The Provincial letters : moral teachings of the Jesuit Fathers opposed to the Church of Rome and Latin Vulgate /by Blaise Pascal

THE

PROVINCIAL LETTERS

MORAL TEACHINGS OF THE JESUIT FATHERS

OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH OF ROME

AND LATIN VULGATE.

BY

Slaise pascal

1 1 speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say." — 1 COR. x. 15.

Translated from the original French into various languages.

faris.

Vienna. JTonoott.

Cologne. <£0mlwrg{r.

TORONTO :
WILLIAM BRIGGS,

WESLEY BUILDINGS.

C. W, COATES, MONTREAL, QUE. S. F. HUESTIS, Hv

1892,

preface.

¥ ^ VENTS recently transpired in this Dominion are ample
^ reasons for issuing the first Canadian edition of this cele
brated work. The author* — whose family ranked with the nobility
of France, liberally educated, acquainted with the Jesuit Fathers
resident in Paris, familiar with the approved publications of their
society — was a writer and mathematician of consummate ability,
and still more valuably distinguished by his unblemished morality,
devout piety, strict and life-long attention to his religious duties,
and died with solemn rite in the communion of the Church of
Rome. He pours into this volume an erudition, research and
rationale, that won for it a continental and enduring popularity,
created a spirit of investigation in the circles of the court and
doctors of the Sorbonne, which resulted in the expulsion of the
entire Jesuit body from France, Canada, and dependencies. The
European nations in succession followed the example of France
and Italy in their suppression and banishment. The present race
of Jesuits in this Dominion being the legalized and professed repre
sentatives of the proscribed society, in property, teaching and
practise ; this antidotal and admirable volume is respectfully dedi
cated to the cultivated intellect and ever-brightening intelligence of
our national community.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

LIFE OP THE AUTHOR - - 9

LETTER FIRST.

Discussions in Sorbonne. Invention of Proximate Power; how

used by the Jesuits to secure the censure of M. Arnauld - 41

LETTER SECOND.

Sufficient Grace - - 53

ANSWER OF THE PROVINCIAL to his friend's first two Letters - - 66

LETTER THIRD.

Injustice, Absurdity, and Nullity of the Censure of M. Arnauld - 68

LETTER FOURTH.

Of Actual Grace always present, and of Sins of Ignorance • - 79

LETTER FIFTH.

Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new Morality. Two sets of
Casuists among them. Many of them Lax, some Strict.
Ground of this Diversity. Doctrine of Probability explained.
Herd of Modern and Unknown Authors substituted for the
Holy Fathers - - 96

LETTER SIXTH.

Artifices of the Jesuits to evade the authority of Scripture, Councils,
and Popes. Consequences of the Doctrine of Probability.
Their corruptions in favour of Beneficiaries, Priests, Monks,
and Domestics. History of John of Alba - 114

VI CONTENTS.

LETTER SEVENTH.

The Method of directing the Intention according to the Casuists.
Of their permission to Kill in defence of Honour and Pro
perty. This extended to Priests and Monks. Curious ques
tion proposed by Caramuel : May the Jesuits lawfully kill
the Jansenists ? - - - - 132

LETTER EIGHTH.

Corrupt Maxims of the Casuists concerning Judges, Usurers, the
Contract Mohatra, Bankrupts, Restitution, etc. Various
extravagances of the Casuists - - 152

LETTER NINTH.

Of Spurious Devotion to the Blessed Virgin introduced by the
Jesuits. Different expedients which they have deviled to
Save themselves without pain, and while enjoying the Plea
sures and Comforts of Life. Their Maxims on Ambition,
Envy, Gluttony, Equivocation, Mental Reservation, Freedom
allowable in Girls, Female Dress, Gaming, hearing Mass - 172

LETTER TENTH.

How the Jesuits have softened down the Sacrament of Penitence,
by their Maxims touching Confession, Satisfaction, Absolu
tion, Proximate Occasions of Sin, Contrition, and the love
of God 191

LETTER ELEVENTH.

Ridiculous Errors may be refuted by Raillery. Precautions to be
used. These observed by Montalte : not so by the Jesuits.
Impious Buffoonery of Father le Moine and Father Garasse - 212

LETTER TWELFTH.

Refutation of the Jesuit quibbles on Alms and Simony - 232

LETTER THIRTEETH.

The Doctrine of Lessius on Homicide the same as that of Victoria :
How easy it is to pass from Speculation to Practise : Why the
Jesuits have made use of this vain distinction ; and how little
it serves to justify them - - 252

CONTENTS. Vll

LETTER FOURTEENTH.

The Maxims of the Jesuits on Homicide refuted from the Fathers.
Answer in passing to some of their Calumnies : Their Doc
trine contrasted with the forms observed in Criminal trials - 272

LETTER FIFTEENTH.

The Jesuits erase Calumny from the list of sins, and make no

scruple of using it to cry down their enemies - - 293

LETTER SIXTEENTH.

Horrible Calumnies of the Jesuits against pious Ecclesiastics and

holy Nuns - - 314

LETTER SEVENTEETH.

Proof on removing an Ambiguity in the meaning of Jansenius, that
there is no Heresy in the Church. By the unanimous con
sent of all Theologians, and especially of the Jesuits, the
authority of Popes and OZcumenical Councils not Infallible
in questions of Fact - 344

LETTER EIGHTEENTH.

Proved still more invincibly by Father Annat's reply, that there is
no heresy in the Church : everybody condemns the doctrine
which the Jesuits ascribe to Jansenius, and thus the views of
all the faithful on the Five Propositions are the same : differ
ence between Disputes as to Doctrine, and as to Fact : in
Questions of Fact, more weight due to what is seen than to
any human authority - 372

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

BLAISE PASCAL was born at Clermont, in the Province
of Auvergne. His father, Stephen Pascal, president
in the Court of Aids, in that city, married Antoinette
Begon, by whom he had four children : the first was
a son, who died in infancy ; Blaise, the subject of the
present memoir; and two daughters, Gilberte, who
was married to M. Perier, and Jacqueline, who took
the veil in the convent of Port Royal.

The family of Pascal had received a patent of
nobility from Louis XL, and from that period had
held many official situations of considerable importance
in Auvergne. Besides these hereditary advantages,
Stephen Pascal was distinguished, not only for his
legal knowledge, but for superior attainments in
literature and science, combined with great simplicity
of manners, and an exquisite relish for the calm and
pure delights to be met with in the bosom of his family.
The early departure of his amiable and excellent wife,
Antoinette Begon, a stroke most deeply felt, increased
his interest in the education of his children, an object
for which he had always been solicitous, but which,

10 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

from that time, became paramount to every other.
In order to pursue it without distraction, he resigned
an official situation in favor of • his brother, and
removed at once to Paris. Here he had free access to
persons whose tastes were congenial with his own, and
enjoyed the amplest means of information from books
and other sources. His principal attention was
directed to his only son, who gave indications, almost
from his cradle, of his future eminence ; at the same
time he instructed his daughters in the Latin language
and general literature, studies which he looked upon
as well adapted to produce a spirit of reflection, and
to secure them from that frivolity which is the bane
and reproach of either sex.

The famous Thirty Years' War at that time raged
through Europe; but, amidst all its disasters, Eloquence
and Poetry, which had flourished in Italy for more
than a century, began to unfold their lustre in
France and England ; the severer sciences issued from
the shades in which they had been enveloped ; a sound
philosophy, or rather a sound method of philosophizing,
made its way into the schools, and the revolution,
which had been commenced by Galileo and Des Cartes,
rapidly advanced. Stephen Pascal partook of the
general impulse, and united himself with men of simi
lar talents and pursuits, such as Mersenne, Roberval,
Carcavi, Le Pailleur, and others, for the purpose of
discussing philosophical subjects, and of opening a
correspondence with the promoters of Science in
France and other countries. To this association may

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 11

be traced the origin of the Academy of Sciences,
established under royal authority.

Young Pascal sometimes joined in the scientific con
versations held at his father's house. He listened to
everything with extreme attention, and eagerly inves
tigated the causes of whatever fell under his observa
tion. It is said that at the age of eleven years he
composed a small treatise on Sounds, in which he
endeavored to explain why the sound made by
striking a plate with a knife ceases on applying one's
hand to it. His father, fearful that too keen a relish
for the sciences would impede his progress in the lan
guages, which were then considered the most important
part of education, decided, in concert with his friends,
to abstain from conversing on philosophical subjects in
his presence. To pacify his son under this painful
interdiction, his father promised that when he had
acquired a complete knowledge of Greek and Latin,
and was in other respects qualified, he should learn
Geometry ; only observing that it is the science of
extension, or of the three dimensions of the body,
length, breadth, and thickness ; that it teaches how to
form figures with accuracy, and to compare their rela
tions one with another. Slight as these hints were,
they served as a ray of light to develop his genius for
mathematics. From that moment his mind had no
rest ; he was eager to explore the mysteries of a
science withheld from him with so much care. In his
hours of recreation he shut himself up in a chamber,
and with a piece of charcoal drew on the floor tri-

12 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

angles, parallelograms, and circles, without even
knowing the names of these figures ; he examined the
different positions of convergent lines, and their mutual
relations. By degrees he arrived at the conclusion
that the surn of the three angles of a triangle must be
measured by a semi-circumference ; or, in other words,
are equal to two right angles, which is the thirty-
second proposition of the First Book of Euclid.
While meditating this theorem, he was surprised by
his father, who, having learnt the object, progress, and
result of his researches, stood for some time dumb
with astonishment and delight, and then hastened,
almost beside himself, to tell what he had witnessed
to his intimate friend M. Le Pailleur.

The young Pascal was now left at full liberty to
study Geometry. The first book on the subject put
into his hands, at twelve years old, was Euclid's
Elements, which he understood at once, without the
slightest assistance. He was soon able to take a dis
tinguished station among men of science, and at
sixteen composed a small tract on Conic Sections,
which evinced extraordinary sagacity.

The happiness which Stephen Pascal enjoyed in
witnessing the rapid progress of his son was for a
short time interrupted by an unexpected event. The
Government, whose resources had been impoverished
by a succession of wars, at length decided to make
some reduction on the interest of the public debt,
a measure which, though very easily adopted, excited
great dissatisfaction among the proprietors, and occa-

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 13

sioned meetings which were denounced as seditious.
Stephen Pascal was accused as one of the most
active on this occasion, which his having laid out
the greatest part of his property in the purchase of
shares rendered somewhat plausible. An order was
issued for his arrest, but having received timely notice
from a friend, he secreted himself, and withdrew into
Auvergne. His recall was owing to the good offices
of the Duchess d'Aiguillon, who prevailed on his
daughter Jacqueline to perform a part in a comedy
before Cardinal Richelieu. On the Cardinal express
ing his satisfaction with the performance, she pre
sented him with a copy of verses applicable to her
father's situation, on which Richelieu immediately
procured his recall, and within two years made him
Intendant of Rouen.

During Pascal's residence at Rouen, when scarcely
nineteen years old, he invented the famous arithmeti
cal machine which bears his name. It was two years
before he brought it to a state of perfection, owing not
merely to the difficulty he found in arranging and
combining the several parts of the machinery, but to
the unskilfulness of the workmen. Many attempts
have since been made to simplify it, particularly by
Leibnitz, but, on the whole, its advantages have not
compensated for the inconvenience arising from its
complexity and bulk.

Soon after this, he entered on a course of inquiry
relative to the weight of the atmosphere, a subject
which engaged the attention of all the philosophers of

14 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

Europe. The venerable Galileo had opened the way
to correct views of it, but left to his disciple Torricelli
and others to establish the true explanation of the
phenomena connected with this branch of physics.
Pascal published an account of his experiments, in a
valuable work entitled, " New Experiments Relat
ing to Vacuum." He wrote also two treatises on
the equilibrium of fluids, and the weight of the atmos
phere, which were printed shortly after the Author's
lamented decease. These tracts were succeeded by
some others on geometrical subjects, none of which
appear to have been preserved. We deeply regret that
they were not published at the same time as his other
philosophical treatises, as they would have contributed
to give us more accurate conceptions of the extent to
which their author pushed his researches. Besides
this, the productions of a man of genius, though, owing
to the advance of science, they may present nothing
new, are always instructing from the exhibition they
make of his mode of arranging his thoughts and rea
sonings. They are not to be valued so much, perhaps,
for the actual knowledge they communicate, because
in scientific researches there is a constant progression,
and works of the highest order in one age are suc
ceeded in the next by others more profound and com
plete. It is not so in matters of taste and imagina
tion ; and a tragedy which gives a vivid and correct
representation of the passions common to mankind,
will never become obsolete. The poet and the orator
have also another advantage ; they address, though a

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 15

less select yet a far more numerous auditory, and their
names speedily attain celebrity. Yet the glory of
scientific discoveries appears more solid and impres
sive ; the truths they develop circulate from age to age,
a common good, not subject to the vicissitudes of lan
guage ; and if their works no longer contribute to the
instruction of posterity, they remain as monuments to
mark the height to which the human mind had reached
at the time of their appearance. Of Pascal's genius
there remain memorials sufficient to place him in the
front rank of mathematicians ; such are the Arithmeti
cal Triangle, his papers on the Doctrine of Chances,
and his treatise on the Cycloid.

Intense application gradually undermined his health.
He was attacked for three months by a paralytic affec
tion, which almost deprived him of the use of his limbs.
Some time after he removed to Paris with his father
and his sister Jacqueline. Whilst surrounded by his
relations, he somewhat relaxed his studies, and made
several excursions into Auvergne and other parts.
But he had the misfortune to lose his endeared father,
and not long after his sister Jacqueline entered the
convent at Port Royal. His other sister and her hus
band, M. Perier, resided at a distance, at Clermont.
Thus left alone, he gave himself up to such excessive
mental labour as would have soon brought him to the
tomb. The failure of his bodily powers forced him to
relax his studies, which his physicians had in vain
advised. He therefore entered into society, and though
his disposition was tinged with melancholy, always

16 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

gave pleasure from his superior understanding, which
accommodated itself to the various capacities of those
he conversed with. He gradually acquired a relish
for society, and even indulged thoughts of marriage,
hoping that the attentions of an amiable and sensible
companion would alleviate his sufferings and enliven
his solitude ; but an unexpected event changed all his
projects. As he was one day taking his usual drive
in a coach and four, a dangerous accident occurred
while passing over the bridge of Neuilly : the two
leaders became ungovernable on a part of the bridge
where there was no parapet, and plunged into the
Seine. Happily the first shock of their descent broke
the traces which connected them with the hindmost
horses, so that the coach stopped on the edge of the
precipice. The concussion given to the feeble frame
of Pascal may be easily conceived ; he fainted away,
and a considerable time elapsed before he came to him
self again. His nerves were so violently agitated,
that in many of the sleepless nights which succeeded
during the subsequent period of his life, he imagined
that he saw a precipice by his bedside, into which he
was in danger of falling. He regarded this event as
an admonition from heaven to break off all worldly
engagements, and to live henceforward to God alone.
His sister Jacqueline had already prepared him by
her example and her conversation for adopting this
resolution. He renounced the world entirely, and
retained no connection but with friends who held simi
lar principles. The regular life he led in his retire-

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 17

ment gave some relief to his bodily sufferings, and at
intervals a portion of tolerable health ; and during
this period he composed many works of a kind very
different to those on scientific subjects, but which were
new proofs of his genius, and of the wonderful facility
with which his mind grasped every object presented
to it.

The convent of Port Royal, after a long interval of
languor and relaxation, had risen to a high reputation,
under the direction of Angelica Arnauld. This cele
brated woman, desirous of augmenting the reputation
of the establishment by all lawful means, had drawn
around her a number of persons distinguished for
learning and piety, who, disgusted with the world,
sought to enjoy in retirement the pleasure of reflec
tion and Christian tranquility. Such were the two
brothers, Arnauld d'Andilli, and Antoine Arnauld,
Le Maitre, and Saci, the translator of the Bible, Nicole,
Lancelot, Hermant, and others. The principal occu
pation of these illustrious men was the education of
youth ; it was in their school that Racine acquired a
knowledge of the classics, a taste for the great models
of antiquity, and the principles of that harmonious
and enchanting style, which places him on the summit
of the French Parnassus. Pascal cultivated their
acquaintance, and was soon on terms of the most
familiar intimacy. Without making his fixed residence
with them, he paid them, at intervals, visits of three
or four months, and found in their society everything
that could instruct him, reason, eloquence, and devo-

18 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR

tion. On their part, they were not slow to apprehend
the extent and profundity of his genius. Nothing
appeared strange to him. The variety of his know
ledge, and that fertility of invention which animated
him, gave him the ability to express himself with
intelligence, and to scatter new ideas over every sub
ject he touched upon. He gained the admiration and
the love of all these eminent recluses, but especially of
Saci. This laborious student, who spent his life in
the study of the Scriptures and the Fathers, was
devoted to the writings of St. Augustine, and never
heard any striking sentiment on theology to which he
did not imagine he could find a parallel in his favourite
author. No sooner had Pascal uttered some of those
elevated thoughts which were familiar to him, than
Saci remembered having read the same thing in
Augustine; but without diminishing his admiration of
Pascal ; for it excited his astonishment that a young
man who had never read the Fathers, should, by his
native acuteness, coincide in his thoughts with so cele
brated a theologian ; and he looked upon him as des
tined to be a firm supporter and defender of Port
Royal, which was at this period exposed to the viru
lent assaults of the Jesuits.

Cornelius Jansen, bishop of Ypres, esteemed for
his talents and character, and who was very far
from foreseeing that his name would one day become
the signal of discord and hatred, had occupied himself
in meditating and reducing to a system the principles
which he believed were contained in the writings of

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 19

St. Augustine. He wrote his work in Latin, with the
title of Augustinus. It was scarcely finished when its
author was taken off by the plague, which he caught
while examining some manuscripts belonging to one
of his clergy, who had died of that malady. The
Augustinus made its appearance at length in huge folio,
written without order or method, and not more ob
scure from the nature of the subject than from the
diffuseness and inelegance of the style. It owed its
unfortunate celebrity to the illustrious men who forced
it into notice, and to the implacable animosity of their
enemies.

The Abbe de St. Cyran, a friend of Jansen, enter
tained the same sentiments, and abhorring the Jesuits
and their tenets, extolled the Augustinus even before
it appeared, and spread its doctrines by means of an
extensive correspondence. The recluses of Port Royal
soon after publicly professed their approbration of it.
The Jesuits, irritated to the extreme when they beheld
their own theology falling into contempt before it, and
jealous of the Port Royalists, who eclipsed them in
every department of literature, set themselves with
all their might to oppose the work of Jansen. The
nature of the subject laid it open to ambiguities of
language ; and by garbling the words of the author,
they formed five propositions which presented a sense
evidently false and erroneous, and by these misrepre
sentations, procured a censure from Pope Innocent X.,
though without its being determined whether they
were exactly contained in the work of Jansen or not.

20 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

The clergy of France, in their subsequent convocation,
demanded a fresh sentence, and represented the Jan-
senists as rebels and heretics. Alexander VIL, the
succeeding pontiff, issued a bull which again condemned
the five propositions, with a clause declaring that they
were faithfully extracted from Jansen's work, and
heretical in the sense of their author. This bull served
as the basis of a formulary which the clergy prepared,
and of which the Court undertook to exact the signa
ture rigorously. Alexander VII. issued a second bull,
with a formulary on the same subject.

It is probable that the Jesuits would have failed in
their persecution of the Jansenists, if the first states
men in Europe had not felt it their interest to sup
port them. Cardinal Richelieu, who had a personal
hatred to the Abbe St. Cyran, had tried, at first, to
procure the condemnation of his writings by the Papal
See ; but as he was not a man to endure the ordi
nary delays of the Romish court for an object so
frivolous in his eyes as the censure of four or five
theological propositions, put forth by a single eccle
siastic, he found it more easy and convenient to lodge
St. Cyran in confinement in Vincennes.

Mazarin, less violent, but more skilful in concealing
his hatred, and in effecting his vindictive purposes,
aimed in secret the most deadly blows at the Jansen
ists. In his heart he was indifferent to all theological

o

opinions ; he had little affection for the Jesuits, but
knew that the Port Royal party kept up a connection
with his most formidable enemy, the Cardinal de Retz.

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 21

Without inquiring into the nature of this connection,
he decided on its criminality, and to avenge himself,
excited the clergy to demand the first Bull of Alexander
VII. Thus the State was disturbed for a century,
because the defenders of a book which, had it depended
on its own merits, would have sunk into oblivion,
were the friends of an archbishop of Paris, who was
the enemy of the prime minister of France. Mazarin,
doubtless, did not foresee the melancholy consequences
of his error in introducing the secular power into a
theological warfare, of the very existence of which he
ought to have been ignorant. Let princes and prime
ministers take a lesson from his example.

The recluses at Port Royal, and many other theolo
gians, without defending the literal sense of the five
condemned propositions, professed that they were not
in the Augustinus ; or that if they were, that their
meaning as therein expressed was agreeable to the
Catholic faith. They were answered by contrary
assertions ; the controversy became every day more
violent, and a multitude of works appeared, which,
from the indulgence of human passions, and the viola
tions of Christian charity they exhibited, gave the
enemies of religion a sad occasion of triumph.

Of all the abettors of Jansenism, none showed
greater zeal than Arnauld, a man of elevated mind
and austere manners. When he entered on the
clerical function, he gave almost all his property to the
institution of Port Royal, declaring that poverty be
came a minister of Jesus Christ. His attachment to

22 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

what he believed to be truth was as inflexible as truth
itself. He detested the corrupt morality of the Jes
uits ; and was equally the object of their hatred, not
only on his own account, but because he was the son
of the advocate who had pleaded with vehemence on
behalf of the university that they should be interdicted
from engaging in the instruction of youth, and even
be banished from the kingdom. The following anec
dote will show the intense interest with which he
espoused the cause of Jansenism. One day, his friend
and fellow-soldier in the same cause, but naturally of
a mild and yielding disposition, complained that he
was weary of the conflict and longed for repose-
"Repose!" replied Arnauld, "will you not have all
eternity to repose in?"

With this disposition, Arnauld published a decided
letter, in which he said that he had not found in Jan-
sen the five condemned propositions ; and in relation
to the question at issue respecting special grace, added,
that St. Peter in his denial of Christ was an example
of a true believer to whom that grace, without which
we can do nothing, was wanting. The first of these
assertions appeared contemptuous to the Papal chair ;
the second made him suspected of heresy ; and both
excited great ferment in the Sorbonne, of which
Arnauld was a 'member. His enemies used every
means to bring upon him a humiliating censure. His
friends urged upon him the necessity of "Self-defence.
He was possessed of great native eloquence, but his
style was harsh and negligent. Aware of its defects,

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 23

he was the first to point out Pascal as the only man
capable of doing justice to the subject. Pascal wil
lingly consented to use his pen in a cause so dear to his
heart.

Pascal published, under the name of Louis de
Montalte, his first letter to a Provincial, in which
he treated the meetings of the Sorbonne on the
affair of Arnauld with a delicate and refined hu
mour, of which there then existed no model in the
French language. This letter met with prodigious
success ; but the party whose object was to destroy
Arnauld, had so well taken their measures, and had
brought to the assembly so many doctors and monks
devoted to their authority, that not only the two pro
positions above named were condemned by a majority
of votes, but their author was excluded for ever
from the faculty of theology by their official decree.
The triumph of his enemies was somewhat checked
by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th letters to a Provincial,
which followed close upon the decree of the Sor
bonne. The Dominicans who, to maintain their
credit and to gratify their paltry resentments, ap
peared on this occasion to have abandoned the doc
trine of Aquinas, were overwhelmed with ridicule ;
but the Jesuits in particular, who had contributed
most to Arnauld's condemnation, paid dearly for the
joy their success gave them. From their own writ
ings Pascal drew the materials for opposing their un-
truthfulness ; and he became the remote instrument
of their destruction. The absurd and scandalous deci-

OF TftE AUTHOR.

sions of their casuists furnished him with evidences o£
their impiety in abundance. But it required a genius
such as his to combine his materials into a work which
might interest riot merely theologians, but men of the
world and of all ranks. So much has been said of the
Provincial Letters that it is needless to eulogize them.
They are universally acknowledged to be unequalled
in their kind, and from their publication the fixation of
the French language may be dated. Voltaire declares
that they combine the wit of Moliere with the sub
limity of Bossuet. I will only remark that one great
merit of these compositions appears to be the admirable
skill with which the transitions are made from one
topic to another. The destruction of the Jesuits may
have diminished the attractions of the work to certain
classes of readers, but it will always be esteemed by
men of letters and taste as a master-piece of style, wit,
and eloquence. Unfortunately for the Jesuits, they
had not a single good writer among them to reply to
it ; and the answers they attempted were as defective
in style as they were objectionable in sentiment. In
short, they met with a total failure, while all France
was eager to read the Provincial Letters, which the
Jansenists, to increase their circulation, translated
into Latin and the principal modern languages.

Among other works put forth by the Jesuits on
behalf of their casuists, there was one which gave
general dissatisfaction, entitled, An Apology for the
New Casuists against the Calumnies of the Jansenists.
The clergy of Paris and some other places attacked

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 25

this book with a powerful and vehement eloquence,
worthy of Demosthenes. These productions proceeded
chiefly from Arnauld, Nicole and Pascal. The two
former furnished the materials, which were elaborated
by the latter. They produced a powerful sensation
against the Jesuits, and in spite of all the credit the
Fathers possessed with the clergy, many eminent
bishops published express mandates against The Apo
logy for the Casuists.

The controversy carried on by Pascal against the
Jesuits lasted three years ; and it prevented his labour
ing as soon as he had wished, at a great work which
he had • long meditated, on the truth of religion. At
different times he set down on paper reflections con
nected with it, and fully intended to execute the
work, but his bodily infirmities increased so rapidly
as to prevent its completion, and nothing but the frag
ments are left to us. He was first attacked with an
excruciating pain in the teeth, which deprived him
almost entirely of sleep. During one of his wakeful
nights the recollections of some problems relative to
the Cycloid roused his mathematical genius. He had
long renounced the study of the sciences ; but the
beauty of the problems and the necessity of diverting
his mind by some powerful effort from his bodily suf
ferings, led him into researches of which the results
are, even at the present day, reckoned among the finest
efforts of the human mind.

The curve well known to mathematicians by the
name of Trochoid or Cycloid, is the line described by

26 LIFE OF THE AUTHOK.

the motion of any one point in the circumference of a
wheel running on the ground. It is not certain by
whom this curve was first distinctly noticed, though
an allusion to it occurs in Aristotle. Roberval was the
first to demonstrate that its area is triple that of its
generating circle. He also determined, soon after, the
solid described by the revolution of the Cycloid on its
base, and, what was more difficult for the geometry of
that day, the solid described by its revolution on the
diameter of its generating circle. Torricelli published
most of these problems, as discovered by himself, in a
somewhat later work, but it was asserted in France
that Torricelli had found the solutions of Roberval
among Galileo's papers ; and Pascal, in his history of
the Cycloid, hesitates not to treat Torricelli as a pla
giarist ; but after examining the papers on this subject,
I must confess that Pascal's opinion seems to have
been too hastily formed, and there is reason to believe
that Torricelli resolved these problems independently
of Roberval.

It still remained to find the length and the centre
of gravity of the Cycloid, and of the solids, both those
around the base and round the axis. But these re
searches required a new geometry, or at least a novel
application of the principles already known. Pascal,
within a week, and amidst extreme suffering, found a
method which included all the problems just men
tioned, founded on the summation of certain series of
which he has given the elements in some papers which
accompany his tract on the Arithmetical Triangle.

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 27

From this to the differential and integral calculus
there was only a step, and there is good reason for
believing that had Pascal been able to devote more
time to his scientific inquiries, he would have deprived
Leibnitz and Newton of the glory of their inventions.
Having communicated his meditations to some friends,
and particularly to the Duke de Roannez, the latter
conceived the design of making them contribute to the
triumph of religion. Pascal furnished an incontestable
proof that it was possible for the same person to be a
consummate mathematician and an humble believer.
His friends therefore thought, that even if other
mathematicians should succeed in resolving those
questions which were to be propounded, and a reward
offered for the solution of them, they would at least
perceive their difficulty ; and thus, while science would
be promoted, the honour of accelerating its progress
would always belong to the first inventor ; if on the
contrary, they could not solve these problems, unbe
lievers would, thenceforward, have no pretext for
being more difficult in regard to the proofs of religion
than Pascal was, who had shown himself so profoundly
skilled in a science founded altogether on demonstra
tion. Accordingly, by his consent, a programme was
published, in which it was proposed to find the mea
sure and centre of gravity of any segment of a cycloid,
the dimensions and centres of gravity of solids, demi-
solids, etc., which such a segment would produce by
turning round the absciss or the ordinate ; and as the
calculations for the complete solutions of all these

28 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

problems would require much trouble and labour, in
default of such a solution, the competitors for the
prizes were required to furnish the application of these
methods to some remarkable cases, such, for example,
as when the absciss is equal to the radius, or to the
diameter of the generating circle. Two prizes were
offered, one of 40, the other of 20 pistoles. The most
celebrated mathematicians in Paris were selected to
examine the papers of the competitors, which were to
be transmitted, at an appointed date, to M. de Carcavi,
one of the judges, with whom also the premiums
were deposited. In the whole affair, Pascal concealed
himself under the name of Amos Dettonville, an
anagram of Louis Montalte, the name he had assumed
as writer of the Provincial Letters.

The programme excited afresh the attentions of
mathematicians to the properties of the Cycloid, which
had been for some time neglected. Hughens squared the
segment contained between the summit and the ordi-
nate, which answers to a fourth part of the diameter
of the generating circle. Sluze, canon of the Cathe
dral of Liege, measured the era of the curve by a new
and ingenious method ; Sir Christopher Wren showed
that any arc of a cycloid, measured from the summit,
is double the corresponding chord of the generating
circle ; he also determined the centre of gravity of the
cycloid al arc, and the surfaces of its solids of revolu
tion. Fermat and Roberval, on the simple announce
ment of Wren's theorems, each gave demonstrations.
But all these investigations, though very ingenious,

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 29

did not fully answer the requisitions of the programme.
Only two persons laid claim to the prize : Lallouere,
the Jesuit, and Wallis, who is so justly celebrated for
his Arithmetic of Infinities. After a strict scrutiny,
however, by the appointed judges, it appeared that their
methods were too defective to satisfy the conditions.
Several years afterwards Pascal published his own
treatise on the Cycloid, which Wallis himself de
scribed in a letter to Hughens as a ' work of great
genius.'

Meanwhile Pascal was descending rapidly to the
grave. The last three years of his life were little else
than a perpetual agony, and he was almost totally
incapacitated for study. During the short intervals of
comparative ease, he occupied himself with his work
on religion ; his thoughts were set down on the first
piece of paper that came to hand, and when he was no
longer able to hold a pen, they were dictated to an
intelligent domestic who constantly attended him.
These fragments were collected after his death by the
members of Port Royal, who published a selection from
them under the title of Pensees de M. Pascal sur la
Religion, et sur quelques autres sujets. The first
edition of the Thoughts omitted many very interesting
fragments, and even some complete Essays, such as
those on Authority in matters of Philosophy, the
Reflections on Geometry, and on the Art of Persuasion,
which are invaluable for their justness and originality.

In private life, Pascal was continually engaged in
mortifying his senses and elevating his soul to God.

30 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

It was a maxim with him to renounce all indulgences
and superfluities. He removed from his apartment all
articles of ornament; he ate only to satisfy the
necessary calls of hunger, and not to gratify his palate.
When he first retired from general society, he ascer
tained what quantity of food was necessary for his
support, which he never exceeded, and whatever disgust
he felt, never failed taking it ; a method of which the
motive may be respected, but which is very ill adapted
to the variable state of the human frame.

His charity was very great ; he regarded the poor
as his brethren, and never refused giving alms, though
often at the cost of personal privation, for his means
were very limited, and his infirmities at times called
for expenses which exceeded his income. Some time
before his death, he received under his roof a poor man
and his son, moved only by Christian pity. The child
was seized with the small pox, and could scarcely be
removed without danger. Pascal himself was very ill,
and needed the constant assistance of Madame Perier.
But as her children had never had the small pox,
Pascal would not expose them to the danger of infec
tion. He therefore decided against himself in favour
of the poor man, and occupied a small incommodious
apartment at his sister's. We may here mention
another remarkable instance of his benevolence. One
morning, returning from church, a beautiful girl, about
sixteen years of age, came to him to beg alms, pleading
that her father was dead, and that her mother had
that morning been taken ill and carried to the Hotel-

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 31

Dieu. Impressed with the danger to which the poor
girl was exposed, he placed her immediately in a
seminary under the care of a venerable ecclesiastic, to
whom he gave a sum of money for the expenses of
food and clothes, and continued his aid till she was
placed in a respectable family. The purity of his
manners was most exemplary. He carried his scrupu
losity so far as sometimes to reprove Madame Perier
for the caresses she bestowed on her children. To
repress feelings of self-complacency, he wore a girdle
of iron armed with points, which he used to strike
with violence whenever he felt any undue elation of
mind. Persuaded that the law of God forbids the
surrender of the heart to created objects, he carefully
controlled his affection, even for his nearest relations.
Madame Perier sometimes complained of the coldness
of his manners ; but when an occasion presented itself
for his services, he evinced so deep an interest in her
welfare, that she could no longer doubt of his sincere
affection. She then attributed his former insensibility
of behaviour to the influence of bodily disorders, not
aware that it had a purer and more elevated source.

While the disputes between the Jesuits and the
Jansenists were at their height, an event happened
which was looked upon by the latter as a testimony
from heaven in their favour. A daughter of Madame
Perier, between ten and eleven years old, had been
afflicted for three years and a half with a lachrymal
fistula of the worst kind ; purulent and extremely
offensive matter was discharged from the eye, nose,

32 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

and mouth. On an appointed day she was touched
with what was deemed a relic of the Holy Thorn,
which had been lent to the convent of Port
Royal by M. de la Poterie, an ecclesiastic of eminent
piety ; the consequence is asserted to have been an
instant cure. Racine, in his history of Port Royal,
says that such was the silence habitually maintained
in the convent, that for more than six days after the
miracle, some of the sisters had not heard of it. It is
not usual for persons of ardent faith to behold a
miracle wrought under their eyes, without being struck
with astonishment and impelled to glorify God by
communicating it to others. The reserve of the mem
bers of Port Royal, on this occasion, may appear to
some persons to cast doubts upon the fact itself ; by
minds favourably disposed, it will be considered an
argument that the cure was not one of those pious
frauds which are adopted by the leaders of a party in
order to gain over a credulous multitude. The direc
tors of Port Royal, believing it was their duty not to
conceal so signal a favour of Providence, wished to
confer on the fact the highest marks of credibility.
Four celebrated physicians, and several eminent sur
geons, who had examined the disease, certified that a
cure was impossible by human means. The miracle
was published with the solemn attestation of the
vicars-general who had governed the diocese of Paris in
the absence of Cardinal de Retz. The manner in
which it was received by the world completed the
confusion of the Jesuits, They endeavoured to deny

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 33

it, and, to support their incredulity, employed this
ridiculous argument : Port Royal is heretical, and God
never works miracles for heretics. To this it was
replied : The miracle at Port Royal is certain ; you
cannot bring into doubt an ascertained fact ; the cause
of the Jansenists is good, and you are calumniators.
A particular circumstance gave weight to this reason
ing ; the relic wrought no miracles except at Port
Royal ; transferred to the Ursulines or Carmelites, no'
effects were produced ; it cured none ; it was said
because these latter establishments had no enemy, and
needed not a miracle to prove that God was with them.
Whatever judgment may be formed of this event,
whether the cure (for that seems indisputable) is to be
imputed to the operation of natural causes, not ascer
tained by the medical science of the times ; to the
influence of a credulous imagination in the patient, or
to what some persons will perhaps admit, the divine
power supernaturally excited in condensation to a
sincere and genuine piety, though mixed with many
errors (and such the leading members of Port Royal
will be allowed by candid Protestants to have pos
sessed), one thing is certain, Pascal, of whose integrity
and love of truth there can be no doubt, remained sat
isfied that the cure was the work of God, and his niece
retained the same conviction during the whole course
of a long life.

During the last two years of Pascal's life, his suffer
ings, both of mind and body, were extreme. In this
period he endured the pain of witnessing the rise of that

34 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

long persecution under which the institution of Port
Royal at last sunk. The favour in which the Jansenists
were held by the public only exasperated the Jesuits.
To ensure their destruction, the Jesuits obtained an
order for all the members of the Convent to sign the
Formulary, being certain that the advice of their
directors would be either not to sign it, or to sign it
with limitations equally favourable to their projects
of vengeance. The Vicar-general of Paris, in conse
quence, received orders to execute this mandate with
the utmost rigour. It is needless to describe the sad
dilemma in which the Port Royalists found themselves
placed : forced to pass a judgment on the work of
Jansen, of which they understood neither the language
nor the matter ; on the one hand, honouring the
authority which oppressed them, on the other, dread
ing to betray the truth : rebels in the eyes of the
government if they refused to sign, and culpable in
the eyes of their directors if they signed a document
which they considered as drawn from the clergy and
the Pope by the intrigues of the Jesuits. These cruel
perplexities shortened the life of Jacqueline Pascal.
At the time of the visit of the Vicar-general, she was
sub-prioress of Port Royal; the violent conflict she
endured, arising from her anxiety to submit, and the
fear of violating her conscience, brought on an illness
resulting in her death, the first victim (as she
expressed it) of the Formulary. Pascal loved her
tenderly, and when informed of her death, said, ' God
grant us grace that our death may be like hers.'

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 35

The members of Port Royal addressed some tem
perate complaints to the Court, which were construed
by the Jesuits as a criminal resistance, and they
insinuated that the directors of the monastery were
fomenting a dangerous heresy. Yet they had never
hesitated to condemn the five propositions abstractly ;
they had only distinguished in the Constitution of
Alexander VII. two questions, the one of right, the
other of fact ; they received as a rule of faith the
question of right, that is, the censure of the five propo
sitions in the sense they offered at first sight, and
abstracted from all the circumstances which could
restrict or modify them ; but they did not consider
themselves obliged to adhere to the assertion of the
Pope when he said that the five propositions were
formally contained in Jansen, and were heretical in
the sense of that author, because it was possible,
according to them, that the Pope, and even the Church,
might be deceived on questions of fact. Pascal adopted
this distinction very fully, and makes it the basis of
his irresistible reasoning in the last two Provincial
Letters. Four years after, when it was again
attempted to procure signatures to the Formu
lary, the Jansenists made a fresh concession ; they
consented that the nuns should sign it, declaring
simply that they could not judge whether the proposi
tions condemned by the Pope, and which they also
condemned sincerely, were taken or not from Jansen.
But this slight and reasonable limitation would not
content the Jesuits, whose object was to destroy the.

36 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

Port Royalists, or to force them to a dishonourable
recantation. This result Pascal had foreseen, and, far
from approving of the concessions of the Jansenists,
he always told them, ' You aim to save Port Royal ;
you will not save it, and you will betray the truth.'
He even changed his opinion as to the distinction
between the question of right and of fact. The doc
trine of Jansen on the five propositions appeared to
him to be exactly the same as that of St. Paul, St.
Augustine, and St. Prosper, whence he inferred that
the Pope, in condemning the sense of Jansen, was mis
taken, not only on a point of fact, but of right, and
that no one could conscientiously sign the Formulary.
He charged the Port Royalists with weakness; he told
them plainly, that in their different writings they had
had too much regard to present advantage, and had
changed with the times. The elevation and rectitude
of his mind saw in these temporizing measures, noth
ing but subterfuges, invented to serve an occasion, and
perfectly unworthy of the true defenders of the
Church. They replied to these reproaches by explain
ing, in a long and ingenious manner, a method of
subscribing to the Formulary without wounding their
consciences or offending the government. But all
these explanations produced no change of sentiment
in Pascal ; they had an opposite effect to what was
desired : they occasioned a degree of coolness in his
intercourse with the recluses of Port Royal. This
little misunderstanding, which was not concealed on
either sicle, was the occasion of a singular misrepresen-

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 37

tation, of which the Jesuits were very ready to take
advantage. M. Beurier, minister of St. Stephen's-on-
the-Hill, a pious but not well informed man, who
attended Pascal in his last illness, having heard it
vaguely said by this celebrated man that he did not
think with the Port Royalists on the question of grace,
believed that these words implied that he thought
with their adversaries. He never imagined that it
was possible for any one to be more a Jansenist than
Nicole and Arnauld. About three years after Pascal's
death, M. Beurier, on the confused evidence of his
memory, attested in writing to the Archbishop of
Paris, Hardouin de Perefixe, a zealous Molinist, that
Pascal had told him that he had withdrawn himself
from the Port Royalists on the question of the Formu
lary, and that he did not consider them sufficiently
submissive to the Holy See. Precisely the contrary
was the fact. But the Jesuits made a pompous exhi
bition of this declaration: unable to reply to the
Provincial Letters, they endeavoured to persuade the
world that their author had retracted them, especially
the last two ; and, finally, had adopted their theology.
But the Jansenists easily confuted these ridiculous
assertions. They opposed to the evidence of M.
Beurier, contrary testimonies infinitely more circum
stantial *and positive ; and, to remove every doubt,
produced the writings in which Pascal explained his
sentiments. Overpowered by these proofs, M. Beurier
acknowledged that he had misunderstood Pascal's
words, and formally retracted his declaration. Hence-

38 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

forward the Jesuits were forced to acknowledge that
Pascal died in the principles of the most rigorous
Jansenism. To return to the particulars of his last
illness. He was attacked by a severe and almost con
stant colic, which nearly deprived him of sleep. The
physicians who attended him, though they perceived
that his strength was much reduced, did not appre
hend immediate danger, as there were no febrile
symptoms. He was far from having the same security ;
from the first moment of the attack, he said that they
were deceived, and that the malady would be fatal. He
confessed himself several times, and would have taken
the viaticum, but not to alarm his friends, consented
to a delay, being assured by the physicians, that in a
day or two, he would be able to receive the communion
at Church. Meanwhile his pains continued to increase,
violent headaches succeeded, and frequent numbness,
so that his sufferings were almost insupportable. Yet
so resigned was he to the will of God, that not the
least expression of complaint or impatience escaped
him. His mind was occupied with plans of benefi
cence and charity. He made his will, in which the
greater part of his property was left to the poor ; he
would have left them all, if such an arrangement had
not been to the injury of the children of M. and
Madame Perier, who were by no means rich. Since
he could do no more for the poor, he wished to die
among them, and urgently desired to be carried to the
Hospital of the Incurables, and he was induced to
abandon this wish only by a promise, that if he re-

LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. 39

covered, he should be at liberty to consecrate his life
and property entirely to the service of the poor.
Two days "previous to his death he was seized with
violent convulsions. His attendants reproached them
selves for having opposed the ardent desire he had so
often expressed of receiving the Eucharist. But they
had the consolation of seeing him fully recover his
recollection. The minister of St. Stephen's then
entered with the Sacrament and said ' Behold Him
whom you have so long desired ! ' Pascal raised him
self, and received the viaticum with a devotion and
resignation that drew tears from all around him. Im
mediately after, the convulsions returned, and never
left him till he expired, aged thirty-nine years and
two months.

On examining his body, the stomach and liver were
found much diseased, and the intestines mortified ; it
was remarked with astonishment that the quantity of
brain was enormous, and of a very solid and dense
consistence.

Such was this extraordinary man, who was endowed
with the choicest gifts of mind, a goemetrician of the
first order, a profound dialectician, an eloquent and
sublime writer. If we recollect that in the course of a
short life, oppressed with almost continual suffering,
he invented the arithmetical machine, the principles of
the calculation of probabilities, the method for resolv
ing the problems of the Cycloid ; that he reduced to
certainty the opinions of philosophers relative to the
weight of the atmosphere ; that he was the first to

40 LIFE OF THE AUTHOR.

establish on geometrical demonstration, the general
laws of the equilibrium of fluids ; that he was the
author of one of the most perfect specimens of compo
sition in the French language ; that in his Thoughts
(unfinished and detached as they are for the most
part), there are fragments of incomparable profundity
and eloquence, we shall be disposed to believe that
there never existed in any nation a greater genius, or,
we may add, a more devout believer.

THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

LETTEE FIEST.

DISCUSSIONS IN SORBONNE. INVENTION OF PROXIMATE POWER :
HOW USED BY THE JESUITS TO SECURE THE CENSURE OF M.
ARNAULD.

PAKIS.

SIR, — We are greatly mistaken. I was not unde
ceived till yesterday. Till then I thought that the
subject debated in Sorbonne was very important, and
of the utmost consequence to religion. So many
meetings of such a celebrated body as the Theological
Faculty of Paris, and at which things so strange and
unexampled have taken place, give so high an idea of
the subject that one cannot but believe it to be very
extraordinary. And yet you will be surprised when
you learn from this letter what it is that has caused
all the noise. This I will tell you in a few words,
after having thoroughly acquainted myself with it.

Two questions are considered ; the one of fact, the
other of doctrine. That of fact is, whether M. Arnauld
is chargeable with presumption, for having said in his
second Letter that he has carefully read the work of
Jansenius without finding the propositions condemned

42 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

by the late Pope ; and, nevertheless, as he condemns
these propositions wherever they are met with, he
condemns them in Jansenius, if they are in Jansenius.

The question here is, whether he could, without
presumption, thus declare that he doubts whether the
propositions are in Jansenius, after the bishops have
declared that they are.

The affair is brought forward in Sorbonne. Seventy-
one doctors undertake his defence, and maintain that
he could not give any other answer to those who, in
so many publications, asked him if he held that these
propositions are in that book, than that he has not
seen them in it, and that he nevertheless condemns
them in it if they are in it.

Some even going further, have declared that after
all the search which they could make, they have never
found them, and have even found others of quite an
opposite nature. They have then urgently requested
that any doctor who has seen them, would have the
goodness to show them ; that a thing so easy could
not be refused, since it was a sure means of silencing
all of them, and M. Arnauld himself ; but the request
has always been refused. So much for what has taken
place on that side.

On the other side are eighty secular doctors and
some forty mendicant monks, who have condemned M.
Arnauld's propositions without choosing to examine
whether what he has said is true or false ; and have
even declared that they had to do not with the truth,
but only with the rashness of the proposition.

DISCUSSIONS IN SOEBONNE. 43

Besides these, there are fifteen who were not for the
censure, and are called neutrals.

Thus has it fared with the question of fact, as to
which I give myself very little trouble. For be M.
Arnauld rash or not, my conscience is not concerned ;
and if I felt curious to know whether these proposi
tions are in Jansenius, his book is neither so rare nor
so large that I could not read it through to inform
myself, without consulting the Sorbonne.

But if I did not fear likewise to be rash, I believe I
would follow the opinion of most people I see, who,
having believed hitherto on public report that these
propositions are in Jansenius, begin to suspect the
contrary from the odd refusal to show them ; indeed I
have not yet met with any person who says he has
seen them. So that I fear this censure will do more
harm than good, and give those who learn its history
an impression directly the reverse of the conclusion.
For in truth the world is becoming suspicious, and
believes things only when it sees them. But, as I
have already said, the point is unimportant, faith not
being concerned.

The question of doctrine seems much more weighty,
inasmuch as it touches faith. Accordingly, I have
'taken particular care to inform myself upon it. But
you will be pleased to see that it is of as little impor
tance as the other.

The subject examined is a passage in the same
letter in which M. Arnauld says, that " the grace with
out which we cannot do anything was wanting to St.

44 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Peter in his fall." Here you and I thought that the
greatest principles of grace were in question, such as
whether it is not given to all men, or whether it is
efficacious; but we were much mistaken. I am become
a great theologian in a short time, and you are going
to see proofs of it.

To learn the real state of matters, I paid a visit to
Mr. - — , a doctor of Navarre, who lives near me, and
is, as you know, a most zealous opponent of the Jan-
senists : and as my curiosity made me almost as keen
as himself, I asked him if they would not formally
decide that grace is given to all, and so set the ques
tion at rest. But he bluntly rebuffed me, and told me
that that wras not the point ; that there were persons
on his side who held that grace is not given to all ;
that even the examinators had said in full Sorbonne,
that this opinion is problematical; and that it was
his own sentiment, which he confirmed by this passage
from Augustine, which he says is famous: "We believe
that grace is not given to all men."

I apologized for having mistaken his sentiments, and
prayed him to tell me then if they would not at least
condemn that other opinion of the Jansenists which is
making so much noise, namely, that "grace is effectual,
and determines our will to do good." But I was no
happier in this second question. ' You don't under
stand it at all,' said he ; ' that is not a heresy, it is an
orthodox opinion : all the Thomists hold it ; and I
myself maintained it in my Thesis.'

I durst not propose my doubts to him, and I did not

PROXIMATE POWER. 45

even know where the difficulty was, when, to get light
upon it, I begged him to tell me in what the heresy of
M. Arnauld's opinion consists. ' It is,' said he, ' in his
not acknowledging that believers have the power of
fulfilling the commandments of God, in the manner in
which we understand it.'

I left him after this information ; and, quite proud

of having the kernel of the affair, I called for Mr. ,

who is getting better and better, and was in sufficient
health to go with me to his brother-in-law, who is a
Jansenist if ever there was one, and a very worthy
man notwithstanding. To be better received, I feigned
to be strongly of his party, and said to him, ' Can it be
possible that the Sorbonne will introduce into the
Church this error, " that all believers have always the
power of fulfilling the Commandments ? " ' What are
you saying ? ' asked my doctor ; ' do you give the
name of error to a sentiment which is strictly orthodox,
and which the Lutherans and Calvinists alone call in
question ? ' ' What,' said I to him, ' is that nob your
opinion ? ' ' No ; ' said he, ' we anathematize it as
heretical and impious.' Surprised at this answer, I
saw well that I had over-acted the Jansenist, as I had
before over-acted the Molinist. But not being able to
give full credit to his answer, I begged him to tell me
in confidence if he held that believers have always a
real power of observing the commandments. My friend
warmed at this ; but with a devout zeal, he said that he
would never disguise his sentiments for any man ; that
this was his belief, and that he and all his party would

46 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

defend it to the death, and as being the pure doctrine
of St. Thomas, and Augustine their master.

