at by reason of th' it vanity: Vana sunt & risu digna. And it is so far from impiety to deride them, that it is an argument of divine wisdom, according to Saint Augustine. The wise laugh at the indiscreet, because they are wise, not according to their own wisdom, but that divine wisdom which shall laugh at the death of the wicked.  
In like manner the Prophets, filled with the spirit of God, have made use of these derisions, as we see in the examples of Daniel and Eliah. In a word, the very discourses of JESUS CHRIST himself are not without example thereof. And it is the observation of Saint Augustine, that when he would humble Nicodemus, who thought himself very well skilled in the law, seeing him much lifted up with pride by his quality of Doctor among the Jews, he exercises and brings down his presumption by the depth of his demands, and reduced him to an incapacity of answering. What▪ said he to him, are you a Master in Israel, and ignorant of these things? Which is as much as if ●e had said, Arrogant Prince, acknowledge that you know nothing. And Saint Chrysostom and Saint Cyril affirm upon that passage, that he deserved to be so derided.  
You see then, Fathers, that if it should happen at this day that such as pretend to be masters among the Christians, as Nicodemus and the Pharisees were among the Jews, be ignorant of the principles of Religion, and maintain, for instance, that a man may be saved without ever loving God in all his life, he did but follow the example of jesus Christ, that should laugh at their ignorance and their vanity.  
I doubt not, Fathers, but these sacred examples are sufficient to convince you that it is not a proceeding contrary to that of the Saints to laugh at the errors and extravagances of men; otherwise you must quarrel with that of the greatest Doctors of the Church, who have practised it. And among these may be numbered S. Hierom, in his letters, and in his writings against Jovinian, Vigilantius and the Pelagians; Tertullian, in his Apologetic against the simplicity of Idolaters: Saint Augustine, against the Religious men of afric, whom he calls the Hairy men: Saint Irenaeus against the Gnostics; Saint Bernard, and other Fathers of the Church, who having been imitators of the Apostles, are to be imitated by the faithful in all times, since that they are proposed, let men say what they will, as a true model for the Christians even of these days.  
And this made me the more confident I could not do amiss while I followed them. Which since I have sufficiently shown that I have done, I have no more to say to this point, but only those excellent words of Tertullian, which give an account of all my procedure. What I have done is but as it were a trial of skill before a set combat. I have rather shown you the wounds might be given you, then give you any. If there are some passages at which a man cannot well forbear laughing, it must be attributed to the subject treated of, inclining thereto. There are a many things which deserve to be thus laughed at, and made sport with, lest we might be thought to attribute any weight thereto by opposing them seriously▪ There's nothing more suitable to Vanity then Derision, and it is a privilege proper to Truth to laugh, because she is cheerful, and to scorn her enemies, because she is confident of Victory. 'tis true, great care must be taken that the raillery be not flat and unworthy of Truth. But keeping close to that, wh●n a man can with prudence make use thereof, it is but his duty to do it.  
What think you, Fathers, is not this passage very pertinent to our subject? What I have done is only a trial of skill before a combat. I have been all this while only in jest, and have rather shown you the wounds you might receive, then given you any. I have simply laid down your passages, without making any reflection thereupon, if there hath happened any occasion of laughing, it is because the subject was inclinable thereto. For what is more likely to occasion laughter, then to see a thing so grave as CHRISTIAN MORALITY fraught with such fantastic imaginations as yours are? For if, when men's expectations were so high concerning these maxims, that it was said that JESUS CHRIST himself had revealed them to the Fathers of the Society, one finds there, that a Priest who had received money to say a mass, may take more from others by transferring to them all the part and interest he had in the Sacrific●; That a Religious man is not excommunicable for quitting his habit to go and dance, steal, or repair, incognito, to debauched places; and that a man satisfies the precept of hearing mass, by hearing four parts of a Mass at the same time from several priests; when, I say, a man meets with these decisions, and others of the same mettle, it is impossible but that such an elusion of the expectation must needs cause laughter, for nothing more inclines thereto, than an incredible disproportion between what a man looks for and what he finds. And indeed how could a man otherwise treat of the greatest part of these matters, since that▪ according to Tertullian, to speak seriously of them were to countenance them. What, must we bring in Scripture and Tradition to show that for a man to run his enemy through behind his back, or to do it in an ambush▪ is to kill him treacherously; and that to buy a Benefice is to give money as the motive of the resignation thereof? There are therefore some things fit to be contemned, and deserve only to be laughed at and made sport with. In a word, what this ancient Author says, that nothing is more suitable to Vanity then Derision, and indeed the whole passage comes so suitably and with so much conviction to our purpose, that it is no longer to be questioned, whether errors may be laughed at without running into any indecorum. Nay, Fathers I shall affirm they may be laughed at without any breach of charity, though that be one of the things you most reproach me with in your writings. For charity does sometimes oblige us to laugh at the errors of men, the rather to incline them to laugh thereat themselves, and to shun them, according to the words of Saint Augustine: Haec tu misericorditer irride, ut eis ridenda & fugienda commends. The same charity does also many times oblige us to give them a repulse with indignation, according to this saying of Gregory Nazianzen; The spirit of mildness and charity hath its angry sallios and emotions. In a word, as Saint Augustine saith, Who dares affirms that truth ought to remain weaponless to deal with falsehood, and that it is lawful for the enemies of Religion to frighten the faithful with high words, and to divert them by pleasant passages; but that the Catholics should not write but with a certain coldness of style such as might lay the Readers asleep?  
Is it not sufficiently apparent hence, that according to this procedure we should suffer the most extravagant and most pernicious errors to be brought into the Church, when it shall not be lawful to slight and abuse them, for fear of being charged with running into an indecorum; nor yet to confute them with violence, for fear of being taxed with want of charity?  
What, Fathers, you shall be allowed to affirm that one may kill another to avoid an affront, or a box o'th' ear, and it shall not be lawful publicly to refute a common error of such consequence? You are at liberty to hold, that a Judge may, with a safe conscience, detaire what he had received for giving an unjust sentence, and others shall not have the same, to contradict you? You shall print with the privilege and approbation of your Doctors, that a man may be saved without ever loving God, and would muzzle their mouths who would defend that verity of our Faith, by telling them that they are guilty of a breach of fraternal charity, for opposing you, and Christian moderation, for laughing at your Maxims. I fear me, Fathers, there are those in the world, whom you could haply induce to believe such a thing. If there be any so persuaded, and that think I might commit a breach of the charity I own you, by discrediting your Morality. I wish they had▪ with attention, examined whence that sentiment took its first rise in them. For though they imagine it proceeds from their zeal, which could not, without scandal, see their neighbour accused, yet I would entreat them to consider, that it is not impossible it might come otherwise; nay that it is probable it proceeds from that secret, and, many times, even to ourselves, unknown disgust, which the unhappy leaven within us never fails to stir up against those that endeavour the reformation of manners. And to give them a rule whereby they may discover the true principle thereof, I would ask them, whether at the same time that it pities them to see Religious men treated after this rate, they are not more troubled that Religious men should treat Truth as they have done. And if they are incensed not only against the LETTERS, but also against the MAXIMS cited therein, I shall acknowledge that their resentment may haply proceed from some zeal, but not well illuminated; and then the passage here produced will sufficiently enlighten them. But if their violence be against the reprehensions and not against the things reprehended, your Reverences must pardon me if I cannot avoid telling them, that they are most grossly abused, and that their zeal is very blind.  
'Tis certainly a strange zeal that is incensed against those that discover public enormities, and not against those that commit them! What new kind of charity is this that's offended to see manifest errors baffled merely by bringing them on the stage, and is not moved to see Morality turned upside down by those errors? If these persons were in danger to be assassinated, would they be offended with any one that should acquaint them with the ambush laid for them, and instead of turning out of their way to avoid it, would sit down and bemoan the want of charity in those that discovered the wicked design of those assassins'? Are they angry when they are forbidden to eat such a meat, because it is poisoned, or to go into a City when the plague is in it?  
Whence comes it then that they find this want of charity when a man discovers Maxims prejudicial to Religion; & on the contrary, think it a great defect of charity not to discover things prejudicial to their health and lives; but that the tenderness they have for their lives, makes them take kindly whatever contributes to the preservation thereof, and the indifference they have for Truth, makes them not only avoid having any part in her vindication, but also not a little troubled when they see others endeavouring the destruction of Falsehood?  
Let them then as in the sight of God, consider, how shameful and pernicious the Morality, which your Casuists scatter through all parts, is to the Church; how scandalous and illimitable the liberty you introduce into Manners, is; with what a violent and obstinate confidence you maintain them. And if they think it not time to arm against such disorders, their blindness is as much to be deplored as yours, since that both you and they have equal cause to fear this saying of Saint Augustine upon that of JESUS CHRIST in the Gospel; Woe unto the blind that lead; woe unto the blind that are led: vae caecis ducentibus, vae caecis sequentibus.  
But to the end you may have no occasion to put these impressions into others, nor to take them yourselves. I will acquaint you Fathers, (and I blush that you engage me to acquaint you with what I should have learned from you) with the marks which the Fathers of the Church have left us, whereby to discern whether reprehensions proceed from a spirit of piety and charity, or from a spirit of impiety and exasperation.  
The first of these rules, i●, that the spirit of piety inclines a man to speak always with truth and sincerity, whereas envy and exasperation spare neither lies nor calumnies: splendentia & vehementia, sed rebus veris, says Saint Augustine. Whoever makes use of lying, acts by the spirit of Satan. There's no direction of the intention can rectify calumny; and were it to convert the whole earth, it were not lawful to traduce the innocent, because we must not commit the least evil to promote the greatest good, and that the truth of God doth not stand in need of our lying, as the Scripture saith▪ It is the duty of the champions of Truth, saith Saint Hilary, not to advance any thing but what is true. Accordingly, Fathers, I may say, as in the presence of God, that there is nothing I detest more then to do Truth the least violence imaginable, and that I have ever been extremely careful, not only not to falsify (that were horrid) but even not to alter or distract, in the least, the sense of any passage. So that if I durst presume upon this occasion to make use of the words of the same Saint Hilary, I might safely say with him: If we advance things that are untrue, let our discourses be reputed infamous; but if we plainly show that what we do produce is public and manifest, it is no breach of moderation, and Apostolical Liberty to reprove them.  
But, Fathers, it is not enough not to produce any but true things, but we must also not produce all that are such, because there ought to be alleged only those things that are requisite to discover, and not those which can only hurt without any advantage. And so, as the first rule is to speak with truth; the second is to speak with discretion. Wicked men, saith Saint Augustine, persecuting the good, are hurried away with the blind passion that animates them; whereas the good prosecute the wicked with a prudent discretion, as Surgeons consider where they cut, whereas murderers care not where they strike. You know, Fathers, that of the Maxims of your Authors I have not cited those that might have troubled you most, though I might have done it without any breach of discretion, as well as a many learned Catholics, that have done it heretofore. All those who have read your Authors know as well as yourselves how sparing I have been to you as to that; besides that I have not said aught relating to any one in particular; and indeed should be much troubled had I discovered any secret and personal miscarriage, what pregnant proof soever I might have of it. For I know it to be the character of envy and animosity, and that a man should never do it, unless there be some extraordinary necessity for it, as to the benefit of the Church. It is therefore evident that I have have not any ways been wanting as to modesty, in what I have been forced to say concerning the Maxims of your Morality; and that there is much more reason you should acknowledge my reservedness, then complain of my indiscretion.  
The third rule, Fathers, is, that when a man is obliged to fall into something of satire, the spirit of piety inclines him to direct his wit against errors, not against holy things; whereas the spirit of Sycophancy, impiety and heresy makes sport with what is most sacred. I have already vindicated myself as to this point. And certainly a man, speaking only of the opinions I have cited out of your Authors, is far enough from being subject to that vice.  
In a word to shorten these rules, I shall only trouble you with this one more, which is t principle & end of all the rest. And that is, that the spirit of Charity inclines a man to make hearty wishes for their salvation, against whom he speaks; and, when he directs his reproaches to men, at the same time to address his prayers to God. A man should always, with Saint Augustine, preserve charity in his heart, even when he is obliged to do outwardly things that, to men, seem very harsh, and to smite them with a rough, but obliging severity, their advantage being to be preferred before their satisfaction. I am persuaded, Fathers, that my LETTERS contain not any thing whence it might be inferred that I have not had that desire for you, and consequently that Charity obliges you to believe that I really had it, when you can find nothing in them to the contrary. It is therefore evident that you cannot make it appear I have offended either against this rule, or indeed against any one of those that charity obligeth us to observe; and therefore you had no reason to aver that I had made a breach thereof in what I have done.  
But Fathers, since you will needs, be pleased, in few words to observe a carriage offending against all these rules, and that hath the right mark of Sycophancy, envy, and uncharitableness I will; give you instances thereof. And that they may be such as are well known to you, I shall take them out of your own writings.  
To begin then with the unworthy manner wherein your Authors speak of things sacred whether it be in their railleries, their Gallanteries, or their serious and grave discourses, do you think that so many ridiculous stories of your Father Bin●t in his Consolation of the sick are any way pertinent to the design he had taken, Christianly to comfort those whom God afflicts? Will you affirm, that that profane and superficial way wherein your Father le Moine hath treated of piety in his easy Devotion, is more likely to beget respect then contempt for the Idea he would form of Christian virtue? His whole book of Moral Representation, does it breath any thing else, as well in the prose as verse, but a spirit full of vanity and the fooleries of the world? Is that a piece beseeming a Priest, that ode, of the seventh book, entitled The elegy of chastity, where it is shown, that all handsome things are red, or subject to be red. This he writ to comfort a certain Lady whom he calls Delphina, upon her frequent blushing. In every stanze, he takes occasion to say that some of those things that are most esteemed, are red, as Roses, Pomegranates, the mouth, the tongue; and among these Galanteries infamous in a religious man does he insolently presume to bring in those blessed spirits which are always in the presence of God, and whereof Christians ought not to speak but with veneration.  
The Cherubims above the skies,  
Of head and feathers only framed,  
Who by God's spirit are inflamed,  
Enlightened by his radiant eyes,  
These glorious flying faces spread  
A beauty ever glowing-red,  
Or with their own or with God's fire;  
And midst these mutual fervours they  
Move their wings gently to allay  
And fan the ardour they acquire:  
But redness is in thee displayed,  
Delphina, with far greater grace,  
For honour dwells upon thy face  
In purple like a King arrayed, etc.  
What think you of it, Fathers? This preference of the redness of Delphina before the ardour of those spirits, who have no other than that of charity, and the comparison of a fan to those mysterious wings, do you think them very Christianlike in a mouth that consecrates the adorable body of JESUS CHRIST? I know he said it only to seem a Gallant, and in a merry humour, but this is that which is called jesting with holy things. And is it not true, that if he had justice done him, he should not escape a censure, though, to clear himself, he alleged that reason, which is not itself less censurable, produced by him in the first book; That the College of Sorbonne hath no jurisdiction over Parnassus, and that the errors of that Country are not subject to censures or the Inquisition; as if a man were forbidden to be a Blasphemer and an Atheist only in Prose. Nor would this other passage of the Preface before the same book stand him in much more stead; That the water of the river on whose banks he had written his verses had such a faculty to make Poets, that though it were consecrated and made holy-water, yet were it not able to chase away the Daemon of Poesy. Nor yet that of your Father Garassus in his Summary of the principal verities of Religion, pag. 649. where he joins blasphemy and heresy together; speaking of the sacred mystery of the Incarnation in this manner; The humane Personality hath been as it were graffed or set on horseback upon the personality of the Word. Nor this other passage, to omit a many others, of the same Author, pag. 510. where he says upon occasion of the name of Jesus commonly figured thus, 
* ✚ IHS  That some have taken away the Cross, and take the characters alone in this manner IHS, which is a JESUS dismounted and despoiled.  
Thus do you unworthily treat of the verities of Religion, contrary to the inviolable rule whereby we are obliged not to speak of them but with reverence. But you no less break that which obliges us not to speak but with truth and discretion. What is more obvious in your writings then Calumny? Does your Father Brisacier speak truly and sincerely, when he says, 4. part. p. 24. and 15. that the Nuns of Port-royal pray not to the Saints, and that they have no images in their Church, when all Paris can witness the contrary? And how implacable is he to the innocence of those Religious Women who live so virtuously and austerely, when he calls them, Impenitent Virgins, asacramentaries, in-communicants, foolish virgins, fantastic, Calaganes, desperate, and what you please; and traduces them with so many other calumnies, which could do no less then deserve the censure of the late Archbishop of Paris. Does he discreetly, when he calumniates Priests of unblameable lives, so far as to affirm 1. p. pag. 22. That they practise Novelties in Confession, to ensnare the handsome and the innocent, and that it were an horror to him to relate the abominable crimes they commit? Is it not an unsupportable temerity to advance such horrid impostures, not only without proof, but without the least pretence or probability? I shall dilate no further as to this point, and refer the larger discourse I intent you of it to another time: for I have somewhat to say to this subject, and what I have said is enough to let you see how far you offend against Truth and Discretion together.  
But it will haply be said that you break not the last rule which obliges a man to wish their salvation whom he speaks against, and that none can accuse you as to that, without searching into the secret of your hearts, which are known only to God himself. And yet, how strange soever it might seem, there is something to prove you guilty, even of that. For though your uncharitableness towards your Adversaries hath been so great as to wish their eternal destruction; yet such hath been withal your blindness that you have discovered so abominable a wish. Nay so far have you been from having any secret desires of their salvation, that you have publicly prayed for their damnation; and after you had betrayed that impious wish in the City of Caen, to the scandal of the whole Church, you have not blushed afterwards to maintain at Paris, even in your printed books, so diabolical an action. To rail and speak unworthily of what is most sacred; to traduce Virgins and Priests falsely and scandalously; and after all, to wish and pray for their damnation, are certainly such excesses against Piety, as cannot admit any thing beyond them. I know not, Fathers, how you can avoid confusion, and how it should come into your thoughts to charge me with want of charity, who, in all I have said, have been strictly guided by Truth and Modesty, without making reflections on the horrid breaches of charity, which you yourselves are guilty of, by such deplorable extremities.  
To conclude then, Fathers, with another reproach you fasten on me, viz. that of the great number I produce of your Maxims, there are some that you had been charged with before, whence you take occasion to be troubled that I repeat some things that had been already said. I make this answer to it, that, in regard you had made no advantage of what had been said to you before, I have purposely minded you of it again. For what benefit hath ensued after that so many learned Doctors, nay the whole University, have by so many books reproved you for these things? What have your Fathers, Annat, Causin, Pintereau, and le Moine done in the Answers they have made thereto, but load those with calumnies who had given you such good counsel? Have you suppressed the books wherein those wicked Maxims were taught? Have you silenced the Authors? Are you ever the more circumspect? And is it not since that time that Escobar hath been so often printed in France and the Low-countrieses, and that your Fathers, Cellot, Bagot, Bauny, Amicus, le Moine and others, make it their business, more than ever, to publish daily the same things; nay others, tending more to Libertinism then any before? Be not therefore so much troubled, Fathers, either that I have reproached you with the Maxims you have not quitted, or that I charge you with new ones; or lastly, that I have laughed at all. You need do no more than consider them well to find therein your own confusion and my vindication. Who can without laughter reflect on Father Bauny's decision, for him that sets a man's barn on fire; that of Father Cellot concerning restitution; Sanchez's his regulation in favour of Fortune-tellers: the manner how Hurtado makes a man avoid the sin of Duelling, by walking in a field, and there expecting another; Father Bauney's Compliments, to avoid Usury; the way to avoid Simony by a shift of the intention, and that of avoiding lying by speaking one while aloud, another, low, and such like opinions of the gravest among your Doctors. Needs there any thing further for my justification, and is there ought more suitable to vanity then Derision, as Tertullian saith? But, Fathers, the corruption of manners introduced by your Maxims deserves another manner of consideration, and we may well make this question with the same Tertullian: Ought we to laugh at their folly or bemoan their blindness? Rideam Vanitatem, an exprobrem caecitatem? I conceive, Fathers, a man is at liberty either to laugh at or lament it: Haec tolerabiliùs vel ridentur vel flentur, saith Saint Augustine. Acknowledge then that there is a time to laugh and a time to weep, as the Scripture saith. For my part, Fathers, it is my wish, that I find not these words of the Proverbs verified in you; viz. That if a wise man contend with a foolish man, whether he be angry or laugh, there is no rest.  

Reverend Fathers,  
At the closure of this Letter came to my hands a piece published by you, wherein you charge me with imposture in relation to six of your Maxims cited by me, as also with a correspondence with Heretics. I hope you will find a satisfactory answer thereto, and that within a short time, after which I presume you will not be over-earnest in continuing this kind of accusation.    

To the same. LETTER XII.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
I Was ready to write something by way of answer to the reproaches you have darted at me for this good space in your writings, wherein you call me Reprobate, Sycophant, Ignorant, the Fool in the Play, Impostor, Calumniator, Cheat, Heretic, Calvinist disguised, Disciple of Du-Mouli●, a man possessed with a Legion of Devils, and what you please yourselves. I was also desirous the world should understand why you treat me after this rate; for I should be much troubled it believed any such thing of me, and so was resolved to call you to account for your Calumnies and impostures when there come to my hands your answers, wherein you charge me with the same. This hath obliged m● to change my resolution, yet not so but that I shall still continue it in some sort, since that my hope is, in vindicating my self, to convince you of more t u impostures than you have imputed false to me. Certainly, Fathers, you are more to be suspected than I am. For 'tis not likely that being alone, as I am, without force or any humane assistance, against so great a body, and being not backed by any thing but truth and sincerity, I should put all at stake, by exposing myself to be charged with impostures. It is too too easy to discover falsities in questions of fact, such as these are. I should not, were I faulty, want accusers, nor they, justice. Widow h you, Fathers, the case is much otherwise, for you may say against me, what you please, and yet I have not any to make my complaint to. This difference of our conditions must needs oblige me to a great caution, though other considerations should not induce me thereto. However, you treat me as an eminent impostor, and so you force me to reply; and yet you know that cannot be done, without exposing afresh, and discovering more fully the several heads of your Morality, which putteth me into some doubt whether you are so great Politicians as you would seem. The war is removed into your Quarters, and carried on at your charge: and though you have endeavoured so to pester the questions with School terms, that the answers thereto being long, obscure and intricate, might prove tedious and distastefu l, yet will you not haply have your desires; for I shall make it my main business to avoid importunity as much as may be in this kind of writing. Your Maxims must still have something of diversion in them, wherewith the world i● extremely taken. All I desire is that you would remember that you yourselves engage me into this discovery, and let the world see who shall get the better.  
The first of your impostures is upon Vasquez's opinion concerning Alms. Give me leave to clear it up, so to rid our disputes of all obscurity. 'tis a thing generally known, that according to the spirit of the Church, there are two precepts concerning alms▪ one, for a man to give of his superfluity in the ordinary necessities of the poor; the other▪ to give something even out of what is necessary according to his condition, in th' i● extraordinary necessities. This is affirmed by Cajetan after Saint Thomas; so that to discover the spirit of Vasquez concerning alms, we are to consider how he hath regulated as well what a man ought to give out of his superfluity, as what he should give out of that which is necessary.  
That out of superfluity which is the ordinary relief of the poor, is absolutely taken away by this one max me, de Eleemos. c. 4. n. 14. cited by me in my LETTERS, What ever men lay up out of a design to raise their own Fortunes, and that of their Relations, is not called superfluous. For which reason it will be hard to find any among those that are worldly minded, that have aught superfluous, no not even among Kings. You see, Fathers, that, by this definition, those who are any way ambitious, will never have any thing superfluous, and consequently that in regard of the greatest part of men, alms is clearly taken away. But though it should happen that a man had any thing supeflruous, yet were be exempted from all charity in the extraordinary necessities of the poor, according to Vasquez, who is of a contrary opinion to those who would oblige the rich thereto. Take his own words, c. 1. n. 32. Corduba, saith he, holds that when a man hath any thing superfluous, he is obliged to part with somewhat out of it to those who are only in ordinary necessity, at least some part of it, so to fulfil the precept in some thing; BUT I AM NOT OF THAT OPINION: SED HOC NON PLACET. FOR WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRARY against Cajetan & Nav●rre. Thus, Fathers, is the obligation concerning Alms absolutely taken away, according to the pleasure of Vasqu●z.  
For that out of the necessary; which a man is obliged to do in urgent and extraordinary necessities, you shall see by the conditions he assigns to ground this obligation upon, that the richest in Paris cannot be thereby engaged not so often as once in their lives I shall produce but two. One is, THAT A MAN BE PERSUADED that the poor man will not be relieved by any other: Haec intelligo & caetera omnia quando scio nusum alium opem laturum. c. 1. n 28. What say you, Fathers, can it often happen, that in Paris, where there are so many charitable people, a man should be persuaded that the poor man that addresses himself to us will find no other that shall relieve him? And yet, if a man have not this persuasion he may send him away without relief, according to Vasquez. The other is that the necessity of the poor be such, that he stand in fear of some mortal accident, or loss of his reputation, n. 24. and 26. which happens very seldom. But that which much more argues the rarity of it, is, that he says, num. 45. That the poor man, who is in such a condition as wherein there is an obligation to relieve him, may with a safe conscience steal from the rich man. This certainly must needs be extraordinary, unless he will have it to be ordinarily lawful to steal. So that after he had absolutely made the obligation of giving alms out of what is superfluous, the greatest spring of charity of no effect; he obliges not the rich to relieve the poor out of that which is necessary, but when he allows the poor to steal from the rich. This is the doctrine of Vasqu●z, to which, for edification sake, you refer the readers.  
I now come to your own impostures. You in the beginning speak much of the obligation which Vasquez imposes on Clergymen to be charitable. I said nothing as to that point, but shall when you please. That therefore relates not to the present controversy. For the Laios with whom only we have to do here, you would feign make men believe, that Vasqu●z speaks in the passage by me cited, according to the opinion of Cajetan, not his own. But as there is nothing more false, and that you have not affirmed it clearly▪ I shall think, for your reputation, that it was not your intention to affirm it.  
Then you openly quarrel, that, after I had cited this maxim of Vasquez, It will be hard to find among those that are worldly minded, no not among Kings any that have aught superfluous, I thence conclude that rich men are hardly to give alms out of their superfluity. But what do you mean, Fathers? If it be true that the rich never have any thing almost superfluous, does it not follow that they shall never almost stand obliged to give alms out of their superfluity? I should put it into an argument in form, if Diana, who hath such an esteem for Vasquez that he calls him the Phoenix of wits, had not from the same principle drawn the same consequence. For having cited this maxim of Vasquez he concludes from it; That in the question whether rich men are obliged to give alms out of their superfluity, though the opinion that obliges them thereto be true, yet it would seldom or never happen that it should be obligatory in point of practice. I have only pursued that discourse word for word. What then is your meaning, Fathers? Diana citing the opinions of Vasquez with a certain applause, finding them probable, and extremely convenient for the rich, as he says in the s●me place, is neither detractor, nor falsifyer, and you do not complain that he imposes any thing upon him; whereas I representing the same sentiments of Vasqu z, but without treating him with the elogly of Phoenix, am an impostor, a counterfe t, and a corrupter of his maxims. Certainly, Fathers, you should be in a little fear, le●t the difference of your carriage towards those who differ not in the citation but only in the esteem they have for your doctrine, discover the bottom of your hearts, and give men occasion to judge that your main design is to keep up the credit and reputation of your Society; since that while your accommodating Theology passes for a wise compliance, you do not disclaim those that publish it, nay on the contrary you celebrate them as contributing to the design. But when it is represented as a pernicious degeneration of principles, then does the same interest of your Society engage you to disclaim those maxims which do you prejudice in the world; and so you either acknowledge or renounce them, not according to the truth, which is ever the same and unchangeable, but according to the alterations of times, according to the saying of that ancient, Omnia pro tempore, nihil pro ve●itate. Take heed, Fathers, what you do; and that you may not charge me with having drawn from the principle of Vasqu●z any consequence he should have disclaimed, know that he hath drawn it himself, c. 1. n▪ 27. A man is hardly obliged to give alms, when he is obliged to give it only out of his superfluity, according to the opinion of Cajetan, AND ACCORDING TO MY OWN, & secundum nostr●m. Confess now, Fathers, even from the testimony of Vasquez himself, that I have exactly followed his sentiment, and then consider with what conscience you durst affirm, that if a man would sift the business well, he should not without amazement, find that Vasquez in that place teaches absolutely the contrary.  
But above all, you make a great account of what you say, that Vasquez hath, in requital, obliged the rich to give alms out of their necessary. But you have forgotten to allege the many conditions requisite to form this obligation, and you say, in general, that he obliges the rich to give away even what is necessary for their condition. This is to be too charitable, Fathers, the rule of the Gospel is not so strict, that were another error, which Vasquez is very far from. To disguise his remissness you attribute to him an excess of Severity, which would make him the more , and consequently you lose the credit of citing him faithfully. But he is not worthy that reproach, after he had maintained, as he hath done, that the rich are not obliged either out of justice or charity to give of their superfluity, much less out of their necessary, in all the ordinary exigences of the poor, and that they are not obliged to give out of the necessary, but upon occasions such as seldom or never happen.  