He spoke so seriously that I could not doubt him.
With this assurance I returned to my first doctor, and
told him with much complacency, that I was sure
there would soon be peace in Sorbonne ; that the Jan-
senists admitted the power which believers have to
fulfil the commandments ; that I would be their secu
rity, and make them sign it with their blood. ' All
very fine,' said he ; 'it is necessary to be a theologian
to see the bearing of it. The difference between us is
so subtle, that we can scarcely define it ourselves ; it
would be too difficult for you to understand it ; be
contented therefore to know that the Jansenists will
indeed tell you, that believers have always the power
to fulfil the commandments ; as to this we have no
dispute : but they will not tell you that this power is
proximate. That is the point/

The word was new and unknown to me. Hitherto
I had understood matters, but this term threw me
into the dark ; and I believe it has only been invented
for strife. I asked for explanation, but he made a
mystery of it ; and without further satisfaction sent
me back to ask the Jansenists, if they admitted this
proximate power. I charged my memory with the
term, for my understanding had no part in it. For
fear of forgetting it, I hastened back to my Jansenist,
to whom, after the first exchange of civilities, I forth
with said, ' Tell me, I pray, if you admit proximate
power.' He fell a-laughing, and said to me coolly*

PROXIMATE POWER. 47

' Tell me yourself in what sense you understand it,
and then I will tell you what I think of it.' As my
knowledge did not go so far, I felt at my wits' end for
an answer ; and nevertheless, not to make my visit
useless, I said to him on chance, I understand it in the
sense of the Molinists. My friend, without changing
a feature, asked, ' To which of the Molinists do you
refer me ? ' I offered him the whole of them, as
forming only one body, and actuated by one spirit.

But he said to me, 'Your information is very
imperfect. They are so far from being of the same,
that they are of the most opposite sentiments. Being
all leagued in the project of ruining M. Arnauld, they
have fallen upon the device of agreeing to this term
proximate, which they might all equally use, though
understanding it differently, in order to speak the
same language, and by this apparent conformity form
a considerable body, and swell their numbers so as to
make sure of crushing him.'

This answer astonished me. But without being
persuaded of the wicked designs of the Molinists,
which I am unwilling to take on his word, and with
which I have no concern, I endeavoured merely to
ascertain the different meanings which they attach to
this mysterious word proximate. He said : ' I would
readily explain them, but you would see such a repug
nance and gross contradiction, that you would scarcely
believe me. I would be suspected by you. Your safer
plan will be to learn it from themselves, and I will
give you their addresses. You have only to see separ-

48 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

ately M. Le Moine and Father Nicolai.' ' I don't know
either of them,' said I. ' See, then/ said he, ' if you
are not acquainted with some of those whom I am
going to mention, for they hold the views of M. Le
Moine.' I did know some of them : he then said, ' See
if you have not some acquaintance among the Domi
nicans, for they are all with Father Nicolai.' I like
wise knew some of those he mentioned ; and being
resolved to seek his advice and have done with the
affair, I left him and called first on one of the disciples
of M. Le Moine.

I begged him to tell me what was meant by
having proximate power to do any thing. ' That is
easy,' said he : 'it is to have whatever is necessary to
do it, so that nothing is wanting in order to act.'
' And so/ said I, c to have proximate power to cross a
river is to have a barge, bargeman and oars, etc., with
nothing wanting.' ' Very well,' said he. ' And to have
the proximate power of seeing,' said I, ' is to have good
eye-sight, and be in open day. For a person with good
eye-sight, but in darkness, would not have the proxi
mate power of seeing according to you.' ' Like a
Doctor,' said he. ' Consequently/ I continued, ' when
you say that believers always have the proximate
power of observing the commandments, you mean that
they always have all the grace necessary to perform
them; nothing being wanting on the part of God.'
' Stay/ said he, ' they always have all that is necessary
to observe them, or to ask God for it.' ' I see per
fectly/ I said ; ' they have all that is necessary to pray

PROXIMATE POWER. 49

to God to assist them, without needing any new grace
from God to pray.' ' You understand it/ said he. ' It
is not necessary then to have an effectual grace to pray
to God ?' ' No/ said he, ' according to M. Le Moine.'

To lose no time, I went to the Jacobins, and asked
for those whom I knew to be New Thomists. I begged
them to tell me the meaning of proximate power. ' Is
it not/ I asked, ' a power to which nothing is wanting
in order to act ?' ' No/ said they. ' What, father ! if
this power wants something, do you call it proximate ?
and will you say that a man in the night time, and
•without any light, has the proximate power of seeing ? '
' Yes, indeed he has, according to us, if he is not blind.'
' So be it,' said I, ' but M. Le Moine understands the
contrary.' ' True/ said they, ' but we understand it
thus.' ' I have no objection,' said I, ' for I never dis
pute about a word, provided I am made aware of the
meaning which is given to it ; but I see that when
you say, believers have always a proximate power to
pray to God, you understand, that they have need of
other assistance, without which they will never pray.'
c Very well explained/ replied the fathers, embracing
me, ' very well explained : they require moreover an
effectual grace, which is not given to all, and which
determines their will to pray ; and it is heresy to deny
the necessity of this effectual grace, in order to pray.'

' Very well explained/ said I to them in my turn ;

'but according to you, the Jansenists are orthodox,

and M. Le Moine heretical : for the Jansenists hold

that believers have power to pray, but that notwith-

4

50 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

standing an effectual grace is necessary, and this you
approve; M. Le Moine says, that believers pray with
out effectual grace, and this you condemn.' 'Yes,'
said they, ' but M. Le Moine calls this power, proxi
mate power'

' What, fathers !' said I, ' it is a play upon words, to
say that you are agreed because of the common terms
you use, while you give them contrary meanings.' The
fathers made no answer : and on this my disciple of
M. Le Moine arrived by good chance, which I thought
extraordinary ; but I have learned since that their
intercourse is not rare, and that they are constantly
in each other's company.

I then said to my disciple of M. Le Moine, ' I know
a man who says that believers have always power to
pray to God ; but that, nevertheless, they will never
pray without an effectual grace which determines
them, and which God does not always give to all
believers. Is he heretical?' 'Stay,' said my Doctor,
' you might take me by surprise ; softly, if you please !
distinguo : if he calls this power, proximate power,
he will be a Thomist, and of course catholic : if not,
he will be a Jansenist, and of course heretical.' ' He
does not/ said I, 'call it either proximate, or not
proximate.' ' He is heretical,' then said he : ' ask
these worthy fathers.' I did not take them as judges,
for they were already nodding assent, but I said to
them, ' He refuses to admit this word proximate, be
cause it is not explained.' On this, one of the fathers
was going to give his definition, but he was inter
rupted by the disciple of M. Le Moine, who said, ' Do

PROXIMATE POWER. 51

you wish, then, to renew our squabblings ? Have we
not come under an agreement, not to explain this
word proximate, but to use it on either side, without
saying what is meant ?' The Jacobin assented.

By this I penetrated their design, and on rising to
go said to them : ' Verily, fathers, I much fear that all
this is mere chicanery ; and whatever comes of your
meetings, I venture to predict, that, though the cen
sure were passed, peace would not be established.
For though it were declared necessary to pronounce
the syllables proximate, who does not see that, not
having been explained, each of you will claim the
victory. The Jacobins will say that the word is
understood in their sense ; M. De Moine will say that
it is in his ; and thus there will be far more disputes
in explaining than in introducing it. After all, there
would be no great danger in receiving it without any
meaning, since it is only by the meaning that it can
do harm. But it would be unworthy of the Sorbonne
and of theology, to use equivocal captious terms, with
out explaining them. In fine, fathers, tell me once
for all, what I must believe in order to be orthodox.'
'You must,' exclaimed all in a body, 'say that all
believers have proximate power, wholly abstracting
from any meaning; abstrahendo a sensu Thomista-
rum, et a sensu aliorum Theologorum?

' In other words,' said I, on quitting them, ' it is neces
sary to pronounce this word, for fear of being here
tical in name. Is it a Scripture term?' 'No,' said
they. ' Is it from the Fathers, or Councils, or Popes ?'
' No.' ' Is ib from St. Thomas ?' ' No.' ' What neces-

52 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

sity is there for saying it, since it has neither author
ity nor meaning in itself ?' ' You are obstinate,' said
they : ' you shall say it, or you shall be heretical, and
M. Arnauld also; for we are the majority, and if need
be, we will bring Cordeliers enough to carry it !'

I have just left them on this last reason, in order
to send you this narrative, from which you will see
that none of the following points are agitated or con
demned by either party. 1. Grace is not given to all
men. 2. All believers have power to perform the
commandments of God. 3. Nevertheless, in order to
perform them, and even to pray, they require an
effectual grace, which determines their will. 4- This
effectual grace is not always given to all believers,
and depends on the mere mercy of God. So that
nothing but the word proximate, without meaning,
runs any risk.

Happy the people who know it not ! Happy those
who lived before its birth ! For I see no remedy,
unless the members of the Academy banish from
Sorbonne this barbarous term, which causes so much
division. Without this, the censure appears certain ;
but I see, that the only harm of the proceeding will
be, to give less weight to Sorbonne, and deprive it of
the authority which it needs so much, on other oc
casions.

Meanwhile, I leave you free to espouse the word
proximate or not : for I love you too much to make
it a pretext for persecuting you. If this narrative is
not disagreeable, I will continue to acquaint you with
all that takes place. I am, etc.

LETTEE SECOND.

SUFFICIENT GRACE.

PARIS.

SIR, — As I was closing my letter to you, I had a
call from our old friend, Mr. - — . Nothing could be
more fortunate for my curiosity, for he is well in
formed on the questions of the day, and perfectly
acquainted with the policy of the Jesuits, with whom,
and with the leading men among them, he has hourly
intercourse, After speaking of the occasion of his
visit, I begged him to tell me, in one word, the points
debated between the two parties.

He immediately complied, and told me that there
were two principal points ; the first respecting proxi
mate power, and the second respecting sufficient grace.
My former letter explained the first ; I will now speak
of the second.

In one word, then, I learned that their difference
respecting grace lies here. The Jesuits hold that there
is a grace given generally to all men, but so far sub
ject to free will, which, as it chooses, renders it effectual
or ineffectual, without any new assistance from God,
and without anything wanting on his part, to enable
it to act effectually. Hence they call it sufficient,

54 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

because by itself it suffices for acting. The Jansenists,
on the contrary, hold that there is no grace actually
sufficient, without being effectual; in other words,
that all grace which does not determine the will to
act effectually, is insufficient for acting, because they
maintain that we never act without effectual grace.
Such is the difference between them.

On inquiring as to the doctrine of the New Thom-
ists, ' There is an oddness about it,' said he, ' they agree
with the Jesuits in admitting a, sufficient grace given
to all men; but they insist, notwithstanding, that
men never act with this grace alone ; and that in order
to make them act, God must give an effectual grace,
which really determines their will to action, but which
God does not give to all.' ' So that according to this
doctrine/ said I, ' this grace is sufficient without being
so.' ' Precisely,' said he, ' for if it suffices, no more is
necessary for action ; and if it does not suffice, it is
not sufficient.'

' What, then/ I asked, c is the difference between
them and the Jansenists ? ' ' They differ/ said he, ' in
the Dominicans having at least this much good in
them, that they refuse not to say that all men have
sufficient grace.' ' I understand/ replied I, c but they
say it without thinking it, since they add that in
order to act, it is necessary to have an effectual grace,
which is not given to all; thus, if they are conform
able to the Jesuits in a word which has no meaning,
they are contrary to them, and conformable to the
Jansenists in substance.' ' That is true/ said he.

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 55

1 How, then,' said I, ' are the Jesuits united with them ?
and why do they not combat them, as well as the
Jansenists, since they will always find in them power
ful opponents, who, maintaining the necessity of an
effectual, determining grace, will prevent them from
establishing that which they hold to be of itself
sufficient ? '

' The Dominicans are too powerful/ said he, ' and the
company of the Jesuits too politic to make open war
upon them. They are satisfied with having gained
from them an admission, at least, of the name of suffi
cient grace, although they understand it differently.
Their advantage in this is, that whenever they judge
it expedient, they will be able, without difficulty, to
discredit the opinion of the Dominicans, as not main
tainable. For assuming that all men have sufficient
grace, nothing is more natural than to infer that
effectual grace is not necessary in order to act, since
the sufficiency of this grace excludes the necessity of
any other. Sufficient includes all that is necessary in
order to act, and it would little avail the Dominicans to
cry out that they give a different meaning to the word
sufficient The people, accustomed to the common
acceptation, would not so much as listen to their
explanation. Thus, the Company have a sufficient
advantage in the reception of the term by the Domin
icans, without pushing them farther ; and if you were
acquainted with what took place under Popes Clement
VIII. and Paul V., and knew how much the Company
were thwarted by the Dominicans in establishing

06 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

sufficient grace, you would not be surprised at their
not quarrelling with them, and consenting to let them
hold their opinion, the Company also being free to
hold theirs, and more especially the Dominicans
favouring it by the term sufficient grace, which they
have agreed to use publicly.

The Company is very well satisfied with this con
cession. They do not insist on a denial of the neces
sity of effectual grace ; this were to press them too
hard : one must not tyrannise over one's friends : the
Jesuits have gained enough. For people deal in
words, without giving heed to the meaning of them ;
and thus the term sufficient grace being received by
both parties, although with different meanings, none
but the nicest theologians will imagine that the thing
meant by it is not held as well by the Jacobins as by
the Jesuits.'

I admitted to him that they were a clever race ;
and to turn his information to account, went straight
to the Jacobins, when at the gate I found one of
my intimate friends, a great Jansenist (for I have
friends among all parties), who was inquiring for some
other father than the one I was in quest of. By force
of entreaty, I got him to accompany me, and asked for
one of my new Thomists. He was delighted to see
me again. ' Well, father/ said I to him, ' it is not
enough that all men have a proximate power, by
which, however, they in fact never act. They must
have, moreover, a sufficient grace, with which they
act as little. Is not this the opinion of your school ? '

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 57

'Yes,' said the worthy father, 'I mentioned it this
morning in Sorbonne ; I spent my whole half hour
upon it, and but for the sand glass I would have
changed the sad proverb now current in Paris.'

He thinks by the bonnet like a monk in Sorbonne.
'What do you mean by your half hour and your sand
glass ? ' I asked. ' Do they cut your opinions to a
certain measure ?' ' Yes,' said he, ' for some days past.'
' Are you obliged to speak half an hour?' 'No, we
speak as little as we please.' ' But not so much as you
please,' said I ; * an excellent rule for the ignorant, a
fine pretext for those who have nothing good to say !
But in short, father, is the grace given to all men
sufficient ? ' ' Yes.' ' And yet it has no effect without
effectual grace ?' ' True.' ' And all men,' I continued,
* have the sufficient, but not all the effectual ? ' ' True.'
' In other words,' said I, ' all have enough of grace, and
yet all have not enough ; in other words, this grace
suffices though it suffices not ; in other words, it is
sufficient in name, and insufficient in fact. In good
sooth, father, this doctrine is very subtle. Have you,
on retiring from the world, forgotten what the word
sufficient signifies ? Do you not remember that it
includes whatever is necessary to act ? But you have
not lost the recollection of it; for, to use an illustration
to which you will be more sensible, Were you served
at table with only two ounces of bread and a glass of
water a day, would you be satisfied with your Prior
when he told you it was sufficient for your nourish
ment, on the pretext that with something else which

58 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

he did not give you, you would have all that was
necessary for your nourishment ? How then can you
allow yourself to say that all men have sufficient grace
to act, while you confess that in order to act there is
another absolutely necessary grace which all men have
not ? Is it because this belief is unimportant, and you
leave men at liberty to believe or not believe that
effectual grace is necessary ? Is it a matter of indif
ference to hold that with sufficient grace we do in
effect act ? ' ' How indifferent/ said the worthy man.
•' It is heresy, a formal heresy. The necessity of effec
tual grace to act effectually is a point of faith : it is
heresy to deny it ! '

' Where are we then/ exclaimed I, ' and which side
must I take ? If I deny sufficient grace, I am Jan-
senist ; if I admit it in the sense of the Jesuits, as if
effectual grace were not necessary, I will be heretical ;
so you say ; and if I admit it in your acceptation, as if
effectual grace were necessary, I sin against common
sense, and am preposterous; so say the Jesuits. What,
then, must I do in this inevitable necessity of being
either preposterous, or heretical, or Jansenist ? And
to what straits are we reduced if the Jansenists are
the only persons who have no quarrel either with
faith or with reason, and who escape alike from folly
and error ! '

My Jansenist friend took what I said as a good
omen, and thought me already gained to his party. He
said nothing to me, however, but, addressing the father,
' Tell me, I pray, father, in what you are conformable

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 59

to the Jesuits.' 'In this/ said he, 'that the Jesuits
acknowledge sufficient grace given to all.' ' But,'
replied he, ' there are two things in the expression suf
ficient grace ; there is the sound, which is only wind,
and the thing signified by it, which is real and effec
tive ; and thus while you are at one with the Jesuits
touching the words sufficient grace, and contrary to
them in the meaning, it is plain that you are contrary
to them as to the substance, and at one only as to the
sound. Is this to act sincerely and from the heart ? '
' But why/ said the worthy man, ' of what do you
complain, since we do not mislead any one by this
mode of speaking ? For in our schools we say openly
that we understand it in a contrary sense to that of
the Jesuits.' ' I complain/ said my friend to him, ' of
your not publishing, in all quarters, that you mean by
sufficient grace, a grace which is not sufficient. While
thus changing the meaning of the ordinary terms of
religion, you are obliged in conscience to say, that
when you admit a sufficient grace in all men, you un
derstand that they have not a grace which is sufficient
in fact. All the persons in the world understand the
word sufficient in one same sense : the New Thomists
alone understand it in another. All women, who form
the half of mankind, all persons at court, all military
men, all magistrates, all connected with the courts of
justice, merchants, artizans, the whole people in short,
all classes except Dominicans, understand that the
word sufficient comprehends everything that is neces
sary. Scarcely any person is made aware of this single

60 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

exception. The only thing said, everywhere, is, that
the Jacobins hold that all men have sufficient grace.
What conclusion can be drawn, but just that they hold
that all men have all the grace which is necessary to
act, more especially when they are seen leagued and
intriguing with the Jesuits, who so understand it ? Is
not your agreement in expression, taken along with
your party union, a manifest interpretation and a con
firmation of uniformity of sentiment ?

'All the faithful put the question to theologians,
What is the true state of human nature since the fall ?
St. Augustine and his disciples answer that it has no
longer sufficient grace, except in so far as God is
pleased to impart it. The Jesuits afterwards come
and say, that all have the grace which is actually suf
ficient. The Dominicans are consulted as to this con
trariety ; and what do they ? They unite with the
Jesuits, by this union forming the majority ; they
separate from those who deny sufficient grace, and
declare that all men have it. What can be thought of
this, but just that they give their sanction to the
Jesuits ? After all this, they add that sufficient is
useless without effectual grace, which is not given to all.

1 Would you see a picture of the Church in regard
to these different views ? I consider it like a man who,
having set out on a journey, is attacked by robbers,
who wound him in several places and leave him half
dead. He sends to the neighbouring towns for three
physicians. The first having probed his wounds, thinks
them mortal, and declares that God only can recover

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 61

him. The second, coming after, and wishing to flatter
him, tells him that he has still sufficient strength to
reach his home, and, insulting the first for opposing
this view, seeks to ruin his credit. The wounded man,
in this dubious state, seeing the third at a distance,
stretches out his hand to him as the person who must
give the decision. He, after examining his wounds,
and hearing the opinions of the other two, embraces
the second, and unites with him. Both combine against
the first, and, being the stronger party, drive him away
with insult. The wounded man judges by this pro
cedure that the third agrees in opinion with the
second ; and, in fact, on putting the question to him,
is distinctly informed that he has sufficient strength to
complete his journey. Feeling his weakness, however,
he asks him why he thinks his strength sufficient.
The answer is, ' Because you have still your limbs, and
the limbs are the organs which naturally suffice for
walking.' ' But,' rejoins the patient, ' have I all the
strength necessary to use them, for to me they seem
useless, I feel so feeble ?' ' Certainly you have not so
much strength/ says the physician, ' and, in fact, you
will never walk unless God send you extraordinary
assistance to sustain and conduct you/ ' What ! ' says
the patient, ' I have not then in myself a strength
which is sufficient, and want nothing to enable me
actually to walk ! ' ' Far from it/ says he. ' Your
opinion, then, in regard to my real condition/ rejoins
the wounded man, ' is contrary to that of your
comrade.' ' I confess it/ he replies.

62 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

' What do you think the patient said ? He com
plained of the strange behaviour and ambiguous
language of this third physician. He blamed him for
having leagued with the second, to whom he was
opposite in sentiment, and with whom he had only an
apparent conformity, and for having driven away the
first with whom he in fact agreed. Having made trial
of his strength, and ascertained by experience the real
extent of his weakness, he dismissed both of them,
and, calling back the first, places himself in his hands.
Taking his advice, he asked of God the strength which
he confessed he had not, was heard, and obtained
assistance which enabled him to reach his home.'

The worthy father, confounded at this parable,
made no answer. To bring him to himself, I said to
him mildly, ' After all, Father, what made you think
of giving the name of sufficient, to grace which you
say it is a point of faith to regard as insufficient in
fact ?' ' You speak very much at your ease,' said he.
' You are free and single. I am a monk, the member
of a community. Can you not allow for the difference ?
We depend on superiors, who themselves also depend
elsewhere. They have promised our votes; what
would you have me to become ?' We understood what
he would say. It brought to our minds the case of
one of his brethren who had been banished to
Abbeville for a similar cause.

' But what/ said I, ' led your community to admit
this grace ?' ' That is a different affair,' said he. 'All
that I can say to you, in one word, is, that your order

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 63

has, as long as it could, maintained the doctrine of St.
Thomas in regard to effectual grace. How eagerly did
it oppose the growth of Molina's doctrine ! How much
has it laboured to establish the necessity of the effec
tual grace of Jesus Christ ! Are you ignorant of what
took place under Clement VIII. and Paul V., and that
death overtaking the one, and some Italian affairs
preventing the other from publishing his Bull, our
arms have remained in the Vatican ? But the Jesuits,
who, from the commencement of the heresy of Luther
and Calvin, had taken advantage of the little ability
which the people have to discriminate between error
and the truth of St. Thomas's doctrine, had in a short
time made such progress in spreading their views, that
we soon saw them masters of the popular belief, and
ourselves in danger of being cried down as Calvinists,
and treated like the Jansenists in the present day, if
we did not modify the doctrine of effectual grace, by an
admission at least apparent of sufficient grace. In
this extremity, what better could we do in order to
save the truth without losing our credit, than just
admit sufficient grace in name, while denying it to be
so in fact ? In this way the thing has happened.'

He said this so dolorously that I felt pity ; but not so
my companion, who said to him : ' Do not flatter your
self with having saved the truth ; had it not had other
protectors it had perished in such feeble hands. You
have admitted into the Church the name of her enemy ;
this is to have received the enemy himself. Names are
inseparable from things. If the word sufficient grace
once gets a firm footing, it will be in vain for you to

64 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

understand by it a grace which is insufficient ; you
will not be listened to. Your explanation will disgust
the world, where less important things are spoken of
more seriously : the Jesuits will triumph ; their grace,
sufficient in fact, and not yours, sufficient only in
name, is the grace which will be held to be established,
and the opposite of your belief will become an article
of faith.'

1 We will all suffer martyrdom,' said the father,
' sooner than consent to the establishment of sufficient
grace in the sense of the. Jesuits : St. Thomas, whom
we vow to follow till death, being directly opposed to
it.' On this my friend, who was more earnest than I,
said : ' Pooh ! father, your order has received an
honour of which it proves unworthy. It abandons
that grace which had been entrusted to it, and which
has never been abandoned since the creation of the
world. This victorious grace, which was longed for
by the Patriarchs, foretold by the Prophets, brought
by Jesus Christ, preached by St. Paul, explained by St.
Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, embraced by
his followers, confirmed by St. Bernard, the last of the
Fathers, sustained by St. Thomas, the angel of the
schools, transmitted by him to your order, main
tained by so many of your fathers, and so gloriously
defended by your body under Popes Clement and
Paul; this efficacious grace, which had been placed as
a deposit in your hands, that it might have, in a holy
order always subsisting, preachers who would publish
it until the end of time, now finds itself as it were
forsaken for paltry interests. It is time for other

SUFFICIENT GRACE. 65

hands to arm in its cause. It is time that God raise up
intrepid disciples of the doctrine of grace ; men who,
knowing nothing of worldly engagements, will serve
God for God. Grace may indeed no longer have the
Dominicans for defenders; but it will never want
defenders, for it trains them for itself by its almighty
power. It demands hearts pure and disengaged ; it
purifies them itself, and disengages them from worldly
interests incompatible with the truths of the Gospel.
Think well of this, father, and beware lest God remove
your candlestick out of its place, and leave you in
darkness and without a crown, to punish your luke-
warmness in a cause which is so important to his Church.'

He would have said much more, for he waxed
warmer and warmer. -But I interrupted him, and
said, on rising, ' In truth, father, if I had credit in
France, I would proclaim by sound of trumpet : NOTICE
is HEREBY GIVEN, that when the Jacobins say that
sufficient grace is given to all, they mean that all have
not the grace which effectually suffices. Were this
done, you might use the term as often as you please,
but not otherwise.' Thus ended our visit.

You see then that we have here a politic sufficiency
similar to proximate power. I may, however, say to
you that the denial of proximate power and sufficient
grace seems dangerous to none but a Jacobin.

While closing my letter, I learn that the censure is

passed ; but as I do not yet know in what terms, and

it will not be published for several days, I will not

write about it till the first post thereafter. — I am, etc,

5

AN S WEE OF THE PEOVINCIAL.

TO HIS FRIEND'S TWO FIRST LETTERS.

PARIS.

Sm, — Your two first Letters have not been for me
only. Everybody sees, everybody hears, everybody
believes them. They are not only esteemed by theo
logians ; they are moreover interesting to men of the
world, and even intelligible to females.

A member of the Academy (one of the most distin
guished of a body whose niembers are all distin
guished), who had only seen the first Letter, writes me
as follows :

" I wish that the Sorbonne, which owes so much to
the memory of the late Cardinal, would recognise the
jurisdiction of his French Academy. The author of
the Letter would be satisfied ; for in my capacity of
Academician, I would authoratively condemn, banish,
proscribe, little keeps me from saying exterminate to
the extent of my power, this proximate power which
makes so much noise for nothing, and without know
ing what it would be at. The evil is, that our Aca
demical power is very remote and limited : I am sorry
for it, and much more sorry that my little power does
riot enable me to discharge all my obligations to your
self," etc.

ANSWER OF THE PROVINCIAL. 67

A personage, whom I will not designate in any way,
writes to a lady who had sent her your first Letter :

" I am more obliged than you can imagine by the
Letter which you have sent me ; it is most ingenious
and admirably composed. It narrates without narrat
ing, it clears up the most puzzling of all matters, and
has a fine vein of irony in it : it instructs even those
who do not know much of the case, and redoubles the
pleasure of those who understand it. It is moreover
an excellent apology, and, if you will, a delicate and
innocent censure. There is, in fine, so much ability,
wit, and judgment in this Letter, that I should like
to know who has composed it," etc.

You would also like to know who it is that writes
in these terms; but be contented to honour her with
out knowing her, and when you know her you will
honour her much more.

Continue your Letters then on my word, and let the
censure come when it will, we are very well prepared
to receive it. The words proximate power and suffi
cient grace, which they use as bugbears, will not
frighten us. We have learned too much of the Jesuits,
the Jacobins, and M. Le Moine — how many shapes
they take, and how little substance there is in those
new terms — to feel any concern about them. Mean
while, I am ever, etc.

LETTEE THIKD.

INJUSTICE, ABSURDITY, AND NULLITY OF THE CENSURE
OF M. ARNAULD.

PARIS.

SIR, — I have just received your letter, and at the
same time been handed a copy of the censure in manu
script. I find myself as well treated in the one as M.
Arnauld maltreated in the other. I fear there is ex
cess in both cases, and that we are not sufficiently
known to our judges. I am sure if we were more so,
M. Arnauld would deserve the approbation of Sor-
bonne, and I the censure of the Academy. Thus our
interests are directly opposite. He should make him
self known to defend his innocence, whereas I should
remain in obscurity not to lose my reputation. Hence
not being able to appear, I commit to you the office
of returning thanks to my distinguished patrons, and
undertake that of giving you news of the censure.

I confess, Sir, that it has surprised me exceedingly.
I expected to find the most dreadful heresies condemned,
but you will wonder, like me, how all this noise, and
all these preparations, have become abortive at the
moment of producing the grand result.

To understand it satisfactorily, recollect, I pray, the

THE CENSURE OF M. ARNAULD. 69

strange impressions which have for so long a time been
given us of the Jansenists. Call to mind the cabals,
the factions, the errors, the schisms, the crimes with
which they have so long been charged ; how they have
been cried down and blackened in the pulpit and by
the press ; and how much this torrent, so violent and
so lasting, has grown during the last year or two, in
which they have been accused openly and publicly of
being not only heretics and schismatics, but apostates
and infidels ; of denying the mystery and transub-
stantiation, and abjuring Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

In consequence of these many startling accusations,
it was resolved to examine their books in order to give
judgment upon them. Choice was made of the second
Letter of M. Arnauld, which was said to be full of the
grossest errors. The examinators assigned him are
his most avowed enemies. They employ their utmost
diligence to discover something reprehensible, and they
bring forward a proposition of a doctrinal nature,
which they submit to censure.

What could one think from the whole procedure,
but that this proposition, selected in such remarkable
circumstances, contained the essence of the blackest
heresies imaginable ? And yet, such is its nature that
there is nothing in it but what is so clearly and for
mally expressed in the passages which M. Arnauld has
quoted from the Fathers, at the place where the pro
position occurs, that 1 have not seen any person who
is able to comprehend the difference. People, never
theless, presumed it must be great ; since the passages

70 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS.

from the Fathers being undoubtedly orthodox, the
proposition of M. Arnauld behoved to be extremely
opposite to them to be heretical.

The Sorbonne was expected to give the explanation.
All Christendom was looking intent to see in the
censure of these Doctors a point which, to ordinary
men, was imperceptible. Meanwhile M. Arnauld frames
his ' Apologies/ in which he gives his proposition, and
the passages of the Fathers from whom he took it, in
separate columns, in order to make their conformity
apparent to the most undiscerning.

He shows that Augustine says in a passage which
he quotes, that " Jesus Christ exhibits in the person of
St. Peter a believer, who teaches us by his fall to
guard against presumption." In another passage which
he quotes, the same Father says, " God, to show that
without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter with
out grace." He gives a passage from St. Chrysostom,
who says, " The fall of St. Peter was not occasioned
by lukewarmness to Christ, but by want of grace;
was occasioned not so much by negligence as by aban
donment by God, to teach the whole Church that
without God we can do nothing." After this he gives
his accused proposition, which is as follows : " The
Fathers show us, in the person of St. Peter, a believer
to whom the grace without which we cannot do any
thing, was wanting."

Hereupon people try in vain to discover how it pos
sibly can be, that the proposition of M. Arnauld is as
different from that of the Fathers as truth from error,

THE CENSURE OF M. ARNAULD. 71

and faith from heresy. For wherein lies the differ
ence ? Can it be in his saying that "" the Fathers
show us a believer in the person of St. Peter " ? St.
Augustine has used the very words. Is it in saying
that " grace was wanting to him " ? Augustine, who
says that " St. Peter was a believer," also says that
" he had not grace on this occasion." Is it because he
says that " without grace we can do nothing " ? But
is not this what St. Augustine says in the same place,
and what St. Chrysostorn also had said before him,
with this single difference, that Chrysostom expresses
it in a much stronger manner, as when he says that
" his fall was not owing either to his lukewarmness or
his negligence, but to want of grace and abandonment
by God"?

All these considerations were holding the world in
breathless suspense to learn wherein the difference
consisted, when the censure, so famous and so eagerly
looked for, at length, after numerous meetings, appears.
But alas ! it has indeed disappointed our expectations.
Whether the Molinist Doctors have not deigned to
lower themselves so far as to instruct us, or for some
other secret reason, they have done nothing more than
pronounce these words : This proposition is rash, im
pious, blasphemous, anathematised, and heretical.

Can you wonder, Sir, that most people seeing their
hopes deceived, have lost temper, and turned against
the censors themselves ? They draw very strong in
ferences, from their conduct, in favour of M. Arnauld.
What ! they say, after all this time, have all these

72 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Doctors, with all their inveteracy against a single in
dividual, been able to do no more than find three lines
to censure in all his works, and these expressed in the
very words of the greatest Doctors of the Greek and
Latin Churches ? Is there an author whom it was
wished to ruin, whose writings would not afford a
more plausible pretext ? Could a stronger proof be
given of the soundness of the faith of this illustrious
accused ?

How comes it, they ask, that this censure is so
filled with imprecations ? that the terms poison,
pestilence, horror, temerity, impiety, blasphemy, abom
ination, execration, anathema, heresy, the very worst
that could be found for Arius, or Antichrist himself,
are raked together to denounce an imperceptible
heresy, and that even without discovering it ? If
quotations from the Fathers are to be treated in this
manner, what becomes of faith and tradition ? If the
only object of attack is the proposition of M. Arnauld,
let them show us where the difference lies, since we
see only perfect conformity. When we perceive the
heresy in it, we will hold it in detestation; but so
long as we see it not, and only find the sentiments of
the Fathers conceived and expressed in their own
words, how can we do otherwise than hold it in holy
veneration ?

Such is the way in which many feel; but they
belong to the class of those who are too sharp-sighted.
Let us who do not go so deep into things, keep our
selves at ease on the whole matter. Would we be

THE CENSURE OF M. ARNAtJLD. 73

more knowing than our masters ? Let us not under
take more than they. We should lose ourselves in the
search. The least thing in the world would make the
censure heretical. The truth is so delicate, that any
deviation from it, however small, plunges us into error ;
while the error is so minute that a single step away
from it brings us to truth. There is only one imper
ceptible point between this proposition and sound
faith. The distance is so insensible, that my fear,
while not seeing it, has been, that I might become
contrary to the Doctors of the Church in my anxiety
to be conformable to the Doctors of Sorbonne. In this
fear I judged it necessary to consult one of those who,
from policy, were neutral on the first question, that I
might learn how the case truly stands. Accordingly I
waited on one of them, a very clever person, and begged
him to have the goodness to specify the particular
points of difference, frankly confessing to him that I
saw none.

Laughing, as if amused at my simplicity, he replied :
' How silly you are to believe there is any difference !
Where could it be ? Do you imagine that if any
could have been found, it would not have been dis
tinctly specified, and that they would not have been
delighted to expose it to the view of all the people
in whose minds they desire to lower M. Arnauld ? ' I
saw plainly, by these few words, that all who were
neutral on the first question would not have been so
on the second. Still, however, I wished to hear his
reasons, and said, ' Why then did they attack this

7 4 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

proposition ? ' He replied, ' Are you ignorant of two
things, which the least informed on these matters
know ? the one, that M. Arnauld has always avoided
saying anything that was not strongly founded in the
tradition of the Church : the other, that his enemies
were determined to exclude him from it, cost what
it might ; and these his writings, giving no handle
to their designs, they, to gratify their passions, have
been compelled to take up a proposition at hazard,
and without saying why or wherefore ? For do
you not know how the Jansenists keep them at bay,
and press them so very closely, that whenever a
word escapes them in the least degree contrary to
the Fathers, they are forthwith borne down by whole
volumes, and forced to succumb ? After the many
proofs of their weakness, they have judged it more
expedient and less laborious to censure than to rejoin,
because it is far easier for them to find monks than
arguments.

' But the matter so standing,' said I, ' their censure
is useless ; for what credit will it have when it is seen
to be without foundation, and is overthrown by the
answers which will be made to it ? ' 'If you knew
the spirit of the people/ said my Doctor, ' you would
speak in a different manner. The censure, most cen
surable though it be, will have almost full effect for a
time ; and though by dint of demonstrating its inval
idity, it certainly will come to be understood, just as
certainly will the first impression of the great majority
be that it is perfectly just. Provided the hawkers in

THE CENSURE OF M. ARNAULD. 75

the streets cry: Here you have the censure of M.
Arnauld ! Here you have the condemnation of the
Jansenists ! the Jesuits will have gained their object.
How few will read it ? How few who read will un
derstand ? How few perceive that it does not meet
the objections ? Who do you think will take the
matter to heart, and probe it to the bottom ? See,
then, what advantage the enemies of the Jansenists
have here. In this way they are sure of a triumph
(though according to their wont, a vain triumph), for
several months at least. This is a great deal for them:
they will afterwards look out for some new means of
subsistence. They are living from hand to mouth.
It is in this way they have maintained themselves
hitherto ; at one time by a catechism, in which a child
condemns their opponents ; at another by a procession,
in which sufficient grace leads effectual grace in
triumph ; at another by a comedy, in which the devils
carry off Jansenius ; once by an almanac, and now by
the censure.'

' In truth/ said I, the proceedings of the Molonists
seemed to me objectionable in every point of view ;
but after what you have told me, I admire their pru
dence and their policy. I see well that there was
nothing they could do either more judicious or more
sure.' ' You understand it,' said he. ' Their safest
course has always been to be silent, and hence the
saying of a learned theologian, that the ablest among
them are those who intrigue much, speak little, and
write none.'

76 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

' In this spirit they had, from the commencement of
their meetings, prudently ordered that if M. Arnauld
made appearance in Sorbonne. it should only be to
give a simple exposition of his belief, and not to enter
the lists with any one. The examinators having
chosen to deviate somewhat from this rule, did not
get well out of it. They saw themselves very roughly
handled by his second Apology.

' In this same spirit they have fallen upon the rare
and very novel device of the half hour and the sand
glass. They have thereby rid themselves of the im
portunity of those Doctors who undertook to refute
all their arguments, to produce books convicting them
of falsehood, and challenge them to reply, while put
ting it out of their power to reply with effect. Not
that they were unaware that this want of liberty,
which caused so many Doctors to withdraw their
attendance, would do no good to their censure ; and
that the protest of nullity which M. Arnauld took
before it was concluded, would be a bad preamble for
securing its favourable reception. They know well
that all who are not prejudiced, attach at least as
much weight to the judgment of seventy Doctors who
had nothing to gain by defending M. Arnauld, as to
that of the hundred who had nothing to lose by con
demning him.

' But still, after all, they thought it always a great
matter to have a censure, although it were only by a
part of Sorbonne, and not by the whole body ; though
it were passed with little or no freedom, and secured

THE CENSURE OF M. AENAULD. 77

by many paltry, and some not very regular, methods ;
although it explains nothing as to the point in dispute,
does not specify wherein the heresy consists, and says
little from fear of mistake. This very silence gives
the thing an air of mystery to the simple, and gains
this singular advantage to the censure, that the most
critical and subtle theologians will not be able to find
any false argument in it.

'Set your mind at rest then, and fear not to be
heretical in using the condemned proposition. It is
bad only in the second Letter of M. Arnauld. Are
you unwilling to take this on niy word ? Believe M.
Le Moine, the keenest of the examinators, who, speak
ing this very morning with a friend of mine, a Doctor,
who asked him wherein the difference in question lies,
and whether it would no longer be lawful to say what
the Fathers have said, gave this valuable reply :
" This proposition would be orthodox in an other
mouth : it is only in M. Arnauld that the Sorbonne
has condemned it." And now admire the engines of
Molinism, which effect such prodigious revolutions in
the Church, making that which is orthodox in the
Fathers become heretical in M. Arnauld, that which
was heretical in the Semi-Pelagians become orthodox
in the writings of the Jesuits ; making the ancient
doctrine of St. Augustine become an intolerable
novelty, while the new inventions which are daily
fabricated under our eyes pass for the ancient faith of
the Church.' On this he left me.

This lesson was enough. It taught me that the

78 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

heresy here was of a new species. It is not the senti
ments of M. Arnauld, but his person that is heretical.
It is a personal heresy ! He is not heretical because
of anything he has said or written, but only because
he is M. Arnauld. This is all that is objectionable in
him. Let him do what he may, unless he cease to
live, he will never be a good Catholic. The grace of
St. Augustine will never be true so long as he shall
defend it. It would become so if he were to combat
it. This were a sure stroke, and almost the only means
of establishing it and destroying Molinism ; such mis
fortune does he bring on the principles which he
supports.

Here, then, let us have done with these disputes.
They are the quarrels of theologians, not questions of
theology. We who are not Doctors have nothing to
do with their squabbles. Give the news of the cen
sure to all our friends, and love me as much as — I am,
Sir, your very humble and obedient servant,

E. A. A. B. P. A. F. D. E. P.

LETTEE FOUETH.

OF ACTUAL GRACE ALWAYS PRESENT, AND OF SINS OF IGNORANCE.

PARIS.

SIR, — There are none like the Jesuits. I have seen
many Jacobins, Doctors, and all sorts of people, but a
visit like this was wanting to complete my instruction.
Others only copy them. Things are always best at
the source. I have accordingly visited one of the
cleverest of them, accompanied by my faithful Jan-
senist, who went with me to the Jacobins. And as I
wished particularly to be enlightened on the subject
of a difference which they have with the Jansenists
touching actual grace, I told the worthy father how
much I should be obliged to him if he would have the
goodness to instruct me, as I did not even know what
the term meant ; I therefore begged him to explain it
to me. ' Very willingly/ said he, ' for I like inquisi
tive people. Here is the definition of it. Actual
grace is an inspiration from God, by which he makes
us know his will, and excites in us a desire to per
form it.' ' And wherein,' I asked, ' are you at variance
with the Jansenists on this subject ?' ' It is,' said he,
' in our holding that God gives actual grace to all men
on every temptation, because we maintain that if on

80 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

every temptation actual grace not to sin were not
given, no sin whatever that might be committed could
be imputed. The Jansenists say, on the contrary, that
sins committed without actual grace are imputed not
withstanding : but they are dreamers. I had some
idea of what he meant, but, to make him explain him
self more clearly, I said, ' Father, the term actual
grace confuses me ; I am not accustomed to it : if you
will have the goodness to tell me the same thing
without using that term, I will be infinitely obliged.'
' Yes/ said the father, ' in other words you wish me
to substitute the definition in place of the thing de
fined ; that never makes any change on the meaning ;
I am very willing to do it. We maintain, then, as an
indubitible principle, that an action cannot be im
puted as sinful unless God gives us, before we com
mit it, a knowledge of the evil which is in it, and an
inspiration prompting us to avoid it. Do you under
stand me now ?'

Astonished at this language, according to which all
sins of surprise, and those done in complete forgetful-
ness of God, cannot be imputed, I turned towards my
Jansenist, and saw plainly by his manner that he did
not believe a word of it. But as he made no answer,
I said to the father, ' Father, I wish much that what
you tell me were true, and that you could furnish
good proof of it.' 'Do you wish it ?' said he imme
diately, ' I will furnish you, and with the very best :
leave that to me.' On this he went to fetch his books.
I said meanwhile to my friend, ' Does any other of

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 81

them speak like him ?' 'Is that so new to you ?' he
replied ; ' rest assured that no Father, Pope, or Coun
cil, neither Scripture, nor any book of piety even in
these last times, ever spoke in that manner ; but as to
casuists and new schoolmen, he will bring you them
in abundance.' 'What!' said I, 'I care not a straw
for those authors if they are opposed to tradition.'
'You are ri^ht/ said he. As he spoke, the worthy
father arrived loaded with books, and, offering me the
first in his hand, ' Read,' said he, ' the Sum of Sins, by
Father Bauni. Here it is ; the fifth edition, moreover,
to show you that it is a good book/ 'It is a pity,'
whispered my Jansenist, ' that this book was con
demned at Rome, and by the bishops of France.'
1 Look/ said the father, ' at page 906.' I looked and
found as follows : To sin and incur guilt before God,
it is necessary to know that the thing which we wish
to do is worthless, or at least to suspect this ; to fear,
or rather judge, that God takes no pleasure in the
action we are contemplating, that he forbids it, and,
notwithstanding to do it, to take the leap and go
beyond.

' This makes a good beginning/ said I. ' And yet,'
said he, ' see what a thing envy is. It was for this
that H. Hallier, before he was a friend of ours, jeered
at Father Bauni, applying to him the words, Ecce
qui tollit peccata mundi ! Behold him who taketh
away the sins of the world /' 'It is true/ said I, ' that
this is a new redemption, a la Father Bauni/

'Are you desirous,' he added, 'to have a graver

82 PEOVINCIAL LETTERS.

authority ? Look at this work of Father Ann at. It
is the last which he has written against M. Arnauld.
Look at page 34, where it is folded down, and read the
lines which I have marked with a pencil : they are all
letters of gold.' I read accordingly : He who has no
thought of God, nor of his sins, nor any apprehension,
that is, as he explained to me, any knowledge of the
obligation to do acts of love to God, or of contrition,
has no actual grace to do those acts ; but it is also true
that he does not sin in omitting them, and that if he
is damned, it will not be in punishment of this omis
sion. Some lines farther down : And we may say the
same thing of a culpable omission.

' Do you see how he speaks of sins of omission and
sins of commission ? For he forgets nothing. What
say you ?' ' O how I am delighted,' replied I. ' What
beautiful consequences I see ! The whole series is
already in my eye ; what mysteries rise into view ! I
see incomparably more people justified by this ignor
ance and forge tfulness of God, than by grace and the
sacraments. But, father, are you not giving me a false
joy ? Is there nothing here akin to the sufficiency
which suffices not? I am dreadfully afraid of the
Distinguo ; I was caught by it before. Are you in
earnest?' 'How,' said the father, warming; 'it is
no jesting matter ; there is no equivocation here.' ' I
am not jesting,' said I, ' but I fear it is too good to be
true.'

' To make you more sure, then/ said he, ' turn to the
writings of M. Le Moine, who has taught it in full

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 83

Sorbonne. He learned it from us, it is true, but he
has well expounded it. 0 how firmly he has estab
lished it ! He teaches, that before an act can be sin
ful, all these things must take place in the soul Read
and weigh every word.' I read in Latin what you
will here see in French : 1. On the one hand, God in
fuses into the soul some feeling of love, inclining it
towards the thing commanded, while, on the other
hand, rebellious concupiscence urges it to the con
trary. 2. God inspires it with a knowledge of its
iveakness. 3. God inspires it with a knowledge of the
Physician who is to cure it. 4. God inspires it with
a desire of cure. 5. God inspires it with a desire to
pray to him, and implore his assistance.

1 Unless all these things take place in the soul,' said
the Jesuit, ' the action is not properly sin, and cannot
be imputed, as M. Le Moine says in the same place,
and in the sequel throughout.

' Would you have more authorities ? Here they are.'
' But all modern,' quietly observed my Jansenist. ' I
see,' I replied ; and, addressing the father, said, ' 0
father, what a blessing to some persons of my acquain
tance ! I must bring them to you. Perhaps you have
seldom seen people with fewer sins, for they never
think of God ; their vices got the start of their reason ;
they have never known either their infirmity, or the
Physician who can cure it ; they have never thought
of desiring the health of their soul, and still less of
asking God to give it ; so that they are still, according
to M. Le Moine, as innocent as at their baptism. They

84 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

have never once thought of loving God or being sorry
for their sins ; so that, according to Father Annat,
they have never sinned, being devoid both of love and
repentance. Their whole life is a continued search
after pleasure of every sort, and their course has never
been interrupted by the slightest remorse. All these
excesses made me think their perdition certain ; but
you, father, teach me, that these excesses make their
salvation secure. Blessings on you, father, for thus
justifying people! Others teach how to cure souls by
painful austerities, but you show that those whom we
might hav7e thought most desperately diseased, are in
good health. 0 ! the nice way of being happy in this
world and in the next. I always thought that we
sinned the more, the less we thought of God. But
from what I see, when once one has so far gained upon
one's self, as not to think of him at all, all things in
future become pure. None of your half sinners who
have some lingering after virtue ! They will all be
damned, those half sinners. But for those frank
sinners, hardened sinners, sinners without mixture,
full and finished, hell does not get them ; they have
cheated the devil ; by dint of giving themselves over
to him !'

The worthy father, who clearly enough saw the
connection of these consequences with his principles
adroitly evaded it, and without troubling himself,
whether from meekness of prudence, simply said to
me, ' That you may understand how we avoid these
inconveniences, know, that we indeed say that the

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 85

impious persons you refer to, would be without sin, if
they had never had any thoughts of conversion, or
desires of giving themselves to God. But then we
maintain that they all have these thoughts, and that
God has never allowed a man to sin without previously
giving him a view of the evil which he is going to do,
and a desire either to avoid the sin or at least to im
plore his assistance to enable him to avoid it. None
but the Jansenists say the contrary.'

' What ! father,' I rejoined, ' is it heresy in the
Jansenists to deny that in every instance when a man
commits sin, he has a feeling of remorse in his con
science, in spite of which he proceeds to take the leap
and pass beyond, as Father Bauni says ! It is rather
amusing to be a heretic for that. I always thought
that men were damned for not having good thoughts :
but that they are damned for not believing that every
body has them, of a truth, never occurred to me. But,
father, I feel bound in conscience to disabuse you, and
tell you that there are thousands of people who have no
such desires, who sin without regret, sin gladly, and
make a boast of it. Who can know this better than
yourself ? Do you not confess some such persons as I
speak of, for it is among persons of high rank that
they are most frequently met with ? But beware,
father, of the dangerous consequences of your maxim.
Do you not perceive what effect it may have upon
those libertines whose only wish is to be able to doubt
the truth of religion ? What a handle for this do you
give when you tell them as an article of faith, that at

86 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

every sin which they commit, they are warned, and
feel an inward desire to abstain from it ! For is it not
obvious, that, their own experience assuring them of
the falsehood of your doctrine on the point which you
say is an article of faith, they will extend the infer
ence to all the others ? They will say that if you are
not true in one article, you may be suspected in all ;
and thus you will oblige them to conclude either that
religion is false, or that you are ill instructed in it.'