This is all you lay to my charge, so that I have now no more to do but to make appear how false that pretence of yours is, that Vasquez is more severe than Cajetan. And this is not hard to do, since that that Cardinal teaches, That a man is in point of justice, obliged to give alms out of his superfluity even in the ordinary necessities of the poor; because, according to the holy Fathers, the rich are only stewards as to what they have superfluous, having only the liberty to bestow it on whom they please of those that are in want. So that whereas Diana says of the maxims of Vasquez, that they are extremely convenient, and very acceptable to the rich, and their Confessors, this Cardinal, who hath no such comfort to give them, declares, de Eleem. c. 6. That there needs no more be said to the rich then these words of JESUS CHRIST, that it is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and to their Confessors, than this saying of the same Saviour, if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. So indispensable did he think this obligation! And indeed it is no more than what the Fathers and all the Saints have established as an unquestionable Truth. There are two cases, saith Saint Thomas 2.2. q 118. a. 4. wherein a man is obliged to give alms, in point of justice, ex debito legali; one when the poor are in danger, the other when we have what is superfluous. And q. 87. a. 1. The third tenths which the Jews were obliged to eat with the poor have been augmented under the new Law, b●cause it is the pleasure of JESUS CHRIST that we should bestow on the poor, not only a tenth part, but whatever we have that is superfluous. And yet Vasquez is not pleased they should have so much as one part, so great compliance hath he for the rich, so much cruelty for the poor, and so opposite is he to those sentiments of charity, which makes the truth of those words of Saint Gregory, very harsh indeed to the rich of this world, to be submitted unto and embraced; When we give the poor what is necessary for them, we do not so much give them what is ours, as restore them what is theirs; and it is a duty in point of justice, rather than a work of mercy.  
Thus do the Saints persuade the rich to divide with the poor the goods of the earth, if they would enjoy with them those of heaven. And where you make it your business to encourage men into ambition, whereby they have not any thing superfluous, and covetousness, which denies to give though they had; the Saints, on the contrary, have made it theirs to engage men to give away that which is superfluous, and to persuade them that they shall have much if they measure it not by avarice that knows no limits, but by Piety which is ingenious in finding out ways to deprive itself, that so it may have the more to dispose of in the works of charity. We have much of that which is superfluous▪ saith S. Augustine, if we reserve only that which is necessary. But if he seek after vain things, nothing will be enough for us. Seek Brethren, after that which is sufficient for the work of God, that is, for nature, and not to satisfy your own covetousness, which is the work of the Devil. And remember, that the superfluity of the rich is that which is necessary to the poor.  
I should be glad, Fathers, that what I now say, might serve, not only to justify me, that were no great matter but also to make you sensible of, and abhor what is corrupt in the maxims of your Casuists, that so we may be sincerely united in the holy precepts of the Gospel, according to which we all ought to be judged.  
For the second point, concerning Simony, before I come to answer the reproaches you cast at me, I shall clear up your doctrine upon this subject. Being somewhat at a loss what to do between the Canons of the Church, which impose extraordinary punishments on Simonists, and the avarice of so many persons as drive that infamous trade, you have been guided by your ordinary method, which is, to allow men what they desire, and to give God words and apparences. For what can Simonists desire more then to have money for the Benefices they have to dispose? And this is that which you have exempted from Simony. But because the name of Simony must not be lost, and that there must be some subject to which it should stick, you have chosen for that an imaginary Idea, which never comes into the heads of the Simonists, and which should be of no advantage to them, which is, to esteem the money considered in itself as much as the spiritual good considered in itself. For who would ever make it his business to compare things so disproportionate and heterogeneal? And yet, provided a man do not make this metaphysical comparison, he may bestow his benefice on another, and receive money for it, without Simony, according to your Authors.  
Thus do you make sport with Religion, to comply with men's passions; and yet do but see with what gravity your Father Valentia is delivered of his dreaming imaginations, in the place cited in my Letters, Tom. 3. disp. 16. p. 3. p. 2044. A temporal good may be given for a spiritual two manner of ways, one, when the temporal is valued at a higher rate than the spiritual, and that were Simony: the other, when he temporal is taken for the motive and the end inclining a man to bestow the spiritual, yet not so as to value the temporal above the spiritual; and in that case it is no Simony. The reason of it is, that Simony consists in the receiving of the temporal as the just price of the spiritual. If therefore the temporal good be demanded, si petatur temporale, not as the price, but as the motive determining a man to confer, there is no Simony at all, though he look on the possession of the temporal good as his end and principal expectation. Minimè erit Simonia etiamsi temporale principaliter intendatur & expectetur. And your great Sanchez, hath he not met with such another revelation, as we have it from Escobar, tr. 6. ex. 2. n. 40. Take his own words. If a man gives a temporal good for a spiritual, not as the PRICE but the MOTIVE inclining the other to confer it, or by way of gratitude if a man had received it before, is it Simony or not? Sanchez affirms it is not. Your Theses of Caen, of the year 1644. say, That it is a probable opinion taught by many Catholic Authors, that it is not Simony to give a temporal good for a spiritual, when it is not given as the price. And for Tannerus; his doctrine is not unlike that of Valentia▪ whence it may be perceived what great reason you had to quarrel at my ●aying that it is not conformable to that of Saint Thomas, when he himself confesses it in the place cited in my Letter, t. 3. d 5. p. 1519. There is, saith he, properly and truly, no Simony, but when the temporal good is received as the price of the spiritual: but when it is t●ken as a motive inclining a man to bestow the spiritual, or by way of acknowledgement that it is already b stowed, it is no Simony, at least as to point of Conscience. And a little after. We must affirm the same thing, even though a man regard the temporal as his principal end, nay prefer it before the spiritual, although Saint Thomas and others seem to affirm the contrary, when they hold that it is absolute Simony to give a spiritual good for a temporal when the latter is the end of the former.  
This, Fathers, is your doctrine concerning Simony taught by your best Authors, who second one another in it very exactly. All I have now to do is to answer your impostures. You have not said any thing upon the opinion of Valentia; and so his doctrine stands good notwithstanding your answer. But you fasten on that of Tannerus, and say, that he hath only decided it not to be Simony, as to divine right: And you would make people believe, that I have left out of that passage the words, as to divine right. What unreasonable men are these! the words, as to divine right, never were in that passage. To this you add, that Tannerus declares it to be Simony as to positive right. You are mistaken Fathers; he hath not said it generally, but in some particular cases, in casibus à jure expressis, as he affirms in that very place. Wherein he makes an exception as to what he had established in general in that passage, that it is not Simony in point of conscience; which certainly must needs imply, that it is not any as to positive right, unless you would make Tannerus impious to that degree as to maintain that Simony as to positive right, is not Simony in point of conscience. But it is your design to muster together these terms of divine right, positive right, natural right, the interior and exterior tribunal, particular cases in the civil Law, external presumption, and the like, such as are not very much known, so basely to shift away and to set people at a loss of your extravagances. But, Fathers, you shall not scape through these trivial subtleties, for I shall put such plain questions to you that there shall be no need of a distinguo. I ask you, without meddling with divine right, or the presumption of the exterior Tribunal, whether a Patron shall be a Simonist according to your Authors, if he dispose of a Living of four hundred pound a year, and receive therefore a thousand pound paid in hand, not as the price of the Living, but as a motive inclining him to dispose of it. Answer clearly▪ Fathers, what must be concluded in this case according to your Authors? Will not Tannerus formally affirm, That it is no Simony in point of conscience; since the temporal good is not the price of the Benefice, but only the motive which obliges the other to bestow it? Valentia, your Theses of Caen, Sanchez, and Escobar, will not they decide in like manner, that it is not Simony for the same reason? Need there any more to clear this Patron from Simony, or will you dare treat him otherwise in your Confession-seats, what opinion soever you may have of him yourselves, since he hath a right to oblige you thereto, as having acted suitably to the advice of so many grave Doctors? Be then ingenuous and confess, that such a Patron is free from Simony according to you: and when you have done, defend that doctrine if you can.  
This, Fathers, is the only way to unravel questions, and to avoid the confusion of School-termes, or altering the state of the question as you do in your last reproach, in this manner. Tannerus, say you, declares at least, that such an exchange is a great sin; and you charge me to have maliciously smothered that circumstance, which absolutely justifies him, as you pretend. But you are much mistaken, and that many ways. For though what you say were true, it were nothing, since that in the place where I spoke of it, the question was not whether there were any sin in it, but only whether it were Simony. Now these are two different questions; Sins, according to your Maxims, oblige only to Confession, Simony obliges to restitution: and there are those in the world who would think there were a great distance between these two. For you have found out expedients to make Confession very easy, whereas you have not found out any to make Restitution pleasant. I may add to this, that the case which Tannerus charges with sin, is not simply that wherein a spiritual good is given for a temporal, which is the motive of it, and that the principal one, but he adds further, that the temporal be valued above the spiritual, which is that imaginary case we have spoken of already. Nor indeed is it ill done of him to charge that man with sin, since▪ he must needs be transcendently wicked or very stupid, not to be willing to take such an easy course to avoid a sin as that of forbearing comparisons between the prices of those two things, when it is lawful to give the one for the other. Besides, Valentia, examining, in the p●ce before cited, whether it be any sin to give a spiritual good for a temporal, the latter being the motive of doing the former, produces their reasons who hold the affirmatives, adding, Sed hoc non videtur mihi satis certum. But this I am not sufficiently satisfied of.  
But since, your Father Eradus Billus, Professor of the cases of Conscience at Caen, hath decided that there is not any sin at all in it: for probable opinions are ever ripening. This is it he declares in his writings of the year 1644. against which Monsieur Du Pré, Doctor and Professor at Caen made that excellent printed Oration, which is so generally known. For though this Father Eradus Billus acknowledges that the doctrine of Valentia asserted by Father Milha●d and condemned in Sorbonne, is contrary to the common tenant, subject to Simony in many things, and punishable by Justice when the practice of it is discovered, yet does he not stick to affirm it to be a probable opinion, and consequently secure in point of conscience▪ and that it is not chargeable with either Simony or sin. It is, saith he, a probable opinion, and taught by a many Catholic Doctors, that it is no Simony, NOR ANY SIN to give money or any other temporal thing for a Benefice, either by way of acknowledgement, or as a motive without which it would not be bestowed, provided it be not given as a price proportionable to the Benefice. This is as much as can be desired. You see then Fathers, that, according to all these Maxims, Simony would be so rare a thing, that Simon Magus himself would not be guilty of it, who desirous to buy the holy Ghost, became thereby the image of the Simonists that buy; nor Gehazi, who receiving money for a miracle, is the figure of the Simonists that sell. For it is certain, that Simon Magus, when be offered the Apostles money to get the power to do as they did, used no terms of buying or selling, or price, and that he did only offer his money as a motive to obtain that spiritual good. Which action being not subject to Simony according to your Authors, he might very well have escaped the Anathema of Saint Peter, had he but known their Maxims. Nor was this ignorance less prejudicial to Gehazi, when he was smitten with the Leprosy by Elizeus; for, having received the money of that miraculously healed Prince, only by way of acknowledgement, and not as a price equal to the divine virtue whereby that miracle was wrought, he might have obliged the Prophet to restore him to his health also upon pain of mortal sin; since such proceeding would have been suitable to the tenants of so many grave Doctors, and that your Confessors are obliged to absolve their penitents in the like case, and to cleanse them from their spiritual Leprosy, whereof the corporal is but the Figure.  
To be serious, Fathers, here's matter enough to make you ridiculous; I know not whence it comes that you hazard your reputation thus. For I need only produce your other Maxims; as this of Escobar, in the practice of Simony according to the Society of Jesus. When tw● Religious men become mutually engaged one to another in this manner, Give me your voice, that I may be elected Provincial, and I will give you mine for your election to be Prior; is it Simony or no? Not at all. And this other, It is no Simony to get a Benefice upon promise of a sum of money, when the beneficed person is not resolved to pay it; because it is but a feigned Simony, which is so far from being real as sergeant gold is from true. By this subtlety of conscience hath he found out a way, with an addition of cheating to Simony; for men to get Benefices both without money and without Simony. But I have no time to dilate, for I am to vindicate myself as to your third calumny upon the subject of Bankrupts.  
Then that, Fathers, there cannot be any thing more absurd. You treat me as an Impostor upon occasion of an opinion of Lessius, which I have not cited myself, but is alleged by Escobar in a passage I cite out of him; and so, were it true that Lessius is not of the opinion attributed to him by Escobar, what greater injustice can there be then to quarrel at me for it? When I cite Lessius and your other Authors myself, I am content to be accountable. But since Escobar hath shuffled together the opinions of twenty four of your Fathers, I would fain know whether I ought to be responsible any further than for what I cite out of him, or that I am moreover to give an account of the citations which he himself makes in the passages I take out of him? 'Twere irrational to expect it. Now this is it that at present is in debate. I have cited in my Letter this passage of Escobar, faithfully rendered, so as you object nothing against it. May he who turns Bankrupt, with a safe conscience, retain as much of his own goods as is requisite to maintain himself handsomely, nè indecorè vivat? I, WITH LESSIUS, AFFIRM, HE MAY: CUM LESSIO ASSERO POSSE, etc. Hereupon you tell me that Lessius is not of that opinion. But consider a little how you are ensnared. For if it be true that he is, you will be called Impostors, for affirming the contrary; if it be not, Escobar is the Impostor; so that it must needs follow that some one of the Society is guilty of imposture. Look you to the scandal of it. You cannot it seems foresee the consequences of things. You think there's no more to be done then to fill the world with reproaches, without any care where they fall. Why did you not propose the difficulty to Escobar, before you published it? he might have given you satisfaction. But it is not so easy a matter to hear out of Vailladolid, where he is, in very good health, and upon finishing his grand work of MORAL DIVINITY in six volumes, on the former whereof I shall have one day something to say to you. The first ten LETTERS have been sent him; you may also send him your Objection, and I am confident he would have given a good account of it, for, no question he hath seen that passage in Lessius whence he hath taken the nè indicorè vivat. You would do well, Fathers, to read him carefully, and you will find it in him as well as I, l. 2. c. 16. n. 45. Idem colligitur apertè ex juribus citatis, maximè quoad ea bona quae post cessionem acquirit, de quibus is qui debitor est, etiam ex delicto, potest retinere quan●um necessarium est, ut pro suâ conditione NE INDECORE VIVAT. Petes, an leges id permittant de bonis, quae tempore instantis cessionis habebat? Ita videtur colligi ex DD. etc.  
I shall not trouble myself to show you that Lessius, to authorize this Maxim injures the Law, which allows Bankrupts only a simple livelihood and not an honourable subsistence; It's enough that I have cleared Escobar from so unjust an accusation; 'Tis more than I was obliged to do. But you, Fathers, for your parts, have not done what you should: for the business is to answer the passage of Escobar, whose decisions are very convenient and of great advantage, in that not depending on either what went before, or relating to what comes after, but being confined by little articles, they are not subject to your distinctions. I have cited that whole passage out of him, wherein he allows those that turn Bankrupts, to retain so much of their estates, though unjustly gotten, as whereby they may maintain their families handsomely. Which gave me occasion to cry out in my Letters; How, Fathers, by what strange kind of charity would you have those goods remain in their hands who came unjustly thereby, rather than return to the lawful Owners and Creditors? This is it you are to answer to; but it is a thing puts you to such a loss, that you vainly endeavour to elude it by shifting off the question, and citing other passages of Lessius, not at all relating to the present controversy. I therefore ask you whether this maxim of Escobar may, in point of conscience, be followed by those who turn bankrupts; and take good heed what you say. For if you answer, they may nor, what will become of your Doctor, and the doctrine of Probability? if you say they may, I refer you to the Parliament.  
So I leave you with the Wolf by the ears; for I cannot for want of place, engage with the ensuing imposture upon the passage of Lessius concerning Homicide; I leave it to the next opportunity, and so of the rest.  
In the interim, I shall say nothing to you concerning the ADVERTISEMENTS full of scandalous forgeries, wherewith you conclude every imposture: I shall answer all together in the Letter wherein I hope to discover the first elements of all your calumnies. I am sorry, Fathers, you should be forced to such remedies. The reproaches you cast upon me will not clear up the differences between us, and the threats you are so liberal of shall not hinder me from vindicating myself. You think you have might and impunity of your side, and I think I have truth and innocence on mine. 'Tis a strange and long war wherein violence endeavours to oppose Truth. All the attempts of violence cannot so much as weaken truth, nay they as much as may be strengthen her. All the lustre of truth is so far from appeasing violence, that it does but more and more exasperate it. When might is engaged with might, the stronger power swallows up the weaker; but when discourses are opposed one to another, those that are true and convictive confound and defeat those which have nothing in them but vanity and falsehood: but violence and truth can prevail nothing one upon another. Yet let it not be thence presumed that things are equal: for there is this main difference, that violence is limited by the order of God, who disposes the effects of it to the glory of that Truth which it opposes: whereas Truth subsists eternally, and at last triumphs over her enemies, because she is eternal and powerful as God himself.  
Paris, Sept. 9 1656.   

To the same. LETTER XIII.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
I Have just now perused your last writing wherein you continue your impostures even to the twentieth, declaring that you will there put a Period to that kind of accusation, whereof consisted your first plea, to come to the second, where you are to take a new course to vindicate yourselves, which is to show that there are a many other Casuists degenerated into Libertinism as well as you. I see then Fathers how many impostures I have to answer: and since that we are now upon, which is the fourth, is upon the subject of Homicide, it will not be unseasonable, while I answer that, at the same time to give satisfaction to the 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. as relating to the same head.  
I shall therefore, in this letter, make good the truth of my citations, against the falsities you unjustly lay to my charge. But since you have so confidently affirmed in your writings, That the opinions of your Authors concerning Murder are conformable to the Decisions of Popes and the Canons of the Church, you must needs engage me, in the ensuing Letter, to confute a proposition so rash and withal so injurious to the Church. It is a matter of importance to make it appear that she is not in the least tainted with your corruptions, that so Heretics may not take advantage from your extravagances to draw thence any thing prejudicial to her honour. But rather, perceiving on the one side your pernicious maxims, and on the other the Canons of the Church, whereby they have always been condemned, men will at the same time find both what they should avoid and what they should follow.  
Your fourth imposture is upon the maxyme concerning Murder which you pretend I have wrongfully attributed to Lessius. 'tis this. He who hath a box on the ear given him way immediately pursue his en●my, nay return it him with his sword, not indeed to be revenged of him, but to recover his reputation. Whereupon you say that this opinion belongs to the Casuist Victoria. But that is not the business in question. For there is no repugnance in affirming it to belong at the same time, both to Victoria and Lessius, since Lessius says himself that it is also Navarrus' and your Father Henriquez's who teach; That he who hath received a box o'th' ear may immediately pursue him that g●ve it; and load him with as many blows as he shall think requisite for the reparation of his honour. The question than is, to know, whether Lessius also be of the opinions of these Authors, as well as his brother-Casuists. And therefore you add, That Lessius citys not this opinion but to refute it, and consequently that I attribute an opinion to him, which he alleges only to oppose it, which is the basest and most dishonourable action that a writer can be guilty of. And I maintain, Fathers, that he d es not cite it but to follow it. This is a question of fact, such as whereof the decision is easy enough. See we then how you prove what you assert, and you shall see afterwards how I prove what I affirm:  
To show that Lessius is not of that opinion, you say he condemns the practice of it. And to prove that you cite a passage of his, lib. 2. c. 9 n. 82. where he hath these words, I condemn the practice of it. I grant you, that if any one look for rhese words in Lessius, num. 82. as they are by you cited, he will find them. But what will he say Fathers, when he finds at the same time, that in the place beforementioned he treats of a question very different from that we now speak of, and that the opinion, whereof he, in that place condemns the practice, cannot any way be that now in hand, but another of a quite different nature? And yet to clear up the business, we need but open the book at the very place to which you refer us. For there you will find the sequel of his discourse in this manner.  
He treats of the question, whether a man may kill for a box o'th' ear, in num. 79. and concludes it in num. 80. without any the lest word of condemnation. That question being decided, he opens another in article 81. viz. whether one man may kill another for opprobrious speeches. And it is upon that that he hath n. 82. the words by you cited, I condemn the practice of it.  
Is it not a shameful thing, Fathers, that you durst produce these words, to persuade men that Lessius condemns the opinion, that a man may be killed for a box o'th' ear? And that, having in all but his only proof, you should triumph upon it as you do when you say, That many persons of quality in Paris, having already discovered that palpable falsity by the very reading of Lessius, and are thereby satisfied what credit ought to be given that Libeler. How Fathers, is it thus that you abuse the confidence which these persons of quality have in you? To make them believe that Lessius is not of such on opinion, you open his book at a place where he condemns another. And so these persons not distrusting you, and not making it their business to examine whether the question controverted be treated of in that place, you basely abuse their credulity. I am confident, Fathers, that to avoid so shameful a falsehood you were forced to fly to your doctrine of Equivocation, and that reading the whole passage aloud, you said to yourselves, that something else was handled in that place. But I question whether this reason, which is enough to satisfy your consciences, will be sufficient to satisfy the just quarrel these persons of quality will have against you, when they shall find themselves cajoled by you.  
Hinder them, Fathers, from seeing my LETTERS, since it is the only course you can take to keep up your credit for a while. Yet I do not deal so with yours; I send them to all my friends, I wish all the world might see them; and I think there is some reason on both sides. For having published this fourth imposture, with so much noise, you must needs be discredited when it comes to be known that you have supposed one passage for another. It will then be easily imagined that if you could have found what you looked for in that place where Lessius treated of that matter, you would not have sought it elsewhere; and that you would not have made use of this shift but because you could not fasten on any thing else that favoured your design. You would have men to find in Lessius what you say in your Imposture pag. 10. l. 12 that he doth not grant this opinion to be profitable even in speculation: and Lessius peremptorily affirms in his conclusion, n. 80. This opinion, that a man may kill for a box o'th' ear given him, is probable in sp●calation. Is not this, word for word, the contrary of your discourse? Who therefore can sufficiently admire, to see with that confidence you produce, in terminis, the contrary to a truth in matter of fact? So that in stead of what you conclude from your supposed passage, that Lessius was not of this opinion, it may very well be concluded from his true passage that he is of this very opinion.  
You would further make Lessius say, that he condemns the practice of it. And yet, as I have already said, there is not the least syllable of condemnation in that place; but he says thus; It seemeth that the practice thereof should not EASILY be permitted; in praxi non videtur FACILE PERMITTENDA. Is this the language of a man that condemns a Maxim? Will you affirm, Fathers, that Adulteries and Incests are not easily to be permitted, in the practice? should we not on the contrary, rather infer, that, since Lessius says only that the practice of it is not easily to be allowed, it may be sometimes allowable though but seldom: And as if it had been his design to acquaint all the world when it were allowable, and secure the persons offended as to all scruples of conscience they might be troubled with in case they knew not on what occasions it were not lawful for them to kill, in the practice, he hath taken the pains to give them notice of what they should avoid, to practise this doctrine conscientiously. Mind him, Fathers, It seemeth, saith he, that it ought not easily to be permitted, BECAUSE of the danger there is men may be carried on thereto, out of hatred, or revenge, or with excess, or that it may prove the occasion of too many murders. So that it is clear that this murder will be allowable in the practice, according to Lessius, if these inconveniences be avoided, that is to say, if a man can act without hatred, without revenge, and limit himself to such circumstances as may not occasion too many murders. Would you have an instance Fathers? I have a fresh o●e for you; that of the box o'th' ear at Compiegne. For you must needs acknowledge that he who received it, showed by his after-cariage, that he sufficiently mastered the motions of hatred and revenge. All he had then to do, was to avoid too great a number of murders: and you know, Fathers, that it happens so seldom that Jesuits give boxes o'th' ear to the officers of the King's household that it was not not much to be feared, that one murder committed on such an occasion might have caused a many others in consequence. And so you cannot deny but that Jesuit might have been killed with safety of conscience, and that the person affronted might not upon that occasion have put the doctrine of Lessius in practice. And, Fathers, he might haply have done it, had he been brought up in your School, and learned of Escobar, that the man who hath received a box o'th' ear is accounted dishonourable, till such time as he hath killed the person that that gave it him. But you may with some reason, imagine, that the contrary instructions he received from a certain Vicar, whom you affect not too much, have not a little contributed, as to that accident, to the saving of a Jesuits life.  
Let us then hear no more of these inconveniences avoidable in so many occurrences, and which taken away, murder is according to Lessius, allowable even in practic. For your other Authors, cited by Escobar, acknowledge no less. Is it lawful, says he, in the practice of Homicide according to your Society, to kill him that hath given a box o'th' ear? Lessius says, it is lawful in the speculative, but that it ought not to be advised in the practic; non consulendum in praxi, because of the danger of hatred, or murders prejudicial to the state, likely to ensue thereupon. BUT OTHERS ARE OF OPINION, THAT, AVOIDING THOSE INCONVENIENCES, IT IS ALLOWABLE AND SECURE IN THE PRACTIC: in praxi probabilem & tutam judicarunt Henriquez, etc. Thus are opinions screwed up by degrees to the height of Probability: For you have brought this to that pitch by permitting it at length without any distinction of speculation or practice, in these terms; It is lawful for a man that hath received a box o'th' ear, to return it immediately with his sword, not to revenge himself, but to preserve his reputation. This was taught by your Fathers at Caen, in the year 1644 in their public writings, which the University [of Paris] put up to the Parliament in their 3. Petition against your doctrine concerning Homicide, p. 339.  
Whence you may observe, Fathers, that your own Authors do of themselves destroy that frivolous distinction of speculation and practice, which the University had discovered to be ridiculous, and the invention of it a secret of your Politics, which it were not amiss to examine. For besides that it is necessary it should be understood, for the better clearing up of the 15. 16, 17. and 18. Impostures, it were not amiss to discover by degrees the principles of this mysterious kind of Policy.  
When you undertook to decide cases of Conscience in a gentle and complying way, you met with some wherein Religion only was concerned, as the questions concerning contrition, penance, the Love of God, and all those that relate to the interior of men's consciences. But you have found others, wherein the State is concerned as well as Religion, such as are those of Usury, Bankrupt, Homicide, and the like. And it is a thing lies very heavy on the spirits of those who have a real love for the Church, to see, that in abundance of occasions wherein you had only Religion to deal withal (this world being not the place where God visibly exercises his justice) you have subverted the Laws thereof without the least fear, caution or distinction, as may be seen in your so confident opinions against penance and the Love of God.  
But in those wherein both Religion and the state are concerned, you have cloven your decisions, and, in such cas●s, form two questions. One you call that of speculation, wherein, considering those crimes in themselves, without regarding the interest of the State, but only the law of God prohibiting them, you have, without any trouble, allowed them, and consequently overturned the law of God that condemned them. The other you call that of practice, wherein reflecting on the prejudice of the State thereby, and the presence of the Magistrates who maintain the public safety, you do not always allow in the practice those murders and crimes which you found lawful in the speculation, so to secure yourselves as to the Judges. Thus, for instance, to the question, whether it be lawful to kill for opprobrious speeches, your Authors Fil●utius, tr. 29. cap. 3. num. 52 Reginaldus, l. 21. cap. 5. num. 63. and others answer; It is lawful in the speculation; ex probabili opinione licet. But I do not approve the practice of it by reason of the great number of murders which would happen, and the prejudice it would be to the state, if all evil speakers were killed, besides that a man might be punished by the hand of justice for killing upon that occasion. Thus do yo● opinions at first shoot forth under this distinction, by means whereof you ruin only Religion, without doing any visible injury to the State. Thus do you think yourselves in a secure posture: For you imagine that the esteem you have in the Church will keep men from punishing your attempts against truth, and that the caution you use in not allowing what you think lawful to be put in practice, will secure you as to the Magistrates, who not being judges of cases of Conscience, are not properly to meddle with any thing but the external practice. Thus an opinion which were condemnable under the name of practice, is securely advanced under that of speculation. Now this foundation being well laid, it is no hard matter to build up your other maxims upon it. There was an infinite distance between the prohibition which God made to kill, and the speculative permission which your Authors have given to do it. But the distance between this permission and the practice is not very great. All then you have to do is to show, that what is allowable in the speculative is also in the practice. To do this, you cannot want reasons; you have been furnished in cases of much more difficulty. Would you see Fathers how it may be attained? Fellow this ratiocination of Escobar, who hath clearly decided it, in the first of the six Tomes of his grand Moral Divinity, which I mentioned before, where he is otherwise illuminated than he was in the collection he made of your 24. Ancients. For whereas he thought at that time there might be opinions probable in the speculative, which yet were not secure in the practice, he hath since found out the contrary, and hath established it in this last work of his; so strangely is the doctrine of Probability cultivated by time, as well as every probable opinion in particular. Hear himself, in praeloq. n. 15. I see not, saith he, how it should be, that what seems allowable in the speculative, should not be such in the practic, since that what may be done in the practic, depends on what is found allowable in the speculative, and that these things differ not one from another, but as the effect and the Cause. For speculation is that which determines the action. WHENCE IT FOLLOWETH, THAT A MAN MAY WITH A SAFE CONSCIENCE FOLLOW IN THE PRACTIC THE OPINIONS THAT ARE-PROBABLE IN THE SPECULATIVE; nay, and that with more safety than those which a man hath not speculatively, well examined.  
Certainly, Fathers, your Escobar reasons very well sometimes. And indeed, there is such an alliance between specution and practice, that when one hath taken cousin, and hath taught, That it is lawful ken root, you make no difficulty to permit the other, without shadowing the business at all. This is apparent in the permission to kill for a box o'th' ear, which from simple speculation, hath, by Lessius, been confidently stretched to a practice which ought not easily to be permitted; and thence, by Escobar to an easy practice; whence your Fathers of Caen have craned it up to an absolute permission, without any distinction of Theory or practice, as you have already seen.  
Thus do you give your opinions an insensible growth. Should they of a sudden shoot out into their extremities, they would cause horror. But this slow and insensible progress gently reconciles them to men's humours, and takes away the scandal of them. And by this means, the permission of killing, so odious to Church and State, is first introduced into the Church, and out of the Church into the State.  
The same success hath the opinion of killing for ill language met with, for it is now arrived to an equal permission without any distinction. I should not spend time to cite the passages of your Fathers concerning it, were it not necessary, to confound that height of confidence you 〈…〉 posture p. 26. and 30. That there is not any Jesuit that permits killing for opprobrious language. When you affirm such things, Fathers, you should take some course that I might not see them, since I can with so much ease answer them. For besides, that your Fathers Reginaldus, Filiutius, etc. have permitted it in the speculative, as hath been already said, and that thence the principle of Escobar does safely guide us to the practice, I have this to add, that divers Authors of yours have, in terminis, permitted it: and among others Father Hereau in his public Lectures, upon which he was by the King's order secured in your house, for having taught, besides divers other errors, That when he who disgraces us before persons of quality continues to do so after he had had notice given him to forbear, it is lawful for into kill him; not publicly indeed, for fear of scandal, but secretly, SED CLAM.  
I have told you already of your Father Amicus, and you are not to learn, that his doctrine on this subject was censured by the University of Louvain in the year 1649. And yet it is not two months since that your F. des Bois hath maintained at Roven that very censured doctrine of Amicus, and hath taught, That it is lawful for a Religious man to maintain the honour which he hath by his virtue acquired, even by killing him who would blast his reputation, etiam cum morie invasoris. Which gave such a scandal to that City, that all the Pastors joined together to cause him to be silenced, and to oblige him to retract his doctrine by Canonical ways. The business is in the Bishops Court.  
What have you now to say, Fathers? How will you presume to maintain hereafter, that no Jesuit was ever of opinion that it was lawful to kill for ill language? Or need we any thing else to convince you then the opinions which I have cited of your Fathers, since they forbidden not to kill speculatively, but only in the practic because of the inconvenience that would thereby happen to the State? For I ask you hereupon, Fathers, whether the main business of our dispute be not to examine whether you have not subverted the law of God which forbids homicide? The question is not to know whether you have injured the State, but Religion. What advantage is it to you, in this kind of dispute to show that you have had a tenderness for the State, when at the same time you make it appear that you have destroyed Religion, by affirming, as you do p. 28. l. 3. That the meaning of Reginaldus, upon the question of killing for opprobrious speeches, is, that a private man hath a right to use that kind of defence, considering it simply in itself. I desire no more than this acknowledgement to confound you. A private man, say you, hath a right to make use of this defence, that is to say, to kill or opprobrious language, considering the thing in itself. And consequently, Fathers, the law of God which forbids killing, is destroyed by this decision.  
Nor does what you say afterward make any thing, for you that it is unlawful & condemned, even by the Law of God, because of the murders and disorders which might thereupon happen in the State, and that men are obliged, in relation to God, to be tender of the welfare of the State, This is to fly out of the question. For, Fathers, there are two Laws to be observed, one, forbidding to kill, the other, forbidding to endamage the State. Reginaldus hath not haply broken that Law which forbids to prejudice the State, but hath infallibly violated that which forbids killing. Now all the matter in question is of this latter. Besides that your other Fathers who have permitted these murders in the practice have destroyed both. To go yet a little higher. We are satisfied that you do sometimes forbid men to prejudice the State, and you affirm your design therein is to observe the law of God, obliging them to defend it. This may be true, though it be not certain; since you might do the same thing merely out of a fear of the Magistrates. Let us then examine from what principle this motion proceeds.  
Were it not true, Fathers, did you really look upon God, and that the observation of his law, were the first & principal object of your resolutions, that this respect and reverence would unanimously guide all your more important decisions, and would engage you upon all occasions to be tender of the concernments of Religion. But if, on the contrary, it be apparent that you violate, in so many occurrences, the most sacred provisions God had made for men, when you have nothing to oppose but his Law; and that even in those emergencies wherein it is most concerned, you destroy that law of God which forbids these actions as criminal in themselves, and are not by any thing deterred from approving them in the practic but a fear of the Judges, do you not give us just cause to imagine, that it is not God you reflect on in that fear; and that, if, in appearance you maintain his Law, in what relates to the obligation of not prejudicing the State, it is not out of any tenderness you have for his law, but to compass your own ends; a method hath ever been observed by the most atheistical Politicians?  
How, Fathers, you will tell us, that there is a certain right to kill for opprobrious language, when a man reflects only on the Law of God which forbids murder? And having thus violated the eternal law of God, you think to take away the scandal you had raised, and persuade us you are very respectful towards him, by adding that you forbidden the practice of it upon certain considerations of State, and for fear of the Judges? Is not this rather to add a new scandal to the other, not out of the respect you seem to have therein for the Judges; for that is not it I lay to your charge, and you are very pleasant upon that string, p. 29. I do not, I say, charge you with a fear of the Judges, but that you fear nothing but the Judges, and not the Judge of Judges? That is it I quarrel at, because it is to make God a milder enemy to crimes than men. Had you affirmed it lawful to kill an evil speaker according to men but not according to God, it were more supportable; but that that which is too offensive to be suffered by men should be innocent and just in the sight of God who is justice itself, what does it but discover to all the world, that, by this horrid confusion of things, so contrary to the spirit of the Saints, you are grown impudent towards God, and are afraid of men? Had you been sincerely minded to condemn these homicides, you would not have taken away the commandment of God which forbids them: and if you durst have permitted them at first sight, you would have permitted them openly notwithstanding the Laws both of God and men. But as you would have them insensibly creep into permission, and surprise the magistrates, the Sentinels of pub ick safety, so have you gone subtly to work by cleaving your maxims, and proposing on the one side, that it is lawful in the speculative to kill men for opprobrious speeches (for you are at liberty to examine things in speculation) and producing, on the other, this maxim independently from the other, That what is lawful in the speculative is also such in the practic. For what concernment does the State seem to have in this general and metaphysical proposition? And so these two principles being, as not dangerous, separately received, the vigilance of the Magistrate is eluded, since there needs no more than to fasten these Maxims together to draw from them this conclusion, which is that you would aim at, That it is allowable, in the practic, to kill only for opprobrious speeches.  
This indeed, Fathers, is one of the most subtle contrivances of your Politics, to separate in your writings, the Maxims which you join together in your judgements. 'Twas so by pieces that you established your doctrine of Probability, which I have often insisted on. And this general principle being laid as a cornerstone, you separately advance such things, as being innocent in themselves, yet become horrid joined to that pernicious principle. I shall only instance in what you say, pag. 11. in your impostures, and which I am obliged to make some answer to, viz. That many famous Divines are of opinion, that one may kill another for a box o'th' ear given. Certain it is, Fathers, that if a person that did not maintain Probability had said it, there were nothing to be quarrelled at, since it were only to make a simple recital that should have no consequence. But for you, Fathers, and all those that maintain that dangerous doctrine, that whatsoever is approved by eminent Authors, is probable and sure in point of conscience, when you add thereto that many famous Authors are of opinion that it is lawful to kill for a box o'th' ear, what do you but put stillettoes into the hands of all Christians to kill those shall offend them, assuring them that they may do it with safety of conscience; because they shall therein follow the opinions of so many grave Authors?  
What horrid language is this, which, while it affirms that some Authors hold a damnable opinion, is at the same time a decision in favour of that damnable opinion, & authorises in conscience whatever it does but cite! It is understood, Fathers, to be the language of your School. And it is a thing to be startled at, that you have the face and confidence to speak so loud, since it visibly discovers your judgement, and is a plain demonstration that you hold this opinion, that it is lawful to kill for a box o'th' ear, to be sure in point of conscience, as soon as you had told us, that many famous Authors maintained it.  
You cannot shift it off, Fathers, no more than you can make your advantage of the passages of Vasquez and Suarez which you object to me, wherein they condemn these murders which their Brethren approve. These testimonies severed from the rest of your doctrine might dazzle their apprehensions who are not sufficiently skilled therein. But we might join your principles and Maxims together. You say here that Vasquez does not permit these murders; but what will you say on the other side, Fathers? That the probability of one opinion hinders not the probability of another opinion contrary thereto. And in another place, That it is lawful to follow the less probable and less secure opinion, discarding the more probable and more secure opinion. What may be inferred from all this summed up together, but that we have an absolute liberty of conscience to follow which we shall think good of all these opposite opinions? What's become, Fathers, of the fruit you were in hope to reap from these citations? It's blasted to n●t●i g since there needs no more for your condemnation, then to draw up these Maxims into one body which you for your justification, suffer to straggle up and down. To what end therefore do you produce these passages of your Fathers, which I have not cited, to mitigate those which I have, since there is nothing common between them? What privilege does this give you to call me an impostor? Have I affirmed that all your Fathers are in the same degree of degeneration? Nay have I not, on the contrary, made it appear, that your main design requires you should have some of all opinions, to be made use of on all occasions? To those who are inclinable to murder, you will recommend Lessius; to those that are not, you will produce Vasquez; that so none be dismissed, dissatisfied, and without having of his side a grave Author. Lessius shall speak of Homicide like a Pagan, and haply, of alms somewhat like a Christian; Vasquez shall speak of alms like a Pagan, and of murder like a Christian. But by the assistance of the Probability which Vasquez and Lessius jointly maintain, and which renders all opinions common and indifferent, they will reciprocally lend one the other their sentiments, and will be engaged to absolve those who shall have acted according to the opinions which either of them condemns. It is therefore this variety that augments your disorder. Uniformity were much more tolerable, and there is nothing so contrary to the express rules of Saint Ignatius and your first Generals as this endless confusion of all sorts of opinions. I shall one day have some discourse for you about it; and it will be matter of astonishment to see how you are fallen from the first spirit of your institution; and that your own Generals have foreseen, that the extravagance of your doctrine in point of Morality, might prove fatal, not only to your Society, but to the whole Church.  
In the mean time, take it from me, you shall not make any advantage of the opinion of Vasquez. It were a miraculous thing, if among so many Jesuits as have written, there were not one or two that should affirm what all Christians acknowledge. There's no great reputation in maintaining that it is not lawful to kill for a box o'th' ear, according to the Gospel; but it is an horrid shame to deny it. So that this contributes so little to your justification, that there's nothing makes more against you, since that having had amongst you such Doctors as have told you the truth, you have not remained in the truth, and have loved the darkness better than the light. For you have learned of Vasquez, That it is a Pagan, and not a Christian opinion, to affirm that a man may give a blow with a stick to him who had given him a box o'th' ear. That it is to destroy the Decalogue and the Gospel, to affirm that one man may kill another upon that account, and that the lewdest villains that have any thing of mankind in them acknowledge as much. And yet, contrary to these truths, you have suffered Lessius, Escobar, and the rest, to decide, That all the prohibitions which God hath made against Homicide, hinder not but that a man may be killed for a box o'th' ear. To what end was it that that passage of Vasquez was brought in to confront the opinion of Lessius, unless it be to show that Lessius is a Pagan and a Villain according to Vasquez? and that is more than I durst have said. What conclusion then can we make hence, but that Lessius destroys the Decalogue and the Gospel? That at the last day Vasquez shall condemn Lessius upon that point, as Lessius shall condemn Vasquez upon another; and that all your Authors will rise up in judgement one against another, reciprocally to condemn one another, in their deplorable excesses against the Law of JESUS CHRIST.  
Conclude we then, Fathers, that, since your probability makes the good opinions of some of your Authors unserviceable to the Church, and advantageous only to yourselves in point of Policy, all they do, is, by their contradictions, to discover the doubleness of your hearts, which you have clearly demonstrated by assuring us, of the one side, that Vasquez and Suarez are of contrary opinions upon the point of Homicide; and of the other, that many eminent Authors are for Homicide, so to put men into two several ways; by destroying the simplicity of the spirit of God, who hath a curse reserved for the double-hearted, and those that halt between two ways. Vae duplici cords, & ingredienti duabus viis.  
September 30. 1656.   

To the same. LETTER XIV.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
HAd I no more to do but to answer the three impostures which are yet behind upon the point of Homicide, I should have no long discourse to make, for you should find them refuted in few words: but thinking it a business of greater consequence to awaken the world with the horror of your opinions upon this subject, then to justify the exactness of my citations; I shall be forced to bestow the greatest part of this Letter to refute your maxims, so to convince you how far you have degenerated from the sentiments of the Church, nay indeed from those of Nature. The permissions of killing which you grant on so many occasions sufficiently discover, that as to that point you have so far forgotten the Law of God, and put out the light of Nature, that it were but necessary you were reduced into the most simple principles of Religion and common-sence. For what can be more natural than this sentiment, That one private person hath no right over the life of another? We are so far instructed of ourselves, saith Saint chrysostom, as that when God laid down the precept of not killing, he hath not added, that it is because Homicide is an evil; but because, says this Father, that the Law supposes that men had already learned that truth of Nature.  
So that men have at all times been subject to this commandment: the Gospel hath confirmed that of the Law, and the Decalogue did only renew what men had received from God before the Law, in the person of Noah, of whom all men were to spring. For upon that restauration of the World, God said to this Patriarch; And at the hand of man, even at the hands of a man's brother will I require the life of man. Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God hath he made man.  
By this general prohibition are men devested of all power over the lives of men. And God hath so far reserved it to himself, that, according to Christian Truth, opposite in this to the false Maxims of Paganism, a man hath not indeed any power over his own life. But in regard that his providence thought fit to take some course to preserve the Societies of men, and to punish the wicked that should disturb them, he hath himself established certain Laws, to deprive guilty persons of their lives: and so those murders, which, without his order, were attempts liable to punishment, become, by his order commendable chastisements, which taken away there is nothing but what is unjust therein. Thus much hath been excellently well represented by Saint Augustine, in his first book of the City of God, ch. 21. God himself, saith he, hath made certain exceptions in this general prohibition of killing, either by the Laws, which he hath established for the putting to death of guilty persons, or by the particular orders he hath sometimes given to put to death some certain persons. So that when men kill in that case, it is not man that kills, but God, of whom man is only the instrument, as a sword in the hand of him that makes use of it. But these cases excepted, who ever kills is guilty of Homicide.  
It is then out of all question, Fathers, that God only hath the power to take away life, and that nevertheless having established Laws to put the guilty to death, he hath made Kings and Republics the Guardians of this power. And this is taught us by Saint Paul, when speaking of the right which Supreme Authorities have to put men to death, he derives it from heaven, saying, That they carry not the sword in vain, as being the Ministers of God to execute vengeance upon the evil-doers.  
But as they derive this power from God, so does he oblige them to exercise it as God himself would, that is to say, with justice, according to this saying of Saint Paul in the same place, For Magistrates are not to be feared for good works but for evil. Wilt thou then be without fear of the power? do well; so shalt thou have the praise of the same. For they are the Ministers of God for good. And this restriction is so far from abating any thing of this power, that, on the contrary, it extremely heightens it, because it is to make it like that of God, who is impotent as to the doing of evil, and omnipotent as to the doing of good, as also to distinguish it from that of Devils, who are impotent as to the doing of good, and whose power is only employed in evil. There is only this difference between God and Sovereigns, that God being Justice and Wisdom itself, he may without any ceremonies put to death whom he pleases, and that when he pleases, and after what manner he pleases. For besides that he is the sovereign disposer of men's lives, he cannot take them away either without cause or cognizance, since he is as incapable of injustice as of error. But Princes are not to proceed so, because they are not so the Ministers of God, but that they are still men and not Gods. They may be surprised by evil impressions; they may be exasperated by false suggestions; they may be transported by passion; and this is it hath engaged them to lay down certain humane provisions, & in their Dominions to establish Judges, to whom they have communicated that power, that so the authority which God hath invested them with, might not be employed but to the end for which they had received it.  
You are then to conceive, Fathers, that to be exempted from Homicide, a man must act both by the authority of God and according to the justice of God; and if these two conditions meet not together, a man offends either by killing with his Authority but without his justice, or by killing with his justice but without his Authority. From the necessity of this union, it happens, according to Saint Augustine, that he who without authority kills a guilty person becomes guilty himself, for this reason principally that he usurps an Authority which God had not given him; and, on the contrary, the Judges, who have this Authority, are nevertheless homicides, if they put to death an innocent person, contrary to the laws they ought to have observed.  
These, Fathers, are the principles of public safety and tranquillity, which have been received through all times and in all places, and upon which all Lawgivers, as well-sacred, as profane, have established their Laws; insomuch that even Pagans have made no exception to this rule, unless it so happened that there were no other way to avoid the loss of chastity or life, as conceiving that as Cicero saith, the Laws themselves seemed to offer their assistance to those that are in such an extremity.  
But, this case excepted, which yet I have nothing to say to in this place, that there ever was any Law that permitted private persons to kill, or hath suffered it, as you do, to put off an affront and to avoid the loss of honour or estate, when a man is not at the same time in any danger of his life, is a thing, Fathers, which I maintain was never done even by Infidels. Nay on the contrary, they have expressly forbidden it. It was one of the Laws of the 12. Tables at Rome, That it was not lawful to kill a Th●efe in the day time, who did not defend himself by force of arms. Which was no more than what had been before forbidden in Exodus c. 22. And the Law Furem, ad Legem Corneliam, taken out of Ulpian, forbids the kill of Thiefs even in the night time, if they put us not in danger of our lives. See it in Cujacius, in tit. dig. de. Justit. & jure ad l. 3.  
Tell us now, Fathers, by what authority you permit what both divine and humane Laws prohibit, and by what privilege Lessius could say, l. 2 c. 9 num. 66. and 72. it is, in Exodus prohibited to kill Thiefs in the day time, who defend not themselves by force of arms, and they are punishable by the hand of justice that should kill in that manner. And yet all this would not make a man guilty in point of conscience, when a man is not certain that he shall be able to recover what is taken from him, or that he doubt it, as Sotus saith, because a man is not obliged to put himself to the hazard of losing any thing to save a Th●efe. And all this is allowable even in Ecclesiast ckes. What strange confidence is this! The Law of Moses punishes those that kill Thiefs when they do not attempt our lives, and the Law of the Gospel, according to you, shall absolve them? How, Fathers, is JESUS CHRIST come to destroy the Law, and not to fulfil it? the Judges, saith Lessius, would punish those that should kill upon such an occasion, and yet a man were not guilty in point of conscience. Is it that the Morality of JESUS CHRIST is more cruel and less an enemy to murder then that of Pagans, out of which the Judges have taken those civil Laws that condemn it? Do Christians make a greater account of the things of this world, or less of men lives, than Idolaters and Infidels have done? What ground do you take for this Fathers? Not any express Law either of God or men; but only this extravagant way of discourse. The Laws, you say, permit a man to defend himself against thiefs, and to oppose force with force. Now this defence once permitted, murder must also be thought permitted, since that without it it were many times impossible for a man to defend himself.  
It is false, Fathers, this defence being permitted, that Murder is also permitted. 'Tis this cruel way of defending one's self is the spring of all your Errors, and which is called by the faculty of Louvain, A MURDERING DEFENCE, Defensio Occisiva, in the censure of the Doctrine of your F. Amicus, upon Homicide. I therefore maintain against you, that there is so great a difference, according to the Laws, between killing and defending one's self, that even in the same occasions, wherein Defence is allowed, Murder is forbidden, when a man is in no danger of life. Take it, Fathers, out of Cujacius in the same place: It is lawful to thrust him back who comes to poss●ss● himselfe of what is ours; BUT IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO KILL HIM. And further, If any one come to strike us, and not to kill us, it is indeed lawful to put him back, BUT IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO KILL HIM.  
Whence then do you derive the privilege to affirm, as Molina, Reginaldus, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others do, That it is lawful to kill him that comes to strike us; and elsewhere. It is lawful to kill him that comes to affront us, according to the judgement of all Casuists, ex sententia omnium, as Lessius saith, num. 74? By what authority do you who are but private men, communicate this power to other private men, nay to Religious men? And how dare you presume to usurp this right of life and death, which belongs essentially only to God, and is the most glorious character of a supreme power? This you should have answered; and you think you have done us abundance of right, by saying simply in your 13. Imposture, That the valuable consideration for which Molina permits a man to kill a thief who runs away without doing us any violence, is not so small as I said it was, & that it is requisite it should be greater than of six Ducats. What pitiful stuff is this, Fathers, where would you determine it? At 15. or 16 Ducats? I shall have the same reproach for you. At least you cannot assert it should exceed the value of a horse; for Lessius, l. 2. c. 9 n. 74. clearly decides; That it is lawful to kill a Thief that is run away with a horse of ours. But I tell you once more, that, according to Molina, this value is determined at 6. ducats, as I have cited him: and if you will not agree to it, put it to such Umpirage as you cannot but stand to: I chose to that end your Father Reginaldus, who explaining that very place of Molina, l. 21. num. 68 declares, that Molina there DETERMINES the value for which it is not lawful to kill, at 3. or 4. or 5. ducats. And so Fathers, I shall not have only Molina but also Reginaldus on my side.  
I shall find no harder task to refute your 14. imposture touching the permission to kill a Thief who would rob us of a Crown according to Molina. This is so clear, that Escobar shall be my witness for it, tr. 1. ex. 7. num. 44. where he says that Molina doth regularly determine the value for which a man may be killed, at a Crown. And all you have to lay to my charge, in the 14. imposture is that I have suppressed the last words of that passage, viz: that men ought to observe herein the moderation of a just defence. Why do you not also quarrel at Escobar for not having expressed them? But how pitifully subtle you are? you think men understand not what it is, according to you, for a man to defend himself. Do we not know that it is to make use of a murdering defence? You would persuade us that Molina's meaning in it is, that when a man is in danger of his life by keeping his crown, than he may kill, since it is in his own defence. Were this true, Fathers, why should Molina say in the same place, That, in that he is contrary to Carrerus and Pald who permit killing in one's own defence? Take it therefore from me, that he simply means, that, if a man can keep his crown without killing the thief, he ought not to kill him; but that if he cannot secure it but by killing him, though he run no hazard in point of life, as in case the Thief have no arms, it is lawful to arm against him and to kill him, to secure the crown; and that so doing, a man does not, according to him, exceed the moderation of a just defence. And that it is clearly so, let him explain himself, tom. 4. tr. 3. d 11. n. 5● A ma● may be said not to exceed the moderation of a just defence, though he take arms against those that have not any, or have the advantage of them in the goodness of the arms. I know there want not those who are of a contrary opinion: but I approve not their opinion, not even in the exterior tribunal.  
Thus, Fathers, have I made it apparent, that your Authors permit killing for the defence of a man's estate and his honour, though he be not in the least danger of life. From this principle do they authorize Duels, as I have discovered by so many passages, to which you have made no answer at all. You meddle not in your writings, but with one single passage of your F. Layman who permits it, in case a man were otherwise in danger to lose his fortune or his reputation: and say, that I have suppressed what he adds, that that happens very seldom. O how I admire you Fathers; these indeed are excellent impostures that you charge me with! It is indeed a question, to know whether this case happen so seldom? But what we have under consideration is whether it be lawful to fight a duel in such a case. These are two different questions. Layman, in the quality of a Casuist is to judge whether duelling be lawful, and he declares for the affirmative. We can without him, be our own judges whether that case happen seldom, and shall tell him, that it is very ordinary. And if you will take your good friend Diana's word for it, he will tell you it is very frequent, part. 5. tr. 14. Misc. 2, Resol. 99 But whether it happen seldom or not, and that Layman follow therein Navarrus, as you will needs have us believe, is it not an abominable thing that he should consent to that opinion; that to preserve an uncertain reputation, it is lawful in point of Conscience to accept a challenge, contrary to the Acts and Edicts of all Christian States, and against all the Canons of the Church, though you have not, to authorize all these diabolical Maxims, either Laws, or Canons, or authorities of Scripture or Fathers, or the example of any one Saint, but only this impious ratiocination; Honour is more precious than life; But it is lawful for one man to kill another in defence of his life; it is therefore lawful to kill in defence of a man's honour. How, Fathers, because mankind is so degenerated, as to love his counterfeit honour more than the lives which God hath given them to serve him in, it shall be lawful for them to murder one another to preserve it? That is it which is the most horrid of all, that men do love that honour beyond their lives. And yet this contagious itch of honour, which were enough to soil the best and holiest actions, if they were referred to that end, shall have the faculty to justify the most criminal, because they are referred to that end? What confusion is this, Fathers, and who sees not what excesses may be the issue of it?  
For it is apparent, that it will be stretched to killing for the most inconsiderable things, when it stands upon a man's honour to preserve them; nay I tell you so far as to kill for an apple. You would raise against me, fathers, and would say that I draw malicious consequences from your doctrine, were I not stilted up by the authority of grave Lessius, who, num. 68 speaks thus. It is not lawful for one man to kill another to preserve a thing of little value, as for a business of a crown, OR FOR AN APPLE, AUT PRO POMO, unless it should be a great dishonour to him to lose it: For in such a case a man may recover it, nay if need be, to that end kill the person that hath it; et si opus, occidere: because this is not so much to defend one's goods as ones honour. This is clear enough, Fathers; And to conclude your doctrine with a maxim that comprehends all the rest, take this of your Father Hereau, who had it out of Lessius; The right of defending one's self extends to what ever is necessary to secure us from whatsoever may be of injury.  
What strange consequences are there lodged in this in humane principle! How is all the world obliged to oppose it, and above all, those that have any relation to the public. It is not only the general interest that engages them thereto, but also their own private interest, since your Casuists, cited in my Letters, extend their permissions to kill, even to them. Thus the factious who fear punishment for their attempts, which yet never seem unjust to them, easily persuaded that they are oppressed by violence, will presently believe that the right of defending one's self extends to, whatsoever is necessary to secure a man from a●l injury. They will never be troubled with that remorse of Conscience, which smothers so many crimes as soon as they are brought forth, and will make it their only business to overcome the external obstacles that lie in their way.  
I shall say nothing of them here, Fathers, no more then of the murders you have permitted, which are yet more abominable and of greater concernment to the State then all these whereof Lessius treats so openly in the 4. and 10. doubts, and not only he but a many more of your Authors. It were to be wished that these horrid maxims had never come out of hell, and that the Devil, who is the first Author of them, had never met with men so far devoted to his orders as to publish them among Christians.  
From all I have said hitherto, it may be easily judged what a vast contrariety there is between your degenerate opinions and the rigour of civil and Pagan Laws. What will they be when compared to the Ecclesiastical Laws which must be incomparably much more holy: since it is the Church that only knows and possesses true holiness? With much more reason, hath this chaste spouse of the Son of God, who in imitation of her Beloved can well shed her own blood for others, and not that of others for herself, a particular horror for Murder, such as is proportionable to the particular illumination God hath honoured her with. She considers men, not only as men, but as the images of that God whom she adores. She hath for every one of them an holy respect which makes them all venerable, as redeemed by an infinite price, to be made the Temples of the living God. Accordingly she looks on the death of a man killed without the order of God, not only as Homicide, but as Sacrilege also, depriving her of one of her members, since that whether he be one of the faithful or not, she ever considers him as either actually being one of her members, or in a capacity to be such.  
For, Fathers, since God became Man for the salvation of men, their condition is so considerable to the Church, that she hath ever punished Homicide, whereby they are destroyed, as one of the greatest crimes can be committed against God. I will give you some instances of it, not with any thoughts that all those severities ought to be continued; I know the Church is at liberty to dispose several ways of that exterior discipline, but only to show you, what her unchangeable spirit is as to this particular. For the penances she enjoins for murder may be different according to the diversity of times; but the horror she hath for it no vicissitude of time can ever change.  
The Church, for a long time would not be reconciled, till the approaches of death, to those who were guilty of voluntary murder, such as are those which you permit. The famous Council of Ancyra condemns them to penance during life; and the Church hath since thought herself very indulgent towards them by reducing that time to a great number of years. But the more to deter Christians from voluntary murders, she hath most severely punished even those that happened by chance and imprudence, as may be seen in Saint Basil, Saint Gregory Nyssenus, in the Decretals of Pope Zachary and Alexander II. The Canons cited by Isaac Bishop of Langres, t. 2. c. 13. ordain seven years' penance for one that kills another in his own def●nce. And we find Saint Hildebert Bishop of Man's answering Yves de Chartres, That he had reason to suspend a Priest for his life, who, with a stone, had killed a Thief in his own defence.  