But my second, taking up my view, said to him,
' In order to preserve your doctrine, father, you will
do well not to explain, so precisely as you have done
to us, what you understand by actual grace. How
could you, without losing all credit in the minds of
men, declare openly that nobody sins without pre
viously having a knowledge of his infirmity and of
the Physician, a desire of cure, and of asking God io
grant it ? Will it be believed on your word, that
those who are addicted to avarice, unchastity, blas
phemy, duelling, revenge, theft, sacrilege, have really
a desire to cultivate chastity, humility, and the other
Christian virtues ? Will it be thought that those
philosophers who vaunted so highly of the power of
nature, knew its infirmity and the Physician ? Will
you say that those who held as an indubitable maxim,
that God does not give virtue, and that no person ever
asked it of him, thought of asking it themselves ?

' Who will believe that the Epicureans, who denied
divine Providence, had inspirations inclining them to
pray to God ? men who said, it was an insult to

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 87

apply to him in OUT wants, as if he were capable of
amusing himself with thinking of us. In fine, is it
imaginable, that idolaters and atheists have, in all the
temptations inclining them to sin, (that is, an infinite
number of times during their life) a desire to pray to
the true God of whom they are ignorant, to give them
the true virtues which they do not know ?'

' Yes,' said the worthy father, with a determined
tone, ' we will say it ; and sooner than say that men
sin without having a perception that they are doing
evil, and a desire of the opposite virtue, we will main
tain that the whole world, both wicked men and
infidels, have these inspirations and desires on every
temptation. For you cannot show me, at least from
Scripture, that it is not so.'

I here took the liberty to say to him, ' What ! father,
is it necessary to have recourse to Scripture to demon
strate so clear a matter ? It is neither an article of
faith, nor a fit subject of argument. It is a matter of
fact. We see it, we know it, we feel it.'

But my Jansenist, taking up the father on his own
terms, said to him, ' If you insist, father, on yielding
only to Scripture, I consent, but at least do not resist
it; and, seeing it is written that God has not made
known his judgments to the Gentiles, and that he has
left them to wander in their own ways, say not that
God has enlightened those whom the Sacred Books
declare to have been left in darkness and the shadow
of death.

1 To perceive that your principle is erroneous, is it

88 PROVINCIAL LETTEUS.

not enough to see that St. Paul calls himself the chief
of sinners, because of a sin which he committed
through ignorance and with zeal.

' Is it not enough to see from the Gospel that those
who crucified Jesus Christ needed the pardon which
he asked for them, although they knew not the full
wickedness of the deed, and, according to St. Paul,
would not have done it had they known ?

' Is it not enough, when Jesus Christ warns us that
there will be persecutors of the Church, who will
think they are doing God service in striving to over
throw it, to remind us, that this sin which, according
to the Apostle, is the greatest of all, may be committed
by persons, who, so far from knowing that they sin,
would think it a sin not to do so ? And, in fine, is it
not enough that Jesus Christ himself has told us that
there are two kinds of sinners — those who sin with
knowledge, and those who sin without knowledge ;
and that they will all be punished, though in differ
ent degrees ? '

The worthy father, pressed by so many passages of
Scripture to which he had appealed, began to give
way, and, leaving the wicked to sin without inspira
tion, said: 'At least you will not deny that the
righteous never sin without God giving them — '
'You are drawing back/ said I, interrupting him,
' you are drawing back, father ; you are giving up the
general principle ; and, seeing that it won't hold in
regard to sinners, you would fain compound the mat
ter, and make it, at least, subsist in regard to believers.

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 89

In that case, the use of it is greatly curtailed, very
few will be able to avail themselves of it, and it is
scarcely worth while contesting it with you.'

But my second, who, I believe, had studied the whole
question that very morning, so much was he at home
upon it, replied, ' This, father, is the last entrenchment
into which those of your party who have been pleased
to debate the point retire. But you are far from being
safe in it. The example of believers is not a whit
more favourable for you. Who doubts that they often
fall into sins of surprise without perceiving it ? Do
we not learn from the saints themselves, how many
secret snares concupiscence lays for them, and how
frequently it happens, let them be temperate as they
may, that they give to pleasure what they think they
are only giving to necessity, as St. Augustine says of
himself in his Confessions ?

' How common is it in debate to see the most zealous
give way to ebullitions of temper for their own interest,
while the only testimony which their conscience gives
at the time is, that they are acting solely for the
interests of truth, this erroneous impression sometimes
continuing for a long time after ?

' But what shall we say of those who engage with
eagerness in things which are really bad, believing
them to be really good, cases of which Ecclesiastical
History furnishes examples, and in which, according
to the Fathers, sin is nevertheless committed ?

' But for this, how could believers have hidden sins ?
How could it be true that God alone knows the magni-

90 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

tude and the number of them ? That no one knows
whether he is deserving of love or of hatred, and that
the greatest saints must always remain in fear and
trembling, although they are not conscious of trans
gression, as St. Paul says of himself ?

* Understand then, father, that the examples, both of
the righteous and the wicked, equally disprove your
supposed essential requisite to sin, namely, a knowledge
of the evil and a love of the contrary virtue, since the
passion which the wicked have for vice plainly testifies
that they have no desire for virtue, and the love which
the righteous have for virtue loudly proclaims that
they are not always aware of the sins which, accord
ing to Scripture, they commit every day.

' So true is it that believers sin in this manner, that
distinguished saints seldom sin otherwise. For how
is it conceivable, that those pure souls who so carefully
and earnestly eschew whatever may be displeasing to
God the moment they perceive it, and who, neverthe
less, sin repeatedly every day, should, previously to
each lapse, have a knowledge of their infirmity on that
occasion,and of the Physician, a desire to obtain health,
and to pray to God to succour them ; and, notwith
standing of all these inspirations, these zealous souls
should still pass beyond and commit the sin ?

' Conclude then, father, that neither the wicked nor
even the righteous have always that knowledge, those
desires, and all those inspirations every time they sin ;
in other words, to use your own terms, they have not
actual grace on all the occasions on which they sin.

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 91

No longer say with your new authors, that it is im
possible to sin without knowing righteousness ; but
say rather with St. Augustine and the ancient Fathers,
that it is impossible for any man not to sin who is
ignorant of righteousness. Necesse est ut peccet, a quo
ignoratur justitia'

The worthy father, finding himself precluded from
maintaining his opinion in regard to the righteous, as
well as in regard to sinners, did not, however, lose
courage. Pondering a little, he said, ' I am sure I am
going to convince you ; ' and, taking up his Father
Bauni at the place which he had shown us, ' See, see
the reason on which he founds his view. I know well
that he had no lack of good proofs. Read his quota
tion from Aristotle, and you will see that after so
express an authority, you must burn the books of this
prince of philosophers, or be of our opinion. Listen
then to the principles which Father Bauni establishes.
He says, first, that an act can not be imputed to sin
when it is involuntary.' l Admitted/ said my friend.
' This/ said I, ' is the first time that I have seen you
agree. Stay where you are, father, if you will take
my word.' ' That were to do nothing/ said he, ' for
we must ascertain what conditions are necessary to
make an action voluntary.' ' I greatly fear/ replied I,
' That you will split upon that.' ' Fear not/ said he,
' the thing is sure. Aristotle is with me. Listen
attentively to what Father Bauni says : An action,
to be voluntary, must be done by one who sees and
knows, and thoroughly perceives the good and evil

92 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

^vhich is in it. YOLUNTARIUM EST (as is commonly
defined by the philosopher. You are aware/ said he,
giving my hand a squeeze, ' he means Aristotle,) QUOD

FIT A PR1NCIPIO COGNOSCENTE SINGULA IN QU1BUS EST

ACTIO ; so much so that -when the will at random, and
without discussion, proceeds to will or dislike, to do or
not do something, before the understanding has
been aUe to see whether there is evil in willing or in
shunning it, in doing it or leaving it undone, such
action is neither good nor bad; in as much as, previous
to this requisite, this view and reflection of the mind
as to the good or bad qualities of the thing in question,
the act which is done is not voluntary.'

1 Well/ said the father, l are you satisfied ?' ' It
seems/ rejoined I, ' that Aristotle is of Father Bauni's
opinion, but I am surprised at it. What ! father, in
order to act voluntarily, is it not enough to know what
we do, and to do it because we please to do it ? Must
we moreover see, know, and thoroughly perceive the
good and evil lhat is in the action ? If so few actions
of our lives are voluntary, for we seldom think of all
that, what oaths at play, what excesses of debauchery,
what irregularities during carnival, must be involun
tary, and consequently neither good nor bad, from not
being accompanied with those reflections of the mind
on the good or bad qualities of what is done ! But,
father, is it possible that this can have been Aristotle's
idea ? I have always heard that he was a man of
talent.' 'I will explain to you/ said my Jansenist,
and, having asked the father for Aristotle's Ethics, he

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 93

opened at the beginning of the third book, where
Father Bauni has taken the words he quotes, and said
to the worthy father, ' I forgive you for believing on
Father Bauni's word, that this was Aristotle's opinion.
You would have thought differently if you had read it
for yourself. It is very true he teaches that to make
an action voluntary, it is necessary to know the par
ticulars of the action ; SINGULA IN QUIBUS EST ACTIO.
But what does he mean by this, except the particular
circumstances of the action ? This is clearly proved
by his illustrations, which refer only to cases in which
some one of those circumstances is unknown, as that
of a person who, in winding up a machine, sets free a
dart, by which some one is hurt ; or of Merope, who
slew her son, mistaking him for an enemy, and so on.
' You thus see the kind of ignorance which renders
actions involuntary ; it is only that of the particular
circumstances, which, as you, father, very well know,
is called by theologians, ignorance of fact. But as to
that of right, in other words, as to ignorance of the
good or evil which is in the action, the only point here
in question, let us see if Aristotle is of the opinion of
Father Bauni. These are the philosopher's own words:
All wicked men are ignorant of what they ought to
do, and of what they ought to shun. And this is the
very thing which renders them wicked and vicious.
Hence, we cannot say that because a man is ignorant
of what it is expedient for him to do, in order to dis
charge his duty, his act is involuntary. For this
ignorance in the choice of good and evil, does not make

94 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the act involuntary, but only makes it vicious. The
same thing must be said of him who is ignorant in
general of the rules of his duty, since ignorance makes
man deserving of blame, and not of excuse. And hence
the ignorance which renders actions involuntary and
excusable, is only that which regards the particular
fact, and its special circumstances. In that case, we
pardon the man and excuse him, considering him to
have acted against his will.

1 After this, father, will you still say that Aristotle
is of your opinion ? Who will not be astonished to
see a heathen philosopher more enlightened than your
doctors on a matter so important to morality in general,
and even to the direction of souls, as a knowledge of
the conditions which make actions voluntary or invol
untary, and which, in consequence, exempt or do not
exempt them from sin ? Hope nothing, then, father,
from this Prince of Philosophers, and no longer resist
the Prince of Theologians, who thus decides the point.
(Retr. liv. 1, c. 15.) Those who sin from ignorance,
act only because they wish to act, although they sin
without wishing to sin. And thus even the sin of
ignorance can be committed only by the will of him
who commits it, though by a will which disposes to the
act and not to the sin. This, however, does not hinder
the act from being a sin, because for this it is enough
to have done what there was an obligation not to do.'

The father seemed surprised, and still more at the
passage from Aristotle than at that from St. Augus
tine. But while he was thinking what to say, a

ACTUAL GRACE, AND SINS OF IGNORANCE. 95

message announced that the Countess of - — and the

Marchioness of were waiting for him. Taking a

hasty leave, he said, ' I will speak of it to our fathers.
They will certainly find some answer. Some of ours
here are very ingenious.' We perfectly understood
him, and when I was alone with my friend, I expressed
my astonishment at the revolution which this doctrine
made in morals. He replied that he was very much
astonished at my astonishment. ' Do you not know
that their corruptions in morals are much greater
than in other matters ? ' He gave me some curious
examples, and left the rest for another time. I hope
to give you what I shall learn from him the first time
I write.

I am, etc.

LETTEE FIFTH.

DESIGN OF THE JESUITS IN ESTABLISHING A NEW MORALITY. TWO
SETS OF CASUISTS AMONG THEM. MANY OF THEM LAX, SOME
STRICT. GROUND OF THIS DIVERSITY. DOCTRINE OF PRO
BABILITY EXPLAINED. HERD OF MODERN ANE UNKNOWN
AUTHORS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE HOLY FATHERS.

PARIS.

SIR, — Here is what I promised you. Here you have
the first specimens of the morality of the worthy Jesuit
fathers, those men eminent for learning and wisdom,
who are ail guided by Divine wisdom, ivhich is much
surer than any philosophy. You perhaps think me
in jest. I say it seriously, or rather they themselves
say it in their book, entitled, Imago Primi Saculi.
I only copy their words, which thus continue the
eulogium : It is a company of men, or rather angels,
which was foretold by Isaiah in these words, ' Go,
angels, prompt and swift.' How clearly the pro
phecy applies! They are eagle spirits, a troop of
pho3nixes (an author having lately shown that there
are more than one). They have changed the face
of Christendom. We must believe it since they say
it. You will be fully persuaded of it by the sequel
of this letter, which will acquaint you with their
maxims.

ARTICLES OF THE JESUITS. 97

I was desirous to have the best information. I did
not trust to what our friend had told me. I was
desirous to have it from themselves. But I have
found that he spake no more than the truth. I believe
he never misrepresents. This you will see from the
narrative of my interviews.

In the one which I had with him, he told me such
strange things that I could scarcely believe him ; but
he showed them to me in the books of their fathers,
so that I had nothing left to say in their defence, ex
cept that they were the sentiments of some individuals,
which it was not fair to impute to the body. I, in
fact, assured him that I knew some who are as strict
as those he quoted to me are lax. On this he ex
plained to me the spirit of the Company, which is not
generally known, and you will, perhaps, be very glad
to learn it. What he said to me was this :

'You think it a great deal in their favour to show
that they have fathers as conformable to the maxims
of the Gospel as the others are opposed to them, and
you infer that these lax opinions belong not to the
whole Company. I know it. For if it were so, they
would not tolerate their purer teachers. But since
they have some who teach this licentious doctrine, the
inference is, that the spirit of the Company is not that
of Christian severity. If it were, they would not
tolerate what is so opposed to it.' ' How/ replied I,
' what object then can the entire body have ? It must
be that they have no definite object, and every one at
liberty to say at a venture whatever he thinks.' ' That
7

98 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

cannot be,' he replied ; ' so large a body could not exist
under random guidance, and without a spirit to govern
and regulate all its movements. Besides, a special
regulation forbids any to print without the permission
of their superiors.' ' What,' said I, ' how can their
superiors consent to such different maxims ? ' * This I
must tell you,' replied he.

' Know, then, that their object is not to corrupt
manners ; that is not their intention. But neither is it
their only aim to reform them ; that were bad policy.
Their view is this : they have a good enough opinion
of themselves to believe that it is conducive, and in a
manner necessary to the welfare of religion, that they
should be everywhere in repute, and govern all con
sciences. And because strict Gospel maxims are fitted
to govern some sorts of persons, they use them on the
occasions to which they are suitable. But as these
maxims are not in accordance with the views of most
people, they, in those cases, abandon them, that they
may be able to satisfy all and sundry. Hence it is,
that having to do with persons of all classes, and with
nations differing widely from each other, they require
to have casuists assorted to this great diversity.

' From this principle, you can easily see, that if they
had only lax casuists, they would defeat their princi
pal object, which is to embrace the whole world, since
those who are truly pious require a stricter guidance.
But as this class is not numerous, they do not require
many strict directors to guide them. They have few
for the few, while the great crowd of lax casuists are
ready for the crowd who desire laxity.

ARTICLES OF THE JESUITS. 99

By this obliging and accommodating behaviour, as
Father Petau terms it, they hold out their hand to all
the world. Should any one come before them firmly
resolved to restore ill-gotten gains, don't imagine they
will dissuade him. They will praise him on the con
trary, and confirm his holy resolution. But let another
come who wishes to have absolution without restoring,
the thing will be difficult indeed if they do not furnish
him with means, the safety of which they will guar
antee.

' In this way they preserve all their friends, and
defend themselves against all their enemies. For, if
they are charged with their extreme laxity, they
forthwith produce to the public their austere directors,
with some books which they have composed in the
strict spirit of the Christian law ; and the simple, and
those who do not examine to the bottom of things, are
satisfied with these proofs.

' They are thus provided for all sorts of persons, and
meet the demand so completely that when they
happen to be in countries where a God crucified
seems foolishness, they suppress the offence of the
Cross, and preach only a triumphant, not a suffering
Jesus; as they have done in the Indies and China,
wttere they allowed the converts even to practise idol
atry, by the subtle device of making them conceal
under their dress an image of Jesus Christ, to which
they were mentally to refer the public worship which
they paid to the, idol Cachinchoam, and their Keum-
f ucum, as they are charged by the Dominican Gravina,

100 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

and is attested by a memorial in Spanish, presented to
Philip IV. of Spain by the Cordeliers of the Philippine
Isles, and quoted by Thomas Hurtado in his treatise
entitled, the Martyrdom of Faith, p. 427, so that the
congregation of cardinals, de propaganda fide, was
obliged specially to prohibit the Jesuits, under pain of
excommunication, from permitting the worship of idols
under any pretext, and concealing the mystery of the
Cross from those whom they instruct in religion,
expressly commanding them not to admit any to bap
tism without ascertaining their knowledge in this
respect, and ordaining them to exhibit a crucifix in
their churches, as is contained at large in the decree
of the Congregation, and officially signed by Cardinal
Capponi.

' In this way they have spread themselves over the
whole earth by the aid of the doctrine of Probability,
which is the source and basis of all this corruption.
This you must learn from themselves. For they make
no secret of it any more than of what you have just
heard, with this single difference, that they cloak their
human and politic prudence with the pretext of a
divine and Christian prudence, as if the faith and tra
dition which maintain the latter were not always one
and invariable in all times and places ; as if it were
the rule that ought to bend in order to meet the sub
ject, which should be conformable to the rule ; and as
if souls, in order to be purified from their stains, had
only to corrupt the law of the Lord, whereas it is the
law of the Lord, which is without spot and perfect,

ARTICLES OF THE JESUITS. 101

that should convert souls, and make them conformable
to its salutary lessons.

' Go then, I beg of you, visit these worthy fathers,
and I feel sure that, in the laxity of their morality,
you will easily discover the cause of their doctrine
concerning grace. You will see Christian virtues
which are elsewhere unknown, and devoid of the
charity which is their soul and life ; you will see so
many crimes palliated, and so many disorders per
mitted, that you will no longer see anything strange
in their maintaining that all men have always grace
enough to live piously in the way they understand it.
As their morality is wholly heathenish, nature is suffi
cient to observe it. When we maintain the necessity
of effectual grace, we give it other virtues for its
object — not merely to cure one set of vices by another,
not merely to make men practise the external duties
of religion, but a righteousness exceeding that of the
Pharisees and the greatest sages of heathenism. For
such righteousness as theirs, reason and the law gave
sufficient grace. But to disengage the soul from the
love of the world, to withdraw it from all that is
dearest to it, to make it die to itself, to carry it and
attach it solely and invariably to God, is the work of
an almighty hand. And it is as unreasonable to main
tain that we have always full power to do so, as it
would be unreasonable to deny that virtues devoid of
love to God, which those worthy fathers confound
with Christian virtues, are in our power.'

These were his words, and he spoke them in great sor-

102 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

row, for he is seriously distressed at all these disorders.
I,%£or my part, admired these worthy fathers for the
skilf ulness of their policy, and set off, as he advised
me, to find a good casuist of the company. It was an
old friend, whose acquaintance I desired to renew for
the very purpose, and as I was instructed how to
manage with them, I had no difficulty in putting
matters in train. He at first hugged me a thousand
times, for he always loves me, and, after some talk on
indifferent subjects, I took occasion from its being the
season of Lent, to learn something from him on fast
ing, in order to get insensibly into the subject. I
signified to him that I was scarcely able to support
fasting. He exhorted me to make an effort, but as I
continued to complain, he felt for me, and began to
search for some ground of dispensation. He, in fact,
offered me several, which did not suit me, when at last
it occurred to him to ask if I did not find it difficult
to sleep without supping. ' Yes, father/ said I, ' and
this often obliges me to lunch at noon and sup in the
evening/ ' I am very glad/ he replied, ' at having
found a way of relieving you without sin. Go to, you
are not obliged to fast. I do not ask you to believe
me, come to the library.' I went, and there, taking
down a book, ' Here is a proof/ said he, ' and, God
knows, good proof. It is Escobar/ ' Who is Escobar,
father ?' I asked. ' What, do you not know Escobar
of our Society, who has compiled this Moral Theology
from twenty-four of our fathers ? He allegorises this
in the preface, and likens his book to the Apocalypse,

ON FASTING. 103

which was sealed with seven seals. He says that Jesus
offers it thus sealed to the four living creatures, Suarez,
Vasquez, Molina, and Valentia, in presence of four-
and-twenty Jesuits, who represent the elders! He read
the whole of the allegory, which he considered very
exact, and thereby gave me a very high idea of the
excellence of the work. Having afterwards looked
for the passage on fasting, ' Here it is,' said he, ' tr. i.
ex. 13, no. 67. If a person cannot sleep unless he has
supped, is he obliged to fast ? No. Are you not satis
fied ?' 'Not quite,' said I, ' for I can bear fasting if I
lunch in the morning and sup in the evening.' ' Look,
then, to what follows,' said he, 'for they have thought
of everything : What, if he can do it by taking a col
lation in the morning and supping in the evening.
My very case ! No more is he obliged to fast, for no
man is obliged to change the order of his repasts! 'An
excellent reason,' said I. ' But tell me,' continued he,
' do you use much wine.' ' No, father,' said I, ' I can
not bear it.' ' I asked,' replied he, ' to make you aware
that you might drink it in the morning, and when
you please, without breaking the fast ; and this holds
in every case. Here is the decision at the same place,
no. 75. Can one, without breaking the fast, drink
wine at any hour he pleases, and even in large quan
tities ? He may, even hypocras. I had forgotten this
hypocras! said he, ' I must put it in my note-book.' 'He
is an honest man, this Escobar,' said I. ' Everybody
likes him/ replied the father, 'he puts such pretty
questions. Look at this one which is at the same

104 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

place, no. 38. // a man doubts whether he is twenty-
one, is he obliged to fast ? No. But if I am twenty-
one complete, an hour after midnight, and the fast is
to-morrow, will I be obliged to fast to-morrow ? No.
For you might eat as much as you please from mid
night till one o'clock, since you would, till then, be
under tiventy-one, and thus, being entitled to break
the fast, you are not bound by it! ' How amusing
that is/ said I. ' There is no getting away from him/
replied he, ' I spend my days and nights in reading
him, I do nothing else.' The worthy father, seeing me
pleased, was delighted, and continued, ' See, also/ said
he, ' the tract of Filiutius, who is one of the twenty-
four Jesuits : Tom. II. tr. 27, part 2, c. 6, no. 143.
When one is fatigued in any way, as in running
after a girl, is he obliged to fast ? No. But if he has
fatigued himself for the very purpose of being relieved
from the fast, will he be bound by it ? Though he
should have done it of set purpose, he will not be
obliged.' ' Well, would you have thought it ?' said he.
' In truth, father/ I said, ' I scarcely believe it yet.
What, is it not a sin not to fast when one can do it ?
Is it lawful to seek occasions of sinning ? Are we not
rather obliged to shun them ? That would be very
convenient.' ' Not always obliged/ said he, ' accord
ing to — ' ' According to whom ?' I asked. ' Ho, ho/
rejoined the father. I asked, ' Were any inconveni
ence suffered by shunning occasions, would there, in
your opinion, be any obligation to shun them ?' 'Father
Bauni, at least does not think so. See p. 1084 : We

PROBABLE OPINIONS. 105

must not refuse absolution to those who remain in
proximate occasions of sin, if they are so situated that
they cannot withdraw without giving occasion to the
world to speak, or without subjecting themselves to
inconvenience! ' I rejoice at it, father ; all now wanted
is to say, that we may of set purpose seek occasions,
since it is permitted not to shun them.' ' Even this is
sometimes permitted/ added he : ' the celebrated cas
uist, Basil Ponce, says so, and Father Bauni quotes
arid approves his opinion in his Treatise on Penitence,
q. 4, p. 94. One may seek an occasion directly, and
for itself, PRIMO ET PER SE, when the spiritual or tem
poral welfare of ourselves or our neighbours deter
mines us!

' Truly/ said I, ' it looks as if I were dreaming when
I hear men of the cloister speaking in this way. But,
father, tell me in conscience, is that your opinion?'
'No, indeed/ said the father. 'You are speaking
then/ I continued, ' against your conscience V l Not
at all/ said he, ' I was not speaking according to my
own conscience, but according to that of Ponce and
Father Bauni ; and you may follow them in safety,
for they are men of ability/ ' What, father, because
they have put these three lines in their books, can
it have become lawful to seek occasions of sin ? I
thought the only rule to follow was Scripture and the
tradition of the Church, but not your casuists/ ' Good
God ! ' exclaimed the father, ' you put me in mind of
those Jansenists. Are not Father Bauni and Basil
Ponce able to make their opinion probable ?' ' Proba-

106 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

bilifcy does not satisfy me/ said I, ' I want certainty/
' I see well/ said the worthy father to me, ' that you
know not the doctrine of probable opinions. You
would speak otherwise if you knew it. Indeed I
must make you acquainted with it. Your visit will
not be lost time ; without this, you cannot understand
anything. It is the foundation and the A B c of all
our morality.' I was delighted at seeing him fall on
what I wished, and saying I would be glad to learn,
begged him to explain what was meant by a probable
opinion. ' Our authors will tell you better than I can/
said he. ' Here is the way in which it is generally
explained by all, and, among others, by our four-and-
twenty in the beginning of Ex. iii. n. 8. " An opinion
is called probable when it is founded on reasons of
some weight ; hence, it sometimes happens that a
single very grave doctor may render an opinion prob
able. Here, too, is the reason. For a man specially
devoted to study, would not adhere to an opinion if
he were not drawn to it by a good and sufficient
reason.'" 'And thus/ said I, 'a single doctor may
whirl consciences round, and tumble them over and
over at his pleasure, and always in perfect safety.'
' You must not laugh/ said he, ' nor think to combat
the doctrine. When the Jansenists tried it, they lost
their time. It is too well established. Listen to
Sanchez, who is one of the most celebrated of our
fathers. Sum, L. i., n. 9. c. 7. " You doubt, perhaps,
if the authority of a single good and learned doctor
can render an opinion probable. I answer yes. And

PROBABLE OPINIONS. 107

this is confirmed by Angelus, Sylvius, Navarre, Em
manuel Sa, etc. The way in which they prove it is
this : A probable opinion is one which has a consider
able foundation. Now, the authority of a learned
and pious man is of no small weight, or rather is of
great weight. For " (listen well to this reason), " if
the testimony of such a man is of great weight to
assure us that a thing has taken place, for example,
at Rome, why should it not have the same weight in
a dubious point of morals ?"

' Rather amusing/ said I, ' to compare the things of
the world with those of conscience.' ' Have patience ;
Sanchez replies to that in the lines which immediately
follow. " I do not approve of a qualification by certain
authors, that the authority of a certain doctor is
sufficient in matters of human right, but not in those
of divine right. For it is of great weight both in the
one and the other.'"

' Father/ said I frankly, 'I cannot make any use of
this rule. What security have I, that in the liberty
which your doctors take to examine things by reason,
a point which appears sure to one will appear so to
all ? There is such diversity of judgment — ' You
do not understand it/ said the father interrupting me ;
'they accordingly very often are of different opinions ;
but that is of no consequence. Each makes his own
probable and safe. Verily, we know well that they
are not all of one way of thinking. And so much the
better. On the contrary, they seldom if ever agree.
There are few questions on which you do not find

108 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

that the one says Yes and the other No. And, in all
those cases, each of the opposing opinions is probable.
This makes Diana say on a certain subject, Part 3, to.
4, r. 244. " Ponce and Sanchez take opposite views,
but, as they were both learned, each makes his opinion
probable." '

' Then, father,' said I, ' one must be very much at a
loss how to choose.' ' Not at all,' said he, ' you have
only to follow the opinion which you like best.' ' But
what if the other is more probable ?' 'No matter,'
said he. ' And if the other is more safe ? ' ' No
matter/ again said the father, ' here it is well explained
by Emmanuel Sa of our company in his Aphorism De
dubio, p. 183. We may do what we think lawful ac
cording to a probable opinion, although the contrary
may be more safe. The opinion of a grave doctor is
sufficient' 'And if an opinion is at once both
less probable and less safe, will it be lawful to follow
it, to the exclusion of that which is believed to be
more probable and more safe ?' ' Yes ; once more,'
said he, ' listen to Filiutius, the great Jesuit of Rome.
Mor. Quest., tr. 21, c. 4. n. 128. It is lawful to folloiv
the less probable opinion though it be the less safe. This
is the common opinion of the new authors. Is not
that clear ?' ' We have, certainly, large scope, rever
end father,' said I, ' thanks to your probable opinions.
We have fine liberty of conscience. And you casuists,
have you the same liberty in your answers ?' 'Yes,'
said he, ' we answer as we please, or rather, as pleases
those who consult us. For here are our rules, taken

PROBABLE OPINIONS. 109

from our fathers, Layman, Theol. Mor., 1. i., tr. i. c. 2,
s. 2, n. 7; Vasquez, Dist. 62, c. 9, n. 47 ; Sanchez, Sum,
1. i, c. 9, n. 23 ; and our four-and-twenty, princ, Ex. 3,
n. 24. Here are the words of Layman, whom the book
of the four-and-twenty has followed : " A doctor being
consulted may give counsel not only probable accord
ing to his opinion, but contrary to his opinion, if it is
esteemed probable by others, when this contrary
opinion happens to be more favourable and more
agreeable to the person consulting. Si FORTE ET ILLI
FAVORABILIOR SEU EXOPTATIOR SIT. But I say, more
over, that it would not be unreasonable for him to
give those who consult him, an opinion deemed prob
able by some learned person, even though he be fully
convinced that it is absolutely false."'

' Very good, father, your doctrine is most convenient.
Only to answer yes, or no, at pleasure ! One cannot
sufficiently prize such an advantage. I now see clearly
what you gain by the contrary opinions which your
doctors have on every subject. The one is always of
use, and the other never does any harm. If you do
not find your gain on one side, you turn to the other,
and always in safety/ ' True,' said he, ' and thus we
can always say as Diana did, on finding Father Bauni
for him, when Father Lugo was against him : " Saepe
premente Deo, fert Deus alter opem." If one god
presses, another brings relief.'

' I understand,' said I, ' but a difficulty occurs to me.
After consulting one of your doctors, and getting from
him an opinion somewhat wide, we might, perhaps, be
caught if we were to fall in with a confessor of a

110 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

different temper, who might refuse absolution if we
did not change our view. Have you not provided for
this, father ? ' ' Do you doubt it ? ' replied he, ' con
fessors are obliged to give absolution to their penitents
who have probable opinions, and under pain of mortal
sin, that they might not fail to do so. This has been
well shown by our fathers, among others, by Father
Bauni, Tr. 4, De Pcenit, Q. 13, p. 93. When the peni
tent follows a probable opinion, the confessor must
absolve him, though his opinion be contrary to that
of the penitent' ' But he does not say it is a mortal
sin not to absolve him ? ' ' How hasty you are,'
said he, ' listen to what follows ; he infers this in
express terms : To refuse absolution to a penitent who
acts on a probable opinion, is a sin which is in its
nature mortal. In confirmation of this opinion, he
quotes three of our most famous fathers, Suarez, tr. 4,
d. 32, s. 5 ; Vasquez, disp. 62, c. 7 ; and Sanchez,
num. 29.'

' 0 father/ said I, ' how very prudently this has
been arranged. Now there is nothing to fear. No
confessor would dare to refuse. I did not know that
you had the power of ordaining under pain of damna
tion. I thought you only able to take away sins. I
did not think you knew how to introduce them. But
you have all power, from what I see.' ' You do not
speak properly,' said he, ' we do not introduce sins, we
only call attention to them. I have already observed,
two or three times, that you are not a good logician.'
' Be this as it may, father, my doubt is fully solved.
But I have still another to state, it is this : I cannot

PROBABLE OPINIONS. Ill

see what you are to do, when the Fathers of the
Church are contrary to the opinion of some one of
your casuists.'

' You know very little of the matter,' said he, ' the
Fathers were good for the morality of their day, but
they are too remote for ours. Not they, but our new
casuists, now give the rule. Listen to our Father
Cellot (de Hier, 1. 8, c. 16, p. 714), who, in this, follows
our famous Father Reginald: "In questions of morality
the new casuists are preferable to the ancient Fathers,
although they were nearer the apostles." Proceeding
on this maxim, Diana says, p. 5, tr. 8, r. 31, "Are the
holders of benefits obliged to restore the revenue
which they apply improperly ? The ancients said yes,
but the moderns say no ; let us hold by this opinion
which discharges the obligation to restore.'" 'Fine
sentiments,' said I, 'and full of consolation for numbers
of people ! ' ' We leave the Fathers,' said he, ' to those
who deal in theory, but we who govern consciences
read them seldom, and in our writings quote only the
new casuists. See Diana who has written so much.
At the beginning of his book, he gives a list of the
authors quoted. There are 296, and not one more
than eighty years old.' ' That is, since the existence
of your Company ? ' ' About it,' he replied. ' That is
to say, father, that on your arrival, St. Augustine, St.
Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, etc., so far as
regards morality, disappeared. But at least let me
know the names of their successors ; who are those
new authors ? ' 'They are very able and very cele
brated persons,' said he ; ' they are, Villalobos, Conink,

112 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer, Dellacrux, Veracruz,
Ugolin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, Saurez, Hen-
riquez, Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez, Sanchez, De Vechis,
De Grassis, De Grassalis, De Pitigianis, De Graphseis,
Squilanti, Bizozeri, Barcola, De Bobadilla, Simancha,
Perez de Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, De Scarcia, Quaranta,
Scophra, Pedrezza, Cabrezza, Bisbe, Dias, De Clavasio,
Villagut, Adam a Manden, Iribarne, Binsfield, Volfan-
gi a Yorberg, Vosthery, Strevesdorf. ' ' O father, '
exclaimed I, quite frightened, ' were all these people
Christians ? ' ' How Christians,' replied he, ' did I not
tell you that they are the only persons by whom we
govern Christendom in the present day ? ' I felt pity,
though I did not show it, and merely asked if all those
authors were Jesuits. 'No/ said he, 'but no matter,
they have said good things, notwithstanding. Not
that the greater part have not taken or imitated them
from us, but we do not stickle upon the point of
honour ; and, besides, they quote our fathers every
hour and with eulogium. See Diana, who is not of
our Company, when he speaks of Vasquez, he calls him
the Phoenix of minds, and he sometimes says, that to
him, Vasquez alone is worth all the rest of men put
together. Instar omnium. Accordingly all our fathers
make very frequent use of the worthy Diana ; for, if
you properly understand our doctrine of probability,
you will see that his not being of our Company is of
no consequence. On the contrary, we are quite will
ing that others, besides Jesuits, should be able to
render their opinions probable, in order that they may
not all be imputed to us. Hence, when any author

PROBABLE OPINIONS. 113

whatever has advanced one, we are entitled by the
doctrine of probable opinions to take it if we choose,
and we are not its guarantees when the author is not
of our body.' ' I understand all that,' I said ; ' I see
that all cornes well to you, except the ancient Fathers,
and that you are masters of the field. All you have
to do is to career in it.

' But 1 foresee three or four great inconveniences and
formidable barriers, which you will have to encounter
in your course.' ' And what are they ?' said the father,
quite amazed. ' They are,' I replied, ' the Holy Scrip
tures, Popes, and Councils, which you cannot gainsay,
and which are all in strict accordance with the Gospel.'
' Is that all ?' said he, ' you gave me a fright. Do you
imagine that a thing so palpable was not foreseen, and
has not been provided for ? I really wonder at your
thinking that we are opposed to Scripture, Popes, or
Councils. I must make you understand the contrary.
I would be very sorry you should think we fail in
what we owe them. You have, no doubt, formed this
notion from some opinions of our fathers, which seem
to run counter to their decisions, though it is not so.
But, to show their agreement, we must have more
leisure. I wish you not to remain imperfectly in
formed concerning us. If you will be so good as
to return to-morrow I will give you the explanation.'
Here ended our conference, which will also be the end
of my discourse, and it is quite enough for one letter.
Trusting you will be satisfied with it while awaiting
the sequel, I am, etc.

8

LETTEE SIXTH.

ARTIFICES OF THE JESUITS TO EVADE THE AUTHORITY OF
SCRIPTURE, COUNCILS, AND POPES. CONSEQUENCES OF THE
DOCTRINE OF PROBABILITY, THEIR CORRUPTIONS IN FAVOUR
OF BENEFICIARIES, PRIESTS, MONKS, AND DOMESTICS. HISTORY
OF JOHN OF ALBA.

PARIS.

SIR, — I told you at the end of my last letter, that
the worthy Jesuit had promised to instruct me how
the casuists reconcile the contrariety between their
opinions and the decisions of Popes, Councils, and
Scripture. He did so instruct me on my second visit,
of which I now give you an account.

The worthy father spoke to me as follows : ' One
of the ways in which we reconcile these apparent
contradictions, is by the interpretation of some par
ticular term. For example, Pope Gregory XIV. has
declared that assassins are not entitled to the benefit
of asylum in churches, and ought to be taken out of
them by force. Notwithstanding, our four-and-
twenty elders say, tr. 6, ex. 4, n. 27, That all who
murder treacherously should not incur the pains of
this Bull. This seems to you a contradiction, but we
reconcile it by interpreting the word assassin as they
do in these terms. Are not assassins unworthy of the

EVASIONS OF THE JESUITS. 115

privilege of asylum in churches ? Yes. By the Bull
of Pope Gregory XIV. But we understand the term
assassin to mean those who have received money to
murder treacherously. Hence it follows, that those
who murder without receiving any sum, and merely
to oblige their friends, are not called assassins. In
the same way it is said in the Gospel, Give alms out of
your superfluity. Notwithstanding, several casuists
have found means to discharge the most wealthy from
the obligation of giving alms. This also seems to you
a contradiction ; but it is easily reconciled by inter
preting the word superfluity in such a way, that it
seldom or ever happens that a person has it. This has
been done by the learned Vasquez 'in his treatise on
alms, c. 4. What men of the world keep to raise their
own condition and that of their kindred, is not
called superfluity, and this is the reason why super
fluity is seldom if ever to be found in men of the world,
and even in kings.

' Diana also, after quoting this passage from Vas
quez (for he usually founds on our fathers), very
properly infers that in the question whether the rich
are obliged to give alms of their superfluity, although
the affirmative were true, it would never, or almost
never, become obligatory in practice.'

'I see plainly, father, that that follows from the
doctrine of Vasquez. But what answer would be
given to the objection, that in order to secure salvation,
it would, according to Vasquez, be as safe not to give
alms, provided one has ambition enough to leave no

116 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

superfluity, as according to the Gospel it is safe to be
without ambition, in order to have a superfluity out
of which to give alms?' ' It would be necessary to
answer/ said he, ' that both methods are safe according
to the same Gospel ; the one according to the Gospel in
the most literal and obvious acceptation, and the other
according to the same Gospel interpreted by Vasquez.
This shows you the utility of interpretation.

' But when the terms are so clear that they admit
of none, we make use of the consideration of favour
able circumstances, as you will see by an example.
The popes have excommunicated monks for laying
aside their habit, and yet our four-and-twenty elders
speak in this way, tr. 6, ex. 7, n. 103. On what
occasions 'may a monk change his dress without in
curring excommunication? He mentions several,
among others the following : If he changes it to go and
thieve, or to go incognito into houses of bad fame, in
tending shortly to resume it. Indeed it is clear that
the bulls do not speak of such cases.'

I could scarcely believe this, and prayed the father
to show it to me in the original : and I saw that the
chapter in which the words occur is headed, Praxis ex
Socieiatis Jesu Schola : Practice according to the school
of the Company of Jesus. Here I saw the words : Si
habitum dimittat ut faretur occulte, vel fornicetur.
He showed me the same thing in Diana in these
terms : Ut eat incog nitus ad lupanar. ' How comes it,
father, that they have freed them from excommunica
tion in this instance ?' ' Do you not comprehend ?' said

EVASIONS OF THE JESUITS. 117

he. ' Do you not see what scandal it would give to
surprise a monk in this state with his religious dress ?
And have you never heard,' continued he, ' how the
first bull, contra sollicitantes, has been met, and in
what way our four-and-twenty, in a chapter which is
also in the Practice of the School of our Company, ex
plain the bull of Pius V., contra clericos, etc. T ' I know
nothing of all this,' said I. ' You seldom read Escobar,
then,' said he. ' I only got him yesterday, father, and
with difficulty. I don't know what has happened
lately to set everybody on the search for him.'
' What I told you,' rejoined the father, ' is at tr. 1, ex.
8, n. 102. Look for it in your copy. It will give you
a fine specimen of the mode of interpreting bulls
favourably.' I did see it that very evening; but I
dare not give it to you : it is frightful.

The worthy father then continued. 'You now
understand the use which is made of favourable cir
cumstances. But the bulls are sometimes so precise
that contradictions cannot be reconciled in this way.
In such cases you might well suppose that the contra
dictions would be real. For example : three popes have
decided that monks, bound by a particular vow to a
perpetual Lent, are not dispensed from it by becoming
bishops. And yet Diana says that notwithstanding
this decision, they are dispensed.' ' And how does he
reconcile it ?' said I. * By the most subtle of all the
new methods,' replied the father : ' by the greatest
finesse of Probability. I am going to explain it to
you. The principle is that of which you heard the

118 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

other day, namely, that the affirmative and negative
of most opinions have each some probability, in the
judgment of our doctors ; indeed, enough to be fol
lowed with safety of conscience. Not that the pro
and the con are both true in the same sense : that
is impossible ; but only that they are both probable,
and consequently safe/

' On this principle Diana our good friend speaks
thus in Part 5, tr. 13, r. 39. " I reply to the decision
of these three popes, which is contrary to my opinion
that they have spoken in this way from fixing on the
affirmative, which in fact is probable even in my judg
ment ; but it does not follow that the negative has not
also its probability." And in the same treatise, r. 65,
on another subject, in which he is again of a contrary
opinion to a pope, he speaks thus : " That the Pope
may have said it as head of the Church, I admit;
but he has only done it to the extent of the
sphere of the probability of his sentiment." Now you
see plainly that this is not to go counter to the senti
ments of the popes : it would riot be tolerated at Rome,
where Diana is in such high credit. For he does not
say that what the popes have decided is not probable ;
but leaving their opinion in the full sphere of Proba
bility, he yet says that the contrary is also probable/
4 This is very respectful,' said I. 'And it is more
subtle,' added he, ' than the reply which Father Bauni
made when his books were censured at Rome ; for in
writing against M. Hallier, who was then persecuting
him furiously, the words slipped from him, What has

EVASIONS OF THE JESUITS. 119

the censure of Rome in common with that of France ?
You now see plainly enough how, either by the consid
eration of favourable circumstances, or, in fine, by the
double probability of the pro and the con, we always
reconcile these pretended contradictions which previ
ously astonished you, and always as you see without
running counter to Scripture, councils, or popes/
' Reverend father,' said I, ' how happy the world is to
have you for masters ! How useful these probabilities
are ! I did not know why you had been so careful to
establish that a single doctor, if he is grave, may ren
der an opinion probable ; but the contrary may be so
also, and that we may choose the pro or the con, as
best pleases us, although not believing it true, and
with such safety of conscience, that a confessor who
should refuse to give absolution on the faith of these
casuists would be in a state of damnation. Hence I
understand that a single casuist can at pleasure make
new rules of morality, and dispose according to his
fancy of everything that regards the conduct of man
ners/ ' What you say/ said the father, ' must be taken
with some limitation. Attend well to this. Here is
our method, in* which you will see the progress of a
new opinion from birth to maturity.

' At first the grave doctor who has discovered it ex
hibits it to the world, and casts it like a seed to take
root. It is still weak in this state, but time must
mature it by degrees. And hence Diana, who has
introduced several, says in one place : " I advance this
opinion, but because it is new, I leave it to be matured

120 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

by time." Thus we see it for a few years insensibly
gaining strength, till after a considerable period it
becomes authorized by the tactic approbation of the
Church, according to this great maxim of Father
Bauni : " An opinion being advanced by some casuists,
and the Church not opposing it, is evidence that she
approves it." And, in fact, it is by this principle he
sanctions one of his sentiments in his treatise 6, p.
312.' ' What, father !' said I, ' the Church will at that
rate approve of all the abuses which she suffers, and
all the errors in the books which she does not censure ?'
' Dispute,' said he, ' against Father Bauni. I give you
a statement, and you debate with me. There is no
disputing upon a fact. I said then that when time
has thus ripened an opinion, it is quite probable and
safe. Hence the learned Caramuel, in the dedication
of his Fundamental Theology to Diana, says, that this
great Diana " has rendered several opinions probable
which were not so before ; quce ante non erant ; and
that thus there is no longer any sin in following them,
though there was sin before ; jam non peccant, licet
ante peccaverint" '

' Of a truth, father,' said I, ' it is a mighty advantage
to be beside your doctors. Of two persons doing the
same things, the one who does not know their doctrine
sins, and the one who knows it does not sin. Is it
then at once both instructive and justifying ? The
law of God 'accord ing to St. Paul, made transgressors ;
yours makes almost all men innocent. I entreat you,
father, to inform me fully on the subject. I will not

MAXIMS FOR BENEFICIARIES AND PRIESTS. 121

leave you until you have told me the principal maxims
which your casuists have established/

' Alas ! ' said the father, ' our principal aim should
have been to establish no other maxims than those of
the Gospel in all their strictness. And it is plain
enough from the correctness of our own manners, that
if we suffer any laxity in others, it is rather from com
plaisance than from design. We are forced to it. Men
are now-a-days so corrupted, that being unable to make
them come to us, we must of course go to them. Other
wise, they would leave us ; they would do worse, they
would become utterly regardless. With a view to re
tain them, our casuists have considered the vices to
which all ranks are most disposed, thus to be able,
without however injuring the truth, to establish max
ims so mild that one must be strangely constituted
not to be satisfied ; for the capital design which our
Company has formed for the good of religion is to
rebuff none, to beware of driving people to despair.

'Accordingly, we have maxims for all classes of
persons; for holders of benefices, for priests, for monks,
for gentlemen, for servants, for the rich, for persons in
trade, for those whose affairs are in disorder, for pious
women, and such as are not pious, for married people,
for libertines. In short, nothing has escaped their
foresight.' ' In other words/ said I, ' you have them
for clergy, lords and commons. I am very desirous to
hear them.'

' Let us begin,' said the father, ' with the holders of
benefices. You know what traffic is now carried on in

122 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

benefices, and that if we were to proceed on what St.
Thomas and the ancients have written on the subject,
there would be a vast number of Simonists in the
Church. Hence, it was most necessary for our fathers
to temper things by their prudence, as the following
passage of Valentia, one of Escobar's four living crea
tures, will inform you. It is the conclusion of a long
discourse in which he furnishes several expedients;
but this in my opinion is the best. It is at p. 2039 of
vol. iii. " Where a temporal good is given for a spiri
tual good (in other words, money for a benefice), and
the money is given as the price of the benefice, it is
manifest simony : but if it is given as a motive which
disposes the patron to bestow it, it is not simony,
although he who bestows it considers and expects the
money as the principal inducement." Tannerus, who
is also of our Company, says the same thing in his vol.
iii., p. 1519, although he admits that "St. Thomas is
against him, inasmuch as he teaches absolutely that it
always is simony to give a spiritual good for a tem
poral, if the temporal is the end." By this means we
prevent an infinitude of simonies. For who would be
so wicked, while giving money for a benefice, as to re
fuse to make it his intention to give it as a motive
which disposes the holder of the benefice to resign it ?
No man can be so far left to himself.' ' I agree,' said
I, ' that all men have sufficient grace to take such a
step.' ' Not a doubt of it,' rejoined the father.

'Thus have we softened matters in regard to the
holders of benefices. As to priests we have several

MAXIMS FOR BENEFICIARIES AND PRIESTS. 123

maxims, which are very favourable to them. For
example, that of No. xxiv., tr. 1, ex. 11, n. 96 : " May a
priest who has been paid to say mass, receive money a
second time for the same mass ? Yes," says Filiutius,
" by applying the part of the sacrifice, which belongs
to him as priest, to the person who makes the second
payment, provided he do not receive full payment for
a whole mass, but only for a part, e.g., a third of the
mass." '

1 Assuredly, father, this is one of the cases in which
the pro and con are very probable. Your last state
ment cannot but be so, on the authority of Filiutius
and Escobar. But, while leaving it in the sphere of
its probability, the contrary might, methinks, be also
said and supported on these grounds. When the
Church permits priests who are poor to take money
for their masses, because it is very just that those who
serve the altar live by the altar, it does not therefore
mean, that they are to barter the sacrifice for money,
still less deprive themselves of all the grace which
they should be the first to draw from it. I would say,
moreover, that according to St. Paul, priests are obliged
to offer sacrifice first for themselves and then for the
people, and that thus while it is lawful for them to
allow others to participate in the benefit of the sacri
fice, they may not voluntarily renounce the whole
benefit of it for themselves, and give it to another for
the third of a mass ; that is, for four or five sous.
Indeed, father, how far soever I might be from being
grave, I could render this opinion probable. ' ' You

124 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

would have no great difficulty,' said he. ' It is visibly
so. The difficulty was to find probability in the oppo
site of opinions which are manifestly good. And this
is only the privilege of great minds. Father Bauni
excels in it. It is a pleasure to see this learned casuist
penetrating into the pro and con of the following ques
tion, which also respects priests, and finding reason
everywhere; he is so ingenious and so subtle.