Be not then so confident as to affirm your decisions to be conformable to the spirit and Canons of the Church. We defy you to produce any one among those that gives permission to kill for the preservation of ones goods only: for I speak not of those occasions wherein a man is also to endeavour the safety of his life. SE SUAQ●E LIBERANDO. Your own Authors acknowledge that there are not any such; as among others, your Father Amicus, Tom. 5. disput. 36. num. 136. There is not, saith he, any divine or humane Law which expressly permits the kill of a Thief who stands not upon his own defence. And yet that is it which you expressly do permit. We defy you to show any Canon that permits killing for honour, a box o'th' ear, for an affront, for opprobrious language. We defy you to allege any that permits the kill of Witnesses, Judges and Magistrates, what unjustice soever we may expect from them. The spirit of the Church is absolutely contrary to these seditious Maxims, which open so wide a gap to all insurrections, whereto the populace is so naturally inclined. She hath ever taught her Children, that they ought not to return evil for evil; that a man should smother his indignation; not resist violence; render to every one what is due to him, honour, tribute, submission: to obey Magistrates and Superiors though unjust, because we ought always to regard in them the power of God which hath set them over us. She forbids men, more expressly than the Civil Laws do, to be their own carvers in point of justice; and it is by her spirit that Christian Kings do it not themselves, even in crimes of Treason of the highest nature, but put the criminals into the hands of the Judges, that so they might be punished according to the Laws, and proceed of justice; which are so far contrary to your carriage, that the opposition there is between them cannot but make you blush. For since this discourse engages me so far, I shall entreat you to consider well this comparison between the ways whereby a man may kill his enemies, according to you, and those observed by the Judges in putting condemned persons to death.  
It is granted by all the world, Fathers, that private men are never permitted to demand the death of any one: and that though a man should ruin us, lame us, set our houses on fire, kill our parents, and besides all this, were resolved to assassinate us, and to ruin our reputation, the Magistrate would not in justice hearken to the demand we should make for his death. So that there was a necessity of appointing public persons who should demand it on the behalf of the King, or indeed rather of God. What think you, Fathers, was it for terror and formality that Christian Judges took this course? Or did they not do so, to make the Civil Laws consonant to those of the Gospel, that so the external execution of Justice should not be contrary to the internal sentiments which Christians ought to have? It is easily seen how far these first proceed of Justice confound you; but what is yet to come will certainly crush you to the ground.  
Suppose then, Fathers, that those public persons demand the death of him who hath committed all these crimes, what will be done? Will they presently stick a dagger in his breast? No, Fathers, a man's life is of greater consequence; men proceed with more tenderness; it is a thing lies not at the devotion of all sorts of persons, but is to be disposed of only by Judges, of whose integrity and abilities there is sufficient experience. And do you think that one is enough to condemn a man to death? No, Fathers, there must be at least seven. Of these seven there must not be any one that hath been injured by the person indicted, left his judgement should by passion be changed or corrupted. And you know, Fathers, that to the end, their spirits may be the more purified, it is observed to this day that the morning is appointed for these employments. So great caution is there used to prepare them for so great an action, as wherein they are the Lieutenants and Ministers of God, not to condemn any but such as he condemns himself.  
And that they may act as faithful dispensers of that divine power of taking away men's lives, they are strictly to judge according to the depositions of Witnesses, and according to all the other formalities they are to observe; All which done, they cannot in conscience pronounce sentence but according to the Laws, nor judge any worthy of death, but such as the Law condemns. And then, Fathers, if the order of God obliged them to proceed to execution upon the bodies of these wretches, the same order of God doth also oblige them to be careful of their sinful souls; and it is because they are sinful, that they are obliged to be the more careful of them: so that they are not turned over to execution, till such time as they have had the means to provide for their Consciences. All this seems to speak abundance of purity and innocence, and yet the Church hath such an aversion to blood, that she holds those uncapable to serve at her altars who had been employed about any execution of the sentence of death, though attended with all these so religious circumstances: whence it is not hard to conceive what Idea the Church hath of Homicide.  
Thus you see, Fathers, how men's lives are disposed of according to justice, let us now see how you dispose of them. In your new laws, there is but one Judge; and that Judge is himself the party injured. He is at the same time Judge, party, and executioner. He demands, of himself, the death of his enemy; he condemns him, he immediately executes him, and without any regard either of the body or soul of his Brother, he kills and damns him for whom JESUS CHRIST died, all this to avoid a box o'th' ear, or an opprobrious or affrontive speech, or some offence of the like nature, for which a Judge, who is invested with lawful authority, should be guilty himself should he condemn those that had committed them; because the Laws are far from condemning them. And in a word, to make your excesses full weight, a man contracts neither sin nor irregularity when he kills in that manner without authority and contrary to the Laws, though he be a religious man, nay a Priest. Wh●re are we, Fathers, Are they religious men and Priests that speak after this rate? Are they Christians? Are they Turks? Are they men? Are they Devils? And are these the Mysteries revealed by the Lamb to those of his Society; or abominations suggested by the Dragon into those that follow his party?  
For in a word, Fathers, what would you have men take you to be, children of the Gospel, or enemies to the Gospel? you must needs be of the one or the other, there is no mean; He that is not with Jesus Christ is against him. This dichotomy of mankind comprehends all: There are two peoples, and two worlds scattered over the face of the earth, according to Saint Augustine; the world of the children of God, which makes up a body whereof Jesus Christ is head and King; and the world that is at enmity with God, whereof the Devil is head and King. For this reason is Jesus Christ called the King and God of the world, because he hath every where subjects and adorers; and the Devil is also called in scripture the Prince of this world, and the God of this age, because he hath every where creatures and Captives. Jesus Christ hath given the Church, which is his Empire, such Laws as he according to his eternal wisdom thought fit; and the Devil hath given the world, which is his kingdom, the Laws he would have observed therein. Jesus Christ hath placed honour in suffering, the Devil in not suffering. Jesus Christ hath bidden those who receive a blow on one cheek to turn the other also; and the Devil bids those to whom a blow is to be given, kill such as would do them that injury. Jesus Christ declares those blessed who partake with him in his ignominy; and the devil declares those cursed that are in ignominy. Jesus Christ says, woe unto you, when men speak good things of you; and the devil says, woe unto those of whom the world speaks not with esteem.  
Consider now, Fathers, whether of the two Kingdoms you are of. You have heard the language of the City of Peace which is called the mystical Jerusalem; and you have also heard the language of the City of Disquiet called by the Scripture Spiritual Sodom: which of these two languages do you understand? which do you speak? Those that belong to Jesus Christ have the same sentiments with Jesus Christ, as Saint Paul saith; and those who are the children of the Devil, ex patre Diabolo, who was a murderer from the beginning, practise the maxims of the Devil, according to the words of Jesus Christ. Let us then hear the language of your School, and ask your Authors; when a man smites us on the cheek, should we endure it or kill him that would give it; or is it lawful to kill him to avoid the affront? it is lawful, as Lessius, Molina, Escobar, Reginaldus, Filiutius, Bald llus, and other Jesuits affirm, to kill him who would give us a box o'th' ear. Is this the language of Jesus Christ? your answer again to this; were a man dishonourable for suffering a box o'th' ear till such time as he had killed him that had given it? Is it not certain, says Escobar, that while a man suffers him to live of whom he hath received a box o'th' ear, he remains without honour. Very right, Fathers, without that honour which the Devil hath derived out of his own proud spirit, into that of his proud children. 'tis this honour which hath ever been the Idol of men possessed by the spirit of the world. 'tis to preserve this glory, whereof the evil spirit is the true disposer, that they sacrifice their lives, by Duels, which they are so ready to accept; their honour by the infamy of the punishments they lie subject to; and their eternal happiness, by the hazard of damnation which they run, and which by the Ecclesiastical Canons deprives them of Christian burial. We are therefore to give God the praise, that he hath illuminated the King's mind with purer lights than those of your Theology. His so severe Edicts upon this occasion have not made the fight of Duels a crime, they only punish the crime which is inseparable from it. The fear of the rigour of his justice hath deterred those whom the fear of God's justice hath not; and his piety persuades him, that the Honour of Christians consists in the observation of the commandments of God, and the rules of Christianity, and not in that chimaera of honour, which you pretend, as frivolous as it is, to be a justifiable excuse for Murders. Thus are your murdering decisions detestable to all the world, and it were your better course to change your judgement, if not out of considerations of Religion, out of those of policy. Prevent, Fathers, by a voluntary recantation of these inhuman opinions, the lewd consequences which may follow them, and for which you only must be accountable. And to be the more struck with the horror of homicide, remember that the first crime of corrupted mankind was murder committed on the person of the first just man; that the greatest crime of men was a murder committed on the person of him that is head of all the just; and that Homicide is the only crime that at the same time destroys the State, the Church, Nature, and Piety.  
Octob. 23, 1656.  
Reverend Fathers,  
I have seen the Answer of your Apologist to the thirteenth LETTER. It is such that if he make no better to this, which solves the greatest part of his difficulties, it will require no rejoinder. I pity his weakness to see him digress ever and anon from the business in hand, to wantonise in calumnies and reproaches against both living and dead. But to gain credit to the Minutes you furnish him withal, you should not have been so disingenuous as to have denied publicly a thing so notorious as the box o'th' ear at Compiegne. It is most certain, Fathers, from the acknowledgement of the party injured, that he received upon his cheek a blow from the hand of a Jesuit; and all that your Friends could do, was to bring it into question, whether it were given with the palm, or the back of the hand, and then to sift the question, whether a blow with the back of the hand upon the cheek ought to be called a box o'th' ear or not; I know not to whom it belongs to decide it, but am in the interim persuaded that it is at least a probable box o'th' ear. So far I am satisfied in Conscience.   

To the same. LETTER XV.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
SInce your impostures like Hydra's increase daily, and that they are your offensive arms to persecute with so much cruelty all godly persons that any way oppose your Errors, I conceive myself obliged as well for their interest, as that of the Church, to unveil a certain mystery in your proceed, which I have long since promised, that it may be discovered, even out of your own Maxims, what credit men should give your accusations and your reproaches.  
I know, that those who are not sufficiently acquainted with you are in a great irresolution what to think of these things, as finding themselves in an inevitable necessity of either believing the incredible crimes wherewith you charge your Enemies, or taking you for Impostors, which also seems a thing incredible to them on the other side. How, say they, if these things were not so, would Religious men publish them, and would they so far belly their consciences as to damn themselves by these calumnies? Thus do they discourse with themselves; and so the evident proofs, whereby your falsifications are destroyed, crossing the opinion they have of your sincerity, they are in suspense between the clearness of the Truth, which they cannot deny, and the observation of charity which they are afraid to make a breach of. So that as the only thing that hinders them from shaking off your opprobrious language is the esteem they have for you; so when they shall be once satisfied that you have not that Idea of Calumny which they imagine you have, and that you think to work out your salvation by reviling your enemies, it is out of all question, the weight of truth will so fix their faith, as that they shall no longer credit your impostures. This, Fathers, shall be the design and subject of this Letter. I shall not only think it sufficient to discover that your writings are fraught with nothing but calumnies, but go a little further with you. It is possible a man may tell things that are false believing them to be true; but the character of a Liar implies the intention of lying. I shall therefore make it appear, Fathers, that it is your intention to lie and calumniate, and that it is done wittingly and with design that you charge your enemies with those crimes whereof you know them to be innocent, because you think it may be done without falling from the state of Grace. And though you are as well acquainted as I am with this point of your Morality, yet shall I still insist upon it, that none may doubt of it, when they see me address myself to you so to maintain it to your faces that you shall not have the confidence to deny it, but you must, by such disacknowledgment, confirm my objections against you for it. It is so notorious a doctrine in your Schools, that you have maintained it, not only in your books, but also in your public Theses, which certainly is the height of confidence; as among others in your Theses of Louvain, of the year 1645. in these terms, It is only a venial sin to calumniate, and impose false crimes, to ruin their credit who speak ill of us: Quidni non nisi veniale sit, detrahentis authoritatem, tibi noxiam, falso crimine elidere? And this doctrine is so much in vogue among you, that you treat him as an ignorant and temerarious person, who presumes any way to oppose it.  
This hath been, not long since, the sad fate of Father Quiroga a Germane Capuchin, when he endeavoured to oppose it. For your Father Dicastillus presently takes him up, and in that dispute speaks of him in these terms, the Just. l. 2. tr. 2. disp. 12. num. 404. A certain grave Religious man, bare-hoofed and deep-cowled, cucullatus, gymnipoda, whom I name not, was so rash as to cry down this opinion among a sort of women and ignorant people, and to affirm that it was pernicious and scandalous, prejudicial to good manners, contrary to the quiet and tranquillity of States and Societies, and in a word, contrary, not only to all Catholic Doctors, but also to all those that might be Catholic. But I have maintained against him, and do still maintain, that Calumny when it is used against a Calumniator, though grounded on absolute falsities, is not for that any mortal sin either against Justice or Charity. And to prove it, I have brought a cloud of our Fathers to witness it, and whole Universities consisting of them, all whom I have consulted, and among others, the Reverend Father John Ga●s, Confessor to the Emperor, the Reverend Father Daniel Bastele, Confessor to the Archduke Leopold, Father Henry sometime Preceptor to those two Princes, all the public and ordinary Professors of the University of Vienna, (consisting wholly of Jesuits) all the Professors of the University of Grats, (a place absolutely Jesuitical) all the Professors of the University of Prague, (whereof the Jesuits are Masters) of all whom I have at hand the approbations of my opinion, written and signed with their own hands; besides that I have on my side Father Pennalossa, a Jesuit, Preacher to the Emperor and the King of Spain, Father Pilliceroli, a Jesuit, and a many others, who had accounted this opinion probable before any dispute between us. You see hence, Fathers, there are few opinions you have made it so much your business to establish as this, as there were not many whereof you stood so much in need. Insomuch that you have accordingly authorised it so far, that the Casuists quote it as an infallible principle. It is most certain, says Caramovel, num. 1151. that it is a probable opinion, that it is not any mortal sin to calumniate falsely to preserve one's honour. For it is maintained by above twenty grave Doctors, by Gasper Hurtado, and D●castillus, Jesuits, etc. so that if this doctrine were not probable, there were hardly any such in all the body of Divinity.  
What abominable Divinity is this, which is so corrupt in all its main heads, that, if it be not profitable, and secure in point of Conscience, that a man may calumniate where there is no crime; to preserve his honour, there is hardly any of all its decisions that is such! How probable is it, Fathers, that those who maintain this principle, should not sometimes put it in practice? The degenerate inclination of men is apt enough of itself to bend them that way, and that so violently, that it must needs break out with all its natural impetuosity, when the obstacle of Conscience is once taken away. Would you have an instance of it? Caramovel furnishes you in the same place. This Maxim, saith he, of Father Dicastillus the Jesuit, concerning Calumny having been, by a Countess of Germany, taught the Empress' Daughters, the confidence they thence took that it was no sin, at most but venial, to scatter calumnies up and down, bred in a few days so many, together with so much opprobrious language, and such a number of false reports, that it put the whole Court into alarm and combustion. For it is not hard to imagine what use they might make of it; so that to appease this tumult, they were forced to send for a Religious Capuchin, a man of an exemplary life, named Father Quiroga, ('twas this that Dicastillus quarrelled with him so much for) who came and made it appear to them that that Maxim was a most pernicious one, especially among women, and he took a particular care to oblige the Empress absolutely to abolish the use of it. There is no reason to be surprised at the lewd consequences of this Doctrine. It were, on the contrary, a miracle it should not produce this looseness. Self-love is ever prone enough to persuade us, that whenever any thing is laid to our charge, it is unjustly; much more may it you, Fathers, whom Vanity hath so strangely blinded, as that you would make the world believe in all your writings, that to blast the honour of your Society is to derogate from that of the Church. And thus, Fathers, were there some reason to think it strange you should not put this Maxim in practice. For we must no longer affirm that of you, which some have done that know you not: How! would they calumniate their Enemies, when they cannot do it without endangering their Salvation? But we must on the contrary say thus; How, would they let slip the advantage of discrediting their enemies when they may do it without hazarding their Salvation? Be it therefore no longer a miracle to find the Jesuits Detractors; they are such in safety of conscience, and nothing can hinder them from being so, since that by the credit they have in the world they may calumniate without any fear of being accountable to the justice of men, and that by the prerogatives they assume to themselves in cases of conscience, they have established such Maxims as that they may do it without any fear of the justice of God.  
This, this, Fathers, is the source whence spring so many horrid impostures. This is the treasury whence your Father Brisacier was so well furnished as to scatter so many, that they drew upon him the censure of the late Archbishop of Paris. This it was that engaged your Father d'Anjou to discredit, even in the Pulpit, in the Church of Benedict, on the 8. of March 1655. those persons of quality who received the charity for the poor of Picardy and Champagn, whereto they contributed so much themselves; and with an horrid falsity to affirm, and such as might well dam up those charities, were there any credit to be given to your impostures; That he knew of a certainty that those persons had converted the money to other uses, to be employed against the Church and against the State. Which gave the Pastor of the Parish, who is a Doctor of Sorbonne, occasion to preach the next day, merely to refute those calumnies. 'Tis by the same principle, that your Father Crasset hath preached so many impostures in Orleans, that the Lord Bishop of that place thought himself obliged to suspend him as a public impostor by his Mandate of September 9 wherein he declares, That he forbids Brother John Crasset of the Society of Jesus to preach in his Diocese, and all his people to hear him, under pain of being guilty of a mortal disobedience, for that he hath been informed that the said Crasset had made a discourse in the pulpit full of falsehood and calumnies against the ecclesiastics of that City, falsely and maliciously charging them, that they maintained heretical and impious propositions; as, That it is impossible to keep the commandments of God; That a man can never resist interior grace; and that JESUS CHRIST died not for all men, and other the like condemned by Innocent X. For this, Fathers, is your ordinary imposture, and the first which you lay to their charge, whom it concerns you should be disgraced. And though it be as impossible for you to prove it against any, as for your Father Crasset against those ecclesiastics of Orleans; yet are not your Consciences in the least disturbance, because you believe this manner of reviling those who meddle with you, to be so certainly allowable, that you make not the least difficulty to declare it publicly and in sight of a whole City.  
Of this there is a remarkable instance in the difference happened between you and Monsieur Puys Pastor of S. Nicier at Lions; and since this story perfectly discovers your spirit, I shall the rather insist upon the principal circumstances of it. You know, Fathers, that in the year 1649. M. Puys translated into French an excellent book written by another Capuchin, Concerning the duty of Christians towards their Parishes, against those by whom they are diverted from them, without using the least invective, or reflecting on any particular Religious man or Order. Your Fathers nevertheless took this as directed to them, and forgetting the respect they might have had for an ancient pastor, a Judge in the Primacy of France, and highly esteemed by the whole City, your Father Alby writ a bloody book against him, which you sold yourselves in your own Church upon Assumption day, wherein he charged him with divers things, and among others, that he was become scandalous by his galanteries, that he lay under the suspicion of impiety, of being a Heretic, an excommunicated person; and in a word, deserved to be cast into the fire. To this M. Puys answers; and father Alby, by a second book, maintained his former accusations. Is it not clear then, Fathers, that either you are Calumniators, or that you really believed all that to be true of that venerable Priest, and consequently that it was but requisite you saw him cleansed of his errors ere you thought him worthy to be received into your Friendship? Take then what p ssed at the composure made of this business before 
* Monsieur de Ville, Vicar general to the Card▪ of Lyon. M. Scarron, Canon and Pastor of Saint Paul's: Monsieur Margat. M.M. Bovand, Seve, Aubert, and Durvie, Canons of Saint Nicier. M. du Guè Precedent of the Treasurers of France; M. Groslier, provost of Merchants; M. de Flechere, Precedent and Lieutenant General. M.M. de Boisat, de Saint Romain, and de Bartoly, Gent. M. Bourgeois the King's chief Advocate in the Treasurer's Court of France. M. de Cotton, Father and Son; M. Boniel: who all signed the Original Declaration with Mounsieur Puys and Father Alby.  a great number of the most considerable persons of the City, whose names we have put at the bottom of the page, as they were set to the instrument made hereupon Sept. 25. 1650. In the presence of so many people M. Puys did only declare, That what he had written was not any way directed to the Jesuits; that he had spoken in general against those who cause the faithful to straggle from their own parishes, without any the least thought of meddling therein with the Society, and that on the contrary, he had a very off ctionate est●eme for it. These words recovered him out of his Apostasy, his scandal and his excommunication, without any retraction or absolution. Whereupon Father Alby directed these words to him, Sir, the belief I was in that your quarrel was against the Society whereof I have the honour to be a member, obliged me to take pen in hand to answer it; and I thought the manner of my proceeding lawful and justifiable. But coming to a better understanding of your Intention, I am now to declare to you, THAT THERE IS NOT ANY THING that might hinder me from esteeming you a man of a very illuminated judgement, of sound Learning and ORTHODOX, as to Manners, UNBLAMEABLE, and in a word a worthy Pastor of your Church. This is a Declartion I make with joy, and which I entreat these Gentlemen to remember.  
No question but they do remember it, Fathers, with this into the bargain, that people were more scandalised at the reconciliation than they were at the Difference. For who cannot but admire this discourse of Father Alby? He does not tell you he hath made any recantation, as the effect of any change in the manners and doctrine of M Puys, but only that understanding his intention not to have been to meddle with your Society, there is not any thing hinders but that he may account him a good Catholic. He did not therefore really believe him a Heretic: And yet, after he had, contrary to his knowledge, charged him with it, he doth not acknowledge his default, nay, on the contrary, affirms, that he believes the manner of his proceeding lawful and allowable.  
What is your design, Fathers, thus publicly to discover, that you measure not men's faith and virtues but according to their intentions toward your Society? How could you avoid a fear of being accounted, and that by your own acknowledgement, Impostors and sycophants? How, Fathers, shall the same man, not discovering the least change in point of life, but merely as you believe him satisfied or dissatisfyed with your Society, be pious or impious, unblameable, or excommunicable, a worthy Pastor of the Church, or a person fit to be cast into the fire, and, in a word, a Catholic or a Heretic? It signifies therefore the same thing in your language to quarrel with your Society and to be a Heretic. A very pleasant kind of Heresy, Fathers! Which granted; when we find in your writings so many good Catholics infamously termed Heretics, it amounts to no more than that you think them too peremptory with you. 'tis well, Fathers, that we can make a shift to understand this exotic language, according to which it is that I am a grand Heretic. And it must needs be in this sense that you so often give me the title. You have no other reason to cut me off from being a member of the Church, then that you think my Letter●o prejudice you: and so all I have to do to become a Catholic again, is, either to approve the excesses of your Morality, which I cannot do but I must renounce all sentiments of piety, or that I persuade you that I have no other design in it then to further your true happiness, which if you should acknowledge, it must needs be imagined you were strangely reform of your extravagances. So that I must needs be strangely ensnared in heresy, since that the purity of my faith being absolutely unserviceable to help me out of this kind of error, I cannot possibly get out, but either I must betray and wound my own Conscience, or reform yours. Till then must I be a reprobate and an Imposter, and how faithful soever I may have been in the citations of your passages, you will go and cry it up and down, that he must be the instrument of the Devil that should charge you with things, whereof there are not the least tract or hint in your Books; and yet there will be nothing in all this but what is conformable to your maxims and ordinary practice, of such a vast latitude is the privilege you take to lie. I shall take leave to produce an instance of it, that I have purposely culled out, because I shall with the same labour answer the ninth of your impostures; nor indeed do they deserve any other than a cursory refutation.  
'tis ten or twelve years since that you have had this maxim of Father Bauny's cast in your dish; That it is lawful directly, PRIMO ET PER SE, to seek out the next occasion of sinning for the spiritual or temporal good of ourselves or our Neighbour, tr. 49.14. Whereof he lays down this instance, That it is lawful for any one to go into places of public prostitution, there to convert sinful women, though it be probable they will rather commit sin there, as having before found by experience that th' y are wont to be ensnared by the insinuations of those women. What answer did your Father Caussin make to this in the year 1644. in his Apology for the Society of Jesus, page 128. See, saith he, but the place in Father Bauny, read the page, the marginal notes, what goes before, what comes after, nay read the whole book, you will not find the least tract of this Sentence, which is such as could not fall but into the Soul of a man that is far from having friendship with his Conscience, and seems such as could not be suggested into him but by some instrument of the devil. And your Father Pintereau, in the same manner of expression, 1 part. p. 24. says, He must needs be at a loss of all Conscience that should teach so detestable a doctrine, but he must withal be worse than a Devil that should attribute it to Father Bauny. Reader there is not the least mark or tract of any such thing in his book. Who would not believe that people speaking after this rate, had reason to complain, and that some body had, in effect, imposed upon Father Bauny? Have you affirmed any thing against me in more expressed terms? And how durst a man imagine that a passage is, in terminis, in the very place where it is cited, when there is not the least mark or tract of it in all the book?  
This, Fathers, is certainly a course to gain credit till you are answered, but it is also the only way never to be credited after you are once answered. For it is so apparent that you lied at that time, that at this day you make no difficulty to acknowledge in your Answers, that this maxim is in Father Bauny, in the very place where it is cited; and the miracle is, that where it was detestable twelve years since, it is now grown so innocent, that in your ninth Imposture, p. 10. you charge me with ignorance and malice for quarrelling with Father Bauny upon an opinion which hath not been refuted in the Schools. What an advantage is it, Fathers, to have to do with people who can indifferently say pro and con? I shall need only yourselves to confound you; for I have but two things to make appear. One is, that this maxim is a pernicious one; the other, that it is Father Bauny's; and I will prove both by your own confession. In the year 1644. You acknowledged it to be detestable; and in 1656. you confess it to be Father Bauny's. Though this double acknowledgement be enough for my justification, yet doth it do something beyond it; it discovers the spirit of your Politics. For, tell me, I beseech you, what end you propose to yourselves in your Writings: Is it to deliver yourselves with sincerity? No, Fathers, it cannot, since your Answers destroy one another. Is it to comply with the truth in point of faith? No more; since you authorize a maxim that by your own acknowledgement is detestable. But we are to consider, that when you affirmed this maxim to be destestable, you with the same breath denied it to be Father Baunys, and so he was innocent: and when you acknowledged it to be his, you withal maintain it to be good, and consequently he is innocent still. So that the innocence of that Father being the only thing that is common to both your Answers, it is also clear, that it is the only thing you drive at therein, and that all your business is to vindicate your own Father's, by affirmng, of the same maxim, that it is in your Books and that it is not; that it is good, and that it is bad; not according to truth, which never changes, but according to your interest, which changes every minute. What could I not say to you upon this advantage, for you see it is very demonstrative? And yet this is but your ordinary course. But to avoid abundance of examples, I think you will give me an acquittance that you are satisfied if I add but one more to the former sum.  
You have, at several times, been reproached with that other proposition of the same Father Bauny, tr. 4. q. 22. p. 100 A Priest ought not to deny those absolution who remains in habitual crimes contrary to the Laws of God, Nature and the Church, though they discover not the least hope of amendment; etsi emendationis futurae spes nulla appareat. Now I would I have you tell me, Fathers, whether in your opinion hath best answered it, your Father Printereau, or your Father Brisacier, who vindicate Father Bauny after those two different manners; one, by condemning the proposition, but withal not acknowledging it to be his; the other by granting it to be Father Bauny's, but at the same time justifying it? Hear them discourse. Father Pintereau, pag. 18. says thus. What may be called breaking the reins of all modesty, and to exceed all impudence, if not, to charge Father Bauny with so damnable a doctrine, as a thing of all sides acknowledged? Judge hence, Reader, of the unworthiness of this Calumny, and see what kind of people the Jesuits have to deal with, and if the author of so black a suggestion ought not to be henceforth accounted the Interpreter of the Father of Lie. Now see what your Father Brisacier says to it, 4. p. pag. 21. But (adds he, to justify Father Bauny) you that quarrel at this, do haply, expect, when a Penitent cast● himself at your feet, till his Angel-Guardian should engage all the title he hath to heaven for his security. St●y till God swear by his head that David lied himself, when, by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, he said that All men are liars, deceitful and frail; and that the present Penitent is not a greater liar, more frail, more fickle, and more a sinner then all others, and to you will not apply the blood of Jesus Christ to any at all.  
What think you, Fathers, of their impious and Atheistical expressions? That if it be but requisite to stay till there were some hopes of amendment in sinners ere they should be absolved, it is as much as if there were a necessity of staying till God the Father should swear by his head, that they should fall into the same sins no more? How, Fathers, is there no difference between Hope and Certainty? How injurious is it to the grace of Jesus Christ, to affirm, that there is so little possibility that Christians should ever get out of crimes that are contrary to the Laws of God, nature, and the Church, that it is not so much as to be hoped, unless the holy Ghost be mistaken? So that, in your judgement, if those be not absolved of whom there's no hope of amendment, the blood of Jesus Christ will be useless, and will never be applied to any. To what precipices, fathers, does this inordinate desire of keeping up the reputation of your Authors reduce you, since you find but two ways to justify them, Imposture and Impiety, and consequently, that the more innocent way of vindicating them is confidently to disacknowledge things that are most evident.  