' He says in one place (it is in tr. 10, p. 474), "A law
could not be passed obliging curates to say mass every
day; because such a law would expose them indubitably
(haud dubie) to the peril of sometimes saying it in
mortal sin." Nevertheless in the same tract, 10, p. 441,
he says that " priests who have been paid to say mass
daily, ought to say it daily, and cannot excuse them
selves 'on the ground of not being always properly
prepared, because they can always perform an act of
contrition, and if they fail it is their own fault, and
not his who makes them say the mass." To obviate
the great difficulties which might prevent them, he, in
the same tract (qu. 32, p. 457), thus solves the ques
tion : " May a priest, the same day he has committed a
mortal sin, and one of the most heinous, say mass, by
confessing previously ? No, says Villalobos, because of
his impurity ; but Sanchez says yes, and without any
sin : and I hold that his opinion is safe, and should be
followed in practice. Et tat a et sequenda in praxi." '

' What, father, this opinion is to be followed in
practice ! Would a priest who had fallen into such a
state dare, the same day, to approach the altar on the

MAXIMS FOR MONKS. 125

word of Father Bauni ? Ought he not to show defer
ence to the ancient laws of the Church, which ex
cluded from the sacrifice for ever, or at least for a long
period, priests who had committed sins of this descrip
tion, rather than adopt the new opinions of your
casuists, who admit them to it the very day they have
fallen?' 'You have no memory/ said the father;
' did I not formerly instruct you that in morality
we were to follow not the ancient Fathers, but the
new casuists.' ' I remember well,' replied I. ' But
there is more in this. There are here laws of the
Church.' ' You are right,' said he, ' but you do not
yet know the tine maxim of our fathers, " that the
laws of the Church lose their force when no longer
observed, cum jam desuetudine abierunt," as Filiutius
says, torn. 2, tr. 25, n. 33. We see the present neces
sities of the Church better than the ancients. If we
were to be so strict in excluding priests from the altar,
you can easily perceive that there would not be so
great a number of masses. Now multiplication of
masses brings so much glory to God, and advantage to
men, that I would venture to say with our father
Cellot, in his Treatise on the Hierarchy, p. 611, printed
at Rouen, " that there would not be too many priests,
though not only all men and women, if that were pos
sible, but also inanimate things, and the very brutes,
(bruta animalia) were changed into priests, to cele
brate mass." ' I was so struck with the oddness of the
idea, that I was unable to speak, so he continued thus :
' But, enough on the subject of priests, I might be-

126 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

come tedious ; let us proceed to monks. As their
greatest difficulty is the obedience which they owe to
their superiors, listen to the softening which it has
received from our fathers. Casro Paleo of our Com
pany says, Op. Mor. p. 1, disp. 2, p. 6 : " It is beyond
dispute that the monk who has a probable opinion in
his favour is not bound to obey his superior, although
the opinion of the superior is the more probable. For,
in that case, the monk is at liberty to adopt the one
which is the most agreeable to him (quae sibi gratior
fuerit,)" as Sanchez says. " Moreover, though the
command of the superior be just, that does not oblige
you to obey him : For it is not just in all points and
in all modes (non undequoque juste praecipit), but
only probably, and thus you are only bound probably to
obey him, and you are probably not bound. Probabil-
iter obligatus et probabiliter deobligatus' ' Certainly,
father, we cannot too highly value this fine fruit of
double probability ! ' ' It is of great use/ said he, ' but
let us abridge. I will not speak of the treatise of our
celebrated Molina, in behalf of monks who have been
expelled from their convents for misconduct. Our
father Escobar refers to it, tr. 6, ex. 7, n. Ill, in these
terms, " Molina affirms that a monk expelled from his
monastery is not obliged to reform, in order to be
re-admitted, and is no longer bound by his vow of
obedience." '

' Now then, father,' said I, ' ecclesiastics are very
much at their ease. I see well that your casuists have
treated them favourably. They have acted in the mat-

MAXIMS FOR SERVANTS. 127

ter as if for themselves. I much fear that other classes
of persons will not be so well treated. Every one
must look to himself.' 'They could not have done
better for themselves/ rejoined the father ; ' all have
been treated with equal charity, from the highest to
the lowest. And this leads me to prove it, by telling
you our maxims concerning servants.

' With regard to them, we have considered the diffi
culty which those of them, who are conscientious, must
feel in serving debauchees. For, if they do not exe
cute all of the messages on which they are sent, they
lose their livelihood, and if they do, they feel remorse.
To solace them, our four-and-twenty fathers (tr. 7, ex.
4, n. 223,) have specified the service which they may
perform with a safe conscience. Here are some of
them : " To carry letters and presents to open doors
and windows, to assist their master in getting up to
the window, to hold the ladder while he mounts ; all
this is permitted and indifferent. It is true that in
the latter case they must be threatened more than
usual if they refuse. For it is an injury to the mas
ter of the house to get in at the window.'"

'You see how very judicious this is.' 'I expected
ne less/ said I, ' from a book compiled from four-and-
twenty Jesuits/ ' But/ added the father, ' our Father
Bauni has well instructed servants how to perform all
these services for their masters, innocently, by taking
care to direct their attention, not to the sins in
which they become art and part, but to the profit
which accrues from them. This he has well explained

128 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

in the Sum of Sins, p. 710, 1st ed. " Let confessors
observe carefully that they cannot give absolution to
valets who carry dishonest messages, if they consent
to the sins of their masters ; but the contrary must be
said if they do it for their temporal advantage." And
that is very easily done ; for why should they persist
in consenting to sins, of which they have only the
trouble ? '

' Father Bauni has likewise established a grand
maxim in favour of those who are not content with
their wages. It is in the Sum, pp. 213, 214, 6th ed.
" May servants who complain of their wages increase
them of their own accord, by fingering as much of the
property of their masters as they imagine necessary
to equal said wages to their work ? They may on
some occasions, as when they are so poor and out of
place, that they are obliged to accept of any offer that
is made to them, and other valets of their class receive
much more."

' Father,' said I, ' that is exactly the case of John of
Alba/ ' What John of Alba/ said the father, ' what
do you mean ?' ' What, father ! have you forgotten
what took place in this city several years since ?
Where were you then ?' 'I was teaching cases of con
science,' said he, ' in one of our colleges a good way
from Paris/ ' I see, then, father, that you do not
know this story. I must tell it you. A person of rank
told it the other day where I was. He said that this
John of Alba, being in the service of your fathers of
the College of Clermont, in St. James street, and not

CASE OF JOHN OF ALBA. 129

being satisfied with his wages, stole something by way
of compensation. Your fathers having discovered it,
put him in prison, charging him with domestic theft.
The case came into Chatelet for judgment, if my
memory serves me right. For he mentioned all those
particulars, without which they could scarcely have
been credited. The culprit being interrogated, con
fessed that he had taken some tin plates from your
fathers ; but he maintained for all that that he had
not stolen them, founding his justification on this doc
trine of Father Bauni, which he presented to the
judges with a writing of one of your fathers who had
taught him the same thing. On which M. de Mon-
rouge, one of the most distinguished members of the
Court, gave his opinion, " that he did not think that in
consequence of writings by these fathers containing a
doctrine which was illegal, pernicious, and opposed to
all laws, natural, human and divine, capable of upset
ting families, and authorizing all domestic thefts, the
panel ought to be aquitted. But his opinion was,
that this too faithful scholar should be whipped in
front of the college gate by the hand of the execu
tioner, who should at the same time burn the writings
of those fathers on the subject of larceny, prohibiting
them at the peril of their lives henceforth to teach
any such doctrine."

' While waiting the result of this opinion, which was

very much approved, an incident happened which

caused the process to be remitted. But in the

meantime the prisoner disappeared, it is not known

9

130 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

how, and the affair was no more heard of, so that
John of Alba got off without giving back his plate.
He told us this, and added that the opinion of M. de
Monrouge is among the records of the Chatelet, where
any one may see it. We were amused with the
story/

' Why do you trifle so/ said the father ; ' what does
all that signify ? I am speaking to you of the max
ims of our casuists ; I was preparing to speak to you
of those which concern gentlemen, and you interrupt
me with stories out of place/ ' I only told it to you
in passing/ said I, ' and also to call your attention to
an important point of the subject, which I find you
have forgotten in establishing your doctrine of proba
bility/ ' What/ said the father, ' what can have been
missed after so many gifted men have dealt with it ?'
' It is this/ I replied. ' You have indeed made those
who follow your opinions secure as regards God and
conscience ; for from what you say, they are safe in
those quarters when they follow a grave doctor. You
have also made them secure in regard to confessors,
for you have obliged priests to absolve them on a pro
bable opinion under pain of mortal sin. But you have
not secured them in regard to judges, and hence
they find themselves exposed to the lash and the gib
bet in following your probabilities. This is a capital
defect/ ' You are right/ said the father, ' you give me
pleasure. But that is because we have not so much
power over judges as over confessors, who are obliged
to apply to us in cases of conscience in which we are

DOCTRINE OF PROBABILITY. 131

supreme judges.' ' I understand,' said I. ' But if on
the one hand you are the judges of confessors, are not
you on the other the confessors of judges ? Your
power is of great extent : compel them to acquit crim
inals who have a probable opinion under pain of exclu
sion from the sacraments, that it may not turn out to
the great contempt and scandal of probability, that
those whom you render innocent in theory are whipped
and hung in practice. Without this, how will you
find disciples ?' ' It will be necessary to think of it/
said he ; ' the thing is not to be overlooked. I will
mention it to our father Provincial. Still you might
reserve your advice for another time, and not interrupt
what 1 have to tell you of the maxims which we have
established in favour of gentlemen. I will not instruct
you unless you promise not to tell me any more
stories.'

This is all you shall have to-day, for more than one
letter will be required to acquaint you with all I
learned at a single interview.

Meanwhile, I am, etc.

LETTEK SEVENTH.

THE METHOD OF DIRECTING THE INTENTION ACCORDING TO THE
CASUISTS. OF THEIR PERMISSION TO KILL IN DEFENCE OF
HONOUR AMD PROPERTY. THIS EXTENDED TO PRIESTS AND
MONKS. CURIOUS QUESTION PROPOSED BY CARAMUEL : MAY
THE JESUITS LAWFULLY KILL THE JANSENISTS ?

PARIS.

SIR, — After appeasing the worthy father, whom I
had somewhat disturbed by the story of John of Alba,
he resumed, on my assuring him that I would not tell
any more of the same kind, and spoke to me of the
maxims of his casuists respecting gentlemen, nearly in
these terms :

' You know,' said he, ' that the ruling passion of
persons of this class is the point of honour, which
hourly involves them in violent proceedings, very much
opposed to Christian piety, so that it would be neces
sary to exclude almost the whole of them from our
confessionals, had not our fathers somewhat relaxed
the strictness of religion in accommodation to human
weakness. But, as they wished to remain attached to
the Gospel by doing their duty towards God, and to
the men of the world by practising charity towards
their neighbour, we had need of all our talent to devise
expedients which might temper things so nicely, that

DIRECTING THE INTENTION. 133

honour might be maintained and redressed by the
means ordinarily used in the world, without, however,
offending conscience; thus at once preserving two
things, apparently so opposite, as piety and honour.

' But, in proportion to the utility of this design, was
the difficulty of executing it. For I believe you are
fully aware of the magnitude and laborious nature of
the enterprise.' ' It astonishes me,' said I, with some
coolness. 'Astonishes you?' said he, 'I believe it; it
would astonish many others. Are you ignorant that
on the one hand the law of the Gospel enjoins us not
to render evil for evil, and to leave vengeance to God ;
and that, on the other, the laws of the world forbid
any one to suffer an injury without taking satisfaction
for it, often by the death of an enemy ? Have you ever
seen anything that appears more contradictory ? And
yet, when I tell you that our fathers have reconciled
these things, you simply say it astonishes you.' ' I
did not fully explain myself, father. I would hold the
thing impossible if, after what I have seen of your
fathers, I did not know that they can easily do what
is impossible to other men. It is this which makes me
believe that they have certainly found some method
which I admire without knowing it, and which I beg
you to unfold to me.'

' Since you take it thus,' said he, ' I cannot refuse
you. Know, then, that this marvellous principle is
our grand method of directing the intention, the im
portance of which is so great in our moral system that
I would venture almost to compare it to the doctrine

134 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

of probability. You have seen some traces of it in
passing, in certain maxims which I have mentioned to
you. For, when I showed you how valets may, in
conscience, execute certain disagreeable messages, did
you not observe that it was merely by turning away
their attention from the evil in which they are act and
part to the gain which accrues from it ? This is what
is meant by directing the intention. In like manner,
you have seen how those who give money for bene
fices would be real simonists without a similar diver
sion. But I wish now to show you this great method,
in all its lustre, on the subject of homicide, which it
justifies on a thousand occasions, in order that by its
effect here, you may be able to judge what it is cap
able of effecting.' 'I already see,' said I, 'that by
means of it everything will be permitted ; nothing
will escape.' 'You are always going from the one
extreme to the other/ replied the father, ' correct that.
For, in order to show you that we do not permit every
thing, know, for example, that we never permit any
one to have a formal intention of sinning for the mere
sake of sinning, and that whenever any one whatever
persists in having no other end in evil than evil itself,
we break with him : the thing is diabolical ; this holds
without exception of age, sex, or quality. But when
one is not in this unhappy disposition, we endeavour to
put in practice our method of directing the intention,
which consists in making a lawful object the end of
our actions. Not that we do not, as far as we can,
dissuade from things forbidden ; but when we cannot

REVENGE. 135

prevent the act we at least purify the intention, and
thus correct the vice of the means by the purity of the
end.

' In this way our fathers have found a method of
permitting the violence which is practised in defending
honour. It is only to turn away the intention from
the desire of revenge, which is criminal, to direct it to
the desire of defending honour, which, according to
our fathers, is lawful. Thus they fulfil all their duties
towards God and towards men. For they please the
world by permitting actions, and they satisfy the
Gospel by purifying intentions. This the ancients did
not know ; this is due to our fathers. Do you now
comprehend it?' 'Very well/ said I, 'you bestow on
men the external and material effect of the action, and
you give God this internal and spiritual movement of
the intention; and, by this equitable division, you
bring human laws into unison with the divine. But
father, to tell you the truth, I am somewhat distrust
ful of your promises, and I doubt if your authors say
as much as you.' c You do me wrong,' said the father ;
' I advance nothing which I do not prove, and, by so
many passages, that their number, their authority,
and their reasons, will fill you with admiration.

' To show you the alliance which our fathers have
made between the maxims of the Gospel and those of
the world, by this direction of intention, listen to our
father Reginald, in his Proxies, 1. 21, n. 62, p. 260. " It
is forbidden to individuals to avenge themselves ; for
St. Paul says, Rom. xii., Render to no man evil for

136 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

evil ; and Eccl. xxviii., He who would avenge himself
will bring down the vengeance of God, and his sins
will not be forgotten ; besides, all that is said in the
Gospel about forgiving offences, as Matthew vi. 18." '
' Certainly, father, if after that he says any thing else
than is in Scripture, it will not be for want of know
ledge. What, then, is his conclusion?' 'Here it is,'
said he : " From all these things it appears, that a
military man may, on the instant, pursue him who has
wounded him, not indeed with the intention of ren
dering evil for evil, but with that of preserving his
honour. Non ut malem pro malo reddat, sud et con-
servet honorem"

'Do you see how careful they are to forbid the
intention of rendering evil for evil, because Scripture
condemns it ? They have never allowed it. See Les-
sius de Just., 1. 2, c. 9, d. 12, n. 79: "He who has
received an injury may not have the intention of
avenging himself, but he may have that of avoiding
infamy, and for this may, on the instant, repel the
injury, and that with the sword : etiam cum gladio."
We are so far from allowing them to take vengeance
on their enemies, that our fathers will not even allow
them to wish death from a movement of hatred. See
our Father Escobar, tr. 5, n. 145 : " If your enemy is
disposed to hurt you, you ought not to wish his death
from a movement of hatred, but you may do so in
order to avoid loss." For that, accompanied with this
intention, is so lawful, that our great Hurtado de
Mendoza says, " that we may pray God for the speedy

DUELLING. 137

death of those who are disposed to persecute us, if we
cannot otherwise avoid them." It is in his Treatise De
Spe, vol. 2, d. 15, s. 4, sec. 48.'

' Reverend father, the Church has surely forgotten
to insert a petition to this effect, among its prayers.'
' Everything,' said he, ' has not been inserted that God
might be asked to grant. Besides the thing could not
be, for this opinion is later than the breviary. You
are not a good chronologist. But, without quitting
this subject, listen to this passage from our Father
Gaspar Hurtado, de Sub. pecc. diff. 9, quoted by Diana,
p. 5, tr. 14, r. 99. He is one of Escobar's twenty-
four fathers. " A beneficed person may, without
mortal sin, desire the death of him who has a pension
from his benefice, and a son that of his father, and
rejoice when it happens, provided it is only for the
advantage which accrues from it, and not from personal
hatred."'

'0 father !' said I, ' this is a lovely fruit of the direc
tion of intention. I see plainly that it is of great
extent. But, nevertheless, there are certain cases, the
solution of which would still be difficult, although very
necessary for gentlemen.' ' State them, that we may
see,' said the father. ' Show me,' said I, ' that with all
this direction of intention it is lawful to fight a duel.'
'Our great Hurtado de Mendoza,' said the father,
'will satisfy you instantly, in the passage which
Diana quotes, p. 5, tr. 14, r. 99 : " If a gentleman who
is challenged in a duel is known not to be devout, and
the sins which he is seen committing every hour without

138 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

scruple, make it easily to be judged, that if he refuses
to fight it is not from the fear of God, but from
cowardice, and it is hence said that he is a chicken
and not a man, gallina, et non vir, he may, to preserve
his honour, be at the place assigned, not indeed with
the express intention of fighting a duel, but only with
that of defending himself, if he who has called him
out comes there to attack him unjustly. And his act
will be quite indifferent in itself. For what harm is
there in going into a field to walk in it, while waiting
for a man, and defending one's self, if there attacked ?
And thus he does not sin in any manner, since he does
not at all accept a duel, his attention being directed to
other circumstances. For the acceptance of a duel
consists in the express intention of fighting, which he
has not/' '

' You have not kept your word, father ; that is not
properly to permit duelling. On the contrary, he
thinks it so strongly forbidden that, to make it lawful,
he avoids calling it a duel.' ' Ho, ho/ said the father,
' you begin to penetrate ; I am delighted at it. I might
say, nevertheless, that in this he permits all that is
asked by those who fight a duel. But, since it is
necessary to answer you precisely, our Father Layman
will do it for me, by permitting the duel in express
terms, provided the intention is directed to accept it
solely to preserve honour or fortune. It is at 1. 3, c. 3,
n. 2, 3: "If a soldier in the army or a gentleman at
court, finds himself so situated that he must lose his
honour or his fortune if he does not accept a duel, I do

DUELLING. 139

not see how we can condemn him who accepts it in
self-defence." Peter Hurtado says the same thing as
reported by our celebrated Escobar, tr. 1, ex. 7, n. 96,
98, when he gives us Hurtado's words : " That one may
fight a duel even in defence of one's property, if that
is the only means of preserving it, because every man
is entitled to defend his property, and that even by
the death of his enemies." ' At these passages I won
dered, to think how the piety of the king employs
his power to prohibit and abolish duelling in his
dominions, and the piety of the Jesuits tasks their
subtlety in permitting and sanctioning it in the Church.
But the worthy father was so communicative that it
would have been wrong to stop him, so he continued
thus : ' In fine,' said he, ' Sanchez (see what persons I
quote to you) goes farther. For he makes it lawful
not only to accept but to send a challenge, by properly
directing the intention. And in this our Escobar fol
lows him at the same place, n. 97.' ' Father,' said I, ' I
hold him excused if it is so. But that I may believe
he wrote it, allow me to see it.' ' Read him, then, your
self,' said he, and I, in fact, read those words in the
Moral Theology of Sanchez, 1. 2, c. 39, n. 7. " It is very
reasonable to hold that a man may fight a duel to save
his life, his honour, or his property to a considerable
amount, when an attempt is made to wrest them from
him by lawsuits and chicanery, and this is the only
means of preserving them. And Navarre says very
well, that on this occasion, it is lawful to accept and to
send a challenge : Licet acceptare et offerre duellum

140 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

And also that one may waylay his enemy and slay
him ; and, even in those rencounters, when the method
of duelling cannot be used, one may waylay and kill
his enemy, and so get out of the affair. For, by this
means, we avoid at once both exposing our life in com
bat, and partaking of the sin which our enemy would
commit in a duel." '

'Behold, father/ said I, 'a pious assassin, but, though
pious, he is always an assassin, because permitted to
kill his enemy treacherously.' ' Have I said to you,'
said the father, ' that any one may kill treacherously ?
God forbid ! I tell you that anyone may kill in am
bush, and you thence conclude, that one may kill
treacherously, as if it was the same thing. Learn from
Escobar tr. 6; ex. 4, n. 26, what is meant by killing
treacherously, and then you may speak. " A man is
said to kill treacherously when he kills a person who
does not at all suspect him. And this is why one who
kills his enemy is not said to kill treacherously, though
it be from behind, and in ambush : Licet per insidias
aut a tergo percutiat" And, in the same treatise, n.
26 : " He who kills his enemy, with whom he had been
reconciled on a promise of not again attempting his
life, is not absolutely said to kill in treachery, unless
the friendship between them was very close. Arctior
amicitia."

' You see from this that you do not even know the
meaning of terms, and yet you speak as if you were a
doctor.' ' I confess,' said I, ' that that is new to me,
and I learn from this definition that it is impossible to

ASSASSINATION. 141

kill in treachery. For people seldom think of assassi
nating any but their enemies. But be this as it may,
we may, according to Sanchez, kill boldly, I no longer
say in treachery, but from behind or in ambuscade,
any person pursuing us before a court of justice ? '
' Yes,' said the father, * but by carefully directing the
intention ; you always forget the principal thing.
And this is what Molina also maintains, torn. 4, tr. 3,
disp. 12. And, even according to our learned Reginald,
1. 21, cap. 5, n. 57, "We may also kill the false witnesses
whom he suborns against us." And, in fine, according
to our great and celebrated fathers, Tan n eras and
Emanuel Sa, we may even kill both the witnesses and
the judge, if he is in concert with them. Here are his
words, tr. 3, disp. 4, q. 8, n. 83 : " Sotus," he says, " and
Lessius hold that it is not lawful to kill false wit
nesses and the judge who are leagued to put an inno
cent man to death, but Emanuel Sa and other authors
are right in disapproving of that view, at least, as
regards conscience." And he moreover assures us
at the same place that we may kill both witness and
judge.'

' Father,' said I, ' I now understand your principle of
directing the intention well enough, but I desire much,
also, to understand the consequences of it, and all the
cases in which this method gives power to kill. Let
us go over those which you have told me, for fear of
mistake ; ambiguity here1 would be dangerous. First,
we must take care to kill seasonably, and on a good
probable opinion. You have next assured me, that by

142 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS.

carefully directing our intention, we may, according to
your fathers, in order to preserve our honour, and even
our property, accept a challenge, and occasionally send
it, waylay and kill a false accuser and his witnesses
along with him ; and, moreover, the corrupt judge who
favours them ; and you have also told me, that he who
has received a blow, may, but without taking revenge,
take redress by the sword. But, father, you have not
told me to what extent.' ' There can scarcely be a
mistake,' said the father, ' for you may go the length
of killing him. This is verily well proved by our
learned Henriquez, 1. 14, c. 10, n. 3, and others of our
fathers, reported by Escobar, tr. 1, ex. 7, n. 48, in these
words : " We may kill him who has given a blow
though he is in flight, provided we avoid doing it from
hatred or revenge, and do not thereby occasion exces
sive murders hurtful to the State. And the reason is,
that we may thus run after our honour as after stolen
property ; for, although your honour is not in the
hands of your enemy, as stolen clothes would be, it
may, nevertheless, be recovered in the same manner,
by giving proofs of magnanimity and authority, and
thereby acquiring the esteem of men. And, in fact,
is it not true that he who has received a blow, is
reputed to be without honour, until he has killed his
enemy ? "

This appeared to me so horrible, that I could scarcely
restrain myself, but to know the rest I allowed him to
continue thus : ' We may even,' said he, ' to prevent a
blow, kill him who means to give it, if that is the only

ASSASSINATION. 143

means of avoiding it. This is commonly held by our
fathers. For example, Azor. Inst. Mor., p. 3, p. 105
(he also is one of the four-and-twenty elders), " Is it
lawful for a man of honour to kill him who wishes to
give him a blow with the fist or with a stick ? Some
say no, and their reason is, that the life of our neigh
bour is more precious than our honour ; besides that it
is cruelty to kill a man merely to avoid a blow. But
others say it is lawful, and I certainly find it probable
when it cannot otherwise be avoided. For without
that the honour of the innocent would be continually
exposed to the malice of the insolent." The same is
said by our great Filiutius, torn. 2, tr. 29, c. 3, n. 50 ;
and Father Hereau in his writings on Homicide, t. 2,
disp. 170, s. 16, sec. 137; and Bechan, Som., t. 1, q. 64;
de Hornicid. And our fathers Flahaut and Le Court,
in their writings which the University in their Third
Eequest quoted at some length, with the view of dis
crediting them, but without success ; and Escobar at
the same place, n. 48, all say the same thing. In short,
it is so generally maintained, that Lessius decides it as
a point which is not disputed by any casuist, 1. 2, c. 9,
c. 76. For he adduces a great number who are of this
opinion, and none who oppose it, and he even claims,
n. 77, Peter Navarre, who, speaking generally of af
fronts of which there is none worse to bear than a
blow, declares, that according to the opinion of all the
casuists, ex sententia omnium, licet contumeliosum
occidere, si aliter ea injuria arceri nequit. Do you
wish any more ? '

144 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

I thanked him, for I had only heard too much.
But, in order to see how far this damnable doctrine
would go, I said to him, ' But, father, is it not lawful
to kill for somewhat less ? Cannot we so direct our
intention, as to be able to kill anyone for giving us
the lie ? ' ' Yes/ said the father, ' according to our
Father Baldelle, 1. 3, disp. 24, n. 24, quoted by Escobar
at the same place, n. 49 : " It is lawful to kill him who
says to you, You have lied, if you cannot repress him
otherwise." And we may kill in the same way for
slander, according to our fathers. For Lessius, whom
Father Hereau, among others, follows word for word,
says, at the place already quoted: "If you try, by
calumnies, to ruin my reputation with persons of
honour, and I cannot avoid it otherwise than by
killing you, may I do it ? Yes, according to modern
authors, and even though the crime which you publish
be true ; if, however, it is secret, so that you cannot
discover it in course of justice. And here is the proof.
If you would rob me of my honour by giving me a
blow, I may prevent you by force of arms. The same
defence, therefore, is lawful when you would injure
me with the tongue. Besides, we may prevent in
sults, therefore we may prevent evil speaking. In
fine, honour is dearer than life ; now we may kill to
defend our life, therefore we may kill to defend our
honour." Here are arguments in form. This is not
to discover, but to prove. And, in fine, this great
Lessius shows at the same place, n. 78, that we may kill
for a simple gesture, or expression of contempt. " We

ASSASSINATION. 145

may," says he, " assail and destroy honour in several
ways, in which defence appears very just, as when one
would strike with a stick or the fist, or affront us by
words or signs. S ive per signa" '

1 0 father,' said I, ' we have here everything that
can be wished to put honour in safety ; but life is
much exposed, if for evil speaking merely, or offen
sive gestures, we may kill in conscience.' 'That is
true,' said he, 'but as our fathers are very circum
spect, they have deemed it proper to forbid the doc
trine to be put in practice on slight occasions. For
they say, at least, that it scarcely should be practised.
And this was not without reason ; here it is.' 'I know
it,' said I, ' it is because the law of God forbids to kill.'
' That is not the view they take of it,' said the father,
' they find it allowable in conscience, and considering
the truth merely in itself.' ' And why, then, do they
forbid it ? ' ' Listen/ said he, ' it is because a State
would be depopulated in no time, were all evil
speakers in it slain. Learn from our Reginald, 1. 21,
n. 63, n. 260 : " Although this opinion that we may
kill for evil speaking, is not without probability in
theory, the contrary must be followed in practice.
For we must always avoid doing damage to the State
by our mode of self-defence. Now, it is clear that by
killing all persons of this description, there would be
too great a number of murders." Lessius speaks in
the same way, at the place already quoted: "It is
necessary to take heed that the practice of this maxim

10

146 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

be not hurtful to the State. For, then, it must not be
permitted. Tune enim non est permittendus.'"

1 What, father ! then it is only a prohibition of policy,
and not of religion ? Few people will be stopped by
it, especially when in passion. For it might be prob
able enough that no harm was done to the State by
ridding it of a wicked man.' ' Accordingly,' says he,
' our Father Filiutius joins to this a much more weighty
reason, tr. 29, c. 3, no. 51. It is, that we would be
punished criminally for killing in this way.' ' I was
right in saying to you, father, that you would never
do any thing to the purpose, so long as you have not
the judges on your side.' ' The judges,' said the father,
' not penetrating to the conscience, only judge the out
ward action ; whereas, we look principally to the
motive, and hence it is, that our maxims are at times
somewhat different from theirs.' ' Be this as it may,'
said I, * It follows very clearly from yours, that,
damage to the State avoided, we may kill evil speakers
with a safe conscience, provided we can do it with a
safe person.

'But, father, after having provided so well for
honour, have you done nothing for property ? I know
that this is of less importance, but no matter. It seems
to me, that we might properly direct our intention so
as to kill in preserving it.' 'Yes,' said the father,
'and I have touched on a matter which may have
given you this hint. All our casuists agree, and even
permit it. " Although we no longer dread any violence
from those who rob us of our property as when they

ASSASSINATION. 147

are in flight." Azor, of our Society, proves it, p. 3, 1.
2, c. 1, q. 20.'

' But, father, what must the value of a thing be to
carry us to this extremity ?' ' It is necessary, according
to Reginald, 1. 21, c. 5, n. 66; and Tanneras, in 22,
disp. 4, q. 8, d. 4, n. 69, " that the thing be of great
service in the judgment of a man of skill." Layman
and Filiutius speak in the same way.' ' That is saying
nothing, father ; where will we go to look for a man
whom it is so rare to meet, in order to make this
valuation ? Why do they not determine the sum ex
actly?' 'How/ said the father, 'was it so easy a
matter in your opinion, to estimate the life of a man,
and a Christian in money ? Here I wish to make you
feel the necessity of our casuists. Search in all the
ancient Fathers for how much it is lawful to kill a
man. What will they say, non occides : thou shalt
not kill.' ( And who, then, has been bold enough to
determine this sum?' rejoined I. 'Our great and
incomparable Molina, the glory of our Company, who,
by his inimitable prudence, has valued it " at six or
seven ducats, for which he affirms that it is lawful to
kill, though he who is carrying them off is in flight."
It is in his t. 4, tr. 3, disp. 16, d. 6. And he says, more
over, at the same place, that "he would not presume
to condemn a man as guilty of any sin who kills one,
wishing to rob him of a thing of the value of a crown
or less : unius aurei, vel minoris adhuc valoris"
Which has led Escobar to lay down this general rule,

148 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

n. 44, that " regularly we may kill a man for the value
of a crown, according to Molina/"

' Dear father, where can Molina have been enlight
ened to determine a thing of this importance, without
any aid from Scripture, Councils, or Fathers ? I see
plainly that on the subject of murder, as well as that
of grace, he must have had special light, and light of
a very different kind from St. Augustine. I am now
very learned on this chapter, and I know perfectly,
that none but churchmen will henceforth abstain from
slaying those who injure them, either in their honour
or their goods.' ' What do you mean ?' replied the
father, ' would it, in your opinion, be reasonable that
those whom we ought to respect most of all, should
alone be exposed to the insolence of the wicked ? Our
fathers have provided against this irregularity. For
Tanneras, torn. 2, d. 4, q. 8, d. 4, n. 76, says, " that it is
lawful for ecclesiastics and even monks to kill, in
defending not only their life but also their property,
or that of their community." Molina, as reported by
Escobar, n. 43 ; Becan, in 2, 2, t. 2, q. 7 ; de Horn, concl.
2, n. 5 ; Reginald, 1. 2, c. 5, n. 68 ; Layman, 1. 3, tr. 3,
p. 3, c. 3, n. 4 ; Lessius, 1. 2, c. 9, d. 11, n. 72 ; and others,
all use the same words.

' And, even according to our celebrated Father L'Amy,
it is lawful for priests and monks to be beforehand
with those who would blacken them by calumnies, by
killing them as a means of prevention ; but always by
carefully directing the intention. Here are the terms,
t. 5, disp. 36, n. 118 : " It is lawful for an ecclesiastic,

ASSASSINATION. 149

a monk, to kill a calumniator, who threatens to publish
scandalous charges against his community or himself,
when this is the only means of preventing it, as when
he is ready to circulate his slanders if not promptly
despatched. For, in this case, as the monk might
lawfully kill, on wishing to deprive him of life, it is
also lawful to kill him who would rob him or his
community of honour, in the same way as men of the
world might.1' '

' I did not know that,' said I, ' but I merely believed
the contrary without thinking, from having heard say,
that the Church is so abhorrent of blood, that it does
not even permit ecclesiastical judges to officiate in
criminal trials.' ' Do not rest upon that,' said he, ' our
Father L'Amy proves this doctrine very well, although
with a feeling of humility becoming this great man,
he submits to prudent readers. And Caramuel, our
illustrious defender, who refers to it in his Funda
mental Theology, p. 543, thinks it is so certain as to
maintain that the contrary is not probable; and he
draws admirable inferences from it, for instance, this
one which he calls the conclusion of conclusions, con-
clusionum conclusio : " that a priest not only may, on
certain occasions, kill a calumniator, but that there are
occasions in which he ought to do it ; etiam aliquando
occidere." ' On this principle he examined several new
questions, for example, the following, WHETHER THE
JESUITS MAY KILL THE JANSENISTS ? ' That, father,'
exclaimed I, ' is a wonderful point of theology, and I
hold the Jansenists dead already by the doctrine of

150 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Father L'Amy.' c There you are caught,' said the
father, ' Caramuel infers the contrary from the same
principles.' ' How so, father ? ' ' Because,' said he, ' they
do not hurt reputation. Here are his words, n. 1146,
1147, pp. 547, 548 : " The Jansenists call the Jesuits
Pelagians ; might we kill them for that ? No, inas
much as the Jansenists no more obscure the lustre of
our company than an owl that of the sun ; on the con
trary they have heightened it, though contrary to
their intention ; occidi non possunt, quia nocere non
potuerunt" '

' Eh, father ? then the lives of the Jansenists depend
only on whether or not they hurt your reputation ?
If so, I consider them far from safe. For, if it becomes
probable in any degree, however small, that they injure
you, from that moment they may be slain without
scruple. You will make an* argument of it in form,
and then, with a direction of intention, nothing more
is necessary for despatching a man with a safe con
science. Happy the people who are unwilling to suffer
injuries, in being instructed in your doctrine ! But
how unhappy those who offend them ! In truth,
father, it]would be as well to have to do with people of
no religion, as with those who have learned it to the
extent of this direction. For, after all, the intention
of him who wounds is no comfort to him who is
wounded ; he does not perceive this secret direction,
and he only feels that of the blow which smites him.
I even know not whether it would riot be less galling
to be brutally murdered by an infuriated man, than

ASSASSINATION. 151

to feel one's self poignarded conscientiously by a
devotee.

' In good sooth, father, I am somewhat surprised at
all this : and those questions of Fathers L'Amy and
Caramuel do not please me.' ' Why,' said the father,
' are you Jansenist ? ' ' I have another reason,' said I ;
' from time to time, I give one of my friends in the
country an account of what I learn of the maxims of
your fathers. And though I only simply report and
faithfully quote their words, I know not, nevertheless,
but some odd fellow might be met with who, imagining
that this does you harm, might draw from your prin
ciples some wicked conclusion.' ' Go to/ said the
father, ' no mischief will happen you ; I will be
caution. Know that what our fathers have printed
themselves, and with the approbation of their superiors,
it is neither bad nor dangerous to publish.'

I write you, then, on the word of this worthy father ;
but what always fails me is paper, not quotations.
The latter are so many and so strong that, to give all,
would require volumes.

I am, etc.

LBTTEE EIGHTH.

CORRUPT MAXIMS OF THE CASUISTS CONCERNING JUDGES, USURERS,
THE CONTRACT MOHATRA, BANKRUPTS, RESTITUTION, ETC.
VARIOUS EXTRAVAGANCES OF THE CASUISTS.

PARIS.

SIR, — You did not think there would be any curi
osity to know who we are, and yet people are trying to
guess at it, but with little success. Some take me for
a doctor of Sorbonne. Others give my letters to three
or four individuals, who, like myself, are neither
priests nor ecclesiastics. All these false guesses only
tell me that I have tolerably succeeded in my inten
tion of being known only to yourself, and the worthy
father, who always tolerates my visits, and whose
harangues I always tolerate, though with great diffi
culty. I am obliged to keep myself in check, for he
would not continue were he to perceive that I am
shocked, and I should thus be unable to keep my
promise of acquainting you with their system of mor
ality; I assure you you should give me some credit for
the violence which I do to my own feelings. It is very
painful to see Christian morality completely over
thrown by these monstrosities without daring openly
to contradict them. But, after having borne so much
for your satisfaction, I believe I shall break out at

BRIBERY. 153

last for my own, when he has no more to tell me ;
meanwhile, I will use as much self-restraint as possible ;
for the less I say, the more he tells me. He told me so
much the last time, that I shall have great difficulty
in repeating the whole of it. You will find principles
very convenient for avoiding restitution. For what
ever be the mode in which he glosses his maxims,
those which I am about to explain go in effect to
favour corrupt judges, usurers, bankrupts, thieves, pros
titutes, sorcerers, who are all very liberally discharged
from restoring what they gain in their different lines.
This is what I learned from the worthy father on this
occasion.

At the commencement of our interview, he said, ' I
engaged to explain the maxims of our authors, in
regard to all classes of society. You have already seen
those relating to beneficed persons, priests, monks,
servants, and gentlemen ; let us now extend our
survey to others, and begin with judges.

' I will, in the first place acquaint you with one of
the most important and advantageous maxims which
our fathers have taught in their favour. It is from
our learned Castro Palao, one of our four-and-twenty
elders. Here are his words. "May a judge, in a
question of law, decide according to a probable opin
ion, while abandoning the most probable ? Yes, and
even against his own conviction. Imo contra propriam
opinionem." This is also referred to by our Father
Escobar, tr. 6, ex. 6, n. 45.' ' 0 father,' said I, ' here is a
fine beginning ; the judges are much obliged to you ;

154 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

and I consider it very strange that they oppose your
probabilities as we have sometimes observed, since
they are so favourable to them. For you thereby give
them the same power over the fortunes of men that
you have given yourselves over consciences.' ' You
see,' said he, ' that we do not act from interest ; we
have had regard only to the quiet of their consciences,
and it is here that our great Molina has laboured so
usefully on the subject of presents made to them. To
remove the scruples which they might have in taking
them on certain occasions, he has been careful to
enumerate all the cases in which they can conscien
tiously receive them, unless there be some special law
prohibiting it. It is in his 1. 1, tr. 2, d. 88, n. 6. Here
they are, " Judges may receive presents from parties
when they give them either from friendship or grati
tude for the justice which has been done them, or to
dispose them to render it in future, or to oblige them
to take a particular care of their business, or to engage
them to give it quick despatch." Our learned Escobar
also speaks of it in this way, tr. 6, ex. 6, n. 43. " If
there are several persons, none of whom is more en
titled to despatch than the others, would it be wrong
in the judge to take a present from one on condition
in pacto, of despatching his case first ? Certainly not,
according to Layman, for he does no injury to the
others, according to natural law, when he grants to the
one in consideration of his present what he might have
granted to any one he pleased, and even being under
equal obligation towards all, from the equality of their

155

right, he becomes more obliged towards him who
makes the gift, which binds him to prefer him to
others, and this preference seems to admit of being
estimated by money. Quce obligatio videtur pretio
cestimabilis" '

' Reverend father,' said I, ' I am surprised at this
permission which the first magistrate of the kingdom
does not yet know. For the first chief President
brought a bill into Parliament to prevent certain
officers of court from taking money for this sort
of preference. This shows he is far from thinking
that judges may lawfully do so, and this reform, so
useful to all parties, has been universally applauded.'
The good father, surprised at my language, replied,
' Is that true ? I knew nothing of it. Our opinion is
only probable, the contrary is probable also.' * In
deed, father,' said I, ' it is considered that the Presi
dent has more than probably done right, and that he
has thereby arrested a course of corruption which was
well known, and had been too long permitted.' * I
think so, too,' said the father, ' but let us pass this, let
us leave the judges.' ' You are right,' said I, ' besides,
they are not duly grateful for what you do for them.'
' It is not that,' said the father, ' but there is so much
to say upon all, that it is necessary to be brief upon
each.

' Let us now speak of men of business. You know
that the greatest difficulty which we have with them
is to dissuade them from usury, and it is of this ac
cordingly that our fathers have taken a particular

156 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

care, for such is their detestation of this vice, that
Escobar says, tr. 3, ex. 5. n. 1 : To say that usury is
not a sin would be heresy. And our father Bauni in
the Sum of Sins, ch. 14, fills several pages with the
penalties due to usurers. He declares them infamous
during life, and unworthy of burial after their death.'
' O father, I did not think him so severe.' ' He is
when he ought,' said he, ' but this learned casuist hav
ing also observed that men are enticed to usury
merely by the desire of gain, says at the same place,
" It would be no small obligation to the world, if,
while guaranteeing them from the bad effects of usury,
and, at the same time, from the sin which is the cause
of it, we were to furnish them with the means of
drawing as much and more profit from their money,
by some good and legitimate employment, than they
draw from usury." ' ' No doubt, father, there would
be no usurers after that.' ' And this is the reason,'
said he, ' why he has furnished a general method for
all classes of persons, gentlemen, presidents, coun
sellors, etc., and one so easy that it consists merely in
the use of certain words, which are to be pronounced
when lending money, in consequence of which, they
may draw profit from it without fear of its being
usurious, which, doubtless, it would otherwise be.'
' What are these mysterious terms, father ? ' Here
they are, and in the very words, for you know that he
has written his Sum of Sins in French, to be under
stood by all the world, as he says in his Preface. " He
from whom money is asked, will answer in this way .

USURY. 157

I have no money to lend, though I have to lay out for
honest and lawful profit. If you wish the sum you
ask, to turn it to account by your industry, half gain,
half loss, I may perhaps agree. It is true, indeed, that
as there might be too much difficulty in arranging
about the profit, if you would secure me in a certain
amount, and in the principal also, which is to run no
risk, we might more easily come to an agreement, and
I will let you have the money forthwith." Is not this
a very easy method of gaining money without sin ?
And is not Father Bauni right when, concluding his
explanation of this method, he says : " Here, in my
opinion, is a method by which a vast number of
persons in the world, who, by their usury, extortion,
and illicit contracts, provoke the just indignation of
God, may save themselves while drawing full, fair,
and lawful profits." '

' 0 father,' said I, ' these are very potent words !
Doubtless they have some hidden virtue to drive away
usury, which I do not understand ; for I have always
thought that this sin consisted in getting back more
money than was lent.' ' You know very little of this
matter/ said he. ' Usury, according to our fathers, con
sists almost entirely in the intention of drawing this
profit as usurious. And this is why our Father Escobar
makes it practicable to avoid usury by a simple change
of intention. It is at t. 3, ex. 5, n. 4, 33, 34. " It
would be usurious," he says, " to take profit from those
to whom we lend, if it were demanded as due in strict
justice ; but if demanded as due from gratitude, it

158 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

is not usury." And at n. 3 : " It is lawful not to
intend direct profit from money lent, but to claim it
through the medium of the good will of him to whom
it was lent. Media benevolentia is not usury."

' These are subtle methods, but one of the best, in
my opinion (for we have a choice of them), is that of
the contract Mohatra.' ' The contract Mohatra, father ! '
' I see,' said he, ' you don't know what it is. There is
nothing strange but the name. Escobar will explain
it to you, tr. 6, ex. 3, n. 36. " The contract Mohatra
is that by which goods are purchased dear, and on
credit, with the view of selling them back to the seller
for ready money and cheap." ' This is the contract
Mohatra, from which you see that a certain sum is
received in hand while you remain bound for a larger
sum.' ' But I suppose, father, nobody but Escobar has
ever used the term ; do any other books speak of it ? '
' How little you know of things,' said the father ;
' the last book of Moral Theology, printed at Paris this
very year, speaks of the Mohatra, and learnedly. Its
title is Epilogus Summarum, and is, as the title page
bears, " an abridgment of all the Sums of Theology
taken from our fathers Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius
Hurtado, and other celebrated casuists." You will see
them at p. 54. " The Mohatra is : when a man who is
in want of twenty pistoles, purchases goods from a
merchant for thirty pistoles, payable in a year, and
sells them back to him on the spot for twenty pistoles,
cash." You see from this, that the Mohatra is not a
term that has never been heard of.' ' Well, father, is

THE CONTRACT MOHATRA. 159

this contract lawful ? ' ' Escobar/ replied the father,
'says at the same place, that there are laws which
prohibit it under very strict penalties.' ' It is useless,
then, father.' ' Not at all/ said he, ' for Escobar at the
same place, gives expedients for making it lawful.
"Although the principal intention of him who sells
and buys back is to make profit, provided always that
in selling he does not take more than the highest price
of goods of this sort, and in buying back, does not go
below the lowest price, and that there is no previous
agreement in express terms or otherwise." But Les-
sius, de Just., 1. 2, c. 21, d. 16, says, that " though the
sale may have been made with the intention of buying
back cheaper, there never is any obligation to return
the profit, unless, perhaps from charity, in the case
where the other party is in poverty, and also, provided
it can be returned without inconvenience ; si commode
potest" After this, there is no more to be said.' c In
fact, father, I believe greater indulgence would be
sinful.' ' Our fathers/ says he, ' know well where to
stop. From this you plainly see the utility of the
Mohatra.

' I have many other methods which I might teach
you ; but these are sufficient, and I have to speak to
you of those whose affairs are in disorder. Our fathers
have thought how to solace them, in the state in which
they are. For, if they have not means enough to sub
sist decently, and, at the same time, pay their debts,
they are permitted to put away a part from their
creditors and declare themselves bankrupt. This is

160 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

what our Father Lessius has decided, and Escobar
confirms, tr. 3, ex. 2, n. 163. " Can he who becomes
bankrupt, retain with a safe conscience as much of his
effects as may be necessary for the respectable main
tenance of his family ; ne indecore vivat ? I say yes,
with Lessius, and even though he may have gained
them by injustice and crimes notorious to all the
world; ex injustitia et notorio delicto;" although, in
this case, he may not retain so large a quantity as he
might otherwise have done.' ' How, father, by what
strange charity will you have these effects to remain
with him who has gained them by thievish tricks, for
his respectable subsistence, rather than with his credi
tors, to whom they legitimately belong ? ' ' It is im
possible,' said the father, 'to please everybody, and
our fathers have thought particularly of solacing these
poor wretches. In favour of the indigent also, our
great Vasquez, quoted by Castro Palao, torn, i, tr. 6, d,
6, p. 6, n. 12, says, that " when we see a thief resolved
and ready to steal from a poor person, we may dissuade
him, by calling his attention to some particularly
wealthy individual to steal from instead of the other."
If you have not Vasquez or Castro Palao, you will find
the same thing in your Escobar ; for, as you know,
almost every thing is taken from twenty-four of the
most celebrated of our fathers. It is tr. 5, ex. 5, n.
120. The practice of our Society in regard to charity
towards our neighbour.'

'It is a very extraordinary charity, father, to pre
vent the loss of the one by the injury of the other.

THEFT. 161

But I think the thing should be made complete, and
that he who gives the counsel should be obliged, in
conscience, to restore to the rich man what he may
have made him lose.' ' Not at all,' said he, ' for he did
not steal from him himself; he only counselled the
other to do it. Now, listen to this sage solution of
our Father Bauni, on a case which will astonish you
still more, and in which you would think yourself
much more obliged to restore. It is at ch. 13 of his
Sum. Here are the words in his own French. " Some
one entreats a soldier to beat his neighbour, or to set
fire to the granary of a person who has offended him,
and it is asked if, failing the soldier, the ene who
asked him to do the outrage, should, out of his own
substance, repair the evil which has ensued. My
opinion is no. For no man is bound to restitution
who has not violated justice. Is it violated by asking
a favour of another ? Whatever request we make, he
is always free to grant it or deny it. To whatever
side he inclines, it is his will that determines him;
nothing obliges him to do it, but kindness, civility and
a facile temper. Should the soldier, then, not repair
the evil which he does, it would not be right to com
pel him at whose entreaty he injured the innocent." '
This passage well nigh put an end to our colloquy, for
I was on the point of bursting into a fit of laughter at
the kindness and civility of the firer of a barn, and at
the strange arguments for exempting the prime and
true culprit in tire-raising from restitution, whom the
judges would not exempt from death ; but if I had not
11

162 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

checked myself, the good father would have been
offended ; for he spoke seriously, and afterwards said
to me with the same air :

' You ought to see by all these proofs how vain your
objections are, and yet they divert us from our subject.
Let us return, then, to persons uncomfortably situated,
for whose comfort our fathers, among others Lessius,
1. 2, c. 12, n. 12, affirms that it is lawful to steal not
only in an extreme necessity, but also in a grave
necessity, though not extreme. Escobar also quotes
him tr. 1, ex. 9, n. 29.' 'This is surprising, father;
there are few people in the world who do not consider
their necessity grave, and to whom you do not thus
give power to steal with a safe conscience. And,
though you should confine the permission only to per
sons who are actually in this state, you open the door
to an infinite number of petty thefts, which the
judges would punish notwithstanding of this grave
necessity, and which you are bound a fortiori to
repress ; you who ought not only to maintain justice
among men, but also charity, which this principle
destroys. For, do we not violate it, and injure our
neighbour when we cause him to lose his property
that we may ourselves profit by it ? So I have hither
to been taught.' ' It is not always so/ said the father,
' for our great Molina has taught us, t. 2, tr. 2, disp.
328, n. 8, that " the rule of charity does not require us
to deprive ourselves of a profit in order thereby to
save our neighbour from an equal loss." This he
shows in order to prove, as he had undertaken at that

ILLICIT GAINS. 163

place, that " we are not obliged in conscience to restore
the goods which another might have given us to de
fraud his creditors." And Lessius, who maintains the
same view, confirms it by this same principle, 1. 2, c.
20, n. 168.

' You have not pity enough for those who are ill at
ease ; our fathers have had more charity than that.
They render justice to the poor, as well as to the rich.
I say much more ; they render it even to sinners. For,
although they are very much opposed to those who
commit crimes, they nevertheless teach that the goods
gained by crime may be lawfully retained. This
Lessius teaches generally, 1. 2, c. 14, d. 8. "We are
not obliged," says he, " either by the law of nature or
positive law, in other words, no law obliges us to
restore what we have received for committing a crimi
nal act, as adultery, although this act be contrary to
justice." For, as Escobar, quoting Lessius, says, tr. 1,
ex. 8, n. 59. " the property which a wife acquires by
adultery is truly gained by an unlawful means ; but
nevertheless, the possession is lawful ; Quamvis mulier
illicite acquirat, licite tamen retinet acquisita" And
this is the reason why the most celebrated of our
fathers formally decide, that what a judge takes from
a party with a bad cause, to give an unjust decree in
his favour, and what a soldier receives for murdering
a man, and what is gained by infamous crimes, may
be lawfully retained. This, Escobar collects out of our
authors, and brings together, tr. 3, ex. 1, n. 23, where
he lays down this general rule : " Property acquired

164 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

by shameful methods, as by murder, an unjust sen
tence, a dishonest action, etc., is possessed lawfully,
and there is no obligation to restore it." And again,
tr. 5, ex. 6, n. 53 : " We may dispose of what we receive
for murder, unjust sentences, infamous sins, etc., be
cause the possession is just, and we acquire the
dominion and property of things which are so gained." '
' 0 dear, father,' said I, ' I never heard of this mode of
acquiring, and I doubt if any court of justice will sanc
tion it, and regard assassination, injustice and adultery
as good titles.' ' I know not/ said the father, ' what
books of law may say, but I know that ours, which
are the true regulators of conscience, speak as I do.
It is true they except one case in which they make
restitution obligatory. It is, " when money has been
received from those who have not the power of dispos
ing of their property, as children in family, and monks."
For our great Molina excepts them, de Just., t. 1, tr. 2,
disp. 94 : nisi mulier accepisset ab eo qui alienare non
pottst, ut a religioso d filio-familias. For then the
money must be restored. Escobar quotes this passage,
tr. 1, ex. 8, n. 59, and he confirms the same thing, tr. 3,
ex. 1, n. 23.'

' Reverend father,' said I, ' I see monks better treated
here than others.' ' Not at all,' said the father, ' is
not as much done for minors generally, and monks are
minors all their lives ? It is just to except them. But,
with regard to all others, there is no obligation to
restore what is received from them for a bad action.
Lessius proves it at large, de Just., 1. 2, c. 14, d. 8, n. 52.

ILLICIT GAINS. 165

" For," says he, " a wicked action may be estimated in
money, considering the advantage received by him
who causes it to be done, and the trouble taken by
him who executes it ; and this is the reason why there
is no obligation to restore what is received for doing
it, be its nature what it may, murder, unjust sentence,
filthy action " (for these are the examples which he
uniformly employs on this subject), "unless it has
been received from those who have not power to dis
pose of their property. You may say, perhaps, that
he who receives money for giving a wicked stroke
sins, and thus can neither take it nor retain it ; but I
reply, that, after the thing is executed, there is no
longer any sin either in paying or receiving payment."

' Our great Filiutius enters still more into practical
detail, for he observes, " that we are obliged in con
science to pay acts of this sort differently, according
to the different conditions of the persons who commit
them, and as some are worth more than others." This
he establishes on solid ground, tr. 31, c. 9, n. 231 :
occultce fornicarice debetur pretium in conscientia, et
multo majore ratione, quam publicce. Copia enim
quam occulta facit mulier sui corporis, multo plus
valet quam ea quam publica facit meretrix, nee ulla
est lex positiva quce reddat earn incapacem pretii.
Idem discendum de pretio promisso virgini, conju
gate, moniali, et cuicumque alii. Est enim omnium,
eadem ratio. )

He afterwards showed, in his authors, things of this
nature so infamous that I dare not report them, and

166 PEG VINCI AL LETTERS.

at which he himself would have been horrified, for he
is a worthy man, but for the respect he has for his
fathers, which makes him venerate every thing that
comes from that quarter. Meanwhile I was silent, less
from any intention to make him continue this subject
than from surprise, at seeing the writings of monks full
of decisions at Once so horrible, unjust, and extrava
gant He therefore continued his discourse at freedom,
and concluded thus : ' Hence our illustrious Molina
(after this I believe you will be satisfied) thus decides
the question : " When a man has received money for
doing a wicked action, is he obliged to restore it ? We
must distinguish," says this great man ; " if he has not
done the act, for which he has been paid, the money
must be restored ; but if he has done it, there is no
such obligation ;" si non fecit hoc malum, tenetur
restituere ; secas, si fecit. This is what Escobar re
lates, tr. 3, ex. 2, n. 138.

' Such are some of our principles touching restitu
tion. You have been well instructed in them
to-day. I wish now to see how far you have profited.
Answer me, then : " Is a judge who has received
money from one of the parties, to give decree in his
favour, obliged to restore it?"1 'You have just told
me no, father.' ' I suspected as much,' said he : ' did I
say generally ? I told you that he is not obliged to
restore if he has given decree in favour of the party
who is in the wrong. But, if he is in the right, would
you have him to pay for gaining what he was lawfully
entitled to ? You do not reason. Do you not perceive

ILLICIT GAINS. 167

that the judge owes justice, and therefore cannot sell
it, but that he does not owe injustice, and therefore
may take money for it. Accordingly, all our principal
authors, as Molina, disp. 94, 99 ; Reginald, 1. 10, n. 84,
184, 185, 187 ; Filiutius, tr. 31, n. 220, 228 ; Escobar,
tr. 3, ex. 1, n. 21, 23 ; Lessius, lib. 2, c. 14, d. 8, n. 52 ;
uniformly teach, "that a judge is indeed obliged to
restore what he has received for doing justice, if it has
not been given him out of liberality, but is never
obliged to restore what he has received from a man
in whose favour he has given an unjust decree.'"

I was struck dumb by this fantastic decision, and
whilst I was considering the pernicious consequences
of it, the father prepared another question for me, and
said : ' Answer this time with more circumspection. I
now ask you, Is a man who deals in divination
obliged to restore the money which he has gained by
practising it ? ' ' Just as you please, reverend father/
said I. ' How as I please ? Truly you are strange !
It would seem from your way of speaking that truth
depends on our will. I see plainly you never could
discover this one of yourself. See Sanchez then solve
the difficulty, who indeed but Sanchez ! First he dis
tinguishes in the Sum, 1. 2, c. 38, n. 94, 95, 96 : " where
the diviner has used only astrology and other natural
means, and where he has employed diabolic art." He
says that he is obliged to restore in one of the cases,
and in the other not. Will you now say in which ? '
/There is no difficulty there,' said I. 'I see plainly
what you mean,' replied he, ' you think he ought to

168 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

restore in the case where he has used the intervention
of demons ; but you do not understand the matter at
all, it is the very opposite. Here is Sanchez' solution
at the same place : " If the diviner has not taken the
trouble and the care to know by means of the devil
what he could not know otherwise ; si nullam operom
apposuit ut arie diaboli id sciret, he must restore, but
if he has taken the trouble, he is not obliged.'" ' And
how is that, father ? ' ' Do you not understand ?' said
he. ' It is because we may truly divine by the art of
the devil, whereas astrology is a false method.' ' But,
father, if the devil does not answer truly, for he is sel
dom more true than astrology, the diviner must then,
for the same reason, restore.' ' Not always,' said he.
" Distinguo," says Sanchez, upon that; "For if the
diviner is ignorant in the diabolic art, si sit artes dia-
bolica ignarus, he is obliged to restore ; but if he is a
skilful sorcerer, and has done his utmost to know the
truth, he is not obliged, for then the diligence of such
a sorcerer may be estimated in money. Diligentia a
mdgo apposita est pretio cestimabilis." ' ' That is sound
sense, father,' said I, ' for here is a means of inducing
sorcerers to become learned and expert in their art,
from the hope of gaining wealth legitimately, accord
ing to your maxims, by faithfully serving the public.'
' I believe you are jesting,' said the father ; ' that is not
right; for, were you to speak thus in places where
you are not known, there might be persons who would
take your words in bad part, and charge you with
turning the things of religion into derision.' ' I would

ILLICIT GAINS. 169

easily defend myself from the charge, father ; for I
believe that if care is taken to ascertain the true mean
ing of my words, not one will be found that does not
completely show the contrary ; and, perhaps in the
course of our interviews an opportunity will one day
occur of making this fully appear/ ' Ho, ho/ said the
father, ' you are not now laughing.' ' I confess to you,'
said I, ' that this suspicion of mocking sacred things
would touch me deeply, as it would be very unjust.'
' I did not say so, altogether,' rejoined the father, ' but
let us speak more seriously.' ' I am quite disposed if
you wish it, father; it depends on you. But I acknow
ledge to you, that I have been surprised at seeing that
your fathers have so far extended their care to all
classes, that they have been pleased even to regulate
the legitimate gains of sorcerers.' ' It is impossible,' said
the father, ' to write for too many people, or to be too
particular with the cases, or to repeat the same things
too often in different books. You will see it plainly
from this passage of one of the greatest of our fathers,
as you may suppose him to be, since he is at present
our Father Provincial. It is the Reverend Father
Cellot in his Hierarchy, 1. 8, c. 16, sec. 2. " We know,"
says he, " that a person who was carrying a large sum
of money to restore it by order of his confessor, having
stopped by the way at a bookseller's, and asked if
there was nothing new, num quid novi, was shown a
new book of Moral Theology ; and, while carelessly
turning over the leaves without thinking, fell upon
his own case, and learned that he was not obliged to

170 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

restore, so that, being disencumbered of the burden of
his conscience, and still remaining burdened with the
weight of his money, he returned home greatly
lightened : abjecta scrupuli sarcina, retento auri pon-
dere, levior domum repetit."

'After this, tell me whether it is useful to know our
maxims ? Will you now laugh at them ? Will you
not rather, with Father Cellot, make this pious reflec
tion on the fortunate coincidence ? " Coincidences of
this sort are in God, the effect of his providence ; in
the guardian angel, the effect of his guidance ; and in
those to whom they happen, the effect of their predes
tination. God, from all eternity, was pleased that the
golden chain of their salvation should depend on such
an author, and not on a hundred others, who say the
same thing because they do not happen to meet with
them. If the one had not written, the other would
not have been saved. Lefc us then beseech those by
the bowels of Christ, who blame the multitude of our
authors, not to envy them the books which the eternal
election of God and the blood of Jesus Christ has pro
cured for them." Such are the fine words in which
this learned man so solidly proves the proposition
which he had advanced, namely, " the utility of having
a great number of writers on Moral Theology. Quam
utile sit de Theologia Morali multos scribere." '

' Father/ said I, ' I will defer to another time de
claring what my sentiment is in regard to this passage,
and at present will say no more than this, that if your
maxims are useful, and it is important to publish

ILLICIT GAINS. 171

them, you ought to continue to instruct me. For I
assure you, that the person to whom I send them
shows them to a vast number of people. Not that we
have any intention of using them ourselves, but be
cause, in fact, we think it useful that the world should
be fully informed of them.' 'Accordingly,' said he,
' you see that I do not conceal them ; and, in continu
ing, I will speak to you next occasion on the comforts
and conveniences of life, which our fathers permit, in
order to make salvation easy, and devotion pleasant.
Thus, after having learned what regards particular
conditions, you will learn what applies generally to
all, and thus nothing will be wanting to make your
instruction complete.' The father, after he had thus
spoken, left me. — I am, etc.

I have always forgotten to tell you that there are
Escobars of different editions. If you purchase, select
those of Lyons, with the frontispiece of a lamb on a
book sealed with seven seals, or those of the town of
Brussels. As these are the latest, they are better
and fuller than those of the previous editions of
our old city of Lyons.

LETTEE NINTH.

OF SPURIOUS DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN INTRODUCED BY
THE JESUITS. DIFFERENT EXPEDIENTS WHICH THEY HAVE
DEVISED TO SAVE THEMSELVES WITHOUT PAIN, AND WHILE
ENJOYING THE PLEASURES AND COMFORTS OF LIFE. THEIR
MAXIMS ON AMBITION, ENVY, GLUTTONY, EQUIVOCATION,
MENTAL RESERVATION, FREEDOM ALLOWABLE IN GIRLS,
FEMALE DRESS, GAMING, HEARING MASS.

PARIS.

SIR, — I will present my compliments in no higher
strain than the worthy father did to me the last time
I saw him. As soon as he perceived me, he came up,
and, with his eye on a book which he held in his hand,
said : " Would not he who should open paradise to
you do you an infinite service ? Would you not give
millions of gold to have the key to it, and to go in
whenever you pleased ? You need not be at so great
expense ; here is one worth a hundred more costly."
I knew not whether the good father was reading or
speaking from himself, but he removed my doubt by
saying, ' These are the first words of a fine work, by
Father Barri of our Society; for I never say anything
of myself.' ' What work, father ? ' said I. ' Here is
its title/ said he : ' Paradise opened to Philagio, by a

SPURIOUS DEVOTION. 173

Hundred Devotions to the Mother of God, of easy prac
tice.' ' What, father ! does each of these devotions
suffice to open heaven ? ' ' Yes/ said he ; ' look at the
sequel of the words which you have heard, " The devo
tions to the Mother of God, which you will find in this
book, are so many heavenly keys, which will com
pletely open paradise, provided you practise them ; "
and therefore he concludes with saying, " that he is
satisfied if one only is practised." '

' Teach me, then, father, some of the most easy.'
They are all so,' he replied ; ' for example, " to bow to
the blessed Virgin on meeting any image of her : to
say the little chaplet of the ten pleasures of the
Virgin : frequently to pronounce the name of Mary :
to give permission to the angels to present our respects
to her : to wish to build more churches to her than all
monarchs together have built : to bid her good day
every morning, and good evening late at night : daily
to say the Ave Maria, in honour of the heart of Mary."
And he says that this devotion is sure, moreover, to
win the heart of the Virgin.' 'But, father,' said I,
' that is, provided we also give her ours.' ' That is not
necessary,' said he, ' when one is too much attached
to the world.' ' Listen to him : " Heart to heart ; this,
indeed, is what ought to be, but yours is somewhat too
much tied, clings somewhat too much to the creature.
Owing to this I dare not invite you at present, to offer
this little slave whom you call your heart." And thus
he contents himself with the Ave Maria which he
had requested. These are the devotions in pp. 33, 59,

174 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

156, 172, 258, 420, first edition.' 'This is quite con
venient/ said T, ' and I don't think anybody will be
damned after this.' ' Alas ! ' said the father, ' I see
plainly you know not how hard the hearts of some
people are. There are some who would not take the
trouble of daily saying Good day, Good evening, because
that cannot be done without some effort of memory.
Hence, it was necessary for Father Barri to furnish
them with practices still more easy, as " to keep a
chaplet night and day on the arm, in the form of a
bracelet, or to carry about one's person a rosary, or
image of the Virgin." These are the devotions at pp.
14, 326, 447. " Say now that I do not furnish you
with easy devotions to acquire the good graces of
Mary," as Father Barri expresses at p. 106.' 'This,
father,' said I, ' is extremely easy/ ' Accordingly,' said
he, ' it is all that could be done ; and I believe it will be
sufficient. A man must be a poor wretch, indeed, if he
will not spend a moment of his whole life in putting
a chaplet on his arm, or a rosary in his pocket, and
thereby secure his salvation with such certainty, that
those who try it were never deceived by it, in what
ever way they may have lived ; though we still counsel
them to live well. I will only give you at p. 34, the
instance of a woman who, while daily practising the
devotions of bowing to the images of the Virgin, lived
all her life in mortal sin, and died at last in this state,
but was, nevertheless, saved through the merit of this
devotion.' ' How so? ' exclaimed I. ' Because,' said he,
' our Lord raised her from the dead; for the very pur-

SPURIOUS DEVOTION. 175

pose. So certain is it, that we cannot perish while we
practise some one of these devotions.'

' In truth, father, I know that devotions to the Virgin
are a powerful means of salvation, and that the least
have great merit when they proceed from feelings of
faith and charity, as in the saints who have practised
them ; but to persuade those who use them without
changing their bad lives, that they will be converted
at death, or that God will raise them again, seems to
me far more fitted to support sinners in their miscon
duct, by the false peace which this rash confidence
gives, than to turn them from it by the true conversion
which grace alone can effect.' ' What matters it/ said
he, 'how we get into paradise, provided we do get in ?'
as was said on a similar subject, by our celebrated
Father Binnet, who was once our Provincial, in his
excellent treatise, On the Marks of Predestination, n.
31, p. 130, of the fifteenth edition. " Whether by
leaping or flying, what matters it, provided we take
the city of glory," as this father says, also, at the same
place ? 'I confess,' said I, 'that it is of no consequence;
but the question is, whether we shall so enter ? ' ' The
Virgin/ said he, ' guarantees it. See the last lines of
Father Barri's treatise : " Suppose that at death the
enemy had some claim upon you, and that there was
sedition in the little republic of your thoughts, you
have only to say that Mary is your surety, and that it
is to her he must apply." '

' But, father, any one who chose to push that, would
puzzle you. Who assures us that the Virgin answers

176 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

for us ? ' ' Father Barri/ said he, ' answers for her/ p.
465. " For the profit and happiness which will accrue
to you, I answer, and become surety for the blessed
Mother." ' But, father, who is to answer for Father
Barri ? ' * How ? ' said the father, ' he is one of our
Company, and do you not know, moreover, that our
Society guarantees all the writings of our fathers ? I
must explain this; it is right you should know it. By
an order of our Society all sorts of booksellers are
prohibited from printing any work of our fathers with
out the approbation of the theologians of our Com
pany, or without the permission of our superiors.
This regulation was made by our excellent king,
Henry III., and confirmed subsequently by Henry IV.,
and by Louis XIII., of pious memory ; so that our
whole body is responsible for the writings of each
of our fathers. This is a peculiarity of our Company.
And hence it is that no work comes out among us
without having the spirit of the Society. It was
apropos to inform you of this.' ' Father,' said I, ' you
have done me a service, and I am only sorry I did not
know it sooner, for this knowledge obliges one to pay
much more attention to your authors.' ' I would have
done it/ said he, ' if the opportunity had occurred, but
profit by it in future, and let us continue our dis
course.

' I believe I have unfolded to you means of securing
salvation; means easy enough, safe enough, and in
sufficient number ; but our fathers would fain have
people not to rest at this first degree, in which nothing

EASY DEVOTION. 177

is done but what is strictly necessary for salvation.
As they aim constantly at the greatest glory of God,
they would wish to raise men to a more pious life ;
and because men of the world usually feel repugnant
to devotion from the strange idea which is given them
of it, we have thought it of the last importance to
remove this first obstacle ; ' and it is for this that
Father Le Moine has acquired great reputation by his
treatise of Easy Devotion, composed with this view.
In it he draws a charming picture of devotion. It was
never so well described before. Learn this from the
first sentences of the book : " Virtue has never yet
shown herself to any one ; no portrait of her has been
made that resembles her. It is not strange that so
few have been in a haste to scramble up her rock.
She has been represented as peevish, loving only
solitude ; she has been associated with pain and toil ;
and, in fine, she has been made the enemy of diversion
and sport, which are the bloom of joy and seasoning
of life." This he says, p. 92.'

' But, father, I know well that there are great saints
whose life was extremely austere.' ' True,' said he,
' but besides these there have always been polite saints
and civilized devotees, as this father says, p. 191, and
you will see, p. 86, that the difference in their manners
is owing to that of their humours. Listen to him :
" I deny not that we see devout men of a pallid and
melancholy hue, who love silence and retreat, have
only phlegm in their veins and earth in their coun
tenance. But many others are seen of a happier
12

178 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

complexion, with an overflow of that soft and warm
temperament, that benign and rectified blood which
inspires joy."

1 You see from this that the love of retreat and
silence is not common to all devout persons, and that,
as I told you, it is more the result of their complexion
than of their piety ; whereas, those austere manners
of which you speak, are properly the characteristics of
a wild and savage nature. Accordingly, you will see
them classed with the ridiculous and brutish manners
of melancholy madness in the description which Father
Le Moine gives in the seventh book of his Moral
Portraits. Here are some of the features. " He is
without eyes for the beauties of nature and art. He
would think himself burdened with a heavy load if he
had taken any enjoyment for its own sake. On
festival days he retires among the dead ; he likes him
self better in the trunk of a tree, or in a grotto, than
in a palace or on a throne. As to affronts and injuries,
he is as insensible to them, as if he had the eyes and
ears of a statue. Honour and glory are1 idols which
he knows not, and to which he has no incense to offer.
A lovely person is to him a spectre ; and those im
perious and commanding features, those agreeable
tyrants which everywhere make voluntary and en
chained slaves, have the same power over his eyes
that the sun has over those of owls." '

'Reverend father, I assure you that if you had
not told me that M. Le Moine is the author of this
picture, I would have said that it was some infidel

EASY DEVOTION. 179

who had drawn it for the purpose of turning the
saints into ridicule. For, if it is not the representa
tion of a man completely estranged from the feelings
which the Gospel requires us to renounce, I confess
I understand nothing of the matter.' ' See, then/
said he, ' how little you do know of it, for these are
marks of a weak and savage spirit, which has none
of the honest and natural affections which it ought to
have, as Father Le Moine says at the end of this de
scription. It is by this means he teaches virtue and
Christian philosophy, agreeably to the design which
he had in this work, as he declares in the advertise
ment. And, indeed, it cannot be denied that this
method of teaching devotion is far more acceptable to
the world than that previously in use.' ' There is no
comparison/ said I, ' and I begin to hope you will
keep your word to me.' ' You will see it far better in
the sequel/ said he ; 'I have yet spoken only of piety
in general. But to show you in detail how much our
fathers have relieved matters, is it not most consola
tory for the ambitious to learn that they can preserve
a true devotion with an excessive love of grandeur ? '
' What, father, whatever excess they may display in
the search ? ' ' Yes/ said he, ' for it would always be
no more than a venial sin, unless grandeur should be
desired as a more effectual means of offending God or
the State. Now, venial sins are not compatible with
a devout spirit, since the greatest saints are not
exempt from them. Listen then to Escobar, tr. 2, ex.
2, n. 17: "Ambition, which is an irregular appetite

180 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

for place and station, is in itself a venial sin; but
when elevation is desired as a means of hurting the
State, or having more opportunity of offending God,
these external circumstances make the sin mortal." '

' That is convenient enough, father.' ' And is it
not, moreover,' continued he, ' a very pleasant doctrine
for misers to say, as Escobar does, tr. 5, ex. 5, n. 253,
" I know that the rich do not sin mortally in not giv
ing alms of their superfluity, in the great necessities
of the poor. Scio in gravi pauperum necessitate
divites non dando superflua non peccare mortaliter.' "
1 In truth,' said I, ' if that is so, it is plain that I have
little knowledge of my sins.' ' To show you the thing
still better, do you not think that a good opinion of
ourselves and complacency in our own works, is one
of the most dangerous sins ? And will you not be
much surprised if I let you see that even should this
good opinion be without foundation, it is so little of
the nature of sin, that it is on the contrary a gift of
God ? ' ' Is it possible, father ? ' ' Yes,' said he, ' and
this our great Father Garasse has taught us in his
French work, entitled, Summary of the leading
truths of Religion, p. 2, p. 419. " One effect of com
mutative justice is, that all honest labour is rewarded
either with praise or satisfaction. When men of
ability compose an excellent work, they are justly re
warded by the public applause. But when a person
of mean intellect labours much in doing nothing worth
while, and thus cannot obtain public applause, still,
that the work may not go unrewarded, God gives him

EASY DEVOTION. 181

a personal satisfaction, which he cannot be envied
without injustice more than barbarous. Thus God,
who is just, makes frogs feel satisfaction in their own
music.'

1 These/ said I, ' are fine decisions in favour of
vanity, ambition, and avarice ? Will not envy, father,
be more difficult to excuse ?' ' It is a delicate subject/
said the father. ' It is necessary to use Father Bauni's
distinction in his Sum of Sins. For his opinion, c. 7,
p. 1 23, fifth and sixth edition, is that " envy of the
spiritual good of our neighbour is mortal, but envy of
his temporal good only venial." ' Arid for what reason,
father?' 'Listen/ said he; "for the good found in
temporal things is so meagre and of so small con
sequence for heaven, that it is of no importance before
God and his saints." ' But, father, if this good is so
meagre, and of so little consequence, how do you
allow men to be killed in order to preserve it ? ' 'You
mistake matters/ said the father, ' we tell you that
the good is of no importance in the view of God, but
not in the view of men.' ' I did not think of that/
said I, 'and I hope that through these distinctions,
there will no longer be any mortal sins in the world.'
'Do not think so/ said the father, 'for some are
always mortal in their nature, laziness for example.'

' 0 father/ said I, ' then all the conveniences of life
are gone?' 'Wait/ said the father, 'till you know
the definition of this vice by Escobar, tr. 2, ex. 2, n. 81.
". Laziness is regret that spiritual things are spiritual,
just as if one were sorry that the sacraments are a

182 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

source of grace. And it is a mortal sin." ' 0, father !
I don't think that ever anybody thought of being lazy
in that way.' ' Accordingly/ said the father, ' Escobar
adds, n. 105 : "I confess it is very rare for any one to
fall into the sin of laziness." Do you perceive clearly
from this how important it is to define things properly ?'
' Yes, father/ said I, ' and on this I remember youi
other definitions of assassination, ambush, and super
fluity. Whence comes it, father, that you do not
extend this method to all sorts of cases, so as to define
all sins after your manner, that men might no longer
sin in gratifying their desires ? '

1 It is not always necessary for that/ said he, ' to
change the definitions of things. You are going to see
this in regard to good cheer, which passes for one of
the greatest pleasures in life, and which Escobar, in the
Practice according to our Society, permits in this way,
n. 102. " Is it lawful to eat and drink one's full with
out necessity, and from mere voluptuousness ? Yes,
certainly, according to Sanchez, provided it is not hurt
ful to health, because natural appetite may lawfully
enjoy the acts which are natural to it: An comedere
et bibere usque ad satietatem absque necessitate ob
solam voluptatem, sit peccatum ? Cum Sanctio nega
tive respondeo, modo non obsit valetudini, quia licite
potest appetitus naturalis suis actibus frui"' '0
father/ said I, ' that is the most complete passage, and
the most finished principle in all your morality : from
it also we may draw convenient inferences. Then
gluttony is not even a venial sin ? ' ' No/ said he,

GLUTTONY. 183

'in the way which I have just stated, but it would be
a venial sin according to Escobar, n. 56, " if, without
any necessity, one were to gorge himself with meat
and drink even to vomiting: Si quis se usque ad
vomitum ingurgitet" '

' Enough on this subject. I will now speak to you
of the facilities which we have introduced for avoid
ing sins in worldly conversation and intrigue. Orle of
the most embarrassing of all things is to avoid false
hood, especially when one wishes to accredit something
false. This object is admirably gained by our doctrine
of equivocation, which " allows ambiguous terms to be
used, by causing them to be understood in a sense
different from that in which we ourselves understand
them," as Sanchez says, Op. mor., p. 2, 1. 3, c. 6, n. 13.'
' I know that, father,' said I. ' We have published it
so much,' continued he, ' that at length everybody is
acquainted with it. But do you know how to act
when equivocal terms are not to be found ? ' ' No,
father.' ' I doubted as much/ said he ; ' that is new :
it is the doctrine of mental reservations. Sanchez
gives it at the same place : " A man," says he, " may
swear that he has not done a thing, although he has
really done it, understanding in himself that he did
not do it on a certain day, or before he was born, or
internally adding some other similar circumstance,
without using words which may let the meaning be
known. And this is very convenient on many occa
sions, and is always very just when necessary or use
ful for health, honour, or estate.'"

184 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

'How, father; is it not a lie, and even perjury?'
' No/ said the father ; ' Sanchez proves it at the same
place, and our Filiutius also, tr. 25, c. 11, n. 331 ; "be
cause," says he, " it is the intention that regulates the
quality of the act." He also gives (n. 328,) another
surer means of avoiding falsehood : It is after having
said loud out, / swear that 1 did not do it, we add, in
a whisper, to-day ; or, after saying loud out, I swear,
we whisper, that 1 say, and afterwards continue aloud
that I did not do it. You see plainly that this is to
speak the truth.' ' I admit it/ said I ; ' but perhaps
we would find that it is to speak the truth in a whis
per and falsehood loud out : besides, I should fear that
many people would not have sufficient presence of
mind to use these methods.' ' Our fathers/ said he,
' have at the same place for the sake of those who can
not use these reservations, taught that to avoid the
lie it is sufficient for them to say simply, that they did
not do what they did, provided that they have a
general intention to give their language the meaning
which a man of ability would give it.

' Tell the truth : many a time have you been thrown
into embarrassment for want of this knowledge ? '
' Occasionally/ said I. ' And will you not likewise
admit that it would often be very convenient to be
dispensed in conscience from keeping certain promises
which you may have made ? ' ' Father/ said I, ' it would
be the most convenient thing in the world/ ' Listen,
then, to Escobar, tr. 3, ex. 3, n. 48, where he gives this
general rule, " Promises do not oblige when we have

FALSEHOOD — UNCHASTITY. 185

no intention of obliging ourselves by making them.
Now it seldom happens that we have this intention, at
least without confirming them by oath or contract, so
that when we simply say, I will do it, we mean that we
will do it unless we change our intention. For we
mean not thereby to deprive ourselves of our liberty."
He gives other rules which you may see for yourself,
and he says at the end: "all this is taken from Molina
and our other authors : Omnia, ex Molina et aliis."
So that there can be no doubt on the subject.'

' Father,' said I, * I did not know that the direction
of intention was of force to make promises null.' 'You
see,' said the father, ' that great facility is here given
to the intercourse of society. But what gave us the
greatest trouble was to regulate conversation between
men and women ; for our fathers are more reserved in
regard to chastity. Not that they do not handle curi
ous enough questions and give sufficient indulgence,
especially to married persons, or persons betrothed.'
On this I was instructed in the most extraordinary
questions that can be imagined. He gave me materials
to fill several letters, but I will not so much as note the
passages, because you show my letters to all classes of
persons, and I should not like to furnish such reading
to those who would only seek it for diversion.

The only thing he showed me in the books, even in
French, which I can point out to you, is what you may
see in Father Bauni's Sum of Sins, p. 165, as to certain
little freedoms which he there explains, provided the
intention is properly directed, as in passing for a

186 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

gallant ; and you will be surprised to find at p. 148, a
principle of morality concerning the power which he
says daughters have to dispose of their virginity
without their parents' consent. Here are his words :
"when this is done with the daughter's consent, though
the father has cause to complain, nevertheless, it is
not because the said daughter, or he who corrupted
her, has done him any wrong, or has, as regards him,
violated justice ; for the daughter is as much in pos
session of her virginity as of her body, which she may
do with as seems to her good, with the exception of
killing or dismembering it." By this, judge of the
rest. This brought to my mind a passage in a heathen
poet, who was a better casuist than these fathers, since
he says that " a daughter's virginity does not belong
entirely to herself, but partly to her father and partly
to her mother, without whom she cannot even dispose
of it by marriage." I doubt if there is a judge who
would not lay down a rule the reverse of this maxim
of Father Bauni.

This is the utmost I can tell you of all which I heard
on this subject, on which the father dwelt so long,
that I was obliged at last to beg him to change it.
He did so, and spoke to me of their regulations as to
female dress in the following terms : ' We shall not
speak of those females,' said he, ' whose intentions are
impure, but in regard to others, Escobar says, tr. 1, ex.
8, n. 5. " If they dress with no bad intention, and
only to gratify the natural inclination to vanity, ob
naturalem fastus inclinationem, it is either only a

FEMALE MODESTY. 187

venial sin, or no sin at all." And Father Bauni in his
Sum of Sins, c. 46, p. 1094, says, that though "the
woman should be aware of the bad effect which her
attention to dress would produce both on the body and
soul of those who should behold her adorned in rich
and costly attire, she nevertheless would not sin in
using it." He quotes our Sanchez among others, as
being of the same opinion.'

' But, father, what answer do your fathers give to
the passages of Scripture which so vehemently de
nounce the least approach to anything of this sort ? '
' Lessius,' said the father, ' answered learnedly, de Just.
1. 4, c. 4, d. 14, n. 114, where he says, "that those pas
sages were binding only on the women of that time,
that they might by their modesty give an edifying
example to the heathen." ' ' And where did he get
that, father ? ' ' No matter where he got it ; it is
enough that the opinions of those great men are al
ways probable in themselves. But Father Le Moine
has in one respect modified this general permission, for
he will not on any account allow old women to use it,
as appears from his Easy Devotion at inter alia, pp.
127, 157, 163. " Youth," says he, " has a natural right
to be decked. A female may be permitted to deck
herself at an age when life is in its bloom and verdure ;
but there it must stop : it would be strangely out of
place to seek for roses among snow : only to the stars
does it belong to be always in full dress, because the}7
have the gift of perpetual youth. The best course
then in this matter would be to take counsel of reason

188 PKO VINCI AL LETTERS.

and a good mirror, to yield to decency and necessity,
and withdraw as night approaches." ' ' That is quite
judicious,' said I. 'But,' continued he, 'that you may
see how our fathers have attended to everything, I
must tell you that after giving permission to women
to indulge in play, and seeing that this permission
would often be of no use to them if they did not also
give them wherewith to play, they have established
another maxim in their favour, which is seen in Esco
bar in the chapter on larceny, tr. 1, ex. n. 13. "A
woman," says he, " may play and take her husband's
money for the purpose." '

' Indeed, father, that is very complete.' ' There are
many other things besides,' said the father, ' but we
must leave them to speak of the most important max
ims for facilitating the use of holy things, for instance,
the manner of attending at mass. Our great theo
logians, Gaspar Hurtado, de Sacr. t. 2, d. 5, dist. 2, and
Coninck, q. 83, a. 6, n. 197, teach on this subject, that
" it is sufficient to be bodily present at mass though
absent in spirit, provided the countenance is kept
externally decent." Vasquez goes farther, for he says
that " the injunction to hear mass is satisfied even
though the intention has nothing to do with it." All
this is also in Escobar, tr. 1, ex. 11, n. 74, 107, and also
tr. 1, ex. 1, n. 116, where he explains it by the example
of those who are forcibly taken to mass, and have the
express intention not to hear it.' '' Truly/ said I, ' I
would never believe this if another did not tell me.'
' In fact,' said he, ' this stands somewhat in need of the
authority of these great men, as well as what Escobar

HEARING MASS. 189

says, tr. 1, ex. 11, n, 31, " that a wicked intention, such
as looking at women with a lustful eye during the hear
ing of mass, properly does not hinder the injunction
from being satisfied : Nee obest alia prava intentio,
ut aspiciendi libidinose feminas"

There is also a convenient thing in our learned
Turrianus, Select. 2, d. 16, dub. 7. "You may hear
the half of a mass from one priest, and then the other
half from another; and you may even hear the end
first from one, and then the beginning from another."
I must tell you, moreover, that it is lawful " to hear
two halves of a mass at the same time, from two
different priests, the one beginning the mass when
the other is at the elevation ; because we may have
our attention on these two sides at once, and two
halves of a mass make an entire mass : duce medietates
unam missam constituunt." So have decided our
fathers, Bauni, tr. 6, q. 9, p. 312 ; Hurtado, de Sacr.
t. 2, Missa, d. 5, diff. 4 ; Azorius, p. 1, 1. 7, c. 3, q. 3 ;
Escobar, tr. 1, ex. 11, n. 73, in the chapter on the rule
for hearing mass according to our Society. And you
will see the inferences which he draws in this same
book, editions of the city of Lyons. The words
are: "Hence I conclude that you can hear mass in
a very little time : if, for example, you fall in with four
masses at once, which are so arranged that when one
begins, another is at the Gospel, another at the conse
cration, and the last at the communion." ' Certainly,
father, we shall in this way hear mass in an instant at
Notre Dame.' ' You see then that better could not be
for facilitating the mode of hearing mass.'

190 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

' I wish now to show you how they have softened
down the use of the sacraments, and especially that of
penitence. For herein you will see the highest proof
of benignity in the conduct of our fathers, and you
will wonder how the devotion which fills every one
with awe could have been handled by our fathers
with so much prudence, that " having struck down the
obstacle which demons had placed at its entrance, they
have rendered it easier than vice and more pleasant, so
that mere living is incomparably more difficult than
good living," to use the words of Father Le Moine,
pp. 244, 291, of his Easy Devotion. Is not this a mar
vellous change ? ' 'In truth, father,' said I, ' I cannot
help telling you my mind. I fear that your measures
are ill-chosen, and that this indulgence is capable of
offending more people than it can attract. The mass,
for example, is so venerable and holy that nothing
more would be necessary to discredit them in the minds
of many persons than to show in what manner they
speak of it/ ' That is very true,' said the father,
' with regard to certain people, but do you not know
that we accommodate ourselves to all sorts of persons ?
It seems you have lost sight of what I have so often
told you on this subject. I mean, then, to treat of it
our first leisure time, deferring for that purpose our
consideration of the mitigations of confession. I will
make you understand it so thoroughly that you never
will forget it.' On this we separated, and thus I
imagine that the subject of our next interview will be
their policy. I am, etc.

LETTEE TENTH.

HOW THE JESUITS HAVE SOFTENED DOWN THE SACRAMENT OF
PENITENCE, BY THEIR MAXIMS TOUCHING CONFESSION, SAT
ISFACTION, ABSOLUTION, PROXIMATE OCCASIONS OF SIN,
CONTRITION, AND THE LOVE OF GOD.

PARIS.

SIR, — I do not yet give you the policy of the Society,
but one of its greatest principles. You will here see
the mitigations applied to confession, certainly the best
means which these fathers have discovered to attract
all and repulse none. It was necessary to know it
before going further ; for this reason, the father judged
it proper to instruct me in it as follows :

1 You have seen,' said he, ' from all I have hitherto
told you, with what success our fathers have laboured
to discover, by the light given to them, that many
things are permitted which were supposed to be for
bidden ; but because there are still sins remaining
which cannot be excused, and the proper cure for them
is confession, it becomes necessary to smooth the diffi
culties by the methods which I have now to explain-
Hence, having pointed out in our previous conversa
tions, how the scruples which troubled the conscience
have been relieved by showing that what was thought
to be bad is not so, it remains at this time to point out

192 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

a simple mode of expiating what is truly sinful, by
rendering confession as easy as it was formerly diffi
cult.' c And by what means, father ? ' ' By those
admirable subtleties,' said he, ' which are peculiar to
our Company, and which our fathers in Flanders call,
in the "Image of our first Century," 1. 3, or. 1, p. 401,
and 1. 1, c. 2, "Pious and holy finessing, and a holy
artifice of devotion. Piam et religiosam calliditatem,
et pietatis solertiam" 1. 3, c. 8. By means of these
inventions, " crimes are expiated in the present day,
alacrius, with more alacrity and eagerness than they
were formerly committed, so that many persons efface
their stains as quickly as they contract them : Plu-
rimi vix citins maculas contrahunt, quam eluunt" as
is said in the same place.' ' Pray, father, do teach me
this salutary finessing.' ' There are several heads of
it/ said he, ' for as there are many painful things in
confession, so particular mitigations have been applied
to each. And because the principal difficulties which
men feel, are shame at confessing certain sins, particu
larly in detailing the circumstances, penance to be
inflicted, resolutions not to relapse, avoiding the im
mediate occasions which lead to this, and regret for
having committed them, I hope to show you to-day,
that there is now scarcely any annoyance in all this,
so careful have we been to remove all that is bitter
and all that is sharp, in this necessary remedy.

c To begin with the difficulty which is felt in con
fessing certain sins, as you are not ignorant that it is
often very important to preserve a confessor's esteem,

PENANCE. 193

so is it very convenient to permit, as do our fathers,
and among others, Escobar, who also quotes Suarez,
tr. 7, c. 4, n. 135, " The having of two confessors, the
one for mortal, and the other for venial sins, so as to
remain in good repute with the ordinary confessor: Uti
bonam famam apud ordinarium tueatur, provided it
is not made a handle for remaining in mortal sin."
And he afterwards gives another subtle method of
confessing a sin even to an ordinary confessor, with
out his perceiving that it has been committed since
the last confession. " It is," says he, " to make a gene
ral confession, and throw this sin in among the others
which are confessed in the lump." He again states
the same thing at the beginning of ex. 2, n. 73, and
you will admit, I am sure, that the shame felt in con
fessing relapses is much relieved by this decision of
Father Bauni, Theol. Mor. tr. 4. q. 15, p. 137: " Except
on certain occasions, which occur but seldom, the con
fessor is not entitled to ask whether the sin confessed
is habitual, and there is no obligation to answer such
a question, because he has no right to inflict on
his penitent the shame of acknowledging frequent
relapses." '

' How, father, I would as soon say that a physician
has no right to ask his patient if he has long had fever.
Are not sins very different according to their different
circumstances, and should not the purpose of a true
penitent be to expose the state of his conscience to his
confessor, fully with as much sincerity and openness
of heart as if he were speaking to Jesus Christ, whose
13

194 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

place the priest occupies ? Now is not a man very far
from being in this disposition when he conceals his
frequent relapses in order to conceal the greatness of
his sin ? ' This, I saw, puzzled the worthy father,
who accordingly tried to evade the difficulty rather
than solve it, by informing me of another of their
rules, which merely sanctions a new irregularity, with
out at all justifying this decision of Father Bauni,
which is, in my opinion, one of their most pernicious
maxims, and one of the fittest to encourage the vicious
in their bad practices. ' I am free to admit,' said he,
' that habit adds to the heinousness of the sin, but it
does not change its nature, and this is the reason why
there is no obligation to confess it according to the
rule of our fathers, to whom Escobar refers at the
beginning of ex. 2, n. 39, " One is only obliged to con
fess the circumstances which change the species of sin,
and not those which only aggravate it."

' Proceeding on this rule, our Father Granados says,
part 5, cont. 7, t. 9, d. 9, n. 22, that " one who has eaten
flesh in Lent, does enough by confessing a breach of
the fast, without saying whether it was in eating flesh
or taking two meagre repasts." And according to
Father Reginald, tr. 1, 1. 6, c. 4, n. 14, "A diviner who
has used diabolic art, is not obliged to declare the
circumstance : it is sufficient to say that he has inter
meddled with divination, without saying whether by
chiromancy or compact with the devil." Fagundez, of
our Society, also says, p. 2. 1. 4, c. 3, n. 17, " Ravishing
is not a circumstance which one is bound to discover

PENANCE. 195

when the girl has consented." Our Father Escobar
refers to all this at the same place, n. 41, 61, 62, with
several other curious enough decisions on circum
stances which there is no obligation to confess. You
may there see them for yourself.' ' These artifices of
devotion,' said I, ' are very accommodating.'

' Nevertheless,' said he, * all this would be nothing
if we had not mitigated penance, which, more than any
thing else, produces the greatest repugnance to con
fession. But the most fastidious cannot now feel any
apprehension, since we have maintained in our Theses
at the College of Clermont, that if the " confessor
enjoins a suitable penance, conventientem, and the
penitent is, notwithstanding, unwilling to accept it, he
may retire, renouncing absolution and the penance
enjoined." Escobar moreover says, in the Practice of
Penance according to our Society, tr. 7, ex. 4, n. 188,
" If the penitent declares that he wishes to put off his
penance till the next world, and suffer in purgatory
all the pains due to him, the confessor, for the integ
rity of the sacrament, should impose a very light
penance, and especially if he sees that a greater would
not be received." ' * I believe,' said*I, ' if that were so,
confession should no longer be called the sacrament of
penance.' ' You are wrong,' said he, ' for we always
give one at least in form.' ' But, father, do you deem
a man worthy of absolution who refuses to do any
thing painful, in order to expiate his offences ? And
when persons are in this condition, ought you not
rather to retain their sins than to remit them ? Have

196 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

you a true idea of the extent of your ministry ? Do
you not know that you there exercise the power of
binding and loosing ? Do you think it lawful to give
absolution indifferently to all who ask it, without pre
viously ascertaining that Christ looses in heaven those
whom you loose on earth ? ' ' Eh ! ' said the father,
' do you think we don't know that, " the confessor
must constitute himself judge of the disposition of the
penitent, as well because he is obliged not to dispense
the sacraments to those who are unworthy of them,
Jesus Christ having enjoined him to be a faithful
steward, and not to give holy things to dogs, as
because he is judge, and it is the duty of a judge to
judge justly, by loosing those who are worthy of it,
and binding the unworthy, and also because he must
not absolve those whom Jesus Christ condemns ? "
1 Whose words are these, father ? ' ' Those of Father
Filiutius,' he replied, ' to. 1, tr. 7, n. 354.' ' You sur
prise me,' said I, ' I took them to be from one of the
Fathers of the Church. But, father, this passage must
greatly perplex confessors, and make them very cir
cumspect in dispensing the sacrament in order to
ascertain whether the sorrow of their penitents is
sufficient, and whether the promises they give to sin
no more in future are receivable.' ' There is nothing
at all embarrassing in this,' said the father ; ' Filiutius
took good care not to leave confessors in this diffi
culty, and therefore, after the above words, he gives
them the easy method of getting out of it : " The con
fessor may easily set himself at rest touching the dis-

PENANCE. 197

position of his penitent ; if he does not give sufficient
signs of sorrow, the confessor has only to ask him if he
does not in his soul detest sin, and if he answers yes,
he is obliged to believe him. The same must be said
of his resolution for the future, unless there be some
obligation to restore, or to abandon some proximate
occasion." ' ' This passage, father, I see plainly, is
from Film this.' ' You are mistaken, for he has copied
it, word for word, from Suarez, in 3 par, to. 4, disp. 32,
s. 2, n. 2.' ' But, father, this last passage of Filiutius
destroys what he had laid down in the first. For con
fessors will no longer be able to constitute themselves
judges of the dispositions of their penitents since
they are obliged to believe them on their word, even
though they do not give any sufficient sign of sorrow.
Is it because there is such a certainty of their word
being true, that it alone is a convincing sign ? I
doubt whether experience has taught your fathers
that all who give these promises keep them : I am
mistaken if they do not often experience the con
trary.' ' It matters not,' said the father, ' we always
oblige confessors to believe them. For Father Bauni,
who has gone to the bottom of this question in his
Sum of Sins, c. 46, p. 1090, 1091, 1092, concludes, that
" whenever those who frequently relapse without
showing any amendment, present themselves to the
confessor, and tell him that they are sorry for the past,
and mean well in future, he must believe them on
their word, although there is reason to presume that
such resolutions go no farther than the lips. And

198 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

though they afterwards persist with more freedom
and excess than ever in the same faults, absolution
must, nevertheless, be given, according to my opinion."
I am confident all your doubts are now solved.'

cBut, father,' said I, 'you seem to impose a great
burden on confessors, in obliging them to believe the
opposite of what they see.' 'You do not/ said he,
' understand it ; it is only meant that they are obliged
to act and absolve as if they believed the resolution to
be firm and steadfast, although they do not believe it
in fact. This is explained by our fathers, Suarez and
Filiutius, in the sequel of the above passages. For,
after saying that " the priest is bound to believe his
penitent on his word," they add that " it is not neces
sary for the confessor to be persuaded that the resolu
tion of his penitent will be executed, or even to judge
it probable : it is difficult to think that at the instant
he has the intention generally, although he is to relapse
in a very short time. This all our authors teach : ita
docent omnes autores." Will you doubt the truth of
what our authors teach ? ' ' But, father, what then
will become of this which Father Petau is obliged to
acknowledge in his preface to Pen. Pub., p. 4 : " Holy
fathers, doctors, and councils agree as in an infallible
truth, that the penitence which prepares for the
eucharist must be true, steady, bold, not lax and
sleepy, not liable to relapses, subject to fits and
starts." ' ' Don't you see/ said he, ' that Father Petau
is speaking of the ancient Church? But that is now
so little in season, to use the expression of our fathers*

ABSOLUTION. 199

that according to Bauni, the very opposite is true : tr.
4, q. 15, p. 95: "There are authors who say that we
ought to refuse absolution to those who often relapse
into the same sins, and especially when, after having
been repeatedly absolved, there appears no amend
ment ; others say no. The only true opinion is, that
absolution must not be refused ; and that although
they profit not by all the advices which have repeat
edly been given them, though they have not kept the
promises they made to change their life, though they
have not laboured to purify themselves, no matter;
whatever others say, the true opinion, and that which
ought to be followed is, that even in all these cases
absolution is to be given." And tr. 4, q. 22, p. 100,
" We ought neither to refuse nor defer to absolve
those who are addicted to habitual sins against the
law of God, of nature, and of the Church, although we
see no prospect of amendment : etsi emendationis
futurce nulla spes appareat." '

' But, father, this certainty of always obtaining
absolution may well incline sinners — ' ' I understand
you/ said he, interrupting me, ' but listen to Father
Bauni, q. 15: "We may absolve him who acknow
ledges that the hope of being absolved has disposed
him to sin more readily than but for this hope he
would have done." And Father Caussin, defending
this proposition, says, p. 211 of his Resp. ad Theol. Mor.,
" that if it was not true, the greater part of mankind
would be interdicted from confession, and the only
remedy left to sinners would be the branch of a tree

200 PROVINCIAL LETTE&S.

and a rope.'" '0 father, what numbers of people
these maxims will attract to your confessionals ! '
' Accordingly/ said he, ' you cannot think how many
come ; " we are weighed down, and, as it were, op
pressed under the numbers of our penitents; poeni-
tentium numero obruimur" as it is expressed in ' The
Image of our First Century/ 1. 3, c. 8. 'I know/ said
I, ' an easy means of relieving you of this pressure.
You have only to oblige sinners to abandon proximate
occasions ; in this device alone you would find com
plete relief.' ' We do not want this relief/ said he ;
' quite the contrary ; for, as is said in the same book,
1. 3, c. 7, p. 374, " the aim of our Society is to labour
in establishing virtue, in warring upon vice, and in
serving a great number of souls." And as few are
willing to quit proximate occasions, we have been
obliged to define a proximate occasion, as is seen in
Escobar, in the Practice of our Society, tr. 7, ex. 4, n.
226 : " By proximate occasion we do not mean that in
which a man sins but seldom, as with his landlady,
from sudden transport, three or four times a year," or,
according to Father Bauni, in his French work, " once
or twice a month," p. 1082 ; and also 1089, where he
asks, " What is to be done in the case of masters and
servants, male and female cousins, who live together,
and from so doing are mutually disposed to sin?"
' Separate them/ said I. ' He also says so, ' if the re
lapses are frequent, and almost daily ; but if they but
seldom offend together as once or twice a month, and
they cannot separate without great inconvenience and

ABSOLUTION. 201

damage, we may absolve them according to those
authors, among others Suarez, provided they promise
fairly to sin no more, and are truly sorry for the past."
I thoroughly understood him, for he had already
taught me what ought to satisfy a confessor in judg
ing of this sorrow. 'And Father Bauni/ continued
he, p. 1084, ' permits those who are living in proxi
mate occasions, " to continue, when they cannot quit
them without giving occasion to the world to talk, or
without suffering inconvenience.'" He likewise says,
Theol. Mor., tr. 4, de Poenit. q. 14, p. 94, and q. 13, p.
93, " that we may and must absolve a woman who has
a man in her house with whom she often sins, if she
cannot make him leave reputably, or if she has some
cause for retaining him, si non potest honeste ejicere,
aut habeat aliquam causam retinendi, provided she
indeed purposes to sin no more with him." '

' 0, dear father,' said I, ' the obligations to shun oc
casions of sin is greatly softened if we are exempted
the moment we should suffer inconvenience; but I
presume we are at least obliged to do it when there is
no difficulty ? ' ' Yes,' said the father, ' though that is
not, however, without exception. For Father Bauni
says, at the same place, " all sorts of persons may go
into infamous houses, to convert prostitutes, though
it is very probable that they will fall into sin, as
where they have already often experienced that they
have been led into sin by the appearance and cajolery
of these women. And although there are doctors who
do not approve this opinion, and think it is not lawful

202 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

voluntarily to endanger our own salvation in helping
our neighbour, I still very willingly embrace the
opinion which they combat." ' ' Behold, father, a new
sort of preachers ! But on what does Father Bauni
found in giving them this mission ? ' 'It is/ said he,
' on one of his principles which he gives at the same
place after Basil Ponce. I formerly spoke of it to
you, and I think you remember it. It is, " that we
may seek an occasion directly and for itself, primo et
per se, for the temporal or spiritual welfare of our
selves or our neighbour." ' These quotations so hor
rified me, that I was on the point of breaking with
him ; but I checked myself, in order to let him go
his full length, and contented myself with saying :
' What resemblance is there, father, between this
doctrine and that of the Gospel, which enjoins us to
"pluck out an eye, or part with the things most
necessary to us, when they are injurious to our salva
tion ? " How can you conceive that a man who
voluntarily continues in occasions of sin, detests it
sincerely ? Is it not visible, on the contrary, that his
feelings, in regard to it, are not what they ought to
be, and that he has not yet attained to that true con
version of heart which makes us love God as much as
we have loved the creature ? '

' How ? ' said he ; * that would be genuine contrition.
It seems you do not know that, as Father Pintereau
says, in the second part of the Abbe du Boisic, p. 50,
"all our fathers teach, with one accord, that it is an
error, and almost a heresy, to sav that contrition is

ATTRITION. 203

necessary, and that attrition by itself alone, and pro
duced solely by a dread of future punishment, which
excludes any wish to offend, is not sufficient with the
sacrament." ' ' What, father ! it is almost an article of
faith, that attrition, produced by the mere dread of
punishment, is sufficient with the sacrament ? I be
lieve this is peculiar to your fathers ; for others who
believe that attrition with the sacrament suffices, insist
on its being accompanied with at least some love of
God. And, besides, it seems to me that your authors
themselves did not formerly hold the doctrine to be
so certain ; for your Father Suarez speaks of it in this
way, de Poenit., q. 90, art. 4, disp. 15, n. 17: "Although
it is a probable opinion that attrition is sufficient with
the sacrament, it is not, however, certain, and it may
be false; non est certa, et potest esse falsa. And if it
is false, attrition is not sufficient to save a man. He,
then, who dies knowingly in this state, voluntarily
exposes himself to moral risk of eternal damnation.
For this opinion is neither very ancient nor very
common ; nee valde antiqua, nee multum communis."
No more did Sanchez consider it so certain, since he
says in his Sum, 1. 1, c. 9, n. 34, "that the sick man
and his confessor should content themselves with attri
tion and the sacrament at death, would sin mortally,
because of the great risk of damnation to which the
penitent would be exposed if the opinion that attrition
is sufficient with the sacrament should prove not to be
true;" nor Comitolus, also, when he says, Resp. Mor.,
1. 1, q. 32, n. 7, 8, "that he is not altogether sure that
attrition is sufficient with the sacrament." '

204 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

The worthy father here stopped me. 'And so,' said
he, ' you read our authors ? You do well ; but you
would do still better were you not to read them with
out some one of us. Do you not see, that from having
read them by yourself you have concluded that these
passages contradict those which now maintain our
doctrine of attrition ? whereas it could have been
shown you that there is nothing which does them
higher honour. For what an honour is it to our
fathers of the present day, to have, in less than no
time, spread their opinion everywhere so generally,
that with the exception of theologians, everybody
imagines that what we now hold on the subject of
attrition has always been the belief of the faithful ?
And thus, when you show by our fathers themselves,
that a few years ago this opinion was not certain,
what else do you than just give our latest authors all
the honour of establishing it ?