And indeed thence it proceeds that you make use of it so often. But this is not yet all that you are able to do. You forge writings to cast an odium on your enemies, as for instance, The Letter from a Minister to Monsieur Arnauld, which by your Mercuries you scattered up and down all Paris, to make people believe, that the book of Frequent Communion, approved by so many Doctors and Bishops, but indeed as was a little different from your sentiments, had been written by some secret Intelligence with the Ministers of Charenton. You sometimes father on your Adversaries writings full of impiety, as the Circulatory Letter of the JANSENISTS, the impertinence of whose style too plainly discovers the cheat, and but too palpably betrays the ridiculous malice of your Father Meynier, who dares quote it as he does, pag. 28. to confirm his most unmerciful impostures. You sometimes cite books that never were in the world, as The Constitutions of the Blessed Sacrament, out of which you allege such passages as are the ideal issues of your own brains, and which startle the simple sort of people, who are unacquainted with your confidence as well in the inventing as publishing of Lies. For there is not any kind of Calumny which you have not put in practice. Never could the Maxim that justifies it come into better hands.  
But these haply are too easily refuted; and therefore 'tis but fit you had some yet more subtle, wherein you do not particularise any thing, so to cut off all advantage of answering them; as when Father Brisacier said, that his Enemies commit abominable crimes, but that he will not discover them; Does it seem something hard to lay open the imposture of so indeterminate a reproach? And yet there is one excellent man hath found out the secret of it; and 'tis a Capuchin too; The Capuchins, Fathers, are very fatal to you at the present, and I see a day coming, that the Benedictines may be no less. This Capuchin is called Father Valerian, one of the house of the Counts de Magnis. You shall know by this short story how he answered your Calumnies. God had blessed his endeavours in the conversion of the Landgrave of Darmstadt. Your Fathers as if they were troubled to see a Sovereign Prince converted to the faith without their assistance, presently write a book against him (for you make it your business to persecute the godly every where) wherein falsifying one of his passages, they impute unto him an heretical doctrine: and certainly you were very much to blame, for he meddled not with your Society. They also scattered abroad a Letter against him, wherein they said, O what things is it in our power to discover, not mentioning what, which would trouble you to the heart! For if you take not some course therein▪ we shall be forced to acquaint the Pope and Cardinals therewith. This indeed speaks subtlety enough; and I doubt not, Fathers, but you will speak thus of me; but observe well how he answers it in his book printed at Prague this last year, in the 112. and following pages. What shall I do, says he, against these uncertain and indeterminate injuries? How shall I discover the falsehood of reproaches not particularised? Thus I'll do it. I openly and publicly declare to those that threaten me, that they are infamous Impostors, and most accomplished and most impudent Liars, if they discover not those crimes to all the world. Appear then, Accusers, and publish those things on the housetop, which you have yet only whispered in the ear, and whence you have derived the greater confidence to lie. There are some who think these disputes scandalous. 'Tis true, it must needs raise an horrid scandal to charge me with a crime n● less than heresy, and to bring me under suspicion of being guilty of a many others. But, for my part, I do but redress this scandal by clearing my innocence.  
In troth, Fathers, you are but in a sad condition; nor was ever man better vindicated. For it must needs be that you had not the least shadow or pretence of any crime against him, since you have not accepted of such a challenge. You are sometimes extremely put to your shifts; and yet you are never the more circumspect. For not long after you set upon him afresh, upon another occasion, and he took the same course to vindicate himself, pag. 151. in these terms. This kind of men, which grows daily more and more insupportable to all Christendom, would fain, under pretence of good works aspire to greatness and dominion, by making contributary to their ends all Laws, divine, humane, positive, and natural. They either out of a consideration of their Learning, out of fear, or out of hope, draw all the great ones of the earth after them, abusing their authority to bring about their detestable intrigues. And yet their attempts, though criminal in so high a nature, neither punished nor opposed: nay, on the contrary, they are recompensed, and they commit them with as much confidence as if they did God great service. All the world is sensible of it, all speak it with execration; but there are few that are able to stand in the gap against so powerful a tyranny. That is it I have endeavoured to do. I have put a rub before their impudence, and will keep it back in the same manner as I did before. I declare therefore, that they lie most impudently, MENTIRI IMPUDENTISSIME. If the things they lay to my charge be true, let them be proved, or let my adversaries stand convicted of a lie, full of impudence. The proceeding hereupon will discover which side Reason sticks to. I desire all the world to observe it, and withal to take notice that this kind of men who suffer not the most inconsiderable injury which they can avoid, pretend very patiently to suffer those which they cannot, and so, with a counterfeit Virtue, cloth their real weakness. For this reason have I the more earnestly provoked their modesty, to the end the more unlettered may be satisfied; that if they hold their peace, their patience shall not be thought an effect of the quiet, but the disturbance of their Consciences.  
Thus far he, Fathers. And he concludes thus. These men, whose Histories are known to all the world, are so evidently unjust, and withal so insolent in their impunity, that I must needs have renounced Jesus Christ and his Church, should I not detest their proceed, and that publicly, as well to vindicate myself, as to hinder the simple from being seduced by them.  
Reverend Fathers, you are now in such a Post that it is impossible to retreat. You must now be accounted Calumniators convicted, and have recourse to your Maxim, viz. that this kind of calumny is no crime. This honest Capuchin hath light on the secret of putting a padlock on your mouths; and this must be the course when ever you accuse people without proof. There's no more to be done then to answer any one of you as the Capucher did, mentinis impudentissime. For what other answer could be made your Father Brisacier, when he says, for instance, that those against whom he writes, are the gates of Hell, the chief Priests of the Devil, people fallen from faith, hope, and charity, who build up the Treasuries of Antichrist? which I speak not by way of injury, but as forced to it by the Truth. Would any one trouble himself to prove that he is not the gates of hell, and that he does not build up the treasuries of Antichrist?  
In like manner, what answer can be made those indeterminate discourses of that nature which are in your books, and Advertisements upon my Letters. For instance, That some detain the restitution put into their hands, and by that means bring the Creditors to Beggary: That bags of money have been offered some Religious men who have refused them. That Benefices are conferred purposely to breed heresies contrary to Faith. That some have pensioners among the most eminent of the Clergy, nay even in sovereign Courts. That I am also a Pensioner of Port-Royal, and that before I writ my Letters, I made Romances, though I never read any one, and am yet to learn the names of those which your Apologist hath made. What can be said to all this, Fathers, but only, mentiris impudentissimè if you do not particularise all these persons, their words, the time, and the place? For 'twere fit you should either be silent, or prove all these circumstances, as I do, when I tell you the stories of John d' Alba, and Father Alby. Otherwise you will prejudice none but yourselves. All these fab●es might have stood you in some stead before men knew your principles, but now that the curtain is drawn and all discovered, when you would whisper a man in the ear, That a certain person of quality, who would not have his name come upon the stage, told you most abominable things of such and such, you will be presently put in mind of the mentiris impudentissimè, of the honest Capuckin. It is indeed but too long that you have cheated the world, and abused the credit men gave your impostures. It is time to restore their reputation to so many calumniated persons. For what innocence can be so generally acknowledged but that it may suffer some violence by the so confident impostures of a Society scattered over the face of the Earth, which under Religious habits covers souls so irreligious as can commit such crimes as Calumny, and that not contrary, but according to their own Maxims. So that I may defy all censure that may fall upon me, for discrediting the confidence men reposed in you; since it is much more just to preserve to so many persons as you have disgraced that reputation of Piety which they ought not to lose, then to leave you that reputation of Sincerity which you do not any way deserve. And as the one could not be done without the other, of what consequence is it to the world to understand truly what you are? That is it I am now entered upon, but to go through with it requires abundance of time. But it shall come abroad, Fathers, and all your Politics shall not deliver you from it; since that the endeavours you should make use of to avoid it, would only satisfy the most unconcerned in the business that you were afraid, and that your Consciences charging you with what I had to say to you, you have used all the means you could to prevent it.  
November 25. 1656.   

To the same. LETTER XVI.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
I Now come to the remainder of your Calumnies, wherein I shall answer, in the first place, those that are yet behind of your Advertisements. But as all your other books are equally full of them, so must they needs afford me matter enough to entertain you on this subject as long as I shall think it convenient. I shall therefore, as to the fable you have scattered up and down in all your writings against Jansenius, in a word affirm, that you maliciously mistake certain words in one of his Letters, which being such as may be taken in a good sense ought to be taken in good part, according to the charitable spirit of the Church, and indeed cannot be taken otherwise but according to the Malignant spirit of your Society. For when he only says to his friend; Trouble not yourself so much as to what concerns your Nephew, I shall supply him with what is necessary out of the money I have in my hands, why would you have it to be understood, as if he should say, that he took that money so as not to restore it again, and not that he laid so much out of it, to make it good afterwards? But what a strange discovery do you make of your imprudence, since you are convicted of Lying by your own testimony, out of the other Letters of Jansenius printed by your means, which make it clearly appear that what money he laid out was only by way of ADVANCE, and such as he was afterwards to reimburse. This is evident out of that you put out as of the thirtieth of July. 1619. in these very terms, to your confusion: Trouble not yourself concerning any ADVANCE-MONEY, he shall not want any thing while I shall stay here. As also out of that of Jan. 6, 1620. where he says; You are very trusty; And though the business came to such a pass as that an account were demanded, I question not but I have so much credit in this place as that I should make a shift to find money if need were.  
You must then be Impostors, Fathers, as well in relation to this business, as the ridiculous story of the Poores-Box of Saint Merry. For what advantage can you make of the accusation which one of your Creatures put in against that Clergyman, whom you would gladly tear in pieces? Must it be concluded that a man is guilty because he is accused? No certainly, Fathers. Godly men, such as he, will never want accusers, while the world is furnished with such Detractors as you are. We must not therefore judge of him according to the accusation, but according to the sentence. Now the sentence given upon the business Febr. 23. 1656. absolutely clears him; besides that he, who was unadvisedly engaged in that unjust prosecution, was disclaimed by his Colleagues, and forced to disavow it. And as to what you say in the same place of that famous director who enriched himself, in a moment, of nine hundred thousand Livers, there is no more to be done, then to refer you to the Pastors of Saint Roch▪ and Saint Paul, who are able to satisfy all Paris of his absolute disengament as to that business, and of your inexcusable malice in this imposture. We need say no more in answer to such frivolous falsities. These are but the trials of skill of your novices, and not the mortal blows of your grand Professors.  
That's it I now come to Fathers, I come, I say, to a Calumny the blackest that ever you were guilty of. I mean that insupportable piece of impudence, whereby you durst lay it to the charge of devout Religious women and their directors, That they believe not the mystery of Transubstantiation, nor the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This, Fathers, is an imposture worthy of you. This is a crime which God only is able to punish, and you only to commit. There is requisite as great an humility as that of these humble injured souls to suffer it with patience, and to believe it, requires a man should be as wicked as such wicked Detractors as you are. I shall not for my part undertake to justify them, they are not so much, as suspected guilty of any such thing. Stood they in need of Defenders, they might soon find better than I am. What I shall here say, is not to clear their innocence but to discover your malice. My design is to make you stand amazed at yourselves, and satisfy the world, that, this proved against you, there is not any thing which you may not venture upon.  
And yet you will not stick to say that I have some relation to Port Royal; for it is the main thing you have to cast in all their teeth who any way oppose your extravagances, as if there were only at Port-Royal such as had zeal enough to rescue, aga nst you, the purity of Christian Morality. I am not, Fathers, to be acquainted with the great deserts of those solitary persons that are retired thither, nor how much the Church is obliged to their works, as such as are solid and full of edification. I know by what a pious light they are illuminated. For though I never was settled among them, as you would make the world believe when you know not who I am, yet have I acquaintance with some of them, and an honour for the virtue of all. But God hath not limited to that number all those he would have to oppose your disorders. I hope, with his assistance, to make you sensible of it; and if he give me the grace to go on with the design he hath put me upon of employing for him whatever I have received from him, I shall treat you in such manner, that it shall haply be your greatest regret that you have not to do with a man of Port-Royal. For whereas those whom you so much insult upon by that famous calumny are content only to offer up to God their sighs and groans to procure your pardon for the same, I think myself obliged as one that is not at all concerned in that reproach, to make you ashamed of it before the whole Church, so to work in you that saving confusion, whereof the Scripture speaks, which is in a manner the only remedy against such a hardness of heart as yours is. Fill their faces with confusion, and they shall seeek thy name, O Lord.  
We must needs put a stop to that insolence which hath not the least tenderness even for the holiest places. For who can be secure after a calumny of this nature? How, Fathers, dare you yourselves stick up and down Paris a book so scandalous, with the name of your Father Meynier in the frontispiece, and this infamous title, Port-Royal combining with Geneva against the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, wherein you charge with this. Apostasy not only M. de Saint Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also Mother Agnes, his Sister, and all the Religious women of that Monastery, of whom you say, pag. 96. That their faith to as much to be suspected, as to what concerns the Eucharist, as that of Monsieur Arnauld▪ whom you hold pag. 4 to be an absolute Cavinist. Now I appeal to all the world, whether there be in the Church any upon whom you might have scattered so abominable a reproach with less probability. For, I would fain know, Fathers, if these Religious women and their directors combined with Geneva against the blessed Sacrament of the Altar (a thing cannot be thought without horror) why should they take for the principal object of their piety a Sacrament which they thought an abomination? why should they add to their Rule, the institution of the B. Sacrament? why have they taken the habit of the B. Sacrament? why taken the name of the Nuns of the B. Sacrament? why called their Church, the Church of the B. Sacrament? why should they petition for and obtain from Rome the confirmation of that institution, and the privilege to say every Thursday the office of the B. Sacrament, wherein the faith of the Church is so particularly expressed, if they had conspired with Geneva to abolish that faith of the Church? why should they oblige themselves, by a particular devotion, and that approved by the Pope, to have constantly night and day some religious women, in the presence of that Sacred Host, as it were to repair by their perpetual adorations of that perpetual sacrifice, the impiety of that heresy that endeavoured to annihilate it? Speak Fathers, if you can; give some reason, why, of all the mysteries of our Religion, they should pass by those they do believe, and fasten on that they could not believe? And why they should devote themselves in so full and absolute a manner to that mystery of our Faith, if they took it as Heretics do for the mystery of iniquity? What answer, Fathers, do you make to testimonies so pregnant as these, not only as to words but actions, and th●t not as to some particular actions but the consequences of a life absolutely consecrated to the adoration of JESUS CHRIST residing upon our Altars? What reply do you make to the books of Port-Royal, which are full of the most precise terms whereby Fathers and Counsels have thought fit to express the essence of that mysteri●? 'tis a ridiculous thing, but horrid withal to see what answers you make thereto in your Libel, in this manner. Monsieur Arnauld, you say, speaks very well of Transubstantiation▪ but he haply means a significative Transubstantiation. He professes indeed that he believes the real presence, but who ever told us that he understands it under a true and real figure? Where are we Fathers, and whom will not you represent as a Calvinist when you please, if you but take the Liberty to corrupt the most canonical and sacred expressions that may be, by the malicious subtleties of your new sangled equivocations? For who ever hath made use of other terms then those, and that particularly in simple discourses of Piety, where there is nothing of controversy meddled with? And yet the love and respect they have for that holy mystery, hath given them occasion to speak so much of it in their writings, that I defy you, Fathers, as crafty as you are, to find therein the least shadow of ambiguity or compliance with the tenants of Geneva.  
All the world knows, Fathers, that the heresy of Geneva, essentially consists, as you express it yourselves, in believing that Jesus Christ is not enclosed within that Sacrament: That it is impossible he should be in several places; That he is truly no where but in heaven, and that there only he is to be adored, and not upon the Altar. That the substance of the bread remains; That the body of I. Christ enters not into the mouth, nor the breast: That he is not eaten but by Faith; and consequently that the unfaithful eat him not: And that the mass is so far from being a Sacrifice, that it is an abomination. Now see, Fathers, after what manner Port-Royal conspires with Geneva in their books. There you may read, to your confusion, that the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine. M. Arnaulds second Letter, pag. 259. That the holy of holyes is present in the Sanctuary, and that he ought to be adored there. Ibid. p. 243. That Jesus Christ dwells in the Sinners that communicate by the true and real presence of his body in their breast though not by the presence of his spirit in their hearts. Freq. Com. 3. part. ch. 16. That the dead ashes of the Saints bodies derive their principal dignity from that seed of life remaining in them after the touching of the immortal and enlivening flesh of Jesus Christ. 1 Part. ch 40. That it is not through any natural power, but through God's omnipotence, to which nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ in enclosed under the hest and under the least part of every host; Fam. Divin. Lect. 15. That the divine virtue is present to preduce the effect which the words of consecration signify. Ibid. That Jesus Christ who lies dejected upon the Altar is at the same time elevated in his glory: that he by himself and through his own power is in several places at the same time, as well in the midst of the Church triumphant as Church militant. Of suspension, Reason 21. That the Sacramental species remain suspended and subsist after an extraordinary manner without being upheld by any subject, and that the body of Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, that it depends not on them as substances depend on accidents. Ibid. 23. That the substance of the Bread is changed, the accidents remaining unchangeable. In the prose of the blessed Sacrament. That Jesus Christ rests in the Eucharist with the same glory as he hath in heaven. Letters of M. Saint Cyran. Tom. 1. Let. 93. That his glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of the Church under the species of bread, which visibly cover it, and that knowing us to be dull, he takes that course to induce us to the adoration of his Divinity which is present in all places, by that of his humanity which is present in one particular place. Ibid. That we receive the body of Jesus Christ upon the tongue, and that it is sanctified by his divine touching. Let. 32. That he enters into the mouth of the priest. Let. 72. That though Jesus Christ be made inaccessible in the Blessed Sacrament through an effect of his love and clemency, yet doth he still continue his inaccessibility therein, as an inseparable condition of his divine nature; for though there be therein only the body and blood by virtue of the words, vi verborum; as the School speaks, yet that hinders not but that his whole Divinity as well as his whole humanity may be there by a necessary consequence and conjunction▪ Vindication of the rosary of the Blessed Sacrament, pag. 217. And lastly, That the Eucharist is as well a Sacrifice as a a Sacrament, Fam. Divin. Lect. 15. And that though this Sacrifice be a commemoration of that of the Cross, yet is there this difference between them, that that of the Mass is offered only for the Church, and for the faithful included within its communion, whereas that of the Cross was offered for all the world, as the Scripture speaks. Ibid p. 15.  
This is sufficient, Fathers, to let the world see evidently, that there hath not been haply since the beginning of it a greater impudence than this of yours. But yet I will go a little further, and make you pronounce this sentence against your selves. For what caution would you have to take away all suspicion of a man's conspiring with Geneva? If Monsieur Arnauld, says your Father Meyni●r, p. 83. had said that in this adorable Mystery there were not any substance of the bread under the species but only the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, I should have confessed that he had absolutely declared himself against Geneva. Confess it then, Impostors, and make him public reparation for this public injury. How often have you seen as much in the passages before cited? But besides, the Familiar Divinity of Monsieur de Saint Cyr●n being approved by M. Arnauld must needs contain the sentiments of both. Read then the whole fifteenth Lecture, and particularly the second Article, and there you shall find the words you desire, and that more formally than you have expressed them yourselves: Is there any bread left in the host, and any wine in the Chalice? Not any; for the whole substance of the bread, as also that of the wine are taken away to make place for that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which remains therein covered only with the qualities and species of bread and wine.  
Now, Fathers, will you still affirm that Port-Royal teaches nothing which is not received by Geneva; and that Monsieur Arnauld hath not said any thing in his second Letter, which might not have been said by a Minister of Charenton? Do you make Mestrezat speak as Monsieur Arnauld does in that Letter, pag. 237, etc. That is an infamous falsity to charge him with denying Transubstantiation; that he takes for the foundation of his book the truth of the real presence of the Son of God, opposite to the heresy of the Calvinists; That he thinks himself happy to be in a place where the Holy of Holies, who is present in the Sanctuary, is continually adored: which certainly is a thing stands at a greater distance from the belief of the Calvinists then the real presence itself, since that as Cardinal Richelieu says in his Controversies, pag. 536. The new Ministers of France being united with the Lutherans who believe it, have thereby declared, that they are not separated from the Church as to what relates to that mystery, but only by reason of the adoration which the Catholics do to the Eucharist. Get all the passages I have cited out of the books of port-royal subscribed at Geneva, and not only those passages but the whole treatises written concerning this mystery, as the book of Frequent Communion; The Explication of the ceremonies of the Mass; The Exercise during Mass; Reasons of suspension from the Blessed Sacrament; The Hymns of the Hours of Port-Royal translated, etc. In a word, cause that sacred institution of constantly adoring Jesus Christ enclosed in the Eucharist, to be established at Charenton, as it is at Port-Royal, and it will be the most considerable service you can do the Church, since that then Port-Royal shall not conspire with Geneva, but Geneva with Port-Royal, and the whole Church.  
You could not certainly, Fathers, have been more unfortunate in any thing then in charging Port-Royal with not believing the Eucharist; but I will discover what it was that engaged you to do it. You know I am a little acquainted with your Politics: you have stretched them very hard upon this occasion. If Monsieur de Saint Cyran, and Monsieur Arnauld had only delivered what was to be believed concerning that mystery, and not what men ought to do to be prepared for it, they had been the best Catholics in the world, and there had been no equivocations found in their terms of real presence and transubstantiation. But since there is a necessity that all those who oppose your degenerate principles should be Heretics, nay in that very point wherein they condemn them, how could Monsieur Arnauld scape upon the Eucharist, when he had writ an express Treatise against your profanations of that Sacrament? How, Fathers, Should he say, with hope not to be called to an account, That the body of Jesus Christ ought not to be given those who fall often into the same crimes, and discover not the least hope of amendment, and that they ought to be kept for some time from the Altar, that, having purified themselves by a sincere repentance, they may approach it afterwards to their comfort. Do not, Fathers, by any means suffer such things to be spoken; you would not be importuned by so many people at your Confession-seats. For your Father Brisacier says, that if you followed not this method you should not apply the blood of Jesus Christ to any one. 'Twere much better for you that men followed the practice of your Society, which your Father Mascarennas' citys in a certain book approved by your Doctors, nay even by your Reverend Father General, and is this; That all manner of persons, even Priests themselves may receive the body of Jesus Christ the very day wherein they have defiled themselves with abominable sins: That men are so far from being guilty of any irreverence in such communions, that, on the contrary, they are to be commended, when they frequent them in that manner: That the Confessors ought not to divert them, and that, on the contrary it is their duty to advise those who have but newly committed those crimes, to communicate immediately, in as much as though the Church hath forbidden it, yet that prohibition is abolished by the universal practice of the whole earth.  
This it is, Fathers, to have Jesuits scattered over the whole earth. This is the universal practice that you have introduced, and which you endeavour to see established. It matters not that the tables of Jesus Christ be filled with abomination so your Churches be thronged with people. Be sure then to make the opposers hereof Heretics upon the Blessed Sacrament; it must be so what ever it cost. But how will you be able to do it after so many irrefragable testimonies as they have given of their faith? Are you not afraid I should quote the four grand proofs you produce of their heresy? You might very well, Fathers, and I know no reason I should spare you so much shame. Let us then examine the first.  
Monsieur de Saint Cyran, says Father Meynier, comforting a friend of his upon the death of his Mother, Tom. 1. Let. 14. says, that the most acceptable sacrifice that a man can offer to God upon these occasions is that of Patience; ergo he is a Calvinist. This is very subtly argued, Fathers; and it is a question with me whether any one see the reason of this consequence. Take it from himself. Because, saith this great Controvertist, he therefore believes not the sacrifice of the Mass; for that is it which is the most acceptable to God of any. Who now dares say the Jesuits cannot dispute? They can do it in such a manner, that they are able to make heretical what discourses they please even to the Scripture itself. For is it not an heresy to say, as the wise man does, There is nothing worse than to love money; as if Adulteries, Murders, and Idolatry were not greater crimes? And who is there almost who does not frequently fall into such expressions; and that, for instance, the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart is the most acceptable in the sight of God; for that in such discourses, a man only makes a comparison between certain interior virtues among themselves, without reflection on the sacrifice of the Mass, which is of a different order, and of an infinitely higher Nature. Is not this to be ridiculous, Fathers, and must I needs, to heighten your confusion, acquaint you with the terms of that very Letter, where Monsieur de Saint Cyran speaks of the sacrifice of the Mass, as of the most excellent of all, saying, That men offer unto God every day, and in all places the sacrifice oh the Body of his Son, who could not find A MORE EXCELLENT WAY then that, whereby to honour his Father? And afterwards; That Jesus Christ at his death obliged us to take of his sacrificed body to make the sacrifice of ours to be the more acceptable to him, and that he, being also united to us when we die, might strengthen us by sanctifying with his presence the last sacrifice we make unto God, of our lives and of our bodies. Now play the Sycophants, take no notice of any thing of all this, and confidently affirm that he avoided communicating at his death, as you do pag. 33. and that he believed not the sacrifice of the Mass. For there is nothing too difficult for such as are Detractors by Profession.  
And that you are such, your second proof is a great testimony. To make late Monsieur de Saint Cyran, (to whom you attribute the book of Petrus Aurelius) a Calvinist, you produce a passage, wherein Aurelius explains (pag. 89.) the carriage of the Church towards such Priests and Bishops as she would depose or degrade. The Church, saith he, not being able to take away the power of the order, because the character of it is not to be blotted out, she does all she can: she puts out of her memory that character which she cannot out of the souls of those who have received it. She considers them as if they were no longer Priests or Bishops. So that according to the ordinary language of the Church, it may be said they are no longer such, though they still are as to what concerns the character; ob indelebilitatem characteris. You see, Fathers, that this Author, approved by three general Assemblies of the Clergy of France, says expressly, that the character of Priesthood is indelible; and yet you make him say but quite the contrary in that very place, That the character of Priesthood is not indelible. This is a transcendent calumny, that is to say, according to you, a Peccadillo, a trifling venial sin. For that book had done you some prejudice, as having refuted the heresies of your Brethren-Jesuits of England concerning Episcopal Authority. But certainly, it is a signal piece of extravagance, and a very high mortal sin against Reason, in the first place, falsely to suppose that Monsieur de Saint Cyran held that the character might be taken away, and to conclude thence, that he does not believe the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  
Do not expect I should make any answer to it, Fathers; if you have not common sense, it is not in my power to give you any. All those that have will liberally laugh at both you and your third proof, which is grounded upon these words out of the Frequent Communion, 3. p. ch. 11. That God gives us in the Eucharist THE SAME FOOD as he doth to the Sai●t● in Heaven, without any other difference, save that here he allows us not either the sensible sight or taste of it, reserving both till our coming to heaven. These words, Fathers, do so naturally express the sense of the Church that I ever and anon forget what it is that you quarrel at in them so as to pervert them. For to me they signifi● nothing but what the Council of Trent teaches Sess. 13. c. 8. That there is no other difference between Jesus Ch●ist in the Eucharist, and Jesus Christ in Heaven, but that here he is veiled, and there he is not, Monsieur Arnauld doth not say that there is no other difference in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ, but only that ●h●●e is no other in jesus Christ who is received. And yet you would, against all reason, make him to say by this passage, that Christ is eaten with the mouth here no more than he is in heaven; whence you conclude his heresy.  
I cannot but pity you. Fathers. Does this require any further explication? Why do you confound this divine Nourishment with the manner of receiving it? There is, as I have already said, but one only difference between this nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is, that here it is hidden under veils that deprive us of the sensible sight and taste of it. But there are many differences between the ways of receiving it both here and there, whereof the principal is, as Monsieur Arnauld says, part. 3. ch. 16. Here Christ enters into the mouth and breast of both the godly and the wicked, which he doth not in heaven.  
And since you are ignorant of this diversity I shall tell you, that the cause why God hath established these different ways of receiving the same food is the difference there is between the state of Christians in this life and that of the b●●ssed Saints in heaven. The state of Christians, as Card nal du Perron says after the Fathers, is a m●an state between that of the Blessed and that of the Jews. The Blessed possess Jesus Christ really without figures and without veils. The Jews possessed not Christ but under figures and veils, such as were the Manna and the Paschal Lamb. And the Chr stians possess I sus Christ in the Eucharist truly and really, but yet hid under ve●●es. God, saith Saint Eucharius, made himself three Tabernacles; the Synagogue, which had only the shadows without truth; the Church which both the truth and the shadows; and heaven where there are no shadows, but truth itself We should go out of the state wherein we are, which is the state of faith, and is by Saint Paul, as much opposed to the Law, as to the beatifical vision should we possess only the figures without I sus Christ, because it is the property of the Law to have only the shadow and not the substance of things: and we should also go out on the other side, should we possess him visibly; because faith, as the same Apostle says, is not of the things that are seen. Thus is the Eucharist proportioned to our state of Faith, because it truly involves jesus Christ, yet veiled. So that this state were on the one side destroyed if jesus Christ were not really under the species of bread and wine, as Heretics pretend he is not; and on the other, should we receive him nakedly as in heaven, since it were to confound our estate either with that of Judaisme or with that of Glory. And this, Fathers, is the divine and mysterious reason of this wholly divine mystery. This is it makes us abhor the Calvinists, as reducing us to the condition of the Jews; and withal what makes us aspire to the glory of the Blessed, wherein we shall have the full and eternal enjoyment of Jesus Christ. Whence you see that there are several d fferences between the ways wherein he communicates himself to Christians and to the Blessed, and that, among others, he is received here by the mouth, and not so in heaven; but that they all depend merely upon the difference there is between the state of Faith, wherein we are, and the estate of the beatifical vision wherein they are. This it is, Fathers, that Monsieur Arnauld says so clearly in these terms, That, there should be no other difference between the purity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that of the blessed Saints, but as much as there is between Faith and the beatifical vision of God, on which alone depend the different manners wherein he is eaten on earth and in heaven. You should, Fathers, have had a reverence for the sacred truths in these words, rather than corrupted them, to find in them an heresy they are incapable of, which is, that Jesus Christ is only eaten by faith, and not by the mouth, as your Father's Annat, and Meynier maliciously affirm, making it the principal head of their accusation.  
You see then, Fathers, how little you are beholden to proof; and therefore you are forced to fly to a new artifice which is to falsify the Council of Trent, so to bring it about that Monsieur Arnauld should not be conformable thereto: so many ways are you furnished with to make people heretical. And this is done by your Father Meynier in no less than fifty places of his book, and eight or ten times in the single pag. 54. where he pretends, that for a man to express himself like a true Catholic, it is not enough to say, I believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist; but that he must say, I believe WITH THE COUNCIL that he is present therein by a true LOCAL PRESENCE, or locally. And thereupon he citys the Council Sess. 13. can. 3. can. 4. can. 6. Who would not think, when he saw the words Local presence cited out of three Canons of an Ecumenical Council, but that those words were to be found there? This might have served your turn before my XV. Letter was abroad, but now, Fathers, people are not so easily caught in that snare. We consult the Council, and find that you are Impostors. For these terms of Local presence, locally, locality, never were there. And I tell you further, Fathers, that they are not in any other place of that Council, nor in any other Council before it, nor in any Father of the Church. I would therefore desire you to tell me, whether you pretend to fasten the suspicion of Calvinisme on all those who have not made use of that term. If so, the Council of Trent lies under it, and all the Fathers without exception. You have more honesty in you then to make so great a confusion in the Church upon occasion of a particular quarrel. Have you no other way to make M. Arnauld a heretic, but you must disoblige many who never did you any injury, and among the rest, Saint Thomas, who is one of the greatest defenders of the Eucharist, and is so far from making use of that term, that on the contrary he hath rejected it, 3. p q. 76 a. 5 where he says, Nullo modo corp●● Ch●ist● st in hoc Sacramento local●t●r? What are you then, Fathers, that you should by your own authority, impose new terms, which you would oblige men to make use of, the better to express their faith: as if the profession of Faith made by the Pope's according to the order of the Council, wherein this term is not to be found, were defect v●, and so brought an ambiguity in the creed of the faithful, which you only should discover? What temerity is it to prescribe them to the Doctors themselves? What foul play to impose them upon general Counsels? And what ignorance not to know the difficulties which the most illuminated Saints have made to receive them? Be ashamed then, Fathers, of your ignorant impostures, as the Scripture says to such ignorant impostors as you are: Be ashammed of whoredom before father and mother; be ashamed of lies before the Prince and men in Authority.  
Do not pretend to play the Masters any more: you have neither the character nor the abilities to be such. But if you will make your propositions with more modesty, you will haply be heard. For though this word, Local presence, was rejected by Saint Thomas, as you have seen, because the body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in the ordinary extent of bodies in their places; yet hath this term been received by some late Authors of Controversies, as only understanding thereby, 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 difficulty to admit it, since that M. de Saint Cyran and he have declared so often, that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is truly in a particular place, and miraculously in many places at the same time. So that all your purifying of expressions comes to nothing, and so you have not been able to give the least likelihood to an accusation, which it should not have been lawful to advance without pregnant and undeniable proofs.  
But to what end is it, Fathers, to oppose their innocence to your calumnies? you do not charge them with these errors out of any belief that they maintain them, but out of a belief that they prejudice you. There needs no more, according to your Theology, to calumniate them without being guilty of any crime in so doing, and you may without any confession or penance celebrate the mass at the same time that you charge Priests, who say it every day, with a belief that it is pure Idolatry, which certainly were so horrid a piece of sacrilege, that you yourselves caused your own Father Jarrigius to be hanged in effigy, because he had said mass during the time he held correspondence with G●neva.  
I cannot therefore but stand amazed, not that you with so little remorse impose upon them crimes that are both so heinous and withal so false; but that you impose upon them, with so little prudence, crimes that have in themselves so little probability. For you do indeed dispose of sins, at your pleasure, but do you imagine you shall accordingly dispose of men's belief? Certainly, Fathers, were it necessary that the imputation of Calvinisme must fall either upon them or upon you, I should find you in a very sad condition. Their discourses are as Catholic as yours, but their carriage confirms their faith, yours is disconsonant to yours. For did you believe, as they do, that bread to be really changed into the body of Jesus Christ, why do you not, as they do, require that the stony and icy hearts of those whom you advise to approach it should be sincerely converted into fleshly and affectionate hearts? If you believe Jesus Christ to be there under a qualification of death, to teach those that approach it to die to sin, the world, and themselves, why do you admit those to come near it in whom vices and sinful passions are still living and predominant? And how can you account those worthy to eat the bread of heaven, who deserve not to eat that of earth?  
O what a transcendent veneration have they for this sacred Mystery, who employ their zeal to persecute those that honour it by so many holy communions, and to flatter such as dishonour it by so many sacrilegious communions! How does it become these Assertors of so pure and adorable a sacrifice to fill up the rabble of Jesus Christ with inveterate sinners coming immediately from their scandalous deportments, and to place among them a Priest whom his very Confessor sends from his uncleannesses to the Altar, there to offer up, instead of Jesus Christ, that most holy victim to the God of holiness, and to direct it with his most polluted hands into mouths equally polluted? Is it not a proceeding worthy those who practise this through all the earth, according to the approved maxims of their own General to charge the Author of the book of Frequent Communion, and the Nuns of the Bl●ssed Sacrament, with not believing the Blessed sacrament?  
And yet this does not satisfy them; but to fi l up the measure of their passion they must needs accuse them of having renounced Jesus Christ and their Baptism. These, Fathers are not trivial stories, such as yours. No, they are the desperate sallies whereby you have filled up the measure of your detraction and calumnies. So transcendent a forgery had not been in hands, fit to manage and maintain it, had it continued in those of your good friend Fillian, who first started it; no, your Society hath owned it publicly, and your Father Meyneier hath lately maintained it, as a certain truth, that Port-royal hath, for these 35. years, been engaged in a secret plot, whereof Mr. de Saint Cyran and Jansenius were the chief, to destroy the Mystery of the incarnation, to make the Gospel be looked upon as an apocryphal story; to exterminate Christian Religion, and to build up Deism upon the ruins of Christianity. Is this all, Fathers; will you at last be satisfied if the world believe all this of those whom you hate? Will your animosity be satiated, when you have made them detestable not only to all those who are in the Church; by combining with Geneva, which you charge them with, but also to all those that believe in Jesus Christ, though out of the Church, by the Deism you accuse them of?  
But who will not be surprised at the blindness of your proceed? For who do you expect will be persuaded upon your bare word, without the least shadow of proof, and that with all the contradictions imaginable, that Bishops and Priests, who have constantly preached the grace of Jesus Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the obligations of Baptism, had renounced their Baptism, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ that they endeavoured nothing so much as to establish that Apostasy, and that it is still the design of Port-Royal? Who will believe it Fathers? Do you believe it yourselves, wretches as you are? But to what extremities are you reduced, since that you must of necessity either make good this charge, or pass for the loudest Detractors that ever were? Prove it, then, Fathers; name that Ecclesiastic of good worth which you say was present at, and one of that assembly of Burg-fontain, in the year 1621. and had discovered, to your friend Filleau, the design then and there undertaken to ruin Christian Religion. Name those six persons, who you say did in the same place lay down the grounds of the conspiracy. Name him Who is meant by these Letters A.A. who, you say, pag. 15. is not Anthony A nauld, because he hath convinced you that he was not then nine years of age, but another who is yet alive, and is too much a friend to Monsieur Arnauld, to be unknown to him. It seems then, you know him, Fathers, and consequently, if you have any the least respect for Religion, you are obliged to make discovery of this impious wretch to the King and Parliament, that he may be punished according to his demerits. You must speak freely, Fathers; you must name him, or expect the confusion of never being looked on hereafter otherwise then as infamous Liars and sycophants, unworthy ever to be credited. 'tis in this manner, that the good Father Valerian hath taught us, that such Impostors are to be racked and put to their utmost shifts. Your silence hereupon will be a full and absolute conviction that this is nothing but a diabolical Calumny. The most implicit friends you have be forced to acknowledge, that it will not be thought an effect of your virtue, but your weakness; and admire that you have been so wicked as to make it reach to the Religious women of Port-Royal, and to affirm, as you do p. 14. that the secret Rosary of the Blessed Sacrament, composed by one of them, was the first fruits of that conspiracy against Jesus Christ; and p. 95. that they are inspired with all the detestable maxims of that book, which if you may be credited, is an instruction of Deism. Your impostors upon that writing have received a total rout already is the defence of the Censure of the late Archbishop of Paris against your Father Brisacier. You have nothing to reply thereto, and yet can you not forbear wresting it, after a more shameful manner then ever, to fasten on Religious women, whose piety is known to all the world, nothing less than the height of impiety? Barbarous and base Persecutors! are not the most retired monasteries Sanctuaries against your calumnies? While these sacred Virgins do, day and night, adore Jesus Christ and the Blessed Sacrament, according to their institution, you cease not, day and night, from publishing it abroad, that they believe him not to be either in the Eucharist, or yet at the right hand of his Father: and you publicly cut them off from being members of the Church, even while they are secretly praying for you and the whole Church. You traduce those who have neither ears to hear you, nor tongue to answer you. But Jesus Christ, in whom they are hidden, so not to appear but with him, hears you and answers for them. This day is that holy and terrible voice heard, which startles Nature, and comforts the Church. And it is to be doubted Fathers, that those who harden their hearts, and ostinately refuse to hear him when he speaks as a God, will be forced to hear him with confusion, when he shall speak to them as a judge?  
For, in a word, Fathers, what account will you be able to give him of so many calumnies, when he shall examine them, not according to the fantastical imaginations of your Fathers Dicastillus, Gans and Pennalossa, but according to the rules of his eternal truth, and by the holy ordinances of his Church, which is so far from palliating or excusing that crime, that she not only abhors it, but hath punished it in the same manner as voluntary homicide. For she hath suspended calumniators as well as murderers from the Communion till the hour of death by the I. and II. Council of Arles. The Council of Lateran thought those unworthy to be received into the Ecclesiastical State, who were convicted thereof, though they were reform of it. Some Popes have threatened those who had calumniated Bishops, Priests or Deacons, to be denied the Communion at their death. And the Authors of a scandalous Libel, who could not prove what they had advanced, were by Pope Adrian condemned to be whipped; note Reverend Fathers, flagellentur. So far hath the Church ever been from the errors of your Society; which is grown so corrupt, as to excuse crimes, great as that of Calumny, that you may commit them with more impunity.  
No doubt, Fathers, but you might by this means, do abundance of mischief in the world, if God had not so ordered it, that you yourselves should furnish the means to prevent it, and to render all your calumnies ineffectual. For there's no more to be done then to discover this strange maxim that exempts them from crime, to deprive you of all credit thereby: Calumny is unprofitable if there be not joined with it a great reputation of Sincerity. A detractor can never compass his ends, if he be not thought to abhor detraction, as a crime he is uncapable of. And so, Fathers, your own principle betrays you. You have established it for the security of your Conscience. For you would detract, and yet not be damned, but be of the number of those holy and pious calumniators, of whom Saint Athanasius speaks. You have therefore, to keep yourselves out of hell, embraced this maxim, which indeed keeps you out as far as the credit of your Doctors can secure you? but the very same maxim, which, according to them, frees you from the evils you fear in the other life, deprives you, in this, of the advantages you expected to make of it. So that while you endeavour to avoid the vice of Detraction, you lose the benefit of it, so contrary is evil to itself, and so is it ravelled and destructive to itself by its own malice.  
You might calumniate with much more advantage to yourselves, should you pretend to affirm with Saint Paul that simple evil-speakers, maledici, are unworthy to see God, since that your calumnies would thereby be the more credited, though, the truth known, you would condemn yourselves: but when you say, as you do, that calumny against your enemies is no crime, your reproaches will not be believed, and yet you will nevertheless be damned. For Fathers, there's nothing so certain, as that your grave Authors can neither abrogate the justice of God, nor you give a greater demonstration of your not remaining in the truth, then that you make lies your refuge. If truth were of your side, the would fight for you; she would overcome for you; and what enemies soever you had, Truth would deliver you out of their hands, according to her promise. You have not recourse to lying, but to maintain the errors wherein you flatter the sinners of this world, and to keep up the calumnies whereby you oppress those godly people who oppose them. Truth being contrary to your designs, it was requisite you put your trust in lies, as the Prophet says. Because you have said, we have made a Covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; though a scourge run over and pass through, it shall not come at us; for we have made falsehood our refuge, and under vanity are we hid. But what answer does the Prophet make them? Because, saith he, you despise this word, and t●ust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in 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 broken in pieces, he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it, a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit. Because, as another Prophet says, with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad: and strengthened the hand of the wicked that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life. I will therefore deliver my peopl out of your hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord.  
We must therefore needs hope, Fathers, that, if you do not reform, he will take out of your hands those that you have so long deceived, either by suffering them to continue in their disorders through your ill conduct, or by poisoning them with your calumnies. He will raise in some an apprehension that the erroneous rules of your Casuists will not secure them from his indignation; and will engrave in the minds of others a just fear of their own destruction, for hearing you, and giving credit to your impostures, as you destroy yourselves by inventing them, and scattering them about the world. This cannot admit any thing of circumvention: God is not mocked, and no man shall, without being accountable therefore, break the commandment he hath given us in the Gospel, of not condemning our neighbour, till we are well assured that he is guilty. And therefore, what professions soever they may make of Godliness who are so ready to entertain your forgeries, and under what pretence soever of devotion they may do it, they may well fear being shut out of the Kingdom of Heaven, for that only sin of having attributed such enormous crimes as those of heresy and schism, to the charge of Catholic Priests and Religious Women, without any other proofs than such palpable impostures as yours are. The Devil, says Sales, Bishop of Geneva, is upon the tongue of the evil-speaker, and in the ear of him that hearkeneth to him. And Detraction, saith Saint Bernard, Cant. 24. is a poison which mortifies charity both in the one and the other. So that one single calumny may prove mortal to an infinite number of souls; since it destroys, not only those that divulge, but also all those that do not renounce it.  
Paris, Decemb. 4. 1656.  
Postscript.  
Reverend Fathers,  
MY Letters were not wont to come so close one in the neck of another, nor yet to be so large The short time I have had hath been the cause of both. I had not made this longer than the rest, but that I had not the leisure to make it shorter than it is. The reason which obliged me to be the more hasty, is better known to you then to myself. Your Answers proved very unfortunate to you. You have therefore done very well to take a new course; but I am not absolutely satisfied that you have made a good choice, and have some jealousy what the world will not say, viz. that you were afraid of the BENEDICTINES.   

To the Reverend Father F. ANNET, Of the Society of JESUS, Confessor to the KING. LETTER XVII.  
REVEREND FATHERS,  
YOur late proceeding had brought me into a kind of belief that you would have been glad both sides had given over and sat still, and I was willing it should be so. But you have since spawned so many writings in a short time, that it seems there's no great certainty of a peace when it depends on the silence of the Jesuits. I know not whether this r●prute will prove much to your advantage; but for my part, I am not troubled at it, were it only that it gives me occasion to refute that ordinary reproach of Heresy, wherewith you fill all your books.  
It is indeed time, that once for all I give an unavoidable check to the confidence you take to treat me as an Heretic, which grows stronger and stronger in you every day. You are so far guilty of it in the book last published by you, that it is not to be suffered, and I might well incur the suspicion of it, should I not make such an answer thereto as a reproach of that nature deserves. I had slighted this injury in the writings of some others of your Society, as well as many others which they had shuffled into them with it. My XV. Letter had answered them sufficiently; but you speak of it now after another manner; you very earnestly make it the main head of your vindication: 'tis in a manner the only thing you have to allege for yourselves. For you say, That for a final answer to my XV. LETTERS, it is enough to say 15 times, that I am an Heretic, and that being declared such, I do not deserve any credit to be given me. So that you make my Ap stasie to be out of all controversy, supposing it as an undeniable principle, upon which you build so confidently. 'Tis therefore in good earnest that you treat me as an heretic, and it is therefore in as good earnest that I answer you thereto.  
You know, Father, that a charge of this nature is of such consequence, that it is an insupportable temereity to put it in against any man if it cannot be fully proved. I therefore desire you to produce your evidence. When was I seen at Charenton? When have I neglected coming to Mass, and doing those duties which Christians are obliged to in their practices? When did I any action arguing the least compliance with Heretics, or schism in the Church? What Council have I contradicted? What constitution of the Pope have I violated? Answer must be made to these questions, or— you know what I would say. And what answer do you make? I entreat all the world to observe. You suppose in the first place, That he who writ the LETTERS hath some relation to Port-Royal. Then you assume, That Port-Royal hath been declared heretical, and thence conclude, that he who writ the Letters is declared an Heretic. This kind of accusation reflects not on me at all, Father, but only on Port Royal, and you charge me with it no further than you suppose me to relate to that place. So that I shall have no hard task to vindicate myself, since I need do no more than tell you, that I am not of that place; and refer you to my Letters, where I have said that I am alone, and in express terms, that I am not of Port-Royal, as I have done in my XVI. Letter, which came abroad immediately before your book.  
You must then take some other course to prove me an Heretic, or you betray your weakness to all the world. Prove then by my writings, that I submit not to the Constitution. I have not written so much: there are only XVI. LETTERS to be examined, in all which I defy you, nay all the world, to find the least expression tending to any such thing. But I can show you in them the quite contrary. For when I said for instance, in the XIV. that a man killing, according to your Maxims, one of his brethren in mortal sin, damns him for whom Jesus Christ died, do I not evidently acknowledge that Jesus Christ died for that damned soul? and consequently it is false, That he died only for the Predestinate; which is that that is condemned in the first Proposition. It is therefore clear, Fathers, that I have not said any thing, whence it might be thought I assert those impious propositions, which I detest with all my soul. And though Port-Royal should maintain them, you cannot thence infer any thing against me, because, I have not, I praise God, any dependence save that on the holy Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, wherein I am resolved to live and die, in communion with the Pope the sovereign head thereof, out of which I am persuaded there is no salvation.  
What course can you take with a person that talks after this rate, and which way do you intent to set upon me, when neither my discourses nor my writings afford you the least occasion to charge me with heresy, and that I find my safety against your menaces in my own obscurity? You find yourselves wounded by an invisible hand which makes your extravagances apparent to all the world. And you vainly assault me in the persons of those with whom you imagine me to be in union. I fear you not, either out of any concernment of myself or any other, as having no relation to any Community, nor to any person whatsoever. All the credit you can make amounts to nothing as to what concerns me. I hope not any thing from the world, nor do I fear any thing from it; nor do I desire any of it; having the grace and assistance of God, I neither want wealth, nor any man's Authority. So that I can elude all your attempts; you cannot fasten on me, endeavour it which way you please. You may have something to say to Port-Royal, but nothing to me. Many have been turned out of So●bonne, but all makes me not quit my lodging. You may well prepare your violent remedies against Priests and Doctors, but not against me who can pretend to no such qualities. And so perhaps, you never before had to do with a person that stood so much in defiance of your attempts, and so fit to engage against your Errors, as being free, without engagement, without dependence, without obligation, without relation, not meddling with affairs, one sufficiently acquainted with your Maxims, and fully resolved to put them forward as far as I shall find God encouraging me to do it, so that no worldly consideration shall retard or take off the edge of my prosecution.  
What advantage is it to you, Father, when you can do nothing against me, to divulge so many calumnies against persons that are not concerned in the d fference between us, as all your Fathers do? These evasions shall not serve your turn. You shall feel the weight of Truth which I oppose against you. I tell you, that you take away Christian Morality by separating it from the love of God, from which you give men a dispensation; and you tell me of the death of Father Mester, a man I never saw in my life. I tell you that your Authors allow one man to kill another for an apple, when it is a shame to part with it, and you tell me that a Poor's-box hath been opened at Saint Merry. What do you mean, when you charge me daily with the book of Holy Virginity, made by an Oratorian Father, whom I never saw, no more than his book? I cannot but admire you, Father, when you thus consider all that are different from you as one individual person. Your indignation grasps them altogether, and makes them as it were one body of Reprobates, whereof you would have every one answer for the rest of his company.  
There is a vast difference between the Jesuits and those that oppose them. You do really make up one Body united under one Head, and your rules, as I have already discovered, allow you not to print any thing without the approbation of your superiors, who by that means become accountable for the errors of every one of you in particular, so as that they cannot excuse themselves by saying that they observed not the errors taught therein, because they ought to have observed them, according to your Ordinances, and according to the Letters of your Generals, Aquaviva, Vitteleschi, etc. It is therefore not unjustly that you are charged with the extravagances of those of your fraternity that are found in their works, when approved by your Superiors and by the Divines of your Society. But for my part, Fathers, the case is much otherwise. I have not subscribed the book of Holy Virginity. Though all the poor's boxes in Paris were opened, I should be never the less a Catholic. In a word, I openly and clearly declare it to you, No man is to be responsible for my Letters but myself, and I am not accountable for any thing but my Letters.  
Here might I sit still, Father, and not say any thing of those other persons whom you treat as heretics, so to exempt myself from that charge. But since I am the occasion of it, I think myself, in some sort obliged to lay hold of the same occasion so as to make three advantages of it. For it is one considerable advantage to clear up the innocency of so many calumniated persons. 'tis another, and that very pertinent to my purpose, to discover still the artifices of your Politics in this accusation. But that I look on as of most concernment, is, that I shall satisfy the world of the falsehood of that scandalous report which you scatter so much up and down, That the Church is divided by a new heresy. And whereas you abuse abundance of people, by making them believe that the points, upon which you endeavour to raise up so great a tempest, are essential to faith, I conceive it a business of very great importance to destroy these false impressions, and clearly to explain wherein they consist, so to make it really appear that there are no Heretics in the Church.  
For it is not true that if it be demanded, wherein consists the heresy of those whom you call Jansenists, it will be presently answered, that it is for that they affirm, That the Commandments of God are impossible to be observed: That Grace cannot be resisted; and that a man is not at liberty to do good and evil: That Jesus Christ died not for all men, but only for the predestinate, and in a word for that they maintain the five Propositions condemned by the Pope. Is it not upon this account you would have the world believe that you persecute your adversaries? Is not this that you assert in your books, in your discourses, in your Catechism, as you did at Christmas last, at Saint Lewis', when ask one of your little shepherdesses, For whom came Jesus Christ into the World, sweetheart? For all men, Father, replies she. How then, sweetheart, it seems you are not one of these new Heretics who affirmt he is come only for the predestinate? Upon this do children believe you, and with them divers others; for you entertain them with the very same fables in your Sermons, as your Father Crasset did to Orleans, for which reason he was suspeaded. And I must acknowledge that I have sometimes believed you. You had given me the same representation of all those persons. So that when you began to ascuse them of maintaining these Propositions, I very attentively observed what answer they would make; and I was much resolved never to see them again, if they should not have declared that they renounced them as evident impieties. But they did it much more loudly. For Monsieur de Saint Beave King's Professor in So●bonne did, in his writings published censure those V Propositions long before the Pope; and those Doctors put out divers treatises, and among others that of Victorious Grace, which they produced at the same time, wherein they renounce those propositions both as heretical and as new. For they say in the preface, That those propositions are heretical and Lutheran, foisted and advanced at pleasure, such as were not in Jansenius nor his defenders; these are their expressions. They take it ill that they are fathered on them, and thereupon direct to you these words of Saint Prosper, the first disciple of Saint Augustine their Master, to whom the Semipelagians in France attributed the like, purposely to make him odious. There are some, says this Saint, who are hurried on by so blind a passion to discredit us that they have taken a course that ruins their own reputation. For they have out of design foisted certain propositions fraught with Impieties and blasphemies, which they scatter into all parts, to make men believe that we maintain them in the same sense that they express in their writings. But the world shall see by this Answer, both our innocence, and the malice of those who have charged us with these mpieties, whereof they are the only inventors.  
I must needs confess, Father, when I heard them speak to this effect before the Constitution; when I saw them receive it afterwards with all possible respect; that they offered to subscribe it; and that Monsieur Arnauld had declared all this more expressly than I can allege it, throughout his second Letter, I should have thought it a sin to doubt of their faith. And accordingly those who would have denied their friend's absolution before Monsieur Arnauld's letter came abroad, have since declared, that after he had so clearly condemned the errors laid to his charge, there was no reason, that either he or any of his friends should be cut off from being members of the Church. But your proceeding hath been otherwise; which gave me first occasion to mistrust that you were not free from passion.  
For whereas you had threatened to make them sign that Constitution when you thought they would have opposed it, when you saw they were inclinable thereto of themselves, you let the business fall to the ground. And though it might have been expected that you should afterwards have been satisfied with their carriage, yet must you needs treat them still as heretics, because, said you, there was a disconsonancy between their hearts and their hands, and that they were Catholics externally and heretics internally, as you have expressed yourselves in your Answer to certain Questions, p. 27. and 47.  
What a strange proceeding did this seem to me, Father! For what man is there of whom there might not as much be said? And what disturbances might not such a pretence as this raise? If a man refuse, saith Saint Gregory the Pope, to believe their confession whose faith is conformable to the sentiments of the Church he brings the faith of all Catholics in question. I therefore was in some doubt, Father, that it was your design to make these persons heretical, though they were not such, as the same Pope says, upon a dispute of the like nature in his time, because, saith he, it is not to oppose heresies, but to make a heresy, to refuse to believe those who by their confession make it appear that they are in the true faith: Hoc non est haeresim purgare, sed facere. But I was convinced that in effect there were no heretics in the Church, when I saw they had so well cleared themselves from all these heresies: that you were not able to charge them with any error contrary to faith: and that you were reduced to that extremity, as to quarrel with them only about questions of fact, concerning Jansenius, which could not be matter of heresy. For you would oblige them to acknowledge that these propositions were in Jansenius, word, for word, wholly and in express terms, as you have it; Singulares, individuae, totidem verbis apud Jansenium contentae, in your Cavilli, p. 39  
From that time I looked on the Dispute between you with much indifference. While I thought you disputed about the truth or falsity of the Propositions, I heard you with attention, for so far it concerned matter of Faith: But when I saw that the business in controversy was only to know whether they were word for word in Jansenius, there being no concernment of Religion in it, I troubled not myself any further with it. Not but that it might be very likely you spoke truth; for to say that such a sentence is word for word in an Author, it's a thing not much subject to mistake. And for that reason can I not much wonder that so many persons, both in France and Rome, should, upon an expression so free from suspicion, be persuaded that Jansenius had really maintained them. But it must withal needs add to my astonishment, when I understood that even that very matter of fact, which you had proposed as so certain, and of such consequence, was false, and that you were defied to cite the pages of Jansenius where you had found those Propositions word for word; which yet you were never able to do.  
I will give you an account of the whole proceeding, because, methinks, it very much discovers the spirit of your Society in all this Affair, and that men must needs wonder, to see, that notwithstanding all I have said, you have not forborn to give out that they are still heretics: but you have only changed their heresy according to time. For proportionably to their vindicating of themselves from one heresy, your Fathers still fastened another on them, to the end they might never be free. Thus in the year 1653. their heresy was about the quality of the Propositions. Thence it was translated to the word for word. Then you brought it into the heart. But now all this is vanished, and they must needs be heretics, if they will not give it under their hands, That the sense of the Doctrine of Jansenius is included in the sense of the five Propositions.  
This is the subject of your present dispute. You are not satisfied that they condemn the five Propositions, and, together with them, whatever Jansenius must contain that were conformable thereto, and contrary to Saint Augustine; for all this they do. So that the question is not, for instance, to know whether Jesus Changed is't died only for the Predestinate, that they condemn as well as you, but whether Jansenius be of that opinion or no. And upon that ground, it is that I declare to you more freely than ever, that I value your dispute little since the Church is not much concerned in it. For though I am no more Doctor than you are, Father, yet can I well perceive there is not any matter of Faith in it, since the only question is to know the judgement of Jansenius. Did they believe that his Doctrine were conformable to the genuine and literal sense of those propositions; they would condemn it; and they refuse not to do it but out of a persuasion that it is very much different from it; and so though they should misunderstand it, they were not therefore heretics, since they understand it only in a Catholic sense.  
To clear up the business by an example, I will instance in that diversity of sentiments which happened between Saint Basil and Saint Athanasius concerning the writings of Saint Denys of Alexandria, wherein Saint Basil thinking he had met with somewhat of the sense of Arius against the co-equality of the Father and the Son, he condemned them as heretical. Saint Athanasius, on the contrary, thinking they contained only the true sense of the Church, maintained them as Catholic. Do you think, Fathers, that Saint Basil who held these writings to be Arian, had any right to treat Saint Athanasius as a Heretic because he maintained them? And what reason should he have had to do so, since it was not the Arianism that he maintained therein, but the true faith which he thought they contained? If these two Saints had agreed about the true sense of these writings, and that they had both discovered that heresy in them, Saint Athanasius could not certainly have maintained them without heresy: but since they differed about the sense, Saint Athanasius was Catholic in maintaining them, even though he misunderstood them, since it would have been only an error of fact, and that he maintained not any thing in that doctrine but the Catholic faith which he supposed had contained.  