' Hence Diana, our intimate friend, thought he would
do us a pleasure by pointing out the different steps in
its progress. This he does, p. 5, tr. 13, where he says,
" formerly, the old schoolmen maintained that contri
tion was necessary as soon as we had committed a
mortal sin ; then the belief came to be, that we are
obliged to this only on festivals ; and, at a later period,
when some great calamity threatened the kingdom;
according to others, the obligation was not to delay it
long when death was approaching. But our fathers,
Hurtado and Vasquez, have excellently refuted all
these opinions, and fixed that we are obliged to it only

ATTRITION. 205

when we cannot obtain absolution in any other way,
or are in articulo mortis" To continue the marvel
lous progress of this doctrine, I will add, that our
fathers, Fagundez, prsec. 2, t. 2, c. 4, n. 13, Granados,
in 3 p., cont. 7, d. 3, s. 4, n. 17, and Escobar, tr. 7, ex.

4, n. 88, in the Practice of our Society, have decided
that " contrition is not necessary even at death ; be
cause," say they, " if attrition with the sacrament was
not sufficient at death, it would follow that attrition
would not be sufficient with the sacrament." And our
learned Hurtado, de Sacr. d. 6, quoted by Diana, part

5, tr. 4, Miscell., r. 193, and by Escobar, tr. 7, ex. 4, n.
91, goes still farther. Listen to him : " Is regret for
having sinned when produced only by the temporal
evil resulting from it, as the loss of health or money,
sufficient ? It is necessary to distinguish. If the sin
ner does not think that the evil is sent by the hand of
God, this regret is not sufficient; but if he believes
that this evil is sent of God, as, indeed, all evil," says
Diana, " except sin, comes from him, this regret is
sufficient." Thus Escobar speaks in the Practice of
our Society. Our Father Francis L'Amy also main
tains the same thing, t. 8, dis. 3, n. 13.'

'You surprise me, father, for I see nothing in all
this attrition but what is natural, and thus a sinner
might make himself deserving of absolution without
any supernatural grace. Now, everybody knows that
this is a heresy condemned by the Council.' ' I would
have thought like you/ said he ; ' and yet that cannot
be, for our fathers of the College of Clermont have

206 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

maintained in their widely celebrated Theses, col. 4,
n. 1, that ' an attrition may be holy and sufficient
for the sacrament, though it be not supernatural ; "
and in a subsequent one, "that an attrition which
is only natural, is sufficient for the sacrament, pro
vided it be honest : " Ad sacramentum suffieit attritio
naturalis, modo honesta.

' This is the utmost that can be said, unless we add
an inference, easily deduced from these principles,
namely, that contrition, so far from being necessary
to the sacrament, might be injurious to it, by wiping
away sins itself, and thus leaving nothing for the
sacrament to do. So says our Father Valentia, the
celebrated Jesuit, torn. 4, disp. 7, v. 8, p. 4, " Contrition
is not at all necessary to obtain the principal effect of
the sacrament, but, on the contrary, is rather an
obstacle : " Imo obstat potius quominus effectus sequa-
tur. No more can be desired in behalf of attrition.'
'I believe it, father, but allow me to tell you my
opinion, and to show you the excess to which this doc
trine leads. When you say that attrition produced
by the mere fear of punishment is sufficient, with the
sacrament, to justify sinners, does it not follow that
we might, during our whole life, expiate sins in this
way, and thus be saved without having once loved
God ? Now would your fathers dare to maintain this ?

' I see plainly from what you say, that you require
to be told the doctrine of our fathers respecting the
love of God. This is the last trait of their morality,
and the most important of all. You must have per-

LOVE OF GOD. 207

ceived this from the passages I quoted respecting con
trition. But here are others more precise on the love
of God ; do not interrupt me, then, for the result is of
great importance. Listen to Escobar, who gives the
different opinions of our authors on this subject in the
Practice of the love of God according to our Society,
tr. 1, ex. 2, n. 21, and tr. 5, ex. 4, n. 8, in answer to this
question, "When are we obliged to have in reality a
love of God ? Suarez says, It is enough if we love
him before the hour of death, without specifying any
time. Others, when we receive baptism ; others, on
festival days. But our father Castro Palao combats
all these opinions, and rightly, merito. Hurtado de
Mendoza maintains that we are obliged to do it every
year, and that we are moreover very favourably dealt
with in not being obliged to it oftener. But our father
Coninck thinks we are obliged to it in three or four
years. Henriquez every five years. And Filiutius
says, it is probable we are not strictly obliged to it
every five years. When then ? He leaves it to the
judgment of the wise." ' I allowed all this trifling to
pass, in which the wit of man sports so insolently with
the love of God. ' But/ continued he, ' Father Antony
Sirmond, who writes triumphantly on this subject, in
his admirable work on the Defence of Virtue, in which
he speaks French in France, as he tells his reader,
thus discourses, tr. 2, s. 2, p. 12, 13, 14, etc.: "St.
Thomas says that we are obliged to love God as soon
as we attain the use of reason. This is rather soon.
Scotus, every Sunday. On what founded ? Others,

208 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

when we are greviously tempted. Yes, if this were
the only way of avoiding temptation. Sotus, when
we receive a favour from God. Right, to thank him
for it. Others, at death ; this is very late. No more
do I think it is each time we receive some sacrament ;
attrition is here sufficient with confession, if we have
opportunity. Suarez says that we are obliged to it at
one time. But what time ? He makes you the judge,
and knows nothing about it. Now what this doctor
knew not, I know not who knows." He concludes
that in strictness we are not obliged to ought else than
to observe the other commandments without any love
for God, and without giving him our heart, provided
we do not hate him. This he proves throughout his
second treatise ; you will see it in every passage, and
among others, 16, 19, 24, 28, where he says, God,
though commanding us to love him, is satisfied with
our obeying him in his other commandments. Had
God said, I will destroy you, whatever be the obedience
which you render, if your heart, moreover, is not mine :
would such a motive, in your opinion, have been pro
perly proportioned to the end which God ought to have
had, and must have had ? It is said then that we love
God by doing his will, as if we loved him with affec
tion, as if the motive of charity disposed us to it. If
that really happens, so much better ; if not, we shall
nevertheless strictly obey the commandment of love
by doing works, so that (here see the goodness of God)
we are not so much commanded to love as not to hate.
' Thus have our fathers discharged men from the

LOVE OF GOD. 209

painful obligation of loving God actually, and this
doctrine is so advantageous, that our fathers, Annat,
Pintereau, Le Moine, and even A. Sirmond, defended
it vigorously when it was attacked. You have only
to see it in their answers to moral theology, while that
of Father Pintereau in the 2nd p. of the Abbe de
Boisic, p. 53, will enable you to judge of the value of
this dispensation, by the price which he says it has
cost, namely, the blood of Jesus Christ. This crowns
the doctrine. You see, then, that this dispensation from
the troublesome obligation of loving God, is a privilege
of the Gospel law over the Jewish law. "It was
reasonable," says he, " that under the law of grace of
the New Testament, God should remove the trouble
some and difficult obligation contained in the law of
rigour, of exerting an act of perfect contrition in order
to be justified, and that he should institute sacraments
to supply the defect by the aid of a simple arrange
ment. Otherwise, assuredly, Christians, who are chil
dren, would not now have more facility in regaining
the good graces of their Father than the Jews, who
were slaves, in obtaining mercy from their master." '

' 0 father,' said I, ' no patience can stand this. It
is impossible to listen without horror to things which
I have just heard.' ' They are not mine/ said he. ' I
know it well, father, but you have no aversion to them,
and, very far from detesting the authors of these
maxims, you esteem them. Are you not afraid that
your consent will make you a partaker of their sin ?
And can you be ignorant that St. Paul declares worthy
14

210 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

of death not only those who do the evil thing, but
those who take pleasure in them that do it ! Was it
not enough to have allowed men to do so much that
is forbidden, by the palliations you have introduced ?
Was it necessary, moreover, to give them the means of
committing those very crimes which you have not
been able to excuse, by the facility and certainty of
absolution which you offer them, by destroying for
this purpose the power of the priest, and obliging
them to give absolution rather as slaves than judges,
to the most hardened sinners, without change of life
or any sign of sorrow, except promises a hundred times
violated, without penance, if they choose not to accept
of it, and without forsaking the occasions of sin, if
they thereby suffer inconvenience.

' But they do not stop here : the license which they
have taken to shake the holiest rules of Christian con
duct proceeds the length of entirely subverting the law
of God ! They violate the great commandment which
comprehends the law and the prophets ; they attack
piety in the heart ; they take away the spirit which
gives life ; they say that the love of God is not neces
sary to salvation ; they even go so far as to pretend
that "this dispensation from loving God is the advan
tage which Jesus Christ brought into the world." It
is the height of impiety to say that the price of Christ's
blood is to obtain for us a dispensation from loving
him ! Before the incarnation, men were obliged to
love God ; but since God has " so loved the world as
to give his only begotten Son," the world which he has

LOVE OF GOD. 211

redeemed is discharged from loving him ! Strange
theology of our days ! We dare to take off the anath
ema which St. Paul pronounces against those who
"love not the Lord Jesus Christ." We overthrow
what St. John says, " he that loveth not abideth in
death," and what Jesus Christ himself says, " whoso
loveth not, keepeth not his commandments." Thus
those are made worthy to enjoy God in eternity, who
never once loved him on earth ! Behold the mystery
of iniquity accomplished. Open your eyes at last,
father, and if you have not been touched by the other
errors of your casuists, let these last extravagances
induce you to withdraw. This is the wish of my heart,
both for yourself and all your fathers, and I pray God
that he would deign to make them know how false
the light is which has led them to such precipices, and
fully infuse his love into the breasts of those who pre
sume to dispense others from loving.'

After some discourse of this nature, I left the father,
and see no likelihood of returning. But do not regret
it, for were it necessary to continue the subject, I am
well enough read in their books to be able to tell you
nearly as much of their morality, and at least as much
of their policy, as he himself would have done.

I am, etc.

LBTTEE ELEVENTH.

TO THE REVEREND FATHER JESUITS.

RIDICULOUS ERRORS MAY BE REFUTED BY RAILLERY. PRECAU
TIONS TO BE USED. THESE OBSERVED BY MONTALTE : NOT
SO BY THE JESUITS. IMPIOUS BUFFOONERY OF FATHER LE
MOINE AND FATHER GARASSE.

REVEREND FATHERS, — I have seen the letters you'
are circulating against those which I wrote to a friend,
on the subject of your morality, in which one of the
leading points of your defence is, that I have not
spoken with due seriousness of your maxims: this
you repeat in all your writings, and push so far as to
say that " I have turned sacred things into ridicule."

This charge, fathers, is very surprising, and very
unjust. In what place find you that I have turned
sacred things into ridicule ? Do you refer particularly
to the " contract Mohatra," and " the story of John of
Alba ? " Is this what you mean by sacred things ?
Think you the Mohatra a thing so venerable, that it
is blasphemy not to speak of it with respect ? Are
Father Bauni's lessons on larceny, which disposed
John of Alba to put it in practice against yourselves,
so sacred that you are entitled to bring a charge of
impiety against those who ridicule them ?

RAILLERY IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 213

What, fathers ! are the fancies of your authors to
pass for articles of faith, and cannot we scoff at
passages from Escobar, and the fantastic and unchris
tian decisions of your other authors, without being
accused of laughing at religion ? How can you pos
sibly have presumed so often to repeat a thing so un
reasonable ? Do you not fear that in blaming me for
having derided your errors, you are giving me new
subject of derision in this charge, and enabling me to
retort it upon yourselves, by showing that the only
subject of my laughter is what is laughable in your
books; and that thus in ridiculing your morality, I
have been as far from ridiculing sacred things, as the
doctrine of your casuists is far from the holy doctrine
of the Gospel ?

In truth, fathers, there is a vast difference between
laughing at religion, and laughing at those who pro
fane it by their extravagances. It would be impiety
to fail in respect for the truths which the Spirit of
God has revealed ; but it would be another form of
impiety not to feel contempt for the falsehoods which
the spirit of man opposes to them.

For, fathers, since you oblige me to enter into this
subject, I pray you to consider, that as Christian
truths are deserving of love and respect, so the errors
which contradict them are deserving of contempt and
hatred ; because, there are two things in the truths of
our religion; a divine beauty which makes them
lovely, and a holy majesty which makes them vener
able : and there are also two things in error ; impiety,

214 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

which makes it disgusting, and impertinence, which
makes it ridiculous. Hence it is, that as the saints
always regard truth with these two feelings of love
and fear ; and their wisdom is wholly comprised in
fear, which is its principle, and love, which is its end ;
so, the saints regard error with these two feelings of
hatred and contempt, and their zeal is employed alike
in forcibly repelling the malice of the wicked, and
pouring derision on their extravagance and folly.

Think not, then, fathers, to persuade the world that
it is unbecoming a Christian to treat error with deri
sion, since it is easy to convince those who know not,
that this course is just, is common with the Fathers of
the Church, and is authorized by Scripture, by the
example of the greatest saints, and by that of God
Himself.

For, do we not see that God at once hates and
despises sinners to such a degree, that at the hour of
their death, the time when their state is most deplor
able and wretched, Divine Wisdom will join mockery
and laughter to the vengeance and fury which will
doom them to eternal punishment ? In intertiu vestro
ridebo et subsannabo. And the saints, acting in the
same spirit, will do likewise, since, according to David,
when they shall see the punishment of the wicked,
"they shall tremble, and, at the same time, laugh:
videbunt justi et timebunt, et super eum ridebiint?
Job speaks in the same way: Innocens subsannabit eos.

One very remarkable circumstance connected with
this subject is, that in the first words which God

RAILLERY IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 215

spake to man after the fall, there is, according to the
Fathers, the language of mockery, and a cutting irony.
For, after Adam had disobeyed, hoping, as the devil
had suggested, to be like God, it appears from Scrip
ture that God, in punishment, made him subject to
death ; and after reducing him to this miserable con
dition due to his sin, mocked him in this state in these
derisive words : " Behold, the man is become like one
of us ! Ecce, Adam quasi unus ex nobis ! a deep and
cutting irony, with which," according to St. Jerome
and the commentators, God, " cut him to the quick."
" Adam," says Rupert, " deserved to be derided thus
ironically, and was made to feel his folly by this
ironical expression much more actuely than by a
serious expression." And Hugo de St. Victor, after
saying the same thing, adds, that " this irony was due
to his sottish credulity, and that this species of ridicule
is an act of justice, when he towards whom it is used
deserves it."

You see then, fathers, that mockery is sometimes
the best means of bringing men back from their wan
derings, and it is then an act of justice ; because, as
Jeremiah says, " the actions of those who err are de
serving of laughter, because of their vanity : vana
sunt et risu digna" And so far is it from being im
piety to laugh, that it is the effect of divine wisdom,
according to the expression of St. Augustine : " The
wise laugh at the foolish, because they are wise, not
in their own wisdom, but that divine wisdom which
will laugh at the death of the wicked."

216 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Accordingly, the prophets, who were filled with the
Spirit of God, have used this mockery, as we see by
the example of Daniel and Elijah. In fine, instances
of it occur in the discourses of Jesus Christ himself ;
and St. Augustine observes, that when he wished to
humble Nicodemus, who thought himself a proficient
in the law, " as he saw him inflated with pride in his
capacity of Jewish doctor, he tests and confounds his
presumption by the depths of his questions ; and after
reducing him to an utter inability to answer, asks,
What ! art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not
these things? just as if he had said, Proud chief,
acknowledge that thou knowest nothing." And St.
Chrysostom and St. Cyril say on this, that " he de
served to be sported with in this manner."

You see, then, fathers, that if in the present day
persons playing the masters towards Christians, as
Nicodemus and the Pharisees towards the Jews, should
happen to be ignorant of the principles of religion,
and should maintain, for example, that " men can be
saved without having once loved God during their
whole life," it would only be following the example of
Jesus Christ to make sport with their vanity and
ignorance.

I feel confident, fathers, that these sacred examples
suffice to make you understand that there is nothing
contrary to the conduct of the saints, in laughing at
the errors and extravagances of men ; otherwise it
would be necessary to blame the greatest doctors of
the Church, who practised it ; as St. Jerome, in his

RAILLERY IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 217

letters and his writings against Jovinian, Vigilantius,
and the Pelagians ; Tertullian, in his Apology against
the follies of idolaters : St. Augustine, against the
monks of Africa, whom he calls the hairy men; St.
Irenaeus, against the Gnostics ; St. Bernard and the
other Fathers of the Church, who, having been the
imitators of the apostles, should be imitated in all after
ages, since they are set forth, let men say what they
will, as the true models of Christians, even in the
present day.

I did not think, therefore, I could go wrong in
following them ; and, as I believe I have sufficiently
proved this, I will only add on this subject an excel
lent quotation from Tertullian, which justifies my
whole procedure : " What I have done is only a mock
before a real combat. I have rather shown the
wounds which can be given you, than inflicted them.
If there be passages which provoke a laugh, it is be
cause the subjects themselves disposed to it. There
are many things which deserve to be mocked and
jeered at in this way, for fear of giving them weight
by combating them seriously. Nothing is more due
to vanity than laughter ; to Truth properly does it
belong to laugh, because she is joyous ; and to make
sport with her enemies, because she is sure of victory.
It is true, care must be taken that the raillery is not
low, and unbecoming the truth ; but, with this ex
ception, when it can be used with dexterity, it is a
duty to use it." Do you not find this quotation
fathers, very pertinent to our subject ? " The letters

218 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

I have hitherto written are only a mock before a real
combat." I have done nothing yet but play, and
" shown you rather the wounds which can be given
you than inflicted them." I have simply exhibited
your passages, almost without making them the sub
ject of remark. " If laughter has been excited, it is
because the subjects themselves disposed to it;" for
what more proper to excite laughter than to see a
grave subject like Christian morality filled wiih such
grotesque fancies as yours ? Our expectation in re
gard to these maxims is raised so high when Jesus
Christ is said to " have revealed them to fathers of the
Society " that on finding " that a priest who has been
paid to say a mass, may, besides, take payment from
others by yielding up to them all the share he has in
the sacrifice ; that a monk is not excommunicated for
laying aside his dress, when he does it to dance, pick
pockets, or go incognito into houses of bad fame ; and
that the injunction to hear mass is satisfied by listen
ing at once to the different parts of four masses, by
different priests ; " when I say we hear these and such
like decisions, it is impossible that surprise should not
make us laugh, because nothing tends more to excite
laughter than a ridiculous disproportion between what
is expected and what appears. And how could the
greater part of these matters be treated otherwise,
since, according to Tertullian, " to treat them seriously
would be to give them weight ? "

What ! must the power of Scripture and tradition
be employed to show that you kill an enemy in

RAILLERY IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 21 9

treachery, if you stab him from behind and in ambus
cade ; that you purchase a benefice if you give money
as a motive to make another resign it. These are
matters, then, which must be despised, and which
deserve to be derided and sported with. In fine, the
remark of this ancient author, that nothing is more
due to vanity than laughter, and the rest of the pas
sage, apply here so exactly and with such convincing
force as to leave no room for doubt, that we may well
laugh at error without offending propriety.

I will tell you, moreover, fathers, that we may
laugh at it without offending charity, although this is
one of the charges which you still bring against me in
your writings : " For charity sometimes obliges us to
laugh at men's errors, in order to induce themselves
to laugh at them and shun them ;" so says St. Augus
tine: Hose tu misericorditer irride, ut eis ridenda
ac fugienda commendes" And the same charity, also,
sometimes obliges us to repel them with anger, accord
ing to the saying of St. Gregory of Nazianzen : " The
spirit of charity and meekness has its emotions and
passions." In fact, as St. Augustine says, " Who would
dare to maintain that truth should remain disarmed
against falsehood, and the enemies of the faith should
be permitted to frighten believers with strong words,
or delight them with pleasing displays of wit, while
the orthodox must only write with a coldness of style
which sets the reader asleep ? "

Is it not obvious that by so acting we should allow
the most extravagant and pernicious errors to be

220 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

introduced into the Church, without being permitted
to express contempt lest we should be charged with
offending propriety, or vehemently to confute them
lest we should be charged with want of charity ?

What, fathers ! you shall be allowed to say that a
man may kill to avoid a blow or an injustice, and
we shall not be permitted publicly to refute a public
error of such moment ? You shall be at liberty to say
that a judge may in conscience retain what he has
received for doing injustice, and we shall not be at
liberty to contradict you ? You shall print with
privilege and the approbation of your doctors, that
we may be saved without ever having loved God, and
then shut the mouths of those who would defend the
true faith, by telling them they will violate brotherly
charity, by attacking you, and Christian moderation,
by laughing at your maxims ? I doubt, fathers, if
there are any persons in whom you have been able to
instil this belief; but, nevertheless, if there should be
any who are so persuaded, and who think that I have
violated the charity which I owe you, I wish much
they would examine what is within them that gives
birth to this sentiment ; for although they imagine it
to proceed from zeal, which will not allow them to see
their neighbour accused, without being offended, I
would beg them to consider it as not impossible that
it may have another source ; that it is by no means
improbable that it may be owing to a secret dislike,
often unconscious, which our corrupt nature never
fails to excite against those who oppose laxity of

CHARGE OF UNCHARITABLENESS. 221

morals. To furnish them with a rule which may
enable them to detect the true principle, I will ask
them whether, while they complain that monks have
been so treated, they do not complain still more that
monks should have so treated the truth. If they feel
irritated, not only against the letters, but still more
against the maxims therein referred to, I will admit it
to be possible that their resentment proceeds from
some degree of zeal, though a zeal by no means
enlightened ; and, in this case, the passages quoted
above will suffice to enlighten them. But if they
are indignant only against the censure, and not
against the things censured, verily, fathers, I will not
hesitate to tell them that they are grossly mistaken,
and that their zeal is very blind.

Strange zeal, which feels irritated against those who
expose public faults, and not against those who commit
them ! Strange charity, which is offended when it
sees manifest errors confuted, and not offended at see
ing morality overthrown by these errors ! Were these
persons in danger of assassination, would they be
offended at being warned of the ambuscade which is
being laid for them ; and, instead of turning out of
their way to avoid it, would they go forward amusing
themselves with complaints of the little charity dis
played in discovering the criminal design of the
assassins ? Are they irritated when told not to eat of
a dish which is poisoned, or not to go into a town
because the plague is in it ?

Whence comes it, then, that they think it a want of

222 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

charity to expose maxims injurious to religion ; and,
on the contrary, would think it a want of charity not
to warn them of things injurious to their health and
life, but just that the love they have for life makes
them give a favourable reception to whatever tends to
preserve it, while the indifference which they feel for
truth causes them not only to take no part in its
defence, but even to regret any effort to put down
falsehood ?

Let them consider, then, as before God, to what an
extent the morality which your casuists diffuse on
every side is insulting and pernicious to the Church ;
how scandalous and unmeasured the license which
they introduce into morals ; how obstinate and fierce
your effrontery in defending them. And if they do
not think it time to rise against such disorders, their
blindness will be as much to be pitied as your own,
fathers, since you and they have like cause to dread
the woe which St. Augustine adds to that of our
Saviour, in the Gospel : Woe to the blind who lead t
woe to the blind who are led ! Vce ccecis ducentibus !
vce ccecis sequentibus !

But, in order that you no longer may have any pre
text for giving these impressions to others, nor adopt
ing them yourselves, I will tell you, fathers (and I am
ashamed at your obliging me to tell you what I ought
to learn from you), I will tell you what test the Church
has given us to judge whereof reproof proceeds from a
spirit of piety and charity, or from a spirit of impiety
and hatred.

NECESSARY PRECAUTION IN DISCUSSION. 223

The first of these rules is, that the spirit of piety
always disposes us to speak with truth and sincerity ;
whereas envy and hatred employ falsehood and
calumny : Splendentia et vehementia, sed rebus veris,
says St. Augustine. Whosoever makes use of false
hood is actuated by the spirit of the devil. No direc
tion of intention can rectify calumny; and though the
object were to convert the whole earth, it would not be
lawful to blacken the innocent, because we must not
do the least evil to secure the success of the greatest
good ; and, as Scripture says, " the truth of God has no
need of our lie." " It is incumbent on the defenders of
truth," says St. Hilary, " to advance only what is
true." Accordingly, fathers, I can declare before God,
that nothing do I detest more than to offend truth in
any degree however small, and that I have always
been particularly careful, not only not to falsify
it (which would be horrible), but not to alter or give
the slightest colour to the meaning of any passage ; so
that if I presumed on this occasion to appropriate the
words of the same St. Hilary, I might well say with him,
" If the things I say are false, let my discourse be held
infamous ; but if I show that the things alleged are
public and manifest, I do not exceed the bounds of
modesty and liberty in reproving them."

But it is not enough to say only what is true ; it is
necessary, moreover, to abstain from saying all that is
true, because we ought only to state what is useful,
and not what can only hurt, without conferring any
benefit. And thus, as the first rule is to speak truly,

224 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the second is to speak discreetly. " The wicked," says
St. Augustine, " persecute the good in blindly following
the passion 'which animates them ; whereas the good
persecute the wicked with a wise discretion, just as
surgeons are careful when they cut, while murderers
care not where they strike." You know well, fathers,
that, in quoting the maxims of your authors, I have
not produced those to which you would have been
most sensitive, though I might have done it without
sinning against discretion, as learned and orthodox
men have done it before. All who have read your
authors know as well as yourselves, how much I have
spared you in this respect ; besides, I have not spoken
a word with reference to the concerns of any individual
among you ; and I should be sorry to have adverted
to secret and personal faults, whatever proof I might
have had of them, for I know that this is the charac
teristic of hatred and enmity, and ought never to be
done unless the good of the Church imperatively
demand it. It is plain, then, that I have in no respect
acted without discretion, in what I have been obliged
to say respecting the maxims of your morality ; and
that you have more cause to congratulate yourselves
on my reserve than to complain of my severity.

The third rule, fathers, is : That when we are obliged
to use ridicule, the spirit of piety will dispose us to
use it only against error, and not against holy things ;
whereas the spirit of buffoonery, impiety and heresy
laughs at all that is most sacred. I have already
justified myself on this point ; and besides, it is a vice

BUFFOONERY OF FATHER LE MOINE. 225

into which there is very little danger of falling when
one has only to speak of the opinions which I have
quoted from your authors.

In fine, fathers, to abridge these rules, I will further
mention only this one, which is the principle and end
of all the others, namely, That the spirit of charity
will dispose us to have a heartfelt desire of the salva
tion of those against whom we speak, and to offer up
prayers to God at the same time that we administer
reproof to men. " We must always," says St. Augus
tine, " preserve charity in the heart, even when out
wardly we are obliged to do what men may think rude,
and strike with a harsh, but benign severity, their
advantage being to be preferred to their satisfaction."
I believe, fathers, that nothing in my letters indicates
that I have not had this desire on your account, and
thus charity obliges you to believe that I have had it
in effect when you see nothing to the contrary. From
this, then, it appears you cannot show that I have
sinned against this rule, or against any of those which
charity obliges us to follow ; and therefore you have
no right to say that I have violated it in what I have
done.

But, fathers, if you would now have the pleasure of
seeing a brief description of a conduct which sins
against each of these rules, and really bears the charac
teristics of the spirit of buffoonery, envy, and hatred,
I will furnish you with examples; and that they may
be the better known, and more familiar to you, I will
take them from your own writings.
15

226 PEOVINCIAL LETTERS.

To begin with the unworthy manner in which your
authors speak of sacred things, whether in their ridi
cule, their gallantry, or their serious discourse, do you
consider the many ridiculous tales of your Father
Binet in his ' Consolation to the Sick/ ill adapted to
his professed design of giving Christian consolation to
those whom God afflicts ? Will you say, that the pro
fane and coquettish manner in which your Father Le
Moine has spoken of piety, in his ' Easy Devotion/ is
better fitted to produce respect than contempt for the
idea which he forms of Christian virtue ? Does his
whole volume of ' Moral Portraits/ both in its prose
and verse, breathe anything but a spirit filled with
vanity and worldly folly ? Is there ought worthy of
a priest in the ode of the seventh book, entitled,
'Praise of Modesty, in which it is shown that all pretty
things are red, or given to blush ? ' He composed it
for a lady, whom he calls Delphine, to console her for
her frequent blushing. Accordingly, in each stanza
he says that some of the things most esteemed are red,
as roses, pomegranates, the lips, the tongue. With this
gallantry, disgraceful to a monk, he has the insolence
to introduce the blessed spirits who officiate in the
presence of God, and of whom Christians should always
speak with veneration :

Les cherubins, ces glorieux,
Composes de tete et d« plume,
Que Dieu de son esprit allume,
Et qu'il e'claire de ses yeux ;
Ces illustres faces volantes.

BUFFOONERY OF FATHER LE MOINE. 227

Sont tou jours rouges et brulantes,
Soit du feu de Dieu, soit du leur,
Et dans leurs flammes mutuelles
Font du mouvement de leurs ailes
Un e'ventail a leur chaleur.

Mais la rougeur e'clate en toi,
DELPHINE, avec plus d'avantage,
Quand 1'honneu* est sur ton visage
Vetu de pourpre comme un roi, etc.

What say you to this, fathers ? Does this prefer
ence of Delphine's blush to the ardour of those spirits,
who have no other ardour than that of charity, and
the comparison of a fan to their mysterious wings,
appear to you very Christian-like in lips which conse
crate the adorable body of Jesus Christ ? I know he
only said it to play the gallant, and for fun ; but this
is what we call laughing at sacred things. And, is it
not true, that if justice were done him, nothing could
save him from censure ? although, in defence, he should
urge a reason which is itself not less censurable, and
is stated in book first, namely, " that Sorbonne has no
jurisdiction on Parnassus, and that the errors of that
land are not subject either to censures or to the Inquisi
tion," as if it were only forbidden to be an impious man}
and a blasphemer, in prose. But at least this would
not ward off censure from the following passage in the
advertisement to the book : " The water of the stream
on whose bank he composed his verses, is so well-
fitted to make poets, that were it converted into holy
water, it would not drive away the demon of poesy.'

228 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS.

No more would it secure your Father Garasse, who,
in his ' Summary of the Leading Truths of Religion,"
joins blasphemy with heresy, by speaking of the sacred
mystery of the Incarnation in this manner: "The
human personality was grafted, or rode, as if on horse
back, upon the personality of the Word!" In another
passage from the same author, p. 510, without quoting
many others, it is said, on the subject of the name of
Jesus, usually printed thus, L£B, "Some have taken
away the cross, and used the letters merely thus, I.H s.,
which is a Jesus with his clothes off."

In this unworthy manner do you treat the truths of
religion, contrary to the inviolable rule which obliges
us always to speak of them with reverence. But you
sin no less against the rule which obliges always to
speak with truth and discretion. What is more usual
in your writings than calumny ? Are those of Father
Brisacier candid ? And does he speak with truth
when he says, part 4, pp. 24, 25, "that the nuns of Port
Royal do not pray to the saints, and have no image in
their church ? ' Are not these very bold falsehoods,
seeing the contrary is manifest to the view of all Paris?
And does he speak with discretion when he slanders
the innocence of those daughters, whose lives are so
pure and so austere, calling them impenitent, unsacra-
mentary, non- communicating nuns, foolish virgins,
fantastical, Calagan, desperate, anything you please;
and blackening them by the many other calumnies,
which brought down upon him the censure of the late
Archbishop of Paris ; when he calumniates priests of

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 229

irreproachable manners, so far as to say, part 1, p. 22,
" that they practise novelties in confession, to entrap
the fair and innocent, and that it would horrify him
to relate the abominable crimes which they commit ? "
Is it not insufferable hardihood, to advance such black
impostures, not only without proof, but without the
least shadow and semblance ? I will not dilate further
on this subject. I defer it, intending to speak of it to
you more at length another time, for I have yet to
speak with you on this matter ; and what I have now
said is sufficient to let you see how much you sin alike
against truth, and against discretion.

But it will perhaps be said that you at least do not
sin against the last rule, which obliges us to desire the
salvation of those whom we attack, and that you can
not be accused of this without violating the secret of
your heart, which is known to God only. It is strange,
fathers, that we, nevertheless, have the means of con
victing you, even here, and that your hatred against
your adversaries having carried you the length of
wishing their eternal ruin, you have been blind enough
to disclose this abominable wish ; that so far from
secretly forming wishes for their salvation, you have
publicly made vows for their damnation; and after
giving utterance to this miserable feeling in the town
of Caen, to the scandal of the whole Church, you have
since dared, in your printed works, to justify the
diabolical act even in Paris. To such outrages on
piety nothing can be added ; such outrages as ridicul
ing and speaking unbecomingly of the most sacred

230 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

things; uttering the falsest and vilest calumnies
against virgins and priests ; and, in fine, entertaining
desires and putting up prayers for their damnation.
I know not, fathers, how you avoid feeling confounded,
and how you could even think of charging me with
want of charity — me, who have spoken with so much
truth and reserve — without calling to mind the fearful
violations of charity which you yourselves commit by
such deplorable outbreaks.

To conclude with another charge which you bring
against me. Because, among the numerous maxims
to which I refer, there are some which were objected
to before, you complain that I again say against you
what had been said. I answer, it is just because you
have not profited by what was said that I again repeat
it. For where is the fruit of the many written rebukes
which you have received from learned doctors, and
from the whole university ? What have your fathers,
Annat, Caussin, Pintereau, and Le Moine done, in the
replies which they have made, but showered down
insult on those who had given them salutary advice ?
Have you suppressed the books in which those wicked
maxims are taught ? Have you silenced the authors
of them ? Are you become more circumspect ? Is it
not since then that Escobar has been so often printed
in France and in the Low Countries; while your
fathers, Cellot, Bagot, Bauni, L'Amy, Le Moine, etc.,
cease not daily to publish the same things, and new
ones, moreover, as licentious as ever ? Complain no
longer, then, fathers, either that I have upbraided you

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 231

for the maxims which you have not given up, or that
I have objected to your new ones, and laughed at all.
You have only to consider them, in order to behold
your own confusion and my defence. Who can refrain
from laughing at Father Bauni's decision, regarding
the man who sets fire to a granary ; or that of Father
Cellot on restitution ; the rule of Sanchez, in favor of
sorcerers ; the manner in which Hurtado avoids the
sin of duelling, by walking in a field, and there waiting
for a man ; the contrivances of Father Bauni to avoid
usury ; the mode of avoiding simony by a detour of
intention and falsehood, by speaking at one time loud,
at another low ; and all the other opinions of your
gravest doctors ? Is more wanted, fathers, for my
justification ? and, as Tertullian says, is anything more
" due to the vanity and silliness of these opinions than
laughter ? " But, fathers, the corruption of manners
which your maxims introduce must be treated differ
ently, and we may well ask, with Tertullian again,
" Whether should we ridicule their weakness or deplore
their blindness ? " Rideam vanitatem, an exprobrem
ccecitatem ? I believe, fathers, " we may laugh and
weep in turn ; " hcec tolerabilius vel ridentur vet
flentur, says St. Augustine. Acknowledge, then, with
Scripture, that, " there is a time to laugh and a time
to weep." I wish, fathers, I may not experience in
you the truth of a common proverb : " There are per
sons so unreasonable that there is no satisfaction in
whatever way we deal with them, whether laughing
or in anger."

LETTEE TWELFTH.

TO THE. KEVEREND JESUIT FATHERS.

REFUTATION OF THE JESUIT QUIBBLES ON ALMS AND SIMONY.

REVEREND FATHERS, — I was prepared to write you
on the subject of the insulting epithets which you
have so long applied to me in your writings, in which
you call me impious, buffoon, ignorant, farcer, impos
tor, calumniator, cheat, heretic, Galvinist in disguise,
disciple of Du Moulin, possessed with a legion of devils,
and whatever else you please. I wish to let the world
understand why you treat me in this fashion, for I
would be sorry it should believe all this of me ; and I
had resolved to complain of your calumnies and im
postures, when I saw your replies, in which you your
selves bring the same charge against myself ; you have
thereby obliged me to change my purpose, and yet I
will still, in some measure, continue it, I hope since,
while defending myself, to convict you of real impos
tures, in greater number than the false ones with which
you charge me. Indeed, fathers, you are more sus
pected than I ; for it is not probable, that single as I am,
without power, and without human support, against so
great a body, and sustained only by truth and sincerity,

ALMSGIVING. , 233

I have run the risk of losing everything, by exposing
myself to be convicted of imposture. In questions of
fact like these, it is too easy to detect falsehood. I
should not want people to accuse me, and justice
would not be denied them. You, on the other hand,
fathers, are not in those circumstances ; and you may
say against me whatever you please, while there is
none to whom I can complain. Such being the differ
ence of our conditions, I must exercise no little self-
restraint, though I were not inclined to it by other
considerations. Meanwhile you treat me as a notorious
impostor, and you thus force me to reply ; but you
know that this cannot be done without a new expo
sure, and even without going deeper into the points of
your moral system ; in this I doubt if you are good
politicians, The war is carried on in your country,
and at your expense ; and though you have thought
that by darkening the question with scholastic terms,
the answer would thereby become so long, so obscure,
and so perplexing, that the relish for them would be
lost, it will not, perhaps, be altogether so ; for I will
try to weary you as little as possible with this kind of
writing. Your maxims have something so unaccount
ably diverting, that everybody is amused with them.
Only remember that you yourselves oblige me to enter
upon this explanation ; and let us see which of us will
make the best defence.

The first of your impostures is on " Vasquez* opinions
concerning alms" Allow rne, then, to explain it pre
cisely, that there may be no obscurity in our debate.

234 ROVINCIAL LETTERS.

It is very well known, fathers, that according to the
mind of the Church, there are two precepts in regard
to alms : the one, " to give of our superfluity in the
ordinary necessities of the poor ; " and the other, " to
give even what is necessary for our station, when the
necessity of the poor is extreme." So says Cajetan,
after St. Thomas ; and hence, in order to exhibit the
spirit of Vasquez, touching alms, it is necessary to
show how he has regulated what we ought to give, as
well out of our superfluity as out of our necessary.

Alms from superfluity, which form the ordinary
supply of the poor, are entirely abolished by this single
maxim of EL, c. 4, n. 14, which I have quoted in my
Letters : " What men of the world reserve to keep up
their own station and that of their kindred, is not
called superfluity : and hence it will scarcely be found
that there is ever any superfluity in men of the world,
or even in kings." You see plainly, fathers, that by
this definition, all who have ambition have no super
fluity ; and that thus almsgiving is annihilated, in
regard to the greater part of mankind. But even
those who should have superfluity are dispensed from
giving it in common necessities, according to Vasquez,
who is opposed to such as would oblige the rich to
give. Here are his words, c. 1, n. 32 : " Corduba
teaches that when we have superfluity, we are obliged
to give to those who are in an ordinary necessity ; at
least, a part of it, so as to fulfil the precept in some
degree ; but I don't think so ; sed hoc non placet ; for
we have shown the contrary against Cajetan and

ALMSGIVING. 235

Navarre!' Thus, fathers, the obligation to give such
alms is absolutely overthrown, according to the view
which Vasquez takes.

As to the necessary which we are obliged to give in
cases of extreme and pressing necessity, you will see
by the conditions which he introduces in forming this
obligation, that the wealthiest in Paris cannot be bound
by it once in their lives. I will mention only two of
them. The one is, " we must know that the poor per
son will not be relieved by any other ; hcec intelligo et
cwtera omnia, quando scio nullum alium opem
laturum" c. 1, n. 28. What say you, fathers ? Will
it often happen that in Paris, where there are so many
charitable persons, we can know that nobody will be
found to assist a poor person who is applying to us ?
And yet, if we have not this knowledge, we may send
him off without relief, according to Vasquez. The
other condition is, that the necessity of the poor appli
cant must be such that " he is threatened with some
mortal accident, or with the loss of his reputation"
(n. 24, 26), a case very far from common. But what
shows its rarity still more is, that according to him, n.
45, the poor man who is in such a state as founds an
obligation on us to give him alms, " may in conscience
rob the rich man." And hence the case must be very
extraordinary, unless he insist that it is ordinarily law
ful to rob. Thus, after destroying the obligation to
give alms of our superfluity, which is the chief source
of charity, he obliges the rich to assist the poor out of
their necessary only when he permits the poor to rob

236 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the'rich. Such is the doctrine of Vasquez, to which
you refer your readers for their edification.

I come now to your Impostures. You dilate at first
on the obligation which Vasquez lays upon ecclesiastics
to give alms ; but I have not spoken of this, and will
speak when you please. There is no question about it
here. As to the laity, of whom alone we speak, it
seems as if you wished it to be understood that, in the
passage which I have quoted, Vasquez only gives the
view of Cajetan, and not his own. But as nothing is
more false, and you have not said it distinctly, I am
willing to believe, for your honour, that you did not
mean to say it.

You afterwards complain loudly that, after having
quoted this maxim of Vasquez, " Scarcely will it be
found that men of the world, and even kings, ever
have any superfluity," I have inferred that " the rich
are scarcely obliged to give alms of their superfluity."
But what do you mean, fathers ? If it is true that the
rich have seldom, if ever, any superfluity, is it not cer
tain that they will seldom, if ever, be obliged to give
alms of their superfluity ? I would give you the argu
ment in form had not Vasquez, who esteems Diana so
highly that he calls him the " phoenix of minds,"
drawn the same inference from the same principle ; for
after quoting Vasquez's maxim, he concludes, " that in
the question whether the rich are obliged to give alms
of their superfluity, although the opinion which obliges
them were true, it would never, or seldom ever, happen,
that it was obligatory in practice." In all the discus-

ALMSGIVING. 237

sion, I have only followed him word for word. What,
then, is the meaning of this, fathers ? When Diana
quotes Vasquez's sentiments with eulogy, when he
finds them probable, and very "convenient for the
rich," as he says in the same place, he is neither cal
umniator nor forger, and you make no complaint of
imposture ; whereas, when I exhibit these same senti
ments of Vasquez, but without treating him as a
phoenix, I am an impostor, a forger, a corrupter of his
maxims. Certainly, fathers, you have ground to fear
that the different treatment you give those who differ
not in their report, but only in the estimation in which
they hold your doctrine, will discover the bottom of
your heart, and make it apparent that your principal
object is to maintain the credit of your Company. So
long as your accommodating theology passes for wise
condescension, you do not disavow those who publish
it, but, on the contrary, laud them as contributing to
your design. But when it is denounced as pernicious
laxity, then the same interest of your Society leads you
to disavow maxims which injure you in the world;
and thus you acknowledge them, or renounce them,
not according to truth, which never changes, but
according to the diversities of time, as an ancient
writer expressed it : " Omnia pro tempore, nihil pro
veritate" Take care, fathers ; and that you may no
longer charge me with drawing from Vasquez' principle
an inference which he would have disavowed, know
that he has drawn it himself, c. 1, n. 27, " Scarcely are
we obliged to give alms when we are only obliged to

238 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

give it of our superfluity, according to the opinion of
Cajetan, and according to MINE; et secundum nostram"
Confess, then, fathers, that I have exactly followed his
idea ; and consider with what conscience you have
dared to say, that " on going to the source it would be
seen with astonishment, that he there teaches quite the
contrary."

But the point on which you lay your principal stress
is when you say, that if Vasquez does not oblige the
rich to give alms of their superfluity, he in return
obliges them to give alms of their necessary. But you
have forgotten to specify the combination of conditions
which he declares necessary to constitute this obligation;
these, which I have stated, restrict it so much that they
almost entirely annihilate it. Instead of thus candidly
explaining his doctrine, you say, generally, that he
obliges the rich to give even what is necessary to their
station. This is saying too much, fathers ; the rule of
the Gospel does not go so far ; it would be another
error, though one which is far from being Vasquez's.
To screen his laxity you attribute to him an excessive
strictness, which would be reprehensible, and thereby
deprive yourselves of all credit for being faithful
reporters. But he does not deserve this reproach, since
his doctrine is, as I have shown, that the rich are not
obliged, either in justice or charity, to give of their
superfluity, and still less of their necessary, in all the
ordinary wants of the poor : and that they are only
obliged to give of their necessary on emergencies so
rare, that they almost never happen.