This, Father, I apply to you; were you agreed about the sense of Jansenius, and should they grant you that he holds, for instance, that grace cannot be resisted, those that should refuse to condemn him were heretics. But when you are in dispute about the sense, and they think that according to his doctrine grace may be resisted, there is no reason you should rreat them as heretics, what heresy soever you may yourselves attribute to him, since they condemn the sense you suppose to be therein, and you dare not condemn the sense they suppose therein. If therefore you would convince them; make it appear that the sense they attribute to Jansenius is heretical; for, in that case, they themselves will be such. But how can you make them so, when it is evident, according to your own acknowledgement, that the sense they give him is not condemned?  
To make the business yet more clear, I shall take for a principle that which you will grant to be such yourselves, that the doctrine of efficacious Grace hath not been condemned, and that the Pope hath not meddled with it in his Constitution. And in effect, when he would judge of the V Propositions, the point of efficacious was put out of all hazard of censure. This appears clearly by the judgement of the Consultors, to whose examination the Pope referred the business. These judgements I have in my hands, as well as divers others in Paris, and among the rest, my Lord Bishop of Montpelier, who brought them from Rome. There we find that they were divided in their opinions, and that the most eminent among them, as the Master of the Sacred Palace, the Commissary of the holy office, the general of the Augustine Friars, and others, conceiving that those propositions might be taken in the sense of efficacious grace, were of opinion that they ought not to he censured; whereas the rest granting that they ought not to be censured if they had had that sense, yet thought they should be censured; for that, according to what they declare, their proper and natural sense was far from it. And thereupon the Pope condemned them, and the world hath submitted to his judgement.  
It is therefore certain Father, that efficacious grace hath not been condemned. And indeed it is so vigorously maintained by Saint Augustine, by Saint Thomas and all his School, by so many Popes and Counsels, and by universal Tradition, that it were impiety to charge it with heresy, Now all those that you treat as Heretics declare that they find not any thing in Jansenius, but that doctrine of efficacious grace. And this is the only thing they maintain at Rome. You have acknowledged it yourself Cavil. p. 35. where you have declared, that speaking before the Pope, they said not a word of the Propositions, ne verbum quidem; and that they spent the whole time in discoursing of efficacious grace. And so whether they are deceived or not in this supposition, thus much is at least clear, that the sense they suppose is not heretical, and consequently they are no heretics. For to cut the knot in a word: either Jansenius hath not taught any thing but efficacious grace, or he hath taught something else: in the former case he is charged with no errors; in the latter, he hath no compurgators. All the question then, is to know whether Jansenius hath taught any thing in effect besides efficacious grace, and if it be found that he hath, you shall have the reputation of having understood him best; but they shall not be so unfortunate as to have erred in matters of faith.  
We are therefore to give God the praise, Father, that in effect, there is no heresy in the Church, since that the business in agitation concerns only matter of fact, whence there cannot any issue. For the Church decides points of Faith, with a divine authority, and she cuts off all those that refuse to embrace them: but she proceeds otherwise in matters of fact. And the reason of it is, that our Salvation is fastened to the faith that hath been revealed to us, and is preserved in the Church by Tradition; but it hath not any dependence on other particular matters of fact which have not been revealed from God. Thus is a man obliged to believe that it is not impossible to keep the Commandments of God, but is not obliged to know what Jansenius hath taught upon that subject. God therefore, in the determination of points of faith guides the Church by the assistance of his spirit which cannot err; whereas in matters of fact, he leaves her to sense and reason the natural judges thereof. For it is God only that can instruct the Church in matters of Faith; but there needs no more than to read Jansenius, to know whether such and such propositions be in his book. And thence it comes that it is heresy to oppose decisions of faith; because it is the opposition of a man's own spirit to the spirit of God. But it is not heresy, though it may haply be temereity, not to believe certain particular matters of fact; because it is no more than opposing Reason which may be clear, to an Authority that is great, but, in that, not infallible.  
This is generally acknowledged by all Divines, as is apparent by this Maxim of Cardinal Bellarmine of your Society; General Councils legally convened cannot err in defining articles of Faith, but they err in questions of fact. And elsewhere; The Pope as Pope, though in the head of an Ecumenical Council may err in particular controversies relating to matter of fact, such as principally depend upon information and the deposition of witnesses. And Cardinal Baronius in like manner; We must absolutely submit to General Councils in point of Faith; but for what concerns particular persons and their writings, the censures that have been passed upon them have not haply been observed with the rigour they ought, because there is not any one, whose case i● may not be to be mistaken therein. ' ●as upon this ground that my Lord Archbishop of Tholouse drew this rule ou● of the Letters of two eminent Popes, Saint Leo, and Pelagius II. That the proper object of Councils is Faith, and that whatsoever is resolved herein besides what relates to Faith, may be reviewed and examined, whereas what hath once been decided in matter of faith ought not to be brought into any after examination, because, as Tertulian saith, the rule of Faith is inalterable and irretractable.  
Thence it comes to pass, that whereas General and Legitimate Councils have never been found contrary one to another in points of Faith; because as Monsieur de Tholouse says, it is not allowed that what had been already decided in matter of faith shoul be brought into after-examination, these very same Councils have been observed to differ in matters of fact, where the d fference was about the understanding of an Author, because as the same Monsieur de Tholouse says, it is not allowed that what had been already decided in matter of faith should be brought into after examination, these very same Councils have been observed to differ in matters of fact, where the difference was about understanding of an Author, because the same Monsieur de Tholouse says, after the Popes whom he citys, whatsoever is determined in Councils out of the sphere of matters of Faith may be reviewed and reexamined. Thus do the iv and V Councils seem to be contrary one to another in the interpretation of the same Authors; and the same happened between two Popes upon a Proposition of certain Monks of Scythia. For after that Pope Hormisdas had condemned it, as understanding it in an ill sense, Pope John II. his successor, examining it anew, and taking it in a good sens●, approved, and declared it to be Catholic. Will you hereupon affirm that one of these Popes was an Heretic? Or must you not rather confess, that, provided a man condemn the heretical sense which a Pope had supposed to have been in a writing, he is not an heretic because he condemns not that writing, taking it in a sense wherein it is certain the Pope hath not condemned it? since that otherwise one of those Popes must needs have fallen into Error.  
I thought it not amiss, Father, to accustom you to those contrarieties that happen among Catholics upon questions of fact about the understanding the sense of an Author, by giving you thereupon instances of one Father of the Church against another, of a Pope against a Pope, and of a Council against a Council, so to lead you by the hand to other examples of a like opposition, but more disproportionate. For in those you shall find Cou cils and Popes on the one side, and Jesuits on the other, opposing their decisions concerning the sense of an Author; and yet you are so far from charging those of your Brotherhood with heresy for so doing, that you think them not guilty of temerity for it.  
You know, Father, that the writings of Origen have been condemned by divers Councils, and several Popes, and particularly by the fifth general Council, as containing heresy, and among others that of reconciliati n of the Devils at the day of Judgement. Do you think hereupon, that it is of absolute necessi●●e for a man to be a Catholic, that he confess that Origen did really maintain those errors? and that it is not enough that a man condemn them without attributing them to him? If this be so, what will become of your Father Halloix, who hath maintained the purity of origen's faith, as well as divers other Catholics, who have undertaken the same thing, as Picus of Mirandala, and Genebrand a Doctor of Sorbonne? And is it not further certain that the same fifth general Council condemned the writings of Theodoret against Saint Cyril, as impious, contrary to true faith, and containing the Nestorian heresy? and yet Father Sirmond, a Jesuit, hath not stuck to vindicate him, and to affirm, in the life of that Father, that those very writings are free from that Nestorian heresy.  
You see then, Fathers, that when the Church condemns any writings, she supposes in them some error which she condemns; and than it is matter of faith that that error is condemned: but it is not of faith, that those writings contain, in effect, the error which the Church supposes therein. I think this hath been sufficiently proved; and so I shall conclude these examples with that of Pope Honorius, whereof the story is so well known. About the beginning of the seventh Age, the Church being in some disturbance by reason of the heresy of the Monothelites, this Pope, to determine the difference made a Decree which seemed to favour those Heretics, so that many were scandalised at it. Yet the business was smothered with little noise during the time of his Popedom: but about fifty years after the Church being assembled together in the sixth general Council, wherein Pope Agatho pre-presided by his Legate, this decree was brought in thither, and after it was read and examined, condemned, as containing the heresy of the Monothelites, and, as such, burnt in a full assembly, together with the other writings of those Heretics. And this decision was received with so much veneration and uniformity throughout all the Church, that it was afterwards confirmed by two other general Councils, nay by the Popes, Leo II. and Adrian II. who lived two hundred years after, no man offering to disturb so universal and so quiet a conformity for the space of seven or eight Ages. And yet some Authors of these late times, and among others Cardinal Bellarmine, were not in any jealousy of being thought Heretics, though they maintained against so many Popes and Councils, that the writings of Honorius were free from the error which they had declared to have been therein; because, saith he, it being possible that general Councils may err in questions of fact, we may confidently affirm that the sixth Council was mistaken in that particular fact, and that having not well understood the sense of Honorius 's Letters, they undeservedly put that Pope into the Catalogue of Heretics.  
I pray observe, Father, that a man runs not the hazard of being an Heretic, who affirms that Pope Honorius was not any, though divers Popes and several Councils had declared him such, and that after examination of the business. I come then to our question; and I give you leave to make your cause as good as you can. What will you say, Father, to make your adversaries heretics? That Pope Innocent X. hath declared that the error of the five propositions is in Jansenius? I allow you to say all that. What conclusion will you draw thence? That it is heresy not to acknowledge that the error of the five Propositions is in Jansenius? What think you of it Father? Is not this a plain question of fact, of the same nature as the precedent? The Pope hath declared that the error of the five Propositions is in Jansenius, just as his predecessors had declared that the errors of the Nestorians and Monothelites were in the writings of Theodoret and Honorius. Whereupon your Fathers have written, that they willingly condemned those heresies, but are not satisfied that those Authors did maintain them; in like manner do your adversaries say now, that they do indeed condemn those five propositions, but do not grant that Jansenius ever taught them. These cases, Father, are certainly much of the same nature. And if there be any difference between them, it is easily perceived how much it makes for the advantage of the present question by the comparison of divers particular circumstances, which being visible of themselves, I shall not insist upon. How comes it then, Father, that in the same case your Fathers are Catholics and your Adversaries heretics? And by what strange exception do you deprive them of a liberty which you allow all the rest of the faithful?  
What will you say to this Father? That the Pope hath confirmed his Constitution by a Brief? I answer you, that two general Councils and two Popes have confirmed the condemnation of Honorius' Letters. But what force do you pretend to give the words of this Brief by which the Pope declares, That he hath condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in those five Propositions? What does this add to the Constitution, and what may be inferred thence, but that as the VI Council condemned the doctrine of Honorius, because they believed it to be the same with that of the Monothelites; so the Pope says, that he hath condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in those five Propositions, as supposing it to be the same with those five Propositions. And indeed, how could he but believe it? Your Society publishes nothing else, and you yourself, Father, who have said they were there word for word, were in Rome at the time of the Censure; for I meet with you every where. Can he have disinherited the sincerity or the abilities of so many grave Religious men? And how could he but believe that the doctrine of Jansenius was the same with that of the five Propositions, when he had your security that they were word for word in that Author? It is therefore evident, Father, that if it happen Jansenius held them, we shall not need say, as your Fathers have done in their examples, that the Pope was deceived in the matter of fact, which to publish argues always the indiscretion of the publisher; but there need be no more said than that you have deceived the Pope, which implies nothing of scandal, you are now so well known to all.  
Thus, Father, is this matter far from being able to form an Heresy. But it being your desire to make it one at any rate, you have endeavoured to turn the question from matter of fact, to translate it into a point of Faith. And that you do thus. The Pope, say you, declares that he hath condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in those five Propositions: it is therefore of faith, that the doctrine of Jansenius concerning these five Propositions is Heretical, whatever it be. This, Father, is certainly a very strange point of Faith, that a doctrine is heretical whatever it may be. What, if according to Jansenius a man may resist the internal grace, and if it be false according to him that Jesus Christ died only for the predestinate, shall that also be condemned because it is his doctrine? shall it be true in the Constitution of the Pope, that a man hath the liberty to do either good or evil, and shall it be false in Jansenius? By what fatality must he be so unhappy that truth becomes Heretical in his book? Must it not then be acknowledged that he is heretical only in case he be conformable to these condemned errors, since the Pope's Constitution is the rule to which we must apply Jansenius, to judge of him according to the compliance there will be between them; and that this question, viz. whether his doctrine be heretical, will be resolved by this other question of fact, viz. whether it be conformable to the genuine sense of these propositions, it being impossible it should not be heretical if it be consonant thereto, and Catholic, if it be contrary thereto. For in fine, since that according to the Pope and the Bishops, the Propositions are condemned in their proper and genuine sense, it is impossible they should be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, unless it be in case the sense of Jansenius be the same with the proper and genuine sense of these Propositions, which is matter of fact.  
The question therefore sticks still at matter of fact, so as that it cannot by any means be brought into matter of right, and consequently it cannot be made matter of Heresy. But you might well make it a pretence of persecution, were there not some hope left, there will not any so far engage into your concernments, as to further so unjust a proceeding, & be prevailed with to give it under their hands, as you would have it, that they condemn those propositions in the sense of Jansenius without explaining what that sense of Jansenius is. There are few will be drawn in to sign a blank confession of faith. Now to sign that, were to sign such a one, which you would afterwards fill up with what you pleased, since you were at liberty to give what interpretation you thought fit to that sense of Jansenius which had not been explained. Let it therefore be explained before hand; else you will put us off with a next power, abstrahendo ab omni sensu. You know this does not do well in the world. There men hate ambiguity, especially in matters of faith, where it is but just men should understand at lest what they condemn. And how could it come to pass, that Doctors who were persuaded that Jansenius had no other sense then that of efficacious grace, should be drawn to declare that they condemned his doctrine without explaining it, since that according to the judgement they have of it, and which they still persist in, it were only to condemn efficacious grace, which cannot be done without crime? Were it not then a strange Tyranny they should be reduced to this wretched extremity, either of making themselves guilty before God by signing that condemnation contrary to their consciences, or being treated as Heretics if they refused?  
But all this is carried on with mystery; all your motions are political. I must needs discover why you would not explain this sense of Jansenius. I writ merely to betray your designs, and by such discovery to make them ineffectual. I am therefore to acquaint those that know it not, that it being your main concernment in this dispute to keep up the reputation of the sufficient grace maintained by your Molina, you cannot do it without destroying efficacious grace which is absolutely opposite thereto. But seeing it countenanced at this day in Rome, and among all the most learned of the Church, being not able to oppose it in itself, you have thought fit to assault it, so as it might not be perceived, under the name of the doctrine of Jansenius. Hence was it necessary you should endeavour the condemnation of Jansenius without being explained, and that to compass your design you should give out that his doctrine is not that of efficacious grace, that so it might be believed that one was condemned without the other. Thence it comes that you now endeavour to persuade those that are not acquainted with that Author, that it is so. Nay this you do in particular, Father, in Cavilli p. 23. by this subtle kind of discourse; The Pope hath condemned the doctrine of Jansenius; but the Pope hath not condemned the doctrine of efficacious grace; the doctrine therefore of efficacious grace is different from that of Jansenius. Were this kind of argument conclusive; it might be shown in like manner that Honorius and all those that defend him are heretics, thus. The VI Council hath condemned the doctrine of Honorius; But the Council hath not condemned the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of Honorius therefore is different from that of the Church. All therefore that defend him are heretics. It is evident that this concludes nothing; since the Pope hath only condemned the doctrine of the five Propositions which he hath been persuaded is that of Jansenius.  
But it matters not, for you will not make use of this argument long. It will serve well enough, weak as it is, till you have made the advantage you intent of it. All the end you have in it is to draw in those who would not condemn efficacious grace, to condemn Jansenius without any difficulty. When that is once done the argument will be forgotten, and the signations will remain, to the eternal remembrance of the condemnation of Jansenius, so that you will take occasion to fall directly upon efficacious grace, by this more solid way of disputation, which you will put into form when the time is come: The doctrine of Jansenius, will you say, was condemned by the universal subscriptions of the whole Church; but this doctrine is evidently the same with that of efficacious grace, and that you will easily prove; the doctrine therefore of efficacious grace hath been condemned even by the acknowledgement of the defenders thereof. This is the reason why you propose the condemnation of a doctrine to be signed without explaining it. This is the advantage you expect to make of these subscriptions. But if your adversaries refuse to sign, you spread another net for them upon that refusal. For having craftily riveted the question of faith into that of fact, not permitting they should be separated, nor that they should sign one without the other, though they cannot subscribe both together, yet will you give it out every where that they have refused both together. So that though, in effect, they only refuse to acknowledge that Jansenius hath maintained the Propositions they condemn, which can make no heresy, you will confidently affirm that they have refused to condemn the propopositions in themselves, and that therein consists their heresy. And this advantage will you make of their refusal, which is no less considerable than what you would have made of their consent. So that if they appeal to the signations they ever fall into your ambushes, whether they sign or do not sign, and you will be saviours on both sides: so cunningly have you shuffled your cards, so as to be always winners, what ever may turn up trump.  
Ah Father, how intimately am I acquainted with you, and how am I troubled to see that God hath so far forsaken you as to suffer you to be so fortunate in so unfortunate a procedure! your happiness is is to be pitied, and cannot be envied but by those who know not what true happiness is. 'tis a kind of charity to oppose that felicity which you seek after in all this proceeding, since you ground it only on falsehood, and that it is your main design to make one of these two falsities to be credited, viz. either that the Church hath condemned efficacious grace, or that those that defend it maintain the five condemned errors. Be it known therefore to all the world, both that efficacious grace is not condemned according to your own confession, and that no body maintains those errors, that it may be evident to all, that those who should refuse to sign what you would have exacted from them, refuse it not but by reason of the question of fact; and that being ready to sign that of faith, they cannot be heretics for that refusal, since that it is indeed of faith that those propositions are heretical, but that it will never be of faith that they are Jansenius'. They are without error, that's sufficient. Perhaps they interpret Jansenius over-favourably, but you haply do not interpret him favourably enough. That it shall not be my business to discuss. This I am certain of that according to your maxims you believe you may without crime proclaim him a heretic contrary to your own knowledge, whereas according to theirs, they could not, without crime, say he is a Catholic, were they not persuaded he is such. They therefore infinitely exceed you in sincerity, Father, they have examined Jansenius better than you have; they are not less intelligent than you are, they are consequently as much to be credited as you are. But come what will of this point of fact, they certainly are still Catholics; since that to be such, it is not necessary to say that another is not: and that without laying error at any man's door, it is fair if a man can but be clear of it himself.  
Jannuary 23. 1656/ 7. S. N.   

To the same Reverend Father F. ANNAT, Of the Society of JESUS, Confessor to the KING. LETTER XVIII, and last.  
REVEREND FATHER,  
IT is a long time since you have made it your business to find out some error in your Adversaries, but I am confident you will at last acknowledge, that there is not haply any thing more difficult then to make those Heretics, who not only are not such, but endeavour above all things to avoid being so. I have made it appear in my last LETTER, how many heresies you have laid to their charge one in the neck of another, because you could not meet with any one you could make good for any considerable time, insomuch that all the refuge you had was to charge them with refusing to condemn the sense of jansenius, which you would needs oblige them to condemn without any explication of what it is. It argues you extremely unfurnished with heresies to reproach them with, that you were reduced to that extremity. For, who ever heard talk of any heresy that it is impossible to express? It was therefore a matter of so much the more ease to answer, by alleging, that if jansenius be free from all errors, there's no reason he should be condemned, and that if he be guilty of any, you ought to discover them, that so men may be satisfied what is to be condemned. Yet this could you never be induced to do, but have only made it your design to give your pretences some weight from certain Decrees, whence you could not derive any advantage, there being not in them the least explication of the sense of jansenius, which they say was condemned in the five Propositions. Now this was not the way to determine your differences. Were all sides agreed about the true sense of jansenius, and were no longer in dispute save to know whether the sense be heretical or not; then the judgements who should declare that the sense were heretical, would doubtless come to what were most material in the question. But the great controversy being to know what the sense of Jansenius is, some affirming they cannot see any thing in him but the sense of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas: and others, that they find in him a sense that is heretcal, which yet they do not express, it is evident, that the Constitution which hath not a word concerning this difference, and only condemns in general the sense of Jansenius, without explaining it, does not decide any thing of what is in controversy.  
For which reason you have been told an hundred times that your difference regarding only matter of fact, you would never have it determined but by declaring what you meant by the sense of Jansenius. But this though you were ever extreme loath to condescend to, yet have I brought you to the stake in my XV. LETTER, where I make it appear it was not without mystery, that you had made it so much your business to get that sense condemned without any explication, and it was your design to make that indeterminate condemnation fall upon the doctrine of efficacacious grace; by discovering it to be no other than that of jansenius, which you would have found it no hard matter to do. This it was that put you into a necessity of answering. For if you had still stood out and refused to explicate that sense, it would have been apparent to the least apprehensive sort of people that all your quarrel was against efficacious grace, which would have turned to your utter confusion, considering the veneration which the Church hath for a doctrine so holy.  
You therefore have thought yourselves obliged to declare; and that you have but just done by answering my Letter, wherein I had represented it to you, That if jansenius had, as to the five propositions, any other sense then that of efficacious grace, he had no compurgators; but that if he had no other sense then that of efficacious grace, he was not chargeable with any errors. This you could not acknowledge, Father, but you think to save all with a distinction, thus, p. 21. It is not sufficient, say you, to justify Jansenius, to affirm that he only maintains efficacious grace; for that may be held two manner of ways. One is heretical, according to Calvin, which consists in affirming that the Will, moved by grace, hath not the power to resist it; another orthodox, according to the Thomists and the Sorbonists, which is grounded upon principles established by Councils, which is, that efficacious grace does, by its own force, so govern the will, that the latter hath nevertheless a power still left to resist the former.  
All this is easily granted you, Father, and you conclude saying, that Jansenius were a Catholic should he maintain efficacious grace according to the Thomists, but that he is an heretic because he is contrary to the Thomists, and conformable to Calvin, who denies the power of the will to resist Grace. I shall not here, Father, examine this point of fact, viz. whether jansenius be really conformable to Calvin. It is enough for me that you stand upon it, and that now at length you are pleased to let us know that by the sense of jansenius you have not understood any other then that of Calvin. And was this all, Father, that you would have said? Was it only the error of Calvin which you would have had condemned under the name of the sense of jansenius? Why did you not declare so much sooner? You might have spared yourself abundance of pains. For, without either Bulls or Briefs, all the world would have joined with you in the condemnation of that error. How necessary wasiit to decleare things up thus, and what abundance of difficulties does it disperse! We were to seek, Father, what error the Popes and Bishops would have condemned under the name of the sense of jansenius. The whole Church was extremely at a loss about it, and no body would take the pains to explicate it to us. You now do it, Father, you I say, whom all your party looks upon as the principal and first mover in all your designs, and who know the mystery of all this Intrigue. You tell us then that the sense of jansenius, is no other than that of Calvin, condemned by the Council. See, abundance of doubts resolved! We are now satisfied that the error which they made it so much their business to condemn under these terms of the sense of jansenius, is no other than the sense of Calvin, and consequently, that we continue our obedience to their Decrees, by condemning with them that sense of Calvin, which they would have condemned. We are no longer astonished to see there are Popes and some Bishops so zealous against the sense of jansenius. Alas! how should they be otherwise, Father, when they gave credit to those who affirm publicly that sense to be the same with calvin's?  
Take it then from me Father, that you have not any thing to object against your adversaries, for that no question but they detest what you so much detest. All I wonder at is, that you knew not so much, and that you have so little acquaintance with their Sentiments upon this matter, they having declared themselves so often in the r works. I am confident, were you better informed, it would trouble you, that you have not been instructed by a a spirit of peace in a doctrine so pure and so Christianlike, which your passion engages you to oppose because you do not know it. You would find, Father, that they do not only hold that a man may effectually resist those weak graces, which are called exciting or inefficacious graces, by not performing that good which they inspire us with: but also that they as resolutely maintain, against Calvin, the power which the will hath to resist grace even when efficacious and victorious, as, against Molina, the power of that grace over the will; being equally jealous of the truth of both these Tenants. They are but too well satisfied, that man, of his own nature, hath ever the power of sinning and resisting grace, and that ever since his corruption he carries about him an unhappy leaven of concupiscence which infinitely strengthens that power: but that nevertheless when it pleases God to touch him out of his mercy, he makes him do what he pleases, and act as he would have him, yet so as that the infallibility of God's operation does not any way destroy the natural liberty of man, by reason of the secret and admirable ways whereby God works this change, which S. Augustine hath so excellently well explicated with such clearness, as disperses all the imaginary contradictions, which the adversaries of efficacious grace think there are between the sovereign power of grace over the , and the power which the freewill hath to resist grace. For according to this great Saint, whom Popes and the Church have assigned as a rule in this matter, God changes the heart of man by a celestial sweetness which he inspires it with, and which, transcending the delights of the Flesh, makes a man sensible on the one side, of his nothingness and mortality, and discovering, on the other, the greatness and eternity of God, conceive an aversion for the delights of sin separating him from the incorruptible good; and finding his greatest enjoyment in God charming him, he is infallibly inclined towards him, of himself, by a motion absolutely free, absolutely voluntary, absolutely loving, so that it were a pain and punishment to him to be divided from him. Not but that it is possible for him still to estrange himself, and that he effectively may do it if he will; but how should he since his will must ever be inclined to that, which pleases it most; and that it is not taken with any thing so much at that time as that only good which comprehends in itself what ever else is good? Quod enim ampliùs nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est, as S. Augustine saith.  
And thus doth God dispose of the freewill of man, without imposing any necessity upon him; and the freewill, which may at any time resist Grace, but will not at all times do it, is inclined, as freely, as infallibly, to God, when he would draw it to him by the sweetness of his efficacious inspirations.  
These, Father, are the divine principles of S. Augustine and S. Thomas, according to which it is true that we may resist grace, contrary to the opinion of Calvin; and that, nevertheless, as Pope Clement VIII. says, in his writing directed to the congregation de Auxiliis; God forms in us the motion of our will, and disposes efficaciously of our hearts, by the supreme power which his Majesty hath over the wills of men, as well as over the rest of the Creatures that are under heaven, according to S. Augustine.  
It is further according to these principles that we act of ourselves, whence it comes that we have merits, which are truly ours, contrary to the error of Calvin, and that nevertheless, God being the first principle of our actions, and doing in us what is good and acceptable in his sight, as S Paul says, our merits are the gifts of God, as the Council of Trent saith.  
This is that which hath destroyed that impiety of Luther condemned by the same Council, that we do not any way cooperate to our own salvation no more than things inanimate: and it is this that in like manner destroys the impiety of Molina's School, which will not acknowledge it to be the force of grace itself that makes us cooperate with it in the work of our salvation; whereby he takes away that principle of faith established by S. Paul, That it is God that worketh in us both the will and the deed.  
It is lastly by this means, that all those passages of Scripture which seem to be most contrary are reconciled. Turn ye unto God: O Lord turn us unto thee: Cast away iniquity from you. It is God who taketh away iniquity from his people: bring forth works worthy of repentance: The Lord hath wrought all our works in us. Make ye a new heart and a new spirit; I will give you a new spirit, and will create in you a new heart.  
The only way then to reconcile those apparent contradictions which attribute our good actions sometimes to God sometimes to ourselves, is to acknowledge, that, as S. Augustine saith, our actions are ours, because of the free will whereby they are produced; and that they are also Gods because of his grace which causes our freewill to produce them. As also that, as he says elsewhere, God makes us to do what he pleases, by making us to will that which we might not have willed: à Deo factum est ut vellent, quod & nolle potuissent.  