ALMSGIVING. 239

This is all you object to me, and, therefore, it only
remains for me to show how false it is to pretend that
Vasquez is stricter than Cajetan. This will be very
easy, since the cardinal teaches that " we are bound in
justice to give alms of our superfluity, even in the com
mon necessities of the poor : because, according to the
holy Fathers, the rich are only the stewards of their
superfluity, to give it to whomsoever of the needy they
may select." And thus, whereas Diana speaks of max
ims "very convenient and very agreeable to the rich,
and to their confessors," the cardinal, who has not like
consolation, declares, De Eleem, c. 6, " that he has noth
ing to say to the rich, but these words of Jesus Christ:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven ; and to their confessors : If the blind lead the
blind, they shall both fall into the ditch." So indis
pensable did he consider the obligation ! This, accord
ingly, the saints and all the Fathers have laid down as
an invariable truth. St. Thomas says, 2. 2, q. 118, art.
4, " There are two cases in which we are obliged to
give alms as a just debt; ex debito legali ; the one,
when the poor are in danger ; the other, when we pos
sess superfluous goods." And, q. 87, a. 1, " The three-
tenths which the Jews were to eat with the poor have
been augmented under the new law : because, Jesus
Christ requires us to give to the poor not only the
tenth part, but all our superfluity." And yet Vasquez
is unwilling that we should be obliged to give even a
part of it ; such is his complaisance to the rich and his

240 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

hardness to the poor ; such his opposition to those feel
ings of charity, which give a charm to the truth con
tained in the following words of St. Gregory ; truth,
however, which to the rich men of the world appears
so rigid : " When we give to the poor what their neces
sity requires, we do not so much give what is ours, as
restore what is their own : it is a debt of justice rather
than a work of mercy."

In this fashion do the saints • recommend the rich
to share their worldly goods with the poor, if they
would with the poor possess heavenly blessings. And,
whereas, you labour to encourage men in ambition,
owing to which they never have superfluity, and
avarice, which refuses to give it when they have ; the
saints have laboured, on the contrary, to dispose men
to give their superfluity, and to convince them that
they will have much if they measure it not by cupidity
which suffers no limits, but piety which is ingenious
in retrenching, in order to have the means of diffusing
itself in acts of charity. " We shall have much
superfluity," says St. Augustine, " if we confine our
selves to what is necessary ; but if we seek after
vanity, nothing will suffice. Seek, brethren, as much
as suffices for the work of God," in other words, for
nature, "and not what suffices for your cupidity,"
which is the work of the devil ; " and remember that
the superfluity of the rich is the necessary of the
poor."

I wish much, fathers, that what I say might not
only have the effect of justifying myself (that were

SIMONY. 241

little), but also of making you feel and abhor what is
corrupt in the maxims of your casuists, that we might
thus be sincerely united in the holy rules of the Gospel,
by which we are all to be judged.

As to the second point, which regards simony, before
answering the charges whieh you bring against me, I
will begin by explaining your doctrine on the subject.
Finding yourselves embarrassed between the canons of
the Church, which inflict fearful penalties on simon-
ists, and the avarice of the many persons inclined to
this infamous traffic, you have followed your ordinary
method, which is to grant men what they desire, and
give to God words and semblances. For what do
simonists want, but just money, for bestowing their
benefices ? And it is this that you have exempted
from simony. But, because the name of simony must
remain, and there must be a subject to which it may
be annexed, you have chosen for this an imaginary
idea, which never enters the minds of simonists, and
which would be of no use to them, namely, to value
the money considered in itself as highly as the spiritual
good considered in itself. For, who would think of
comparing things so disproportioned, and so different
in kind ? And yet, provided this metaphysical com
parison is not drawn, one may give his benefice to
another, and receive money for it without simony,
according to your authors.

It is thus you sport with religion, to favour the
passions of men ; and you see, notwithstanding,
with what gravity your Father Valentia deals out his
16

242 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

dreams at the place quoted in my letters, torn. 3, disp.
16, p. 2044 : "We may give a temporal for a spiritual
in two ways : the one, while prizing the temporal
more than the spiritual, and this would be simony ;
the other, taking the temporal as the motive and end,
which determines us to give the spiritual, without,
however, prizing the temporal more than the spiritual,
and then it is not simony. And the reason is, because
simony consists in receiving a temporal as the exact
price of a spiritual. Hence, if the temporal is asked,
si petatur temporale, not as the price, but as the
motive, which determines to bestow it, it is not at all
simony, although the end and principal expectation be
the possession of the temporal ; minime erit simonia,
etiamsi temporale principaliter intendatur et expec-
tetur" And has not your great Sanchez made a simi
lar discovery, according to the report of Escobar, tr. 6,
ex. 2, n. 40 ? Here are his words : " If a temporal
good is given for a spiritual good, not as a price, but as
a motive, determining the collator to bestow it, or as a
grateful acknowledgment if it has already been
received, is it simony ? Sanchez affirms that it is not."
Your Theses of Caen, of 1644, say : "A probable
opinion taught by several Catholics is, that it is not
simony to give a temporal good for a spiritual, when
it is not given as the price." As to Tannerus, here is
his doctrine, similar to that of Valentia, which will
show that you are wrong to complain of my having
said that it is not conformable to that of St. Thomas,
since he himself admits this at the place quoted in my

SIMONY. 243

letter, t. 3, d. 5, p. 1519: "Properly and truly there is
no simony unless in taking a temporal good as the
price of a spiritual ; but when it is taken as a motive
disposing to give the spiritual, or as an acknowledg
ment for its having been given, it is not simony, at
least in conscience." And, a little further on : " The
same thing must be said, even should the temporal be
regarded as the spiritual motive, and be even preferred
to the spiritual; although St. Thomas and others seem
to say the contrary, inasmuch as they affirm that it is
absolute simony to give a spiritual good for a temporal,
when the temporal is the end.

Such, fathers, is your doctrine of simony, as taught
by your best authors, who in this follow each other
very exactly. It only remains for me, then, to reply
to your impostures. You have said nothing of the
opinion of Valentia, and thus his doctrine remains as
before your reply. But you stop at that of Tannerus,
and say that he has only decided that it was not
simony by divine law ; and you wish it to be believed
that I have suppressed the words divine law. In this
you are unreasonable, fathers, for the words divine
law never were in this passage. You afterwards add
that Tannerus declares it simony by positive law. You
are mistaken, fathers ; he has not said so generally,
but in particular cases, in casibus a jure expressis, as
he says at this place. In this he makes an exception
to what he had established, generally, in this passage,
namely, " that it is not simony in conscience," which
implies that it is not simony by positive law, unless

244 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

you would make Tannerus profane enough to maintain
that simony by positive law is not simony in con
science. But you search about purposely for the
words, "divine law, positive law, natural law, external
and internal tribunal, cases expressed in law, external
presumption," and others little known, that you may
make your escape under the cloud, and lead away the
attention from your errors. Nevertheless, fathers,
you shall not escape by these vain subtleties, for I will
put questions to you so simple that they will not be
subject to the distinguo.

I ask you, then, without speaking of positive law,
or presumption of -external tribunal, if a beneficed
person will be a simonist, according to your authors,
by giving a benefice of four thousand livres annually,
and receiving ten thousand francs in cash, not as the
price of the benefice, but as a motive determining him
to give it? Answer me distinctly, fathers; what is the
decision on this case according to your authors ? Will
not Tannerus say formally, that " it is not simony iii
conscience, since the temporal is not the price of the
benefice, but only the motive which makes it to be
given ? " Will not Valentia, your Theses of Caen,
Sanchez and Escobar, in like manner decide that
" it is not simony," and for the same reason ? Is
more necessary to exempt this beneficiary from
simony ; and would you dare to treat him as a simon
ist in your confessionals, whatever your private
opinion of him might be, since he would be entitled to
shut your mouths by having acted on the opinion of

SIMONY. 245

so many grave doctors? Confess that, according to
you, this beneficiary is exempt from simony ; and now
defend this doctrine if you can.

This, fathers, is the way to treat questions, in order
to unravel them, instead of parplexing them either by
scholastic terms, or by changing the state of the ques
tion, as you do in your last charge, and in this way,
Tannerus, you say, declares at least that such an ex
change is a great sin, and you reproach me with
having maliciously suppressed the circumstance, which,
as you pretend, justifies him entirely. But you are
wrong, and in several respects. For, were what you
say true, the question at the place I referred to was
not whether there was sin, but only if there was
simony. Now, these are two very distinct questions :
sins, according to your maxims, only oblige to con
fession; simony obliges to restore; and there are
persons to v/hom that would appear very different.
For you have indeed found expedients to make con
fession mild ; but you have not found means to render
restitution agreeable. I have to tell you, moreover,
that the case which Tannerus charges with sin is not
simply that in which a spiritual good is given for a
temporal, which is even its principal motive ; but he
adds, where the temporal is prized more than the spirit
ual ; and this is the imaginery case of which we have
spoken. And it does no harm to charge that with
sin, since one would require to be very wicked, or very
stupid, not to wish to avoid sin by means so easy as
that of abstaining to compare the price of these two

246 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

things, while the one is allowed to be given for the
other. Besides, Valentia, at the place already quoted,
examining whether there is sin in giving a spiritual
good for a temporal, which is the principal motive,
states the grounds of those who answer affirmatively,
adding, " Sed hoc non videtur mihi satis cerium ; this
does not seem to me quite certain."

Since that time, your father, Erade Bille, professor
of cases of conscience, has decided that there is no sin
in this, for probable opinions always go on ripening.
This he declares in his recent writings, against which
M. Du Pre, doctor and professor at Caen, composed his
fine printed address, which is very well known. For
although this Father Erade Bille acknowledges that
the doctrine of Valentia, followed by Father Milhard,
and condemned in Sorbonne, is " contrary to the com
mon sentiment suspected of simony in several respects,
and punished by the law when the practice of it is
discovered," he still hesitates not to say that is a
probable opinion, and consequently safe in conscience,
and that there is neither simony nor sin in it. " It is,"
says he, " a probable opinion, and taught by many
orthodox doctors, that there is no simony, and no sin
in giving money, or another temporal thing, for a
benefice, whether by way of gratitude, or as a motive,
without which it would not be given, provided it is
not given as a price equivalent to the benefice." This
is all that can be desired. These maxims, as you see,
fathers, make simony so rare that they would have
exculpated Simon Magus himself, who sought to pur-

SIMONY. 247

chase the Holy Ghost, in which he is the type of. the
purchasing simonist ; and Gehazi, who received money
for a miracle, and is therefore the type of the selling
simonist. For it cannot be doubted, that when Simon,
in the Acts, offered the apostles money to obtain their
power of working miracles, he made no use of the terms
buying, or selling, or price ; he did nothing more than
offer money as a motive to make them give him this
spiritual good. Being thus, according to your authors,
exempt from simony, he would if he had known your
maxims, have been secure against the anathema of St.
Peter. This ignorance, likewise, did great harm to
Gehazi ; when he was struck with leprosy by Elisha ;
for, having received money from the prince who had
been miraculously cured, only as a grateful return, and
not as a price equivalent to the divine virtue which
had performed the miracle, he could have obliged
Elisha to cure him under pain of mortal sin, since he
would have acted with the sanction of so many grave
doctors, and since, in like cases, your confessors are
obliged to absolve their penitents, and to wash them
from spiritual leprosy, of which corporeal is only a type.
In good sooth, fathers, it would be easy here to turn
you into ridicule, and I know not why you lay your
selves open to it ; for I would only have to state your
other maxims as that of Escobar, in the ' Practice of
Simony according to the Society of Jesus,' n. 40 : " Is
it simony when two monks mutually stipulate in this
way : Give me your vote for the office of Provincial,
and I will give you mine for that of Prior ? By no

248 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

means/' And this other, tr. 6, n. 14 : " It is not simony
to obtain a benefice by promising money when there
is no intention actually to pay it ; because it is only
feigned simony, and is no more real than spurious gold
is true gold." By this subtlety of conscience he has
found means, and through the addition of knavery to
simony, to secure benefices without money and without
simony. But I have not leisure to say more, for it is
now time to defend myself against your third calumny
on the subject of bankruptcy.

Than this, fathers, nothing is more gross. You treat
me as an impostor with reference to a sentiment of
Lessius, which I do not quote for myself, but which is
alleged by Escobar, in a passage from which I took it ;
and hence were it true that Lessius is not of the
opinion which Escobar ascribes to him, what could be
more unjust than to throw the blame upon me ? When
I quote Lessius and your other authors for myself, I
am willing to answer for my accuracy ; but as Escobar
has collected the opinions of twenty-four of your
doctors, I ask if I should be guarantee for more than
I quote from him ? and if I must, moreover, be respon
sible for the accuracy of his quotations in the passages
which I have selected ? That would not be reasonable ;
now that is the point considered here. In my letter I
gave the following passage from Escobar, faithfully
translated, and as to which, moreover, you have said
nothing : " Can he who becomes bankrupt retain with
a safe conscience as much of his means as may be
necessary to live, with honour ; ne indecore vivat ? I

SIMONY. 249

answer, yes, with Lessius ; cum Lessio assero posse."
Hereupon you tell me that Lessius is not of that
opinion. But think a little what you are undertaking ;
for if it really is the opinion of Lessius, you will be
called imposters for asserting the contrary ; and if it
is not, Escobar will be the imposter ; so that it is now
absolutely certain that some member of the Society
must be convicted of imposture. Consider a little
how scandalous this will be ! You want discernment
to foresee the result of things. It seems to you that
you have only to apply insulting epithets to persons,
without thinking on whom they are to recoil. Why
did you not acquaint Escobar with your difficulty
before publishing it ? He would have satisfied you.
It is not so difficult to have news from Valladolid, where
he is in perfect health, completing his great Moral
Theology, in six volumes, on the first of which I will
be able one day to say something to you. The ten
first letters have been sent to him ; you might also
have sent him your objection, and I feel confident he
would have given it a full answer, for he has, doubtless,
seen the passage in Lessius from which he has taken
the ne indecore vivat. Read carefully, fathers, and
you will find it there, like me, lib. 2, c. 16, n. 45 : " Idem
colligitur aperte ex juribus citatis, maxime quoad ea
bona quce post cessionem acquirit, de quibus is qui
debitor est etiam ex delicto poteste retinere quantum
necessarium est, ut pro sua conditione NON INDECORE
VIVAT. Petes, an leges id permittant de bonis, quce

250 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

tempore instantis cessionis habebat ? Ita videtur
colligi ex D.D"

I will not stop to show you that Lessius, in author
izing this maxim, defies the law which allows bank
rupts mere livelihood only, and not the means of
subsisting with honour. It is enough to have jus
tified Escobar from your charge ; it is more than I
was bound to do. But you, fathers, you do not what
you are bound to do, namely, to answer the passage of
Escobar, whose decisions are very convenient ; because,
from not being connected with anything before or
after, and being all contained in short articles, they
are not subject to your distinctions. I have given you
his passage entire, which permits "those who make
cessio to retain part of their effects, though acquired
unjustly, to enable their family to subsist with
honour." On this I exclaimed in my letters. " How,
fathers ! by what strange charity will you have goods
to belong to those who have improperly acquired
them, rather than to lawful creditors ?" This is what
you have to answer ; but it throws you into a sad
perplexity, and you try to evade it by turning aside
from the question, and quoting other passages of
Lessius, with which we have nothing to do. I ask
you, then, if this maxim of Escobar can be followed
in conscience, by those who become bankrupt ? Take
care what you say. For if you answer, No, what will
become of your doctor, and your doctrine of proba
bility ? and if you say Yes, I send you to the
Parliament.

BANKRUPTCY. 251

I leave you in this dilemma, fathers, for I have not
room here to take up the next imposture on the pas
sage of Lessius touching homicide. It will be my first,
and the rest afterwards.

Meanwhile I say nothing of the advertisements filled
with scandalous falsehoods, with which you conclude
every imposture. I will reply to all this in a letter,
in which I hope to trace your calumnies to their
source. I pity you, fathers, in having recourse to
such remedies. The injurious things which you say
to me will not clear up our differences, and the men
aces which you hold out in so many modes will not
prevent me from defending myself. You think you
have force and impunity ; but I think I have truth
and innocence. All the efforts of violence cannot
weaken the truth, and only serve to exalt it the more.
All the light of truth cannot arrest violence, and only
adds to its irritation. When force combats force, the
stronger destroys the weaker ; when discourse is
opposed to discourse, that which is true and convinc
ing confounds and dispels that which is only vanity
and lies ; but violence and truth cannot do any thing
against each other. Let it not, however, be supposed
from this that the things are equal ; there is this
extreme difference, that the course of violence is
limited by the arrangement of Providence, who makes
its effects conduce to the glory of the truth which it
attacks; whereas truth subsists eternally, and ulti
mately triumphs over her enemies, because she is
eternal and mighty as God himself.

LETTEE THIRTEENTH.

TO THE REVEREND JESUIT FATHERS.

THE DOCTRINE OF LESSIUS ON HOMICIDE THE SAME AS THAT OF
VICTORIA : HOW EASY IT IS TO PASS FROM SPECULATION TO
PRACTICE : WHY THE JESUITS HAVE MADE USE OF THIS
VAIN DISTINCTION, AND HOW LITTLE IT SERVES TO JUSTIFY
THEM.

REVEREND FATHERS, — I have just seen your last
production, in which you continue your impostures as
far as the twentieth, declaring that it finishes this sort
of accusation which formed your first part, -preparatory
to the second, in which you are to adopt a new method
of defence, by showing that many casuists besides
yours are lax as well as you. Now, then, fathers, I
see how many impostures I have to answer ; and since
the fourth, at which we left, is on the subject of
homicide, it will be proper, while answering it, to dis
pose at the same time of the llth, 13th, 14th, 15th,
16th, 17th, and 18th, which are upon the same subject

In this letter, then, I will justify the fidelity of my
quotations against the inaccuracies which you impute
to them. But because you have dared to advance in
your writings that the sentiments of your authors on

FIDELITY OF MONTALTE's QUOTATIONS. 253

murder are conformable to the decisions of the popes
and the ecclesiastical laws, you will oblige me, in my
following letter, to put down a statement so rash and
so injurious to the Church. It is of importance to
show that she is free from your corruptions, and
thereby prevent heretics from availing themselves of
your corruptions, to draw inferences dishonourable to
her. Thus, seeing on one hand your pernicious
maxims, and on the other the canons of the Church
which have always condemned them, they will at once
perceive both what they are to shun and what to
follow.

Your fourth imposture is on a maxim respecting
murder, which you pretend that I have falsely attri
buted to Lessius. It is as follows : " He who has
received a blow, may at the very instant pursue his
enemy, and even with the sword, not to take revenge,
but to repair his honour. Here you say that this is
the opinion of the casuist Victoria. That is not pre
cisely the subject of dispute ; for there is no contradic
tion in saying that it belongs both to Lessius and
Victoria, since Lessius himself says that it belongs to
Navarre and your Father Henriquez, who teach that
he who has received a blow, may, on the very instant,
pursue his man, and give him as many strokes as he
may judge necessary to repair his honour. The only
question, then, is, whether Lessius agrees with these
authors as his colleague does. And hence you add
that Lessius refers to this opinion only to refute it,
and that thus I, by ascribing to him a sentiment which

254 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

he - adduces only to combat it, do the most cowardly
and disgraceful act of which a writer can be guilty.
Now, I maintain, fathers, that he adduces it only to
follow it. It is a question of fact, which it will be
very easy to decide. Let us see, then, how you prove
your statement, and you will afterwards see how I
prove mine.

To show that Lessius is not of this sentiment, you
say that he condemns the practice of it. And to prove
this you refer to a passage, L. 2, c. 9, n. 82, in which
he says, " I condemn it in practice." J readily admit
that, if we turn to number 82 of Lessius, to which you
refer for these words, we will find them. But what
will be said, fathers, when it is seen, at the same time,
that he there handles a very different question from
that of which we are speaking, and that the opinion
which he there says he condemns in practice, is not at
all that of which he here treats, but one quite distinct.
Yet, to be convinced of this, it is only necessary to
open the book to which you "refer. For the whole
sequel of his discourse will be found to be to this
effect.

He discusses the question, " Whether one may kill
for a blow ? " at number 79, and ends at number 80,
without using throughout, a single word of disappro
bation. This question concluded, he takes up a new
one in article 81, namely, '''Whether one may kill for
evil speaking," and it is here, in number 82, he uses
the words which you have quoted : " I condemn it in
practice."

FIDELITY OF MONTALTE'S QUOTATIONS. 255

Is it not then, shameful in you, fathers, to produce
these words, for the purpose of making it believed
that Lessius condemns the opinion, that one may kill
for a blow ? After producing this one solitary proof,
you raise a shout of triumph and say, "Several persons
of distinction in Paris have been aware of this noted
falsehood by reading Lessius, and have thereby learned
what credit is due to this calumniator." What, fathers !
is it thus you abuse the confidence which those persons
of distinction place in you ? To make them suppose
that Lessius is not of a particular opinion, you open
his book to them at a place where he condemns a
different opinion. And as these persons have no sus
picion of your good faith, and think not of examining
whether, at that place, he treats of the question in
dispute, you take advantage of their credulity. I feel
confident, fathers, that to guarantee yourselves against
the consequences of this disgraceful falsehood, you
must have had recourse to your doctrine of equivoca
tion ; and while reading the passages aloud, you said,
quite loiv, that he was there treating of a different
matter. But I know not if this reason, which indeed
suffices to satisfy your conscience, will suffice to satisfy
the just complaint which those people of distinction
will make, when they find that you have hoaxed them
in this way.

Take good care, then, fathers, to prevent them from
seeing my letters, since this is the only means left you
to preserve your credit some time longer. I do not
treat yours in that way : I send them to all my friends ;

256 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

I wish all the world to see them. I believe we are
both right ; for, at last, after publishing this fourth
imposture, with so much eclat, behold your credit gone
if it comes to be known that you have substituted
one passage for another. It will readily be concluded
that, if you had found what you wanted at the place
where Lessius treats of the subject, you would not have
gone to seek it elsewhere; and you have betaken your
selves to this shift, because you found nothing else to
serve your purpose. You wished to show in Lessius,
what you say in your imposture, p. 10, line 12, "that
he does not grant that this opinion is probable in specu
lation," and Lessius says expressly in his conclusion,
number 80, " This opinion of the lawfulness of killing
for a blow received, is probable in speculation." Is not
this, word for word, the reverse of your discourse ?
And now can one sufficiently admire your hardihood,
in producing, in express terms, the opposite of a matter
of fact ; so that while you infer that Lessius was not
of this opinion, it is inferred very correctly, from the
genuine passage, that he is of this opinion.

You wished, also, to make Lessius say that he con-
demns it in practice. And, as I have already said,
there is not a single word of condemnation at that
place, but he speaks thus, " It seems we should not
easily allow it in practice : In praxi non videtur facile
permittenda" Fathers, is this the language of a man
who condemns a maxim ? Would you say that we
must not easily permit the practice of adultery or
incest ? Should we not, on the contrary, conclude, that

FIDELITY OF MONTALTE'S QUOTATIONS. 257

since Lessius says no more than that the practice of it
ought not to be easily permitted, his opinion is, that
it ought to be permitted sometimes, though rarely.
And, as if he had wished to teach the whole world when
it ought to be permitted, and to free injured parties
from the scruples which might unseasonably disturb
them, if they did not know on what occasions they
might kill in practice, he has been careful to mark what
they ought to avoid, in order to practise it conscien
tiously. Listen to him, fathers : " It seems it ought
not to be easily permitted, because of the danger of
acting herein from hatred or revenge, or with excess, or
lest it should cause too many murders." Hence, it is
clear that this murder will, according to Lessius, be quite
lawful in practice, if we avoid these inconveniences ; in
other words, if we can act without hatred, without
revenge, and in circumstances which do not lead to too
many murders. Do you wish an example, fathers ?
Here is one of rather recent date. It is the blow of
Compiegne. For you will admit that he who received
it proved himself, by his behaviour, master enough of
the passions of hatred and revenge. All, then, that
remained for him was to avoid a too great number
of murders ; and you know, fathers, it is so rare for
Jesuits to give blows to officers of the King's house
hold, that there was no ground to fear that a murder
on this occasion would have brought many others in its
train. Hence, you cannot deny that this Jesuit was
killable with a safe conscience, and that, on this
occasion, the injured party might have practised upon
17

258 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

him the doctrine of Lessius. And, perhaps, fathers, he
would have done so, had he been taught in your school,
and had he learned from Escobar, that " a man who
has received a blow is reputed to be without honour
until he has slain him who gave it." But you have
ground to believe that the very opposite instructions,
given him by a curate to whom you have not too great
a liking, contributed not a little, on this occasion, to
save the life of a Jesuit.

Speak no more, then, of those inconveniences which
can be avoided on so many occasions, and but for which
murder is lawful, according to Lessius, even in practice.
This, indeed, is acknowledged by many of your authors,
quoted by Escobar in the ' Practice of Homicide
according to your Society.' " Is it lawful," he asks, " to
kill him who has given a blow ? Lessius says it is
lawful in speculation, but that we must not counsel it
in practice, non cansulendum in praxi, because of the
danger of hatred or murder, hurtful to the State, which
might ensue. But others have judged that, on avoiding
these inconveniences, it is lawful and sure in practice :
In praxi probabilem et tutam,judicarunt Henriquez,
etc. See how opinions gradually rise to the height of
probability. For thither have you brought this one,
by finally permitting it, without distinction of specula
tion or practice, in these terms : " It is allowable, when
we have received a blow, forthwith to strike with the
sword, not for revenge, but to preserve our honour."
So taught your fathers at Caen, in their public
writings, which the University produced to Parlia-

SPECULATION AND PRACTICE. 259

ment, when it presented the third petition against
your doctrine of homicide, as is seen at p. 339 of the
volume which was then printed.

Observe, then, fathers, that your authors, of their
own accord, destroy this vain distinction between
speculation and practice which the University had
treated with ridicule, and the invention of which is one
of the secrets of your policy, which it is right should
be understood. For besides that the understanding of
it is necessary for the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th Impos
tures, it is always seasonable to give gradual develop
ments of the principles of this mysterious policy.

When you undertook to decide cases of conscience
in a favorable and accommodating manner, you found
some in which religion alone was concerned, as
questions of contrition, penitence, the love of God, and
all those which only touch the interior of conscience.
But you found others in which the State, as well as
religion, has an interest, such as usury, bankruptcy,
homicide, and the like. And it is a distressing thing
to those who have a true love for the Church to
see that, on an infinity of occasions in which you had
only religion to contend with, you have overturned its
laws without reserve, without distinction, and without
fear, as is seen in your very daring opinions against
repentance and the love of God, because you know
that this is not the place where God visibly exercises
his justice; but in those in which the State is interested
as well as religion, apprehension of the justice of men
has made you divide your opinions, and form two

260 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

questions on those subjects ; the one which you call
speculative, in which, considering the crimes in them
selves, without regarding the interest of the State, but
only the law of God which forbids them, you have
permitted them without hesitation, thus overthrowing
the law of God which condemns them ; the other, which
you call practical, in which, considering the damage
which the State would receive, and the presence of
magistrates who maintain the public safety, you do not
always approve in practice of those murders and crimes
which you find permitted in speculation, that you may
thus screen yourselves from animadversion by the
judges. Thus,for example, on the question, whether it is
lawful to kill, for evil-speaking, your authors, Filiutius,
tr. 29, c. 3, n. 52 ; Reginald, 1. 21, c. 5, n. 63, and others
answer, " This is lawful in speculation, Ex probabili
opinione licet, but I do not approve of it in practice,
because of the great number of murders which would
take place, and do injury to the State, if all evil
speakers were killed. Besides, any one killing for this
cause would be punished criminally." In this way it
is that your opinions begin to appear with this distinc
tion, by means of which you only destroy religion
without directly offending the State. You thereby
think yourselves secure; for you imagine that the credit
which you have in the Church will save your attempts
against the truth from being punished, and that the
precautions which you give, against readily putting
these permissions in practice, will screen you in regard
to the magistrates, who not being judges of cases of

SPECULATION AND PRACTICE. 261

conscience, have properly an interest only in outward
practice. Thus, an opinion which would be condemned
under the name of practice, is brought forward in
safety under the name of speculation. But the founda
tion being secured, it is not difficult to rear up the
rest of your maxims. There was an infinite distance
between the divine prohibition to kill, and the specu
lative permission of it by your authors ; but the distance
is very small between this permission and practice. It
only remains to show, that what is permitted specula-
tively, is also permitted practically. Reasons for this
will not be wanting. You have found them in more
difficult cases. Would you like to see, fathers, how it
is accomplished ? Follow this reasoning of Escobar,
who has distinctly decided it in the first of the six
volumes of his great Moral Theology, of which I have
spoken to you, and in which he sees things very differ
ently from what he did when he made his collection
of your four-and-twenty elders. At that time, he
thought that there could be probable opinions in specu
lation, which were not safe in practice ; but he has
since ascertained the contrary, and very well proved
it in the later work. Such is the growth, by mere
lapse of time, of the doctrine of probability in general,
as well as of each probable opinion in particular.
Listen, then, to him, in praeloq., n. 14: "I do not, see
how it can be, that what appears lawful in speculation,
should not be so in practice; since, what we may do in
practice, depends on what we find permitted in specu
lation ; and these things only differ from each other as

PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the cause from the effect. For it is speculation that
determines to action. Hence it follows, that we may,
with a safe conscience, follow in practice opinions,
probable in speculation, and even with more safety
than those which have not been so well examined
speculatively."

In truth, fathers, your Escobar reasons well enough
sometimes. The union between speculation and practice
is so close, that when the one has taken root, you have
no difficulty in allowing the other to appear without
disguise. This was seen in the permission to kill for
a blow, which, from simple speculation, has been boldly
carried by Lessius to a practice which should not be
easily permitted ; and thence by Escobar to an easy
practice; whence you fathers of Caen have brought it
to a full permission, without distinction of theory and
practice, as you have already seen.

Thus you make your opinions grow by degrees. Did
they appear all at once in their utmost excess, they
would cause horror ; but this slow and imperceptible
progress gently habituates men to them, and takes off
the scandal. By this means the permission to kill, a
permission so abhorred by the State and by the Church,
is first introduced into the Church, and thereafter from
the Church into the State.

We have seen a similar success attend the opinion
of killing for evil speaking. For, in the present day
it has attained to a like permission without any dis
tinction. I would not stop to give you the passages from
your fathers, were it not to confound the assurance

MOMICIDE.

you have had to say twice, in your fifteenth Imposture,
p. 26 and 30, "that there is not a Jesuit who makes it
lawful to kill for evil speaking." When you say this,
fathers, you ought to prevent me from seeing it, since
it is so easy for me to answer. Not only have your
Fathers Reginald, Filiutius, etc., permitted it in specu
lation, as I have already said, while the principle of
Escobar leads us surely from speculation to practice,
but I have to tell you, moreover, that you have several
authors who have permitted it indistinct terms; among
others, Father Hereau, in his public lectures, for which
the king caused his arrest in your house, because, in
addition to several other errors, he had taught, that
" when one disparages us before persons of distinction,
after being warned to desist, it is lawful to kill him,
not, indeed, in public, for fear of scandal, but secretly ;
sed clam."

I have already spoken to you of Father L'Ainy, and
you are not ignorant that his doctrine on this subject
was censured by order of the University of Louvain.
Nevertheless, not two months ago, your Father Des
Bois maintained at Rouen the censured doctrine of
Father L'Amy, and taught that "it is lawful to a
monk to defend the honour which he has acquired by
his virtue, EVEN BY KILLING him who attacks his
reputation ; etiam cum morte invasoris." This caused
such scandal in the town, that all the curates united
in silencing him, and obliging him to retract his doc
trine, by canonical proceedings. The process is at the
Officiality.

264 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

What do you mean, then, fathers ? How do you
take it upon you, after this, to maintain that " no
Jesuit thinks it lawful to kill for evil speaking ? "
And was more necessary to convict you, than the very
opinions of your fathers which you quote, since they
do not prohibit the killing speculatively, but only in
practice, " because of the evil which would happen to
the State." For I here ask you, whether any other
point is debated between us than simply whether you
have overthrown the law of God which forbids murder.
The question is not, whether you have harmed the
State, but whether you have harmed religion. Of
what use, then, in this discussion, is it to show that
you have spared the State, when you at the same time
make it apparent that you have destroyed religion, by
saying as you do, page 28, 1. 3, "that the meaning of
Reginald on the question of killing for evil speaking,
is that an individual is entitled to use this sort of
defence, considering it simply in itself ? " I need no
more than this avowal for your confutation. "An' in
dividual," you say, " is entitled to use this defence ; "
in other words, to kill for evil speaking, " considering
the thing in itself;" consequently, the law of God,
which forbids to kill, is overthrown by this decision.

There is no use in saying afterwards, as you do,
that " it is unlawful and criminal, even according to
the law of God, by reason of the murders and disorder
which it would cause in the State, because God obliges
us to have respect to the welfare of the State." This
is away from the question ; for, fathers, there are two

HOMICIDE. 265

laws to be observed ; the one which forbids to kill,
and the other which forbids injury to the State.
Reginald, perhaps, has not violated the law which for
bids injury to the State, but he has certainly violated
that which forbids to kill. Now, this is the only one
which is here considered. Besides, your other authors,
who have permitted these murders in practice, have
overthrown both the one and the other. But let us
get forward, fathers. We are well aware that you
sometimes forbid injury to the State; and you say
your design in this is to observe the law of God, which
enjoins the maintenance of the State. That may be
true, although it is not certain, since you might do the
same thing, merely from fear of the judges. Let us,
then, if you please, examine the principle from which
this movement proceeds.

Is it not true, fathers, that if you really looked to
God, and if the observance of his law was the first
and leading object of your thoughts, this feeling would
uniformly predominate in all your important decisions,
and dispose you on all these occasions to espouse the
interests of religion ? But if it is seen, on the contrary,
that you, on so many occasions, violate the most sacred
injunctions which God has laid upon men whenever
his law is the only obstacle, and that on the very
occasions of which we speak you annihilate the law of
God, which prohibits these actions as criminal in
themselves, and show that your only ground for not
approving them in practice is fear of the judges, do
you not justify the belief that you pay no regard to

266 MIOVINCIAL LETTERS.

God in this fear, and that, if you in appearance main
tain his law in so far as regards the obligation not to
injure the State, it is not for his law itself, but to serve
your own ends, just as the least religious politicians
have always done ?

What, fathers ! you will tell us that, if regard is had
only to the law of God, which prohibits homicide, we
may kill for evil speaking ? And after having thus
violated the eternal law of God, you think you can
remove the scandal you have caused and persuade us
of your respect towards him, by forbidding the practice
of it from State considerations, and fear of the judges ?
Is not this, on the contrary, to cause new scandal ?
I do not mean scandal, because the respect which you
thereby testify for judges. It is not for that I reproach
you (and you make a ridiculous play upon it at p. 29).
I do not reproach you for fearing the judges, but for
fearing only the judges. It is this I blame, because it
is making God less the enemy of crime than men.
Did you say an evil speaker may be killed according
to men, but not according to God, it would be less
intolerable ; but when you pretend that what is too
criminal to be allowed by men, is innocent and righteous
in the eyes of God, who is righteousness itself, what do
you else but show to all the world that by this horrible
subversion, so contrary to the spirit of the saints, you
are bold against God, and cowardly towards men ?
Had you been sincere in wishing to condemn those
murders, you would not have interfered with the order
of God, which forbids them. And had you been daring

OF THE JEStflTS. 267

enough to permit these murders at first, you would
have openly permitted them in defiance of the laws
both of God and men. But as you wish to permit
them insensibly, and steal by surprise on the magis
trates, who watch over the public safety, you have
resorted to the finesse of separating your maxims, and
propounding on one hand " that it is lawful specula-
tively to kill for evil speaking," (for you are allowed
to examine matters of speculation) and producing, on
the other, this isolated maxim, " that what is lawful
in speculation, is so, also, in practice." For what
interest does the State seem to have in this general and
metaphysical proposition ? And thus these two un
suspected principles being received separately, the
vigilance of the magistrate is lulled to sleep, and
nothing more is required than to bring these maxims
together, in order to obtain the conclusion at which you
aim, namely, that it is lawful in practice to kill for
simple slander.

For here, fathers, lies one of the craftiest articles of
your policy, namely, to give a separate place in your
writings to the maxims which go together in your
opinions. In this way you have separately established
your doctrine of probability, which I have often ex
plained. And the general principle being thus secured,
you advance propositions separately, which, though
possibly innocent in themselves, become horrible when
joined to this pernicious principle. As an illustration,
I will give the words which you use at p. 11 of your
Imposture, and to which it is necessary for me to reply:

268 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

" Several celebrated theologians are of opinion that
we may kill for a blow received." It is quite certain,
fathers, that if a person, not holding the doctrine of
probability, had said so, there would be nothing to
censure in it. In that case it would only be a simple
statement, without any conclusion ; but when you,
fathers, and all who hold the dangerous doctrine, "that
whatever celebrated authors approve is probable and
safe in conscience," add to this, "that several celebrated
authors are of opinion that one may kill for a blow
received," what is this but to place a dagger in the
hands of all Christians, to slay those who have offended
them, by assuring them that they can do it with a safe
conscience, because, in so doing they will follow the
opinion of so many grave authors ?

What horrible language is this, which, while it says
that certain authors hold a damnable opinion, is at the
same time, a decision in favour of this damnable
opinion, and authorizes in conscience whatever it merely
relates ! This language of your school, fathers, is now
understood ; and it is astonishing how you can have the
face to speak of it so openly, since it strips your senti
ments of all disguise, and convicts you of holding it to
be safe in conscience " to kill for a blow," the moment
you tell us that this opinion is maintained by several
celebrated authors.

You cannot defend yourselves from this, fathers, any
more than avail yourselves of the passages of Vasquez
and Suarez, with which you oppose me, and in which
they condemn the murders which their colleagues

POLICY OF THE JESUITS. 269

approve. These testimonies, separated from the rest
of your doctrine, might blind those who do not fully
understand it. But it is necessary to bring your
principles and your maxims together. You say, then,
here, that Vasquez does not permit murder ; but what
say you on the other hand, fathers ? " That the proba
bility of a sentiment does not hinder the probability
of its opposite." And, again, " That it is lawful to
follow the opinion which is least probable and least
safe, while discarding that which is most probable and
most safe." What follows from all this taken together,
but just that we have entire liberty of conscience to
adopt any one of all these opposite opinions that we
please ? What, then, fathers, becomes of the benefit
which you expected from these quotations ? It dis
appears ; since, for your condemnation, it is only
necessary to bring together those maxims which you
separate for your justification. Why produce passages
from your authors which I have not quoted, to excuse
those which I have quoted, since they have nothing in
common ? What right does it give you to call me
impostor? Have I said that all your fathers are
equally heterodox ? Have I not shown, on the con
trary, that your chief interest is to have them of all
opinions, in order to supply all your wants ? To those
who would kill you will present Lessius, to those who
would not kill you will produce Vasquez, in order that
nobody may retire dissatisfied, and without having a
grave author on his side. Lessius will speak as a hea
then of homicide, and perhaps as a Christian of alms.

270 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Vasquez will speak as a heathen of alms, and as a Chris
tian of homicide. But by means of the probability
which Vasquez and Lessius maintain, and which makes
all your opinions common, they will lend their senti
ments to one another, and will be obliged to give absolu
tion to those who have acted according to the opinions
which each of them condemns. This variety, then, con
founds you the more. Uniformity would be more toler
able, and there is nothing more contrary to the express
order of St. Ignatius and your first generals, than this
hotch-potch of all sorts of opinions. I may perhaps
some day speak of them to you, fathers, and it will
cause surprise to see how far you have fallen away
from the primitive spirit of your order, and how your
own generals foresaw that the impurity of your doc
trine in regard to morals might be fatal not only to
your Society, but to the whole Church.

I tell you meantime, that you cannot derive any
advantage from the opinion of Vasquez. It would be
strange if among so many Jesuits who have written,
there should not be one or two who have said what all
Christians confess. There is no honour in maintaining,
according to the Gospel, that we cannot kill for a blow,
but there is horrid disgrace in denying it. This is,
therefore, so far from justifying you, that nothing goes
farther to overwhelm you, than the fact, that having
among you doctors who have told the truth, you have
not remained in the truth, and have loved darkness
rather than light. For you have learned from Vasquez,
"that it is a heathen and not a Christian opinion, to say

POLICY OF THE JESUITS. 271

that a blow with a fist may be returned by a blow from
a stick ; it is to overturn the Decalogue and the Gospel,
to say that we can kill for a blow ; and that the great
est villians among men acknowledge this." And yet,
in opposition to these known truths, you have allowed
Lessius, Escobar, and others, to decide that all the
divine prohibitions against homicide do not hinder it
from being lawful to kill for a blow. Of what use,
then, is it now to produce this passage from Vasquez,
against the sentiment of Lessius, unless it be to show
that Lessius is a Pagan and a villain, according to
Vasquez ? And this is what I durst not say. What
inference can we draw, unless it be that Lessius over
turns the Decalogue and the Gospel ; that at the last
day Vasquez will condemn Lessius on this point, as
Lessius will condemn Vasquez on another ; and that all
your grave authors will rise up in judgment against
each other, and mutually condemn each other, for their
frightful excesses against the law of Jesus Christ ?

Let us conclude, then, fathers, that since your proba
bility renders the good sentiments of some of your
authors useless to the Church, and useful only to your
policy, their contrariety only serves to show the dupli
city of your heart, which you have completely bared
before us, in declaring on the one hand that Vasquez
and Suarez are opposed to murder, and on the other,
that several celebrated authors are in favour of murder;
that you might thus offer two ways to men, thereby
destroying the simplicity of the Spirit of God, who
pronounces a woe on such as are double-minded, and
choose for themselves double ways.

LETTEK FOURTEENTH.

TO THE REVEREND JESUIT FATHERS.

THE MAXIMS OF THE JESUITS ON HOMICIDE REFUTED FROM THE
FATHERS. ANSWER IN PASSING TO SOME OF THEIR CALUMNIES.
THEIR DOCTRINE CONTRASTED WITH THE FORMS OBSERVED IN
CRIMINAL TRIALS.

REVEREND FATHERS, — Had I only to answer the
three remaining impostures on homicide, I should have
no need of a long discourse. You will see them here
refuted in a few words. But as I deem it far more
important to give the world an abhorrence for your
opinions on this subject, than to justify the fidelity of
my quotations, I will be obliged to employ the greater
part of this letter in the refutation of your maxims, to
represent to you how widely you have wandered from
the sentiments of the Church, and even of nature.
The permissions to kill, which you give on so many
occasions, make it apparent that, in this matter, you
have to such a degree forgotten the law of God, and
extinguished natural light, that you require to be
brought back to the simplest principles of religion and
common sense. For what is more natural than the
sentiment, that " one individual has no right over the

HOMICIDE. 273

life of another ? " " We are so taught this by our
selves," says St. Chrysostom, " that when God gave the
commandment nob to kill, he did not add, because
homicide is an evil ; because," says this Father, " the
law presumes that we have already learned this truth
from nature."

Accordingly, this commandment has been binding
on men at all times. The Gospel confirmed that of the
law, and the Decalogue only renewed that which men
had received from God before the law, in the person
of Noah, from whom all men were to spring. For at
this renewal of the world, God said to Noah, " Surely
your blood of your lives will I require ; at the hand
of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of
man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed : for in the image of God made he
man."

This general prohibition takes away from men all
power over the life of men. And so completely has
God reserved it to himself alone, that, according to
Christian truth, opposed in this to the false maxims of
Paganism, man has not even power over his own life.
But, because it has pleased his providence to preserve
human society, and punish the wicked who disturb it,
he has himself established laws for depriving crimi
nals of life ; and thus, those deaths which would be
punishable misdeeds without his order, become laud
able punishments by his order, apart from which every
thing is unjust. This has been admirably expounded
by St. Augustine, in his City of God, b. i., c. 21. " God

18

274 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

himself has somewhat modified this general prohibi
tion to kill, both by the laws which he has established
for executing criminals, and by the special orders
which he has sometimes given to put individuals to
death. In killing, in those cases, it is not man who
kills, but God, of whom man is only the instrument*
like a sword in the hand of him who uses it. But these
cases excepted, whoso kills incurs the guilt of murder."

It is certain, then, fathers, that God alone has a
right to take away life, and that, nevertheless, having
established laws for adjudging criminals to die, he has
made kings or republics the depositories of this power.
This St. Paul teaches us, when speaking of the right
which sovereigns have to put men to death, he makes
it come down from heaven, saying, that " they bear
not the sword in vain, because they are the ministers
of God, to execute his vengeance on the guilty."

But as God gave them this right, so he obliges
them to exercise it as he himself would do, that is,
with justice, according to the words of St. Paul, in the
same place, " Rulers are not a terror to good works,
but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the
power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same : for he is the minister of God to
thee for good." And this limitation, far from lowering
their power, on the contrary, very highly exalts it ;
because it makes it like that of God, who is impotent
to do evil and omnipotent to do good, and distinguishes
it from that of devils, who are impotent for good, and
have power only for evil. There is only this difference

HOMICIDE. 275

between God and rulers, that God being justice and
wisdom itself, may put to death on the spot whom he
pleases, and in what way he pleases. Besides being
sovereign master of the life of men, it is certain that
he never takes it from them without cause, or without
cognizance, since he is as incapable of injustice as of
error. But princes may not so act; because, while
they are the ministers of God, they are still men, and
not gods. Bad impressions might surprise them ; false
suspicions might sour them ; passion might transport
them ; and it is this which has disposed them, of their
own accord, to stoop to human means, and appoint
judges in their States, to whom they have communi
cated this power, in order that the authority which
God has given them may only be employed for the
end for which they have received it.

Consider, then, fathers, that to be free from murder,
it is necessary alike to act by the authority of God,
and according to the justice of God ; and that if these
two conditions are not combined, there is sin either in
killing with his authority, but without justice, or in
killing in justice, but without his authority. From
the necessity of this union, it follows, according to St.
Augustine, that "he who without authority kills a
criminal, becomes a criminal himself, chiefly on this
ground, that he usurps an authority which God has
not given him;" and on the contrary, judges who
have this authority, are nevertheless murderers if they
put an innocent man to death, against the laws which
they ought to observe.

276 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Such, fathers, are the principles of tranquility and
public safety, which have been received at all times
and in all places, and on which all the legislators of
the world, sacred and profane, have founded their
laws; not even the heathens having ever made an
exception to this rule, save when the loss of chastity
or life could not otherwise be avoided, because they
thought that then, as Cicero says, " the laws themselves
seem to offer arms to those who are in such necessity."

But, apart from this occasion, of which T do not here
speak, there never was a law which permitted indi
viduals to kill, and which suffered it as you do, to
ward off an insult, and to avoid the loss of honour or
property, when life is not at the same time endangered.
This, fathers, I maintain that the infidels themselves
never did ; on the contrary, they expressly forbade it.
For the law of the twelve tables of Rome bore, that
" it is not permitted to kill a robber in the day time,
not defending himself with arms." This had already
been prohibited in Exodus xxi. 22, and the law Furem
(ad Leg. Cornel.), which is taken from Ulpian, forbids
even the killing of robbers in the night time, who do
not put our life in peril. See this in Cujas, de dig.
justitia etjure, 1. 3.

Tell us, then, fathers, by what authority you permit,
what laws, both divine and human, forbid, and what
right Lessius has to say, 1. 2, c. 9, n. 66-72 : " Exodus
forbids to kill robbers in the day time, not defending
themselves by arms, and those who so kill are punished
criminally. Nevertheless, they are not culpable in

HOMICIDE. 277

conscience, when they are not certain of being able to
recover what is stolen, or are in doubt of it, as Sotus
says, because we are not obliged to run the risk of any
loss to save a robber. All this, moreover, is lawful
even for ecclesiastics." What strange hardihood ! The
law of Moses punishes those who kill robbers when
they do not attack our life, and the law of the Gospel,
according to you, acquits them ? What, fathers, did
Jesus Christ come to destroy the law and not to fulfil
it ? " The judges," says Lessius, " would punish those
who should kill on this occasion, but they would not
be culpable in conscience." Is the law of Jesus Christ,
then, more cruel and less inimical to murder than that
of the heathen, from whom judges have borrowed
those civil laws which condemn it ? Do Christians
set more value on worldly goods, or less value on
human life, than did idolaters and infidels ? On what
do you found, fathers ? Not on any express law, either
of God or man, but only on this strange reason : "The
law allows us to defend ourselves against robbers, and
repel force by force. Now, defence being permitted,
murder is also deemed permitted, since without it,
defence would ofttimes be impossible."

It is false, fathers, that defence being permitted,
murder also is permitted. This cruel mode of defending
is the source of all your errors, and is called by the
Faculty of Louvain, a murderous defence, defensio
occisiva, in their censure of the doctrine of Father
L'Amy on homicide. I maintain, then, that so great
is the difference in the eye of the law, between killing

278 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

and self-defence, that on the very occasions on which
defence is permitted, murder is forbidden, provided
life is not in danger. Listen to this, fathers, in Cujas,
at the same place : " It is permitted to repel him who
comes to seize upon your property, but it is not per
mitted to kill him." And again, if any one comes to
strike and not to kill us, it is indeed permitted to repel
him, but it is not permitted to kill him.

Who, then, gave you power to say, as do Molina,
Reginald, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others, " it is
permitted to kill him who comes to strike us." And,
again : " It is permitted to kill him who wishes to
insult us, according to the opinion of all the casuists ;
ex sententia omnium," as Lessius says, n. 74. By
what authority dou you, who are only individuals, give
this power of killing to individuals, and to monks
even ? How dare you usurp -this right of life and
death, which belongs essentially to God only, and is the
most glorious symbol of sovereign power ? It was to
this your answer was required ; and you think you
have satisfied it by simply saying in your thirteenth
Imposture, " that the value for which Molina permits
us to kill a robber, who is in flight without offering
any violence, is not so small as I have said, and must
be larger than six ducats." How weak this is, fathers !
At what do you fix it ? At fifteen or sixteen ducats ?
I will not reproach you less. At all events, you cannot
say that it exceeds the value of a horse ; for Lessius,
1. 2, c. 9, n. 74, decides precisely, that " it is lawful to
kill a thief who is Cunning away with our horse." But

HOMICIDE. 279

I tell you, moreover, that according to Molina, this
value is fixed at six ducats, as I have stated ; and if
vou will not permit this, let us take an arbiter, whom
you cannot refuse. I make choice, then, of your father
Reginald, who, explaining this same passage of Molina,
1. 21, n. 68, declares that Molina there fixes the value
at which it is not permitted to kill at from three to
five ducats. And thus, fathers, I shall not only have
Molina, but also Reginald.