Thus, Father, is there a perfect harmony between your adversaries and the new Thomists, since the Thomists hold, as they do, both the power to resist grace, and the infallibility of the effect of grace, which they make profession to maintain so resolutely, according to this capital maxim of their doctrine, which Alvarez, one of the most eminent among them, repeats so often in his book, and which he expresses disp. 72. n. 4. in these terms. When the efficacious grace moves the freewill, it infallibly consents, for the effect of grace is, to prevail with it, that though it might not have consented, yet, in effect, it does consent. Whereof he gives this reason of his Master S. Thomas; That the will of God cannot but be accomplished, and consequently when he would have a man consent to grace, he infallibly, nay necessarily does consent, yet not through an absolute necessity but a necessity of infallibility. Wherein yet grace derogates nothing from the power of resisting if a man will, since its only effect is that a man will not resist it, as your Father Petavius acknowledges in these terms, to. 1. p. 602. The grace of Jesus Christ makes us infallibly to persevere in piety, though not through necessity. For a man may not consent thereto if he will, as the Council saith; but the same grace obliges him that he will not but consent thereto. This, Father, hath been the constant doctrine of S. Augustine, S. Prosper, the Fathers that followed them, of Councils, of S. Thomas, of all the Thomists in general. It is also that of your Adversaries, though you have not thought so much; and in a word, it is the very same that you yourselves approve in these terms; The doctrine of efficacious grace, which acknowledges that a man hath the power to resist it, is orthodox, grounded upon Councils, and maintained by the Thomists and Sorbonists. Be ingenuous once, Father, had you known that your adversaries really held this doctrine, would not the interest of your Society have hindered you from giving it this public approbation? And imagining they held the contrary thereto, hath not the same interest of your Society obliged you to authorize sentiments such as you thought contrary to theirs? and by that misapprehension, where it was your design to undermine their principles, you have yourselves absolutely established them. So that we now find, by a strange kind of prodigy the defenders of efficacious grace justified by the defenders of Molina: so admirable is the conduct of God, who makes all things contribute to the glory of his Truth.  
Be it then known to all the world, that by your own acknowledgement, this truth of efficacious grace, requisite in all actions of piety, a truth the Church is so tender of, and which is the price of the blood of her Saviour, is so apparently Catholic, that there is not any Catholic, even to the Jesuits themselves, that does not acknowledge it to be orthodox. And it will be discovered at the same time, that they are not to be charged with the least suspicion of error, whom you have so prodigally accused. For as to those secret errors you laid to their charge, without making any discovery thereof, it was as difficult for them to clear themselves of, as it was easy for you to load them with accusations of that nature; but now that you declare, that that error, which hath obliged you to oppose them, is that of Calvin, which you thought they had maintained, there is not any one but clearly sees they are free from all error: since they are so far contrary to that only one you impose upon them, and that they protest by their discourses, by their books, and by what ever they can produce to express their sentiments, that they condemn that heresy with all their souls, and that in the same manner as the Thomists do, whom you make no difficulty to acknowledge to be Catholic, and who were never yet suspected to be otherwise.  
What will you now have to object against them, Father? that notwithstanding they do not follow Calvin's sense, they are neurthelesse heretics, because they will not acknowledge that the sense of Jansenius is the same with that of Calvin? Will you presume to say that this is matter of heresy? And is it not a pure question of fact whence there cannot any be derived? It were indeed a heresy for a man to say that he hath not the power to resist efficacious grace: but is it any to doubt whether Jansenius holds it? Is it a revealed Truth? Is it an article of faith, that aught to be believed upon pain of Damnation? Or is it not, in spite of your teeth, pure matter of fact? for which it were ridiculous to pretend there should be any heretics in the Church.  
Do not call them therefore any longer by that name, Father, but by some other that's proportionable to the nature of your difference. Say they are ignorant persons and dunces, and that they mistake Jansenius very much: these will be reproaches suitable to your difference; but to call them heretics, there is no colour in the world. And since it is the only injury from which I would vindicate them, it will cost me no great pains to show that they understand Jansenius very well. And for his part, all I shall say of him, is, that in my judgement, Father, measuring him even according to your own rules, it will be hard if he pass not for a Catholic: for these are the grounds you would have him examined by.  
To discover, say you, whether Jansenius be free from error, we must know whether he defends efficacious grace after calvin's way, who denies that a man hath the power to resist it; for in that case he were a heretic: or after the way of the Thomists, who admit that he hath; for in that case he were a Catholic. See then, Father, whether he holds that a man hath the power to resist or not, when he maintains in whole Treatises, and among others, to. lib. 8. cap. 20. That a man hath always the power to resist grace, according so the Councils, THAT THE  MAY AT ANY TIME ACT AND NOT ACT, will and not will, consent and not consent, do good and evil, and that a man hath ever in this life those two Liberties, which they call of contrariety and contradiction. See also whether he be not clear from calvin's error, such as you represent it, as showing throughout the whole 21. chap. That the Church had condemned that Heretic, for denying that efficacious grace works not upon the freewill in the manner it hath been believed so long in the Church, that is, so that it may be afterwards in the power of the freewill to consent or not to consent; whereas, according to Saint Augustine and the Council, a man hath always the power not to consent if he will, and according to Saint Prosper, God so bestows on his elect the will to persevere, that he takes not away from them the power of willing the contrary. And lastly, see whether he be not consonant to the Thomists, when he declares, cap. 4. That whatever the Thomists have written to reconcile the efficacity of grace with the power of resisting it, is so conformable to his sense, that there needs no more than to look into their books to learn his sentiments thereof. Quod ipsi dixerunt dictum puta.  
Thus doth he speak to all these heads; and I think this ground enough for me to imagine that he believes the power of his will to resist grace; that he is contrary to Calvin, and conformable to the Thomists, because he says it, and consequently that he is Catholic according to you. But if you know any way to discover the sense of an Author otherwise then by his expressions, and that without citing any one passage of his, you will nevertheless maintain, contrary to his words, that he denies this power of resistance, and that he is for Calvin contrary to the Thomists; never fear, Father, I shall charge you with heresy for so doing, I shall only say, that you understand not Jansenius very well, but we shall nevertheless be the children of the same Church.  
Whence comes it then, Father, that you betray so much passion in your proceed about this difference, and that you treat as your most cruel enemies, and as most dangerous heretics, such as you cannot charge with any error, or any thing else but that they understand not Jansenius as you do? For what difference is there between you but about the sense of the Author? You would have them condemn him, but they ask you what you mean by it. You say you mean calvin's error, their answer is that they condemn it; so that if your quarrel be not with the syllables, but with the thing they signify, you ought to be satisfied. If they refuse to say that they condemn the sense of Jansenius, 'tis because they believe it to be that of Saint Thomas. And so that word is very equivocal between you; in your mouth it signifies calvin's sense, in theirs, Saint Thomas': so that these different Ideas you have of the same term being the occasion of all your divisions, were I moderator of your disputes, I should forbid both sides to use the word Jansenius. And so expressing only what you mean thereby, it would be found that you desire only the condemnation of the sense of Calvin, whereto they consent; and that all they desire is to vindicate the sense of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas, wherein you all agree.  
I tell you then, Father, that for my part I shall still look on them as Catholics, whether they condemn Jansenius in case they find any errors in him; or condemn him not, when they find nothing in him but what you declare to be Catholic; and shall speak to them as Saint Hierome did to John Bishop of jerusalem, who was charged with maintaining eight propositions of Origen; Either condemn Origen, saith that Saint, if you acknowledge that he hath held those errors, or deny that ever he held them: Aut nega hoc dixisse eum qui arguitur, aut si locutus est talia, eum damna qui dixerit.  
You see, Father, the proceed of those who only oppose men's errors and not their persons; whereas you who have a greater quarrel at persons then their errors, think it nothing to condemn errors, if you do not withal condemn the persons on whom you would fasten them.  
How violent is your proceeding, Father, but withal how unlikely to prove fortunate! I told you so once before, and I tell it you again, Violence and truth can prevail nothing one upon another. Your accusations were never so outrageous; nor was the innocency of your Adversaries ever more manifest: never was efficacious grace assaulted with more artifice, and never have we seen it better fortified. You do all that lies in your power to make the world believe that your differences concern matters of faith, and it was never better known that all your dispute is only about matter of fact. To be short, you leave not a stone unmoved to make men believe that this matter of fact is true, and people were never in so good an humour to question it. And the reason of it is clear. 'Tis, Father, because you go not the ordinary way to make a matter of fact credible, which is to satisfy the sense, and to show in a book the words alleged to be therein. But you take courses that are at such a distance from this simplicity, that even the duller sort of people are sensible of it. Why did you not go the same way I did in my LETTERS, where I discover so many corrupt Maxims of your Authors, which is, faithfully to cite the places whence they are taken. The same course was taken by the Pastors of Paris, and it never fails winning the people into belief. For what would you have said, and the world thought, when they reproached you, for instance, with this proposition of your Father Amicus, That a Religious man may kill him that threatens to traduce him or his Community, when he cannot otherwise prevent it; if they had not cited the place where it is in express terms; if, how much soever you might press them to it, they should still refuse to cite it, and, instead of that, had been at Rome to procure a Bull, commanding all to acknowledge it? Would it not be thought, that, without all question, they had surprised the Pope, and that they had not taken that extraordinary course, but for want of those natural ways, which truths depending on matters of fact do ever furnish those with that maintain them? So that having only alleged that Father Amicus teaches this doctrine in to. 5. disp. 36. num. 118. pag. 544. of the Dovay Edition, all those who were desirous to see whether it were so, have found it, and all are satisfied. This now is an easy and ready way to resolve questions of fact.  
Whence comes it then, Father, that you do not make use of it? you said in your Cavilli, That the five Propositions are in Jansenius, word for word, all in express terms, totidem verbis. You were told they were not What then was to be done, but either to cite the page, if you had really found them there, or to confess you were mistaken? But you do neither, and waving that, and finding that all the passages of Jansenius alleged by you sometimes, only to daze the world, are not the individual, and singular condemned Propositions which you were engag d to show in his book, you present us with Constitutions which declare that they are taken out of them without citing the place.  
I am not ignorant, Father, of the respect that Christians own the holy See, and your Adversaries have given sufficient testimony that they are resolved ever to own it: but do not you imagine it shall argue the least defect thereof to represent to the Pope, with all submission, as Children ought to their Father, and Members to their Head, that it is not impossible he might be surprised in that matter of fact; That he hath not caused it to be examined since his coming to the Chair; and that his Predecessor Innocent X. had only caused it to be examined whether the propositions were heretical, not whether they were Iansenius': (which gave the Commissary of the H. Office, one of the chiefest Examiner's, occasion to say, That they could not be censured in the sense of any Author: Non sunt qualificabiles in sensu proferentis; because they had been presented to them to be examined in themselves, and without any consideration who the Author of it might be: in abstracto & ut praescindunt ab omni proferente; (as it may be seen in their suffrages newly printed.) That above ●0. Doctors, and a very great number of other able and godly persons have read over the book very exactly, yet found them not there, but met with some that were contrary thereto: That those who had made those false representations to the Pope might very well be thought to abuse the trust he reposed in them, it being their main concernment, as interessed persons, to discredit that Author, who had discovered in Molina above 50. errors: That what makes all this the more credible, is that they hold this Maxim one of the most authentic of all their Theology, viz. that they may, without crime, calumniate those by whom they think they are unjustly molested; and consequently, their testimony being suspicious, and that of the others so considerable, there is some ground to entreat his Holiness, with all possible humility, to order this matter of fact to be examined in the presence of Doctors of both sides, so to determine it by a solemn and regular decision. Let able and competent judges be assembled, saith Saint Basil, upon such another occasion, Ep. 75. before whom let every one be free; Let my writings be examined: Let them see whether there be any errors contrary to faith: Let both the Objections and the Answers be read, that the judgement may be formal and according to the merits of the cause, and not a defamation without any examen.  
Think not, Father, to make those be accounted refractory toward the holy See that shall take this course. The Popes are far from treating Christians with that Tyranny which some would exercise under their names. The Church, saith S. Gregory the Pope, upon Job. lib. 8. c. 1. which hath been brought up in the School of Humility, does not command with authority, but persuades by reason what she would teach her children whom she thinks ensnared into some error: Recta quae erantibus dicit, non quasi ex authoritate praecipit, sed ex ratione persuadet. And they are so far from thinking it any way dishonourable to retract a judgement wherein they had been surprised, that they as it were triumph in the contrary, as S. Bernard witnesseth, Ep. 180. The Apostolic See, saith he, hath this for which it is much to be celebrated, that i● stands not upon punctilios of honour, but is easily prevailed with to revoke what had been procured from it by surprise; it is indeed but just that no body should thrive by injustice, and that especially before the holy See. See here, Father, the true sentiments ought to be suggested to Popes; since that all Divines do unanimously hold they may be surprised; the transcendent quality they are of being, as to that, so far from securing them, that, on the contrary, it many times makes them the more subject thereto, by reason of the infinite business whereby they are distracted. And this is acknowledged by the same S. Gregory, to some persons who wondered at another Pope that was overreached. Why do you wonder, says he l. 1. Dial. That we are deceiv d being but men? Have you not observed that David, that King who had the spirit of prophecy, having credited the false suggestions of Z●ba gave an unjust judgement against the son of Jonathan? who therefore will think i● strange that impostors should surprise us sometimes, us, I say, who are not prophets? We are o'erwhelmed with affairs▪ and our spirits being diverted by so many things are the less attentive to any thing in particular, and so may be the more easily mistaken in some one thing. I am persuaded, Father, that the Popes know better than you whether they may be surprised or no. They acknowledge themselves that Popes and the greatest Kings are more subject to be overreached than persons whose affairs are of less consequence. We must take their words. And it is no hard matter to imagine by what means it comes to pass that they are so surprised: S. Bernard makes a description of it, in a Letter he writ to Innocent II. in this manner. It is not a thing strange and to be wondered at, that the spirit of man may deceive and be deceived. There are some Religious men come to you, with a spirit of lying and illusion. They have spoken to you against a Bishop whom they hate, though he be a man of an exemplary life. These persons by't like Dogs, and would turn good into evil. In the mean time, holy Father, you are exasperated against your Son. Why have you given his adversaries occasion to rejoice? Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. I hope, that, when you have understood the truth, whatever hath been built upon a false report will vanish into air. I earnestly beseech the spirit of truth to give you grace to separate light from darkness, and to reprove the evil, that you may encourage the good. You see then, Father, that the eminent degree wherein Popes are, exempts them not from surprise, and that he endeavours to make their surprises seem the more dangerous and of greater consequence. That is represented by S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius, de consid. lib. 2. c. ult. There is yet another general default, which I have not met with any of the great ones of the world that doth avoid. That is, holy Father, over-easinesse of belief, the dame of so many disorders. For thence do violent persecutions proceed against the innocent, the prejudiced are unjust against the absent, and those that are inclined to choler, grow terrible for things of no consideration, pro nihilo. This, holy Father, is an universal evil, from which if you are free, I shall affirm that you only have that advantage over your brethren.  
This methinks, Father, must needs in some measure convince you that Popes are subject to be surprised. But that you may take a full and perfect view of it, I shall only put you in mind of the examples, which you allege in your book, of Popes and Emperors that have really been surprised by Heretics. For you say, that Apollinaris surprised Pope Damasus, as Celestius had done Zozimus. You say further that one named Athanasius circumvented the Emperor Heraclius, and drew him in to persecute the Catholics. And lastly, that Sergius obtained from Honorius that Decree, which was afterwards burnt in the sixth Council, by his colloguing and insinuations with that Pope, as you say.  
It is therefore evident from yourself, Father, that those who make such advantage of their interest with Kings and Popes, do sometimes craftily engage them to persecute those who defend the true faith, while they think they persecute heresies. And thence it comes that the Popes who have nothing in so much horror as these surprises, have of a Letter of Alexander III made an ecclesiastical Law, inserted into the Canonical, to permit the suspension of the execution of their Bulls and Decrees, when it is thought they have been misinformed. If it happen sometimes, says the Pope to the Archbishop of Ravenna, that we send to your Fraternity such Decrees as you are not satisfied with, trouble not yourself at it. For you may either with reverence put them in execution, or give us an account why you think they ought not, and we shall take it well at your hands that you execute not any decree which might have been procured from us, either by surprise or artifice. Thus do those Popes proceed who endeavour nothing so much, as to clear up the differences among Christians, and not to comply with their passions who endeavour their distraction. They use no domination, as S. Peter and S. Paul say after Jesus Christ, but the spirit which guides all their proceed is that of peace and truth. Whence it comes that ordinarily they put into their Letters this clause, which indeed is understood in all; Si Ita est: si preces veritate nitantur: if the thing be as we have been informed; if the matter of fact be true. Whence it is evident, that since the Popes give not force to their Bulls but so far as they are grounded upon truth in matter of fact, the Bulls alone do not prove the matter of fact to be true; but on the contrary, even according to the Canonists themselves, 'tis the truth in matter of fact that authenticates the Bulls. Whence then are we to learn the truth in matter of fact? From the eyes, Father, the legal judges thereof, as reason is of things natural and intelligible, and faith of things supernatural and revealed. For since you oblige me to this discourse, Father, I must tell you, that according to the opinions of two of the greatest Doctors of the Church, S. Augustine and S. Thomas, these three principles of our knowledge, have every one their several objects, and with in that extent their certainty. And whereas God thought fit to use the mediation of the senses to give Faith entrance; Faith cometh by hearing: yet so far is faith from derogating from the certainty of the senses, that, on the contrary, 'twere to destroy Faith, to bring the faithful report of the senses into question. For which reason S. Thomas expressly observes, that God would needs have the sensible accidents to subsist in the Eucharist, to the end the senses, which judge only of accidents, should not be deceived:  sensus à deceptione reddantur immunes.  
Conclude we hence then, that what proposition soever be presented to our examination, we must in the first place discover the nature of it, to see which of the three principles it is referrible to. If it relates to something supernatural, we are not to judge of it either by sense or reason, but by the Scripture and the decisions of the Church. If it concern a proposition not revealed, and proportionable to natural Reason, she shall be the proper judge thereof. And lastly, if the dispute be about matter of fact, we must submit to our senses, to whom it naturally belongs to take cognizance thereof.  
This rule is so general, that according to S. Augustine and S. Thomas, when the Scripture itself presents us with some passage whereof the literal sense is contrary to what the senses and Reason judge of it with certainty, we must not endeavour to weaken the testimony of these to submit them to that apparent sense of the Scripture; but we must interpret the Scripture, and find out some other sense thereof reconcileable even with that sensible truth: because the word of God being infallible even in matters of fact, and the report of the senses and of reason acting within their limits, being also certain, these two truths must of necessity be reconciled; and as the Scripture may be interpreted several ways, and the report of the senses can be but one, so must we in such cases take that for the true interpretation of Scripture which is most consonant to the faithful report of the senses. We are, saith S. Thomas 1. p. q. 68 a. 1. to observe two things according to Saint Augustine; one, that the Scripture hath ever some true sense; the other, that whereas it may admit of divers, senses, when a man meets with one that reason finds guilty of falsehood, he must not be so obstinate as to affirm that to be the natural sense thereof, but find out another not disconsonant to reason.  
This he explains by a passage out of Genesis, where it is written that God created two great Lights, the Sun and the Moon, and the Stars also; So that the Scripture seems to say that the Moon is greater than all the Stars. But in regard that it is evident by unquestionable demonstration that this is false, we ought not, says this Saint, obstinately to maintain the literal sense, but find out another conformable to that truth in matter of fact, as to say, that the word Great light signifies only the greatness of the light of the Moon in respect of us, and not the greatness of her body considered in itself.  
Should we do otherwise, we should derogate from the veneration due to the Scripture, nay, on the contrary, it were to expose it to the contempt of Infidels; because, as the same Saint Augustine saith, when they should discover that we believe, out of the Scripture, such things as they know to be perfectly false, they would laugh at our credulity in other things that are more mysterious, as the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life. And consequently, saith Saint Thomas, we should render our Religion contemptible to them, and divert them from embracing it.  
And certainly, Father, 'tis also a way to hinder Heretics from embracing, it and to make the Pope's Authority contemptible, to refuse to account those Catholics who would not believe that such words are in a book where they are not to be found, because a Pope had declared it by surprise. For it is only the examination of a book that can discover that such words are in it. Matters of fact are only proved by the senses. If what you maintain be true, show it: if not, persuade none to believe it; it were to no purpose. All the powers in the world cannot, by authority, persuade men that a matter of fact is so, no more than they can change it; for there is nothing can make that which is, not to be.  
'Twas to no purpose, for instance, that the Religious men of Ratisbonne obtained of Pope Saint Leo the IX. a solemn Decree whereby he declared that the body of Saint Denys the first Bishop of Paris, who according to the common opinion was the Areopagite, had been translated out of France and brought into the Church of their Monastery. This hinders not but that the body of this Saint ever was and still is in the famous Abbey that bears his name, where you would have found it a hard matter to get this Bull received, though it pretends that he had examined the business with all possible diligence, diligentissime; and that with the advice of divers Bishops and Prelates; so that he strictly charges all the French, districtè praecipientes, to confess and acknowledge that they have not those holy Relics any longer. And yet the French who by their own eyes knew the matter of fact to be false, and who, having opened the shrine, found all those relics entire, as the Historians of that time testify, believed then, as it hath ever been believed since, the contrary to what that Pope had enjoined them to believe, as knowing that even Saints and Prophets are subject to be surprised.  
Nor was it to any more purpose that you obtained against Galileo that decree of Rome that condemned his opinion concerning the motion of the Earth. There must be something else to prove that it stands still; and were it once evident by constant observations that it is the earth that moves, all men put together would not hinder it from moving, nay would be forced to move with it. In like manner, you are not to imagine, that the Letters of Pope Zachary for the excommunication of Saint Virgilius, for affirming that there were Antipodes, have dissolved that new world; nay though the Pope had declared that opinion to be a very dangerous error, yet the King of Spain gave more credit to Christopher Columbus who came thence, then to the judgement of the Pope who never had been there; and consequently you are to acknowledge that the Church reaped no small benefit thereby, since it proved a means to communicate the Gospel to so many people, who otherwise had perished in their infidelity.  
You see then, Father, of what nature matters of fact are, and by what principles they are to be judged of; whence it is easy to conclude, as to the business we have in hand, that, if the five Propositions are not in Jansenius, it is impossible they should have been extracted thence, and that the only way to judge aright of them, and to persuade the world of the truth thereof, is to examine that book in a regulated conference; a thing you have been a long time pressed to. Till then, there is no ground in the world you should charge your adversaries with Obstinacy; for they shall be as free from blame, as to what concerns the matter of fact, and innocent as to both.  
Who then, Father, can avoid astonishment, to see on the one side, so clear a vindication, and on the other such violent accusations? Who would think that all the difference between you were about a matter of fact of no consequence, which yet you would have believed without the least demonstration? And who durst imagine you should raise such a disturbance in the Church for nothing, pro nihilo, Father, as Saint Bernard says? But it is a main piece of your policy to make men believe that all lies at stake in a business that amounts to nothing, and to persuade those who are in power that give you any credit, that the matter in dispute is about the most pernicious errors of Calvin, and relating to principles wherein faith is most concerned; so to engage them by that persuasion to employ their utmost zeal and authority against those you think your adversaries, as if the welfare of Christian Religion depended thereon; whereas if they were but once convinced, that all the difference is about that inconsiderable matter of fact, it would never trouble their thoughts; nay on the contrary, it would be no small regret to them, that they had been so far overforward to comply with your particular passions, in a business wherein the Church hath not the least concernment.  
For in fine, to take things at the worst, were it true, that Jansenius had maintained those Propositions, what inconvenience would ensue that some persons were not satisfied he did, it being granted that they detest them, as they publicly do? Is it not sufficient that they are condemned by all the world without any exception, even in that sense wherein you have declared that you would have them condemned? Can they be more censured, though it should be affirmed that Jansenius had held them? To what end then is this acknowledgement so much pressed, unless it be to discredit a Doctor and Bishop, who died in the Communion of the Church? I cannot conceive this so great an advantage, as that it should be purchased with so much disturbance. What concernment hath the State, the Pope, the Bishops, the Doctors, and the whole Church in this business? It hath not the least reflection on them, Father, and indeed there's none but your Society that would derive some satisfaction from the infamy of an Author that had a little offended you. And yet all is in tumult, because you would have it believed that all is in danger. This is the secret engine that occasions all those great motions, which would soon cease, were your differences but one's rightly stated. And therefore, since it would contribute very much to the quiet of the Church, that things were once well cleared up, is was a matter of great consequence to insist upon it, to the end that your sycophancy being discovered, all the world may be convinced, that your accusations are without any ground, your adversaries without error, and the Church without Heresy.  
And this, Father, is the end I aimed at, which I thought so considerable in regard of Religion, that I cannot easily apprehend, how those whom you have given so much occasion to speak, can still be silent. Though they were not moved at the injuries you do them in particular, yet those the Church endures should methinks engage them to some resentment thereof; besides the question I make whether ecclesiastics may expose their reputation to calumny, especially in matters of faith. And yet they give you leave to say what you please; insomuch that were it not for the occasion you have accidentally given me to say something, it may be there had been no opposition made to those scandalous suggestions you so liberally scatter up and down. So that I am astonished at their patience, and that so much the more by reason I am confident it cannot proceed either from weakness or want of courage, as knowing they cannot be unfurnished either with reasons for their own vindication, or zeal for the truth. And yet I find them so religiously silent, that I fear me they are guilty of some excess as to that point. For my part, Father, I thought it matter of duty to do what I have. Disturb not the peace of the Church, and I shall be tender of yours. But while you make it your business to put all things into tumult and distraction, the children of peace must needs be obliged to do all that lies in their power to have the peace kept therein.  
March 24. 1657. S. N.    

The French Author having not, by reason of the violent prosecutions of the JESUITS, the liberty to print his Letters as he pleased, was forced to send the XVII. to OSNABRUK, an obscure place in Germany, where things are commonly ill Printed. Being done there in a very small character, it occasioned the ensuing Postscript.  
Reverend Father,  
IF you are troubled to read this Letter, as being not in an handsome full character, you have none to quarrel at but yourself. I cannot get privileges as you can. You have such whereby you oppose even MIRACLES, I have not whereby to vindicate myself. The printing houses are perpetually haunted. Would you not advise me yourself to forbear writing any more to you, amidst these extremities? For it is too great a distraction to be reduced to the impression of OSNABRUK.  
In the Postscript to the XVII. Letter is this expression, you have privileges to oppose MIRACLES, meaning the Jesuits. The Author alludes to a Miracle wrought the last year at Port-Royal, upon a young Gentlewoman. It was attested to be such by divers Physicians and others; and yet the Jesuits would never acknowledge it to be any, but writ against it with all the bitterness that could be, the more to discredit it, because done at that place.   

ERRATA.  
PAg 42. l. 23. r. met. p. 48. l. 13. r. grounded, p. 52. l. 6. r. as. p. 62. l. 15. r. away with these. p. 79. l. 25. r. dis-circumspection. p. 82. l. 4. r. Directors. p. 84. l. 7. r. by. p. 86. l. 4. r. were as. p. 105. l. 16. r. whether. ib. l. 17. r. superfluity. p 112. l. 14. r. probable. ib. l. 25. r. persons. p. 113. l. 1. r. to. p. 114. l. 5. r. dispose. p. 125. l. 22. r. when there. p. 140. l. 4. r. et. p. 142. l. 5. r. Tannerus. p. 162. l. 19 r. that. p. 166. l. 13. r. title. p. 167. l. 16. r. was. p. 168. l. 24. r. rather then. p. 173. l. 3. r. even. p. 188. r. over. p. 191. l. 8. r. resolutions. p. 200. l ult. r. being. p. 212. l. 17. r. change. p. 228. l. 11. r. truly. p. 237. l. 17. r. is not. p. 256. l. 22. r. passages. p. 285. l. 4. r. we, p. 302. l. 24. r. may. p. 304. l. 28. r. this. p. 305. l. 4. deal and. p. 306. l. 19 r. probable. p. 308. l. 13. r. one. p. 318. l. 10. r. for. p. 324. l. 11. r. must. p. 364. l. 6. r. probable. p. 379. l. 6. r. these. p. 381. l. 19 r. it not. p. 390. l. 22. r. hasty. p. 398. l. 27. r. is. p. 402. l. 7. r. it is. p. 418. l. 14. r. fleshly. p. 422. l. 27. r. impostures. p. 423. l. 24. r. so as. p. 433. l. 9 r. parishes. p. 439. l. 20. r. is it not. p 440. l. 16. r. at. p. 449. l. 7. r. efficacious grace. p. 473. l. 21. r. dis-acknowledge. p. 475. l. 1. r. to clear. p. 469. r. 1657. p. 489. l. 9 r. at mens.  
THE END.   

A CATALOGUE of some books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, London.  

I.  Books written by H. Hammond, D. D. 

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Test. by H. Hammond, D. D. in fol.  
2. The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond, D. D. in two volumes in 4.  
3. Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatûs Jura ex S. Scriptures & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelii & aliorum, Authore Henrico Hammond, D D. in 4.  
4. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries, in 12.  
5. Of Schism. A Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists, in 12.  
6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice, by H. Hammond, D. D. in 12.  
7. Paraenesis or seasonable exhortatory to all true sons of the Church of England, in 12.  
8. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications Published of late, most of them in defence of the Church of England, by H. Hammond, D. D. Now put together in three Volumes. Newly published in 4.  
9 A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament, with some Additions and alterations, by H. Hammond, D. D. in 8.    

II.  Books and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor, D. D. viz, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the Year; together with a Discourse of the Divine institution, Necessity, Sacredness and Separation of the Office Ministeal, in fol.  
2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, second Edition, in fol.  
3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12.  
4. The rule and Exercises of holy dying, in 12.  
5. The Golden Grove, or, A Manual of daily Prayers fitted to the days of the week, together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness, in 12.  
6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from Popular Errors, in a large 8. Newly published.  
7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral Discourses. in fol. Newly published.  
8. A Discourse of the Nature, Offices and Measure of Friendship, in 12.