It will be less easy for me to refute your four
teenth Imposture, concerning the permission " to kill
a robber who would deprive us of a crown," according
to Molina. This is so evident, that Escobar will testify
it to you, tr. 1, ex. 7, n. 44, where he says " that Molina
regularly fixes the value for which we may kill at a
crown." Accordingly, in the fourteenth Imposture
you merely charge me with having suppressed the last
words of the passage, " that we must here observe the
moderation of a just defence." Why, then, do you not
also complain that Escobar has not given them ? But
how clumsy you are ! You think we don't understand
what is meant, according to you, by defending one's
self. Do we not know that it is to use " a murderous
defence ? " You would wish it to be understood as if
Molina meant that when life is put in peril by holding
the crown, we may kill, because then it is in defence
of our life. Were that the case, why should he say at
the same place that herein "he is contrary to Carrerus
and Bald," according to whom it is lawful to kill, in
order to save our life ? I declare to vou, then, he

280 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

simply means, that if our crown can be saved without
killing the robber, we should not kill him ; but if we
can only save it by killing, even though we run no
risk of our life, as when the robber has no arms, we
may lawfully take them, and kill him, to save our
crown ; and in so doing we do not, according to him,
exceed the moderation of a just defence. To show you
this, allow him to explain himself, torn. 4, tr. 3, d. 11,
n. 5, " we fail not in the moderation of a just defence
although we take arms against those who have none,
or take better than theirs. I know that some take an
opposite view, but I approve not of their opinion, even
in the external tribunal."

Accordingly, fathers, it is evident that your authors
make it lawful to kill in defence of property and
honour where life is in no danger. On the same
principle they authorize duelling, as I have shown by
numerous passages, to which you have given no
answer. In your papers you only attack a single
passage of your Father Layman, who permits it,
" when otherwise there would be a risk of losing
fortune or honour;" and you say that I have sup
pressed the additional words, that " that case is rare."
T wonder at you, fathers ! Pleasing impostures these
you charge me with ! It is the question, then, is it,
Whether that case is rare ? The question is, Whether
or not duelling is there permitted ? These are two
and separate questions. Layman, in his capacity of
casuist, has to decide whether duelling is permitted,
and he declares that it is. We will easily judge with-

HOMICIDE.

out him. whether the case is rare, and will declare to
him that it is a very ordinary case. If you like better
to believe your good friend, Diana, he will tell you
that it is very common, p. 5, tr. 14, misc. 2, resol. 99.
But whether it be rare or not, and whether in this
Layman follows Navarre, as you are so anxious to
make out, is it not abominable in him to consent to
the opinion, that to preserve a false honour it is per
mitted in conscience to accept a duel, against the edicts
of all Christian States, and against all the canons oi
the Church ; while you cannot produce, in support of
all these diabolical maxims, either laws or canons, the
authority of Scripture or Fathers, or the example of
any saint, but only the impious syllogism : " Honour
is dearer than life ; but it is lawful to kill in defence
of life; therefore it is lawful to kill in defence of
honour " ? What, fathers ! because the corruption of
men makes them love this false honour more than the
life which God has given them to serve him, they shall
be permitted to kill in order to preserve it ? The very
circumstance of loving that honour more than life is
itself a fearful evil ; and yet this vicious attachment,
which is capable of polluting the holiest actions, if it
is made their end, will be capable of justifying the
most criminal actions, because it is made their end !

What perversion, fathers ! And who sees not to
what excess it may lead ! For it is visible that it goes
the length of killing for the most trivial things, when
it is made a point of honour to preserve them ; I say,
even to kill for an apple ! You would complain of

282 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

me, fathers, and say that I draw malicious inferences
from your doctrine, were I not supported by the
authority of the grave Lessius, who thus speaks, n. 68 :
" It is not lawful to kill to preserve a thing of little
value, as a crown or an apple ; aut pro porno ; unless
in a case where it were disgraceful to lose it ; for then
one might take it back again, and even kill, if neces
sary, to recover it ; et si opus est, occidere ; because
this is not so much to defend property as honour."
That is precise, fathers ; and to finish your doctrine
with a maxim which comprehends all the others, listen
to this one from your Father Hereau, who had taken
it from Lessius : " The right of self-defence extends to
all that is necessary to defend us from all injury."

What strange consequences are contained in this
inhuman principle ! and how strong the obligation to
oppose it, which lies upon all men, and especially all
men in authority ! To this they are bound, not only
by the public interest, but by their own ; since your
casuists, quoted in my letters, extend the permission
to kill even to them. And thus the factious, who fear
the punishment of their attempts, which they never
think unjust, easily persuading themselves that they
are put down by violence, will, at the same time, think
" that the right of self-defence extends to all that is
necessary to keep them from injury." They will no
longer have to vanquish remorse of conscience, which
arrests the greater part of crimes in their birth ; their
only thought will be how to surmount the obstacles
from without.

HOMICIDE. 283

I will not speak of them here, fathers, any more
than of other murders you have permitted, which are
still more abominable, and more important to States
than all these, and of which Lessius treats so openly
in Doubts 4th and 10th, as well as many others of
your authors. It were to be wished that these horrible
maxims had never come out of hell ; and that the
devil, the first author of them, had never found men
so devoted to his orders as to publish them among
Christians.

From all I have hitherto said, it is easy to judge
how contrary the laxity of your opinions is to the
strictness of civil and even heathen laws. What, then,
will it be when we contrast them with ecclesiastical
laws, which should be incomparably more holy, since
the Church alone knows and possesses true holiness ?
Accordingly, this chaste spouse of the Son of God, who,
in imitation of her husband, well knows how to shed
her blood for others, but not to shed that of others for
herself, regards murder with very special abhorrence,
an abhorrence proportioned to the special light which
God has communicated to her. She considers men not
only as men, but as images of the God whom she
adores. She has for each of them a holy respect
which makes them all venerable in her eyes, as ran
somed by an infinite price, to become temples of the
living God. And thus she regards the death of a man
who is slain without the order of her God, as not only
a murder, but an act of sacrilege, which deprives her
of one of her members, since whether he be or be not

284 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

a believer, she always considers him as either actually
one of her children, or as capable of being one.
. These, fathers, are the holy grounds which, ever
since God became man for the salvation of men, have
made their condition of so much importance to the
Church, that she has always punished homicide, which
destroys them, as one of the greatest crimes which can
be committed against God. I will mention some of
these examples, though not under the idea that all
these severe rules prescribed should still be observed
(I know that the Church may vary this external dis
cipline), but to show what is her immutable mind on
this subject ; for the penances which she ordains for
murder may differ according to diversity of times, but
no change of time can ever change her abhorrence for
murder.

For a long time the Church would not, till death, be
reconciled to persons guilty of wilful murder ; such as
those forms of it, which you permit. The celebrated
Council of Ancyra subjects them to penance during
their whole life ; and the Church has since deemed it
sufficient indulgence to reduce the period to a great
number of years. Still more to deter Christians from
wilful murder, she has very severely punished even
those which had happened through imprudence, as
may be seen in St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssen, the
decrees of Pope Zachariah, and Alexander II. The
canons reported by Isaac, bishop of Langres, t. 2, 13,
imposed seven years of penance for killing in self-
defence. And we see that St. Hildebert, bishop of

HOMICIDE. 285

Mans, replied to Yves of Chart/res, " that he had done
rightly in interdicting a priest for life, who had, in
self-defence, killed a robber with a stone."

No longer, then, have the effrontery to say that your
decisions are conformable to the spirit and the canons
of the Church. We defy you to show one which
allows us to kill to defend our property merely, for I
am not speaking of the occasions on which we should
also have to defend our life, se suaque liberando. That
there is none, is confessed by your own authors, among
others, your father L'Amy, torn. 5, disp. 26, n. 136.
<l There is not," says he, " any law, human or divine,
that expressly permits us to kill a robber who does
not defend himself." And yet this is what you ex
pressly permit. We defy you to show one which
permits to kill for honour, for a blow, for insult, and
evil speaking. We defy you to show one which permits
to kill witnesses, judges, and magistrates for any
injustice apprehended from them. The spirit of the
Church is altogether a stranger to those seditious
maxims which open the door to those commotions to
which nations are so naturally exposed. She has
always taught her children not to render evil for evil,
to give place unto wrath ; not to resent violence, to
render to all their due, honour, tribute, submission,
obedience to magistrates and superiors, even those of
them who are unjust, because we ought always to
respect in them the power of God, who has placed them
over us. It prohibits them still more strongly than civil
laws, from taking justice into their own hands : it is

286 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

in her spirit that Christian monarchs do not so even
in crimes of high treason, but hand over the criminals
to judges, that they may be punished according to the
laws and the rules of justice; a procedure so different
from yours, that the contrast will put you to the blush.
Since the subject suggests it, I pray you to follow this
comparison between the mode in which we may kill
our enemies according to you, and that in which judges
put criminals to death.

All the world knows, fathers, that private indi
viduals are never allowed to demand the death of any
one, and that although a man should have ruined us,
maimed us, burned our house, slain our parent, and
would fain, moreover, assassinate ourselves, and destroy
our reputation, no court of justice would listen to any
demand we might make for his death. Hence it was
necessary to establish public officers, who demand it on
the part of the king, or rather on the part of God. In
your opinion, fathers, is it from grimace and pretence
that Christian judges have established this regulation ?
Have they not done it in order to adapt civil laws to
those of the Gospel, lest the external practice of justice
might be contrary to the inward sentiments which
Christians ought to have ? It is plain how strongly
these initiatory steps of justice confutes you ; the sequel
will crush you.

Suppose, then, fathers, that these public officers de
mand the death of him who has committed all these
crimes, what will be done thereupon ? Will the dagger
be forthwith plunged into his bosom ? No, fathers :

CRIMINAL JUDGMENT. 287

the life of a man is too important ; it is treated with
more respect ; the laws have not placed it at the dis
posal of all classes of persons, but only at the disposal
of judges of proved integrity and ability. And do
you think that one only is sufficient to condemn a man
to death ? Seven at least are necessary, fathers. It
is necessary that, of these seven, there be not one whom
the criminal has offended, lest passion might influence
or corrupt his judgment. And you know, fathers, how,
in order that their intellect may be clear, it is still the
practice to devote the morning to these duties. Such
are the anxious provisions to prepare them for this
great act, in which they stand in the place of God,
whose ministers they are, in order that they may con
demn those only whom he condemns.

And this is the reason why, in order to act as faithful
stewards of this divine power in taking away the lives
of men, they must, in judging, proceed on the deposi
tions of witnesses, and according to all the other forms
which are prescribed : after all this, they must decide
conscientiously in terms of law, and judge none worthy
of death save those whom the laws condemn to die.
And then, fathers, if the order of God obliges them to
give up the bodies of these wretched beings to punish
ment, the same order of God obliges them to take care
of their guilty souls ; and it is just because they are
guilty that they are obliged to take care of them, so
that they are not sent to execution till means have
been given them to provide for their conscience. All
this is very pure and very innocent ; and yet, so much

288 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

does the Church abhor blood, that those who have
taken part in a sentence of death, though accompanied
with all the circumstances of religion, she judges in
capable of ministering at her altars ; from this it is easy
to conceive what idea the Church has of homicide.

Such, fathers, is the manner in which, in the order of
justice, the lives of men are disposed of; let us now
see how you dispose of them. In your new laws there
is only one judge, and this judge the very person who
is offended. He is at once judge, party, and executioner.
He passes sentence and executes it on the spot ; and,
without respect to either the body or the soul, he kills
and damns him for whom Jesus Christ died ; and all
this to avoid a blow, or a calumny, or an outrageous
word, or other similar offences, for which a judge, with
lawful authority, would be criminal in passing sentence
of death on those who had committed them, because
the laws are very far from so condemning them. And,
in fine, to crown these excesses, there is no sin or irregu
larity in killing in this manner, without authority,
and against the laws, be the killer a monk, or even
a priest. Where are we, fathers ? Are those who speak
in this way monks and priests ? Are they Christians ?
Are they Turks ? Are they men ? Are they devils ?
And are these mysteries revealed by the Lamb to those
of his Society, or abominations suggested by the dragon
to his followers ?

In short, fathers, for whom do you wish to be taken ?
for children of the Gospel, or for enemies of the Gospel ?
It must be the one or the other, for there is no middle

HOMICIDE. 289

party. He who is not with Jesus Christ is against
him ; these two classes include all men. According to
St. Augustine, there are two nations and two worlds
spread over the whole earth ; the world of the children
of God, forming a body of which Christ is head and
king ; and the world, inimical to God, of which the
devil is head and king. Hence, Jesus Christ is called
the prince and God of the world, because he has subjects
and worshippers everywhere ; and the devil is also
called in Scripture the prince and god of this world,
because he everywhere has supporters and slaves. Jesus
Christ has introduced into the Church, which is his
empire, the laws which please his eternal wisdom; and
the devil has introduced into the world, which is his
kingdom, the laws which he wished there to establish.
Jesus Christ has made it honourable to suffer ; the
devil not to suffer. Jesus Christ has told those who
receive a blow on the one cheek, to turn the other; and
the devil has told those to whom a blow is offered, to
kill those who would so injure them. Jesus Christ
declares those happy who share his ignominy, and the
devil declares those miserable who are in ignominy.
Jesus Christ says, Woe to you when men shall speak
well of you; and the devil says, Woe to those of whom
the world speaks not with esteem.

See, now, then, fathers, to which of these two king
doms you belong. You have heard the language of
the city of peace, which is called the mystical Jeru
salem ; and you have heard the language of the city
of confusion, which Scripture calls "spiritual Sodom,"
19

290 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Which of these two languages do you understand ?
Which of them do you speak ? According to St. Paul,
those who are Christ's have the same sentiments as
Christ, and those who are children of the devil, ex
patre diabolo, who has been a murderer from the
beginning of the world, do, as our Saviour says, follow
the maxims of the devil. Let us listen, then, to the
language of your school, and interrogate your authors.
When a blow is given us, ought we to bear it rather
than kill him who gives it ? or is it lawful to kill in
order to avoid the affront? "It is lawful," says Lessius,
Molina, Escobar, Reginald, Filiutius, Baldellus, and the
other Jesuits, "it is lawful to kill him who would give
us a blow." Is that the language of Jesus Christ ?
Answer once more, would a man be without honour if
he suffered a blow without killing him who gave it ?
" Is it not true," says Escobar, " that so long as the
man lives who has given us a blow we remain without
honour ? " Yes, fathers, without that honour which
the devil has transfused with his proud spirit into that
of his proud children. This honour has always been
the idol of men possessed by the spirit of the world.
To preserve this honour, of which the devil is the true
dispenser, men make a sacrifice to him of their lives,
by the rage for duelling to which they abandon them
selves'; of their honour, by the ignominous punishments
to which they become obnoxious ; and of their salva
tion, by the peril of damnation which they incur, even
sepulture being denied to them by the ecclesiastical
canons. But we should praise God for having illumined

HOMICIDE. 291

the mind of the king with a purer light than that of
your theology. His stern edicts on this subject have
not made duelling a crime; they only punish the crime
inseparable from duelling. By the fear of his strict
justice, he has arrested those who were not arrested
by the fear of divine justice ; and his piety has made
him aware that the honour of Christians consists in
the observance of the commands of God and the rules
of Christianity, and not in that phantom of honour,
which, vain though it be, you hold forth as a legitimate
excuse for murder. Thus your murderous decisions
are now the aversion of the whole world, and your
wiser course would be to change your sentiments, if
not from a principle of religion, at least on grounds of
policy. By a voluntary condemnation of these inhuman
opinions, fathers, prevent the bad effects which might
result from them, and for which you would be respon
sible ; and in order to conceive a greater abhorrence
of homicide, remember that the first crime of fallen
man was a murder in the person of the first saint ; his
greatest crime, a murder in the person of the chief of
all the saints; and, that murder is the only crime
which destroys at once the State, the Church, nature
and piety.

I have just seen the reply of your apologist to my
Thirteenth Letter. But if he has no better answer to
this one, which meets the most of his difficulties, he
will not deserve a reply. I am sorry to see him hourly
breaking away from his subject to vent calumnies and
insults against the living and the dead. But, to gain

292

PKOVINCIAL LETTERS.

credit for the memorandums with which you furnish
him, you should not make him publicly disavow a fact
so public as the blow of Compiegne. It is certain,
fathers, from the acknowledgment of the injured party,
that he was struck on the cheek by the hand of a
Jesuit, and all that your friends have been able to do
is to make it doubtful whether it was with the palm
or with the back of the hand, and raise the question,
whether a stroke on the cheek with the back of the
hand be or be not a blow. I know not to whom it
belongs to decide, but in the mean time, I will believe
that it is at all events a probable blow. This saves my
conscience.

LETTEB FIFTEENTH

TO THE REVEKEND JESUIT FATHERS.

THE JESUITS ERASE CALUMNY FROM THE LIST OF SINS, AND MAKE
NO SCRUPLE OF USING IT TO CRY DOWN THEIR ENEMIES.

REVEREND FATHERS, — Since your impostures in
crease every day, and you employ them in cruelly
outraging the feelings of all persons of piety who are
opposed to your errors, I feel obliged, on their behalf,
and that of the Church, to unfold a mystery in your
conduct, which I promised long ago, in order that men
may be able to ascertain from your own maxims what
faith they ought to put in your accusations and insults.

I am aware that those who do not fully know you,
have difficulty in making up their minds on this sub
ject, because they feel themselves under the necessity
of either believing the incredible crimes of which you
accuse your enemies, or of holding you as impostors,
which also seems to them incredible. What ! they
ask, if these things were not true would monks
publish them ; would they renounce their conscience
and damn themselves by their calumnies ? Such is
their mode of reasoning ; and thus the visible proofs
by which your falsehoods are overthrown, running

294 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

counter to the opinion which they have of your sin
cerity, their mind remains suspended between the
evidence of the truth, which they cannot deny, and
the duty of charity, which they are apprehensive of
violating. Hence, as the only thing which hinders
them from rejecting your calumnies is the good opinion
they have of you, the moment they come to under
stand that you have not that idea of a calumny which
they imagine you have, , there cannot be a doubt that
the weight of truth will forthwith determime them no
longer to believe your impostures. This, then, fathers
will be the subject of this letter.

I will not only show that your writings are full of
calumny ; I will go farther. One may utter falsehoods,
believing them to be truths, but the character of liar
includes an intention to lie. I will show, then, fathers,
that your intention is to lie and calumniate ; and that
knowingly and with design you charge your enemies
with crimes of which you know that they are innocent,
because you think you can do it without falling from
a state of grace. Though you know this point of your
morality as well as I do, I will, nevertheless, tell it
you, in order that there may be no doubt of it when
it is seen that I address myself to you, and maintain
it to yourselves, while you cannot have the assurance
to deny it, without confirming my charge by the very
disavowal ; for the doctrine is so common in your
schools, that you have maintained it not only in your
books, but in your public thesis (the last degree of
hardihood) ; among others, in your Theses of Louvain

DOCTRINE OF CALUMNY WITH THE JESUITS. 295

of 1645, in these terms : "It is only a venial sin to
calumniate and bring false accusations to destroy the
credit of those who speak ill of us ; Quidni non nisi
veniale sit, detrahentis autoritatem magnam, tibi
noxiam, falso crimine elidere ?" This doctrine is so
universal among you, that any one who dares to assail
it is treated as ignorant and presumptuous.

This was recently experienced by Father Quiroga, a
German Capuchin, when he sought to oppose it. Your
Father Dicastillus took him up at once, and speaks of
the dispute in these terms, de Just., 1. 2, tr. 2, disp. 12,
n. 404 : " A certain grave monk, cowled and barefooted,
cucullatus gymnopoda, whom I name not, had the
temerity to cry down this opinion among women and
ignorant persons, and to say that it was pernicious
and scandalous, contrary to good morals, the peace of
States and Society ; and, in fine, contrary not only to
all orthodox doctors, but all who can be orthodox ; but
I have maintained against him, as I still maintain, that
calumny, when used against a calumniator, though it
be a falsehood, is, nevertheless, not a mortal sin, nor
contrary either to justice or charity ; and to prove it I
referred him en masse to our fathers, and entire uni
versities consisting of them, all of whom I consulted ;
among others the reverend Father John Gans, con
fessor to the emperor ; the reverend Father Daniel
Bastele, confessor to archduke Leopold ; Father Henri,
who was tutor to these two princes ; all the public
and ordinary professors of the university of Vienna "
(wholly composed of Jesuits) ; " all the professors of

296 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the university of Gratz " (wholly of Jesuits) ; " all the
professors of the university of Prague " (where the
Jesuits are masters") ; "from all of whom I hold
approvals of my opinion, written and signed with
their own hands ; besides, also, having with me Father
De Pennalossa, a Jesuit, preacher to the emperor and
king of Spain ; Father Pillicerolli, Jesuit ; and many
others, who had judged this opinion probable, before
our dispute." You see plainly, that there are few
opinions which you have taken so much pains to
establish, as there were few of which you stood so
much in need. Hence you have so fully sanctioned it
that your casuists use it as an indubitable principle.
"It is certain," says Caramuel, n. 1151, "that it is a
probable opinion that there is no mortal sin in calum
niating falsely to save one's reputation. For it is
maintained by more than twenty grave doctors, by
Gaspar, Hurtade and Dicastillus, Jesuits, etc., so that,
if this doctrine were not probable, there would not be
one probable in all theology."

Abominable theology ! a theology so corrupt in all
its heads, and if according to its maxims it were not
probable and safe in conscience to calumniate without
sin, in order to preserve reputation, scarcely one of its
decisions would be sure ! How very probable, fathers,
that those who hold this principle do sometimes put
in practice ! The corrupt will of man so impetuously
inclines him to it, as makes it impossible not to believe
that when the obstacle of conscience is removed it will
diffuse itself with all its natural vehemence. Would

JDOCTRINE OF CALUMNY WITH THE JESUITS. 297

you have an illustration? Caramuel will give it at
the same place. He says, "This maxim of Father
Dicastillus, Jesuit, respecting calumny, having been
taught by a German countess, to the emperor's
daughters, their belief that at the most they only
sinned venially by calumnies, gave rise to such a
number in a few days, and to so many false reports,
that the whole court was set in a blaze and filled with
dismay. For it is easy to imagine how soon they
became adepts in the art of using them ; so that to
appease the disturbance it became necessary to send
for a good Capuchin, of exemplary life, named Father
Quiroga " (it was for this Father Dicastillus quarrelled
with him so much), " who assured them that this
maxim was very pernicious, especially among women,
and took particular care to get the empress to abolish
the use of it entirely." We cannot be surprised at the
bad effects caused by this doctrine ; on the contrary, it
would be wonderful if it did not produce this licence.
It is always easy for self-love to persuade us that we
are attacked unjustly ; to persuade you, especially,
fathers, who are so blinded by vanity, that in all your
writings you would have it believed that to injure the
honour of your Company is to injure the honour of
the Church. And thus, fathers, it might well seem
strange, if you did not put the maxim in practice. We
must not say, as do those who know you not, How
should these worthy fathers wish to calumniate their
enemies, since they could not do it without the loss of
their salvation ? On the contrary, we must say, How

298 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

should these worthy fathers be willing to lose the
opportunity of crying down their enemies, since they
can do it without hazarding their salvation ? Let no
one, then, be astonished at seeing the Jesuits calumnia
tors ; they are so with a safe conscience, and nothing
can keep them from it, since from the credit they have
in the world, they can calumniate without fear of
punishment from man, and from the power they have
assumed in cases of conscience, they have established
maxims to enable them to do it without fear of punish
ment from God.

Such, fathers, is the source from which all those
black impostures spring ; such the cause which led
your Father Brisacier to circulate so many as to draw
upon himself the censure of the late archbishop of
Paris ; such the inducement to your Father D'Anjou
to declaim publicly in the pulpit of the church of St.
Benedict at Paris, in the last year, against persons of
rank who received alms for the poor of Picardy and
Champagne, to which they had themselves so liberally
contributed, and to utter the horrid lie which might
have dried up the source of this charity, had any credit
been given to your impostures, " that he had certain
information that those persons had misapplied the
money to employ it against the Church and the State,"
which obliged the curate of the parish, who is a
doctor of Sorbonne, to mount the pulpit next day, and
denounce these calumnies. From this same principle
your Father Crasset preached so many falsehoods in
Orleans, that it became necessary for the bishop of

SOURCE OF THE JESUITS* CALUMNIES. 299

Orleans to interdict him, as a public impostor, by his
injunction of 9th September last, in which he declares
that "he prohibits friar John Crasset, priest of the
Company of Jesus, from preaching in his diocese, and
all his people from hearing him, under pain of mortal
disobedience ; in respect he has learned that the said
Crasset had delivered a discourse from the pulpit filled
with falsehoods and calumnies against the clergy of
this town, falsely and maliciously charging them with
holding the heretical and impious propositions, that
the commandments of God are impossible ; that inward
grace is never resisted ; that Jesus Christ died not for
all men; and other similar propositions, condemned
by Innocent X. ; " for this is your ordinary slander,
and the first charge you bring against all whom you
are anxious to discredit. And although it is as im
possible for you to prove this of any of these persons,
as for your Father Crasset to prove it of the clergy of
Orleans, your conscience, nevertheless, remains at rest,
" because you believe that this manner of calumniating
those who attack you is so certainly permitted " that
you fear not to declare it publicly, and in the face of
a whole town.

We have a notable proof of this in the quarrel which
you had with M. Puys, curate of St. Nisier at Lyons ;
and as this story gives a perfect manifestation of your
spirit, I' will state the principal circumstances. You
know, fathers, that recently M. Puys translated into
French an excellent work of a Capuchin friar, ' on the
Duty of Christians to their Parish, and against those

300 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

who dissuade them from it,' without using any invec
tive, and without naming any monk, or any particular
Order. Your fathers, nevertheless, took it to them
selves, and without any respect for an aged pastor,
judge in the Primacy of France, and respected by the
whole town, your Father Albi wrote a furious book
against him, which you yourselves retailed in your own
church on Assumption-day, in which he charged him
with several things, and, among others, " with having
made himself scandalous by his gallantry, with being
suspected of impiety, with being a heretic, deserving of
excommunication ; and, in short, fit to be burned." M.
Puys replied, and Father Albi, in a second writing,
reiterated his charge. It is not certain, then, fathers,
either that you were slanderers, or that you believed
all this of the worthy priest, and behoved to see him
clear of his errors before you could deem him worthy
of your friendship ? Listen, then, to what passed at
the reconciliation, which took place in presence of the
first persons in the town, whose names are given below,*
as they appear in the minute which was accurately

*M. De Ville, Vicar-General of the Cardinal of Lyons; M.
Scarron, Canon and Curate of St. Paul; M. Margat, Chanter;
Messrs. Bouvand, Seve, Aubert, and Dervieu, Canons of St.
Nisier ; M. du Gue', President of the Treasurers of France ; M,
Groslier, Dean of Guild ; M. de Fle'chere, President and Lieu-
tenant-General ; Messrs, de Boissat, De S. Eomain, and De
Bartoly, gentlemen ; M. Bourgeois, First King's Advocate to the
Treasury Board ; Messrs. Cotton, father and son ; M. Boniel ;
who all signed the original declaration, with M. Puys and Father
Albi.

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 301

drawn up. In presence of all these persons, M.
Puys did nothing more than declare " that what he had
written was not addressed to the Jesuit fathers ; that
he had spoken in general of those who alienate the
faithful from their parishes, without intending thereby
to attack the Society, which, on the contrary, he
esteemed and loved." By these simple words he got
quit of his apostacy, gallantry, and excommunication,
without retractation and without absolution; and
Father Albi thereafter said to him as follows: "Sir, the
belief I had that you were attacking the Company to
which I have the honour to belong, made me take up
my pen in reply ; and I thought the manner in which
I used it was permitted me ; but being better informed
as to your intention, I here declare that there is no
longer any thing to prevent me from regarding you as
a man of talent, very enlightened, profoundly learned,
and orthodox, of irreprehensible morals; and, in one
word, worthy pastor of your church. This declaration
I gladly make, and I beg these gentlemen to remember
it."

They have remembered it, fathers, and the reconcilia
tion has caused more scandal than the quarrel. For
who would not wonder at this language of Father Albi ?
He does not say he comes to retract, because he has
been informed of a change in the manners and doctrine
of M. Puys, but only that, " knowing it was not his
intention to attack your Company, there is nothing to
prevent his regarding him as orthodox." He did not
believe, then, in fact, that he was heretical. And yet,

302 PROVINCIAL LETTERS

after having accused him against his conviction, he
does not declare himself in the wrong; on the contrary,
he dares to say that "the manner in which he acted
was lawful."

Of what are you thinking, when you testify thus
publicly that you measure the faith and virtue of men,
only by the feelings with which they regard your
Society ? How were you not apprehensive of making
yourselves pass, on your own confession, for impostors
and calumniators ? What, fathers ! the same individual,
without undergoing any change, will, according as you
believe that he honours or attacks your Company, be
" pious " or " impious," " unblameable" or " excommuni
cated," " fit pastor of a church " or " fit to be burned,"
in fine, " Catholic or heretic." In your language, then,
to attack your Society and be heretical is the same
thing. That is a droll heresy, fathers. And thus, when
we see in your writings so many orthodox persons
called heretics, the whole meaning is, that you think
they attack you. It is good, fathers, to understand this
strange language, according to which there cannot be
a doubt that I am a great heretic. Accordingly, it is
in this sense that you so often give me the name. You
cut me off from the Church, only because you think
my Letters do you harm ; and thus, all that remains to
make me orthodox, is either to approve of the corrup
tions of your morality, which I could not do without
renouncing every pious sentiment, or to persuade you
that in this I am only seeking your true welfare, a
persuasion which you must be very far returned from

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 303

your errors to recognize. So that I am strangely
involved in heresy, since the purity of my faith being
of no use to recall me from this species of error, I
cannot get quit of it, except by either betraying my
own conscience, or by reforming yours. Till then I
shall always be a wicked man and an impostor ; and
however faithful I may have been in quoting your
authors, you will go about crying, " He must be a limb
of Satan, to impute to us things of which there is not
a mark or vestige in our books ; " and in this you will
only act agreeably to your maxim and your ordinary
practice, so extensive is the privilege which you have
of lying. Allow me to give you an instance, which I
purposely select, as at the same time furnishing an
answer to your ninth Imposture, which, like the others,
deserves only a passing refutation.

Ten or twelve years ago you were reproached with
this maxim of Father Bauni, " that it is lawful to seek
directly, primo et per se, a proximate cause of sin, for
the spiritual good of ourselves or our neighbour," tr.
4, q. 14, of which he adduces in illustration, that " it is
lawful to enter notorious houses with the view of con
verting abandoned women, though it is probable we
will sin there, from having already often experienced
that we are wont to allow ourselves to be carried into
sin by the caresses of these women." What was the
answer to this by your Father Caussin, in his book,
'Apology for the Company of Jesus/ p. 128 : "Show
the place in Father Bauni, read the page, the margin,
the advertisement, the appendix, everything else, even

304 PROYINCIAL LETTERS.

the whole book, and you will not find a single trace
of such a sentence, which could only come into the
mind of a man extremely devoid of conscience, and
must apparently have been suggested by the instru
mentality of the devil." And your Father Pintereau
says in the same style, part 1, p. 24, " A man must be
devoid of conscience to teach such a detestable doctrine,
but he must be worse than a devil to ascribe it to
Father Bauni. Reader, there is not a mark or vestige
of it throughout his book." Who would not believe
that people who speak in this tone had ground to com
plain, and that Father Bauni had, in fact, been taxed
unjustly ? Have you affirmed anything against me in
stronger terms ? And how could one venture to
suppose that a passage could be in the exact words, at
the very place from which it is quoted, when it is said
that " there is not a mark or vestige of it throughout
the book?"

In truth, fathers, that is the method of making
yourselves believed until you are answered ; but it is
also the method of making you never more believed
after you have been answered. For so certain is it
you lied at that time, that you have no difficulty, in
the present day, in admitting in your Answers, that
this maxim is in Father Bauni,'at the very place which
had been quoted ; and what is wonderful, whereas it
was " detestable " twelve years ago, it is now so inno
cent that, in your ninth Imposture, p. 10, you accuse
me of "ignorance and malice, in quarrelling with Father
Bauni for an opinion which is not rejected in the

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 305

school. What an advantage it is, fathers, to have to
do with people who deal in the pro and the con ! I
need none but yourselves to confute you. For I have
only to show two things : the one, that this maxim is
worthless ; the other, that it is Father Bauni's ; and I
will prove both by your own confession. At one time
you acknowledge that it is " detestable," and you con
fess that it is in Father Bauni. This double acknow
ledgment, fathers, sufficiently justifies me ; but it does
more ; it discloses the spirit of your policy. For, tell
me, pray, what is the end which you propose in your
wrings ? Is it to speak with sincerity ? No, fathers,
since your Answers destroy each other. Is it to follow
sound doctrine ? Just as little, since you authorize a
maxim which, according to yourselves, is detestable.
Be it considered, however, that when you said the
maxim was " detestable," you at the same time denied
it to be in Father Bauni, thus making him innocent ;
and when you confess that it is his, you at the same
time maintain its soundness, thus still making him
innocent. So that the innocence of this father, being
the only thing common to your two Answers, it is plain
that it is the only thing you seek, and that your only
object is the defence of your fathers, by saying 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 hour. What might I
not say to you here, for you see plainly how conclusive
it is ? Nothing, however, is more common with you.
20

306 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

To omit an infinite number of examples, I believe you
will be contented with one more.

You were reproached at divers times with another
proposition of the same Father Bauni, tr. 4, q. 22, p.
100: "We should neither refuse nor delay giving abso
lution to those who are habitual sinners against the law
of God, of nature, and the Church, although we see no
prospect of amendment : etsi emendationis futurce spes
nulla appareat" Here, fathers, I pray you to tell me
which of the two answered best, according to your
taste, your Father Pintereau, or your Father Brisacier,
who defend Father Bauni in your two modes: the one,
by condemning the proposition, but denying it to be
Father Bauni's, and the other by admitting it to be
his, but at the same time justifying it ? Listen, then,
to what they say ; here is Father Pintereau, p. 18 :
" What is meant by overleaping the bounds of all
modesty, and exceeding all impudence, if it is not to
impose such a damnable doctrine on Father Bauni, as
a thing averred by him ? Judge, reader, of this
unworthy calumny : see with whom the Jesuits have
to do, and whether the author of so black an imposture
ought not henceforth to pass for the interpreter of the
father of lies." Here, now, is your Father Brisacier,
4 p., p. 21 : " In fact, Father Bauni says what you
relate : " this is giving the lie direct to Father Pinter
eau : " but," he adds, in justification of Father Bauni,
" do you who censure it wait when a penitent is at
your feet, till his guardian angel pledges all the rights
he has to heaven for his security : wait till God the

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 307

Father swears by his head, that David lied when he
said by the Holy Spirit that all men are liars, deceitful
and frail ; and till this penitent be no longer lying,
frail, fickle and sinful, like others, and you will not
apply the blood of Christ to any one ?"

What think you, fathers, of these extravagant and
impious expressions, that if it were necessary to wait
" till there was some hope of amendment in sinners "
before absolving them, it would be necessary to wait
" till God should swear by his head " that they would
never more fall. What, fathers ! is there no difference
between hope and certainty ? How injurious to the
grace of Jesus Christ, to say that it is so little possible
for Christians ever to get quit of sins against the law
of God, of nature and the Church, that it could not be
hoped for "unless the Holy Spirit had lied !" So that,
according to you, were absolution not given to those
of whom " we have no hope of amendment," the blood
of Jesus Christ would remain useless, and " we should
never apply it to any one." To what state, fathers,
are you reduced by your excessive desire to preserve
the honour of your authors, since you find only two
ways of justifying them, imposture or impiety; so that
your most innocent mode of defence is boldly to deny
facts that are clear as day.

Hence it is that you so often use it. Still, this is
not your only shift. You forge writings to render
your enemies odious, as the ' Letter of a Minister to
M. Arnauld/ which you retailed over Paris, to make
it believed that the work on ' Frequent Communion,'

308 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

approved by so many bishops and so many doctors,
but which, in truth, was somewhat opposed to you,
had been composed on a secret understanding with the
ministers of Charenton. At other times, you attribute
to your opponents, writings full of impiety, as the
' Circular Letter of the Jansenists/ the impertinent
style of which makes the cheat too gross and too
clearly exposes the ridiculous malice of your Father
Meynier, who dares to employ it, p. 28, in support of his
blackest impostures. You sometimes quote books which
never existed, as the ' Constitutions of the Holy Sacra
ment,' from which you give passages which you fabri
cate at pleasure, and make the hair of the simple stand
on end, who know not your effrontery in inventing and
publishing lies ; for there is no species of calumny
which you have not put in practice. Never could the
maxim which excuses it be in better hands.

But these expedients are too easily defeated, and
therefore you have others of a more subtle nature, in
which you give no particulars, that you may thus leave
nothing to your opponents to fasten upon in reply; as
when Father Brisacier says, " that his enemies commit
abominable crimes, but he is unwilling to state them."
Does it not look as if a charge so indefinite could not
be convicted of imposture ? A man of ability has never
theless found out the secret ; and he is again, fathers,
a Capuchin. You are at present unfortunate in Capu
chins ; and I foresee, that some other time you will
very likely be so in Benedictines. This Capuchin
is Father Valerien, of the house of the Counts of

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 309

Magnis. You will learn by the following short story
how he replied to your calumnies : He had happily
succeeded in the conversion of Prince Ernest, Landgrave
of Hesse-Rheinsfelt. But your fathers being some
what annoyed at seeing a sovereign prince converted
without their being called in, forthwith composed a
book against him (for you are everywhere persecutors
of the good), in which, falsifying one of his sentences,
they charge him with heretical doctrine. They also
circulated a letter against him, in which they said to
him, " Oh ! what things we could disclose," without
saying what, "at which you would be very sorry ! For,
if you do not put matters to rights, we will be obliged
to give notice to the Pope and Cardinals." There is
some adroitness in this, and I have no doubt that you
speak of me in the same way ; but see what kind of
answer he gives in his book at Prague, last year, p. 112,
etc. : " What shall I make of these vague and indefinite
slanders ? How shall I rebut charges which are not
explained ? Here, nevertheless, is the method. I
declare, loudly and publicly, to those who menace me,
that they are notorious imposters, and very practised
and very impudent liars, if they do not discover these
crimes to all the world. Come forward, then, accusers,
and publish these things upon the housetops, instead
of whispering them in the ear, and from so whispering,
lying with assurance. There are some who imagine
that these disputes are scandalous. It is true, it is
a horrid scandal to impute to me such a crime as
heresy, and make me suspected of many other crimes.

310 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

But I only meet this scandal by maintaining my
innocence."

In good sooth, fathers, you are here rather roughly
handled ; and never was defence more complete. For
even the least semblance of crime must have been
wanting, since you have not replied to his challenge.
You sometimes meet with troublesome encounters ; but
it does not make you any wiser. For some time after,
you again attacked him in the same way, on another
subject, and he again defended himself on these terms,
p. 151: "This kind of men who are making them
selves insupportable to all Christendom, aspire, under
the pretext of good works, to grandeur and domination;
perverting to their own ends almost all laws, divine,
human, positive, and natural. Either by their doctrine
or by fear, or by hope, they attract all the grandees of
the earth, whose authority they abuse, for the accom
plishment of their detestable intrigues. But their
attempts, criminal though they be, are neither punished
nor arrested : on the contrary, they are rewarded ; and
they commit them with as much boldness as if they
were doing God a service. All the world acknowledges
this, and all the world speaks of it with execration.
But few are capable of opposing this mighty tyranny.
This, however, I have done. I have stopped their
impudence, and by the same means will stop it again.
I declare, then, that they have lied most impudently,
mentiris impudentissime. If their charges against
me are true, let them prove them, or let them stand
convicted of a lie fraught with impudence. Their pro-

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 311

cedure will hereupon show who is right. I pray all
the world to attend to it, and observe, in the mean
while, that this kind of men, who never put up with
the smallest injury they can repel, make a pretence of
submitting very patiently to those from which they
cannot defend themselves, and give the cloak of a false
virtue to their mere impotence. My object in cutting
thus sharply was to make the dullest among them
aware, that if they are silent, their silence will be the
effect, not of meekness, but of a troubled conscience."

These are his words, fathers, and he ends thus :
" Those people, whose fabrications are universally
known, are so obviously unjust, and from impunity so
insolent, that I must have renounced Jesus Christ and
his Church, if I did not detest their conduct, and
publicly denounce it, as well as to justify myself as to
prevent the 'simple from being led astray."

Reverend fathers, there is now no room to draw
back. You must pass for convicted culumniators, and
recur to your maxim, that this sort of calumny is not
a crime. The Capuchin has found out the secret of
shutting their mouths ; and this is the course that
must be taken every time you accuse people without
proof. It is necessary only to reply to each of you,
with the Capuchin father, mentiris impudentissime.
For what other answer could be given, for example,
when your Father Brisacier says, that those against
whom he writes are " gates of hell ; pontiffs of the
devil ; people fallen from faith, hope, and charity ;
who build the treasury of Antichrist. This," he adds,

312 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

" I say not by way of insult, but through force of
truth ? " Must a man seriously go about to prove that
he is not " a gate of hell," and that he is not building
the treasury of Antichrist ?

In the same way, what answer must I give to all
the vague language of this sort which is in your
books and advertisements, concerning my letters ? for
example, that " we apply the doctrine of restitution,
by reducing creditors to poverty ; that we have offered
bags of money to learned monks, who have refused
them ; that we give benefices to procure the circulation
of heresies against the faith ; that we have pen
sioners among the most illustrious ecclesiastics, and in
sovereign courts ; that I, also, am a pensioner of Port
Royal ; and that I composed romances before my
letters," I, who have never read one, and don't even
know the names of those which your apologist has
made. What is to be said to all this, but just mentiria
impudentissime, if you do not specify all those per
sons, their words, the time, the place ? For you must
be silent, or state and prove all the circumstances, as I
do, when I tell the stories of Father Albi and John of
Alba. Otherwise, you will only injure yourselves.
Your fables might, perhaps, have been of service,
before your principles were known ; but now that all
is discovered, should you think of whispering " that a
man of honour, who wishes his name to be concealed,
has told you dreadful things about those people," you
will forthwith be reminded of the mentiris impuden
tissime of the worthy Capuchin father. You have

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 313

too long being deceiving the world, and abusing the
credit which was given to your impostures. It is time
to restore the reputation of the many whom you have
calumniated. For what innocence can be so generally
acknowledged as not to sustain some injury from the
bold impostures of a Company diffused over the whole
earth, and who, under a religious dress, hide souls so
irreligious that they commit such sins as calumny, not
against their maxims, but in accordance with their
maxims ? I shall not be blamed, therefore, for having
destroyed the faith which might have been placed in
you ; since it is far more just to preserve to the many
persons whom you have decried the reputation for
piety, which they deserve not to lose, than to leave
you a reputation for sincerity which you deserve
not to possess. As the one could not be done with
out the other, you see how important it was to let
men understand who you are. This I have begun to
do here ; but it will take a long time to finish. It
shall be seen, however, fathers, and all your policy
will not save you from detection ; since any efforts
which you might make to prevent it would only serve
to convince the least discerning that you are afraid,
and that your conscience upbraiding you with what I
had to say, you have left no means untried to prevent
me from saying it.

LETTEE SIXTEENTH.

TO THE REVEREND JESUIT FATHERS.

HORRIBLE CALUMNIES OP THE JESUITS AGAINST PIOUS ECCLESI
ASTICS AND HOLY NUNS.

REVEREND FATHERS, — Here is the sequel of your
calumnies. I will first reply to those contained in
your advertisements ; but as all your other books are
equally filled with them, they will furnish me with
matter enough to discourse to you on this subject so
long as I shall deem it necessary. I will tell you,
then, in one word, in regard to the fabrications which
you have scattered up and down through all your
writings against M. d'Ypres, that you maliciously per
vert a few ambiguous words in one of his letters,
which, admitting of a good meaning, ought to be in
terpreted favourably, according to the spirit of the
Church, and cannot be interpreted otherwise, except
according to the spirit of your Society. For why will
you insist that in saying to his friend, " Don't give
yourself so much trouble about your nephew, I will
furnish him with what is necessary from the money
in my hand," his meaning was, that he took this
money not intending to return it ; and not that he

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 315

merely advanced it to be repaid ? But must you not
be very imprudent, to have yourselves furnished proof
of your falsehood from the other letters of M. d'Ypres,
which you have printed, and which clearly show that
the sums were in fact, mere advances, which he was
to replace ? This appears from the one written 30th
July, which you give, to your own confutation, in
these terms: "Be not anxious about the advances; he
shall want nothing while he is here;" and from that of
6th January following, when he says, " You are in too
great haste ; and though it were necessary to render
an account, the little credit I have here would enable
me to find the money wanted."

You are Jnipostors, then, fathers, as well on this
subject as in your ridiculous tale of the trunk of St.
Merri. For what advantage can you derive from the
accusation which one of your good friends reared up
against this ecclesiastic, whom you would fain tear to
pieces ? Must we infer that a man is guilty, because
he is accused ? No, fathers ; persons of piety, like
him, will always be liable to be accused, so long as
the world contains calumniators like you. It is not,
then, by the accusation that we must judge, but by
the decision. Now the decision, which was given 23rd
February subsequent, fully acquits him ; and more
over, the party who had rashly involved himself in
this proceeding was disavowed by his colleagues, and
forced to retract. As to what you say in the same
place of the " famous director, who became rich in a
moment, to the extent of nine hundred thousand

316 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

livres," it is enough to refer you to the curates of St.
Roch and St. Paul, who will attest to all Paris his
perfect disinterestedness in this affair, and your inex
cusable malice in this imposture.

But enough for these vain falsehoods; they are
only first attempts by your novices, and not the master
strokes of your great adepts. I come to these, then,
fathers, and begin with one of the blackest calumnies
ever conjured up by your spirit. I speak of the in
tolerable audacity with which you have dared to
charge holy nuns, and their directors, with " not be
lieving in the mystery of transubstantiation, and the
real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist." Here,
fathers, is an imposture worthy of you ; here a crime
which God alone is capable of punishing, as you alone
are capable of committing. One would require to be
as humble as these calumniated sufferers, to bear it
with patience ; and to be as wicked as the wicked
calumniators, to believe it. I do not, therefore, under
take to justify them; they are not expected. If they
needed defenders, they would have better than I.
What I shall say here will be, not to demonstrate
their innocence, but to demonstrate your malice. My
only wish is to make you abhor yourselves, and let
all the world understand, that after this there is nothing
of which you are not capable.

You will not fail, nevertheless, to say that I am of
Port Royal ; for it is the first thing you say to every
one who combats your excesses, as if Port Royal only
contained persons zealous enough to defend the purity

JESUIT CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 317

of Christian morality against you. I am aware,
fathers, of the merit of those pious men who live there
in solitary retirement; and how much the Church
is indebted to their instructive and solid writings.
I know how pious and enlightened they are. For,
although I have never had any connection with them,
as you wish to be believed, although you know not
who I am, I, nevertheless, am acquainted with some of
them, and I honour the virtue of all. But God has
not confined exclusively to their body the number of
those whom he is pleased to oppose to your disorders.
With his aid, fathers, I hope to make you sensible of
this ; and if he gives grace to support me in the pur
pose which he inspires, the purpose to employ in his
service whatever I have received of him, I will speak
to you in such a way as will perhaps make you regret
that you have not to do with an inmate of Port Royal.
And in testimony of this, fathers, while those whom
you outrage by this notorious calumny, content them
selves with offering up prayers to God for your par
don, I feel obliged, I, who suffer not by the injustice,
to put you to the blush in the presence of the whole
Church, that I may thereby produce in you that salu
tary shame of which Scripture speaks, and which is
almost the only remedy of a hardened impenitence
like yours : " Fill their faces with shame, and they will
seek thy name, 0 Lord !"

This insolence, from which even the holiest places
are not safe, must be arrested. For who will be secure
after a calumny of this nature ? What, fathers ! for

318 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

you to advertise in Paris that scandalous book, with
the name of your Father Meinier at the head of it, and
under this infamous title of ' Port Royal and Geneva
at one as to the holy Sacrament of the Altar/ in which
you charge this apostacy not only on the Abbe of St.
Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also on his sister, Mother
Agnes, and all the nuns of this monastery, of whom
you say, p. 96, " that their faith, respecting the Eu
charist, is as suspicious as that of M. Arnauld," which
you maintain, p. 4, to be " in effect Calvinist !" I here
appeal to the whole world, and ask if there are any
persons in the Church against whom you can bring so
abominable charges with less probability ? For, tell
me, fathers, if those nuns and their directors had " an
understanding with Geneva against the holy Sacra
ment of the Altar," (the very idea is horrible) why
should they have selected as the principal object of
their piety this Sacrament, which they must hold in
abomination ? Why should they have joined to their
rule the institution of the holy Sacrament ? Why
should they have taken the habit of the holy Sacra
ment, the name of Daughters of the holy Sacrament
and called their church the Church of the holy Sacra
ment ? Why should they have asked and obtained
from Rome a confirmation of this institution, and per
mission every Thursday to use the office of the holy
Sacrament, in which the faith of the Church is so per
fectly expressed, if they had conspired with Geneva
to destroy the faith of the Church ? Why should
they have obliged themselves by a special devotion,

JESUIT CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 319

also approved by the Pope, to have nuns continually
night and day in presence of this holy victim, than by
their perpetual adoration towards this perpetual sacri
fice, they might make reparation for the impious
heresy which seeks to annihilate it ? Tell me, then,
fathers, if you can, why, of all the mysteries of our
religion, they should have omitted those which they
believe, to select one which they do not believe ? And
why should they have dedicated themselves so
fully and entirely to this mystery of our faith, if they,
like heretics, held it to be the mystery of iniquity ?
What answer, fathers, will you give to these clear
evidences ; not of words, but of actions ; and not of
some particular action, but of the whole course of a
life entirely consecrated to the adoration of Jesus
Christ, as he sits upon our altars ? What answer will
you give to what you call the books of Port Royal, in
every page of which you find the very terms which
the Fathers and Councils have used, in order to define
the essence of this mystery ? It is ridiculous, yet
horrible, to see you, throughout your whole libel,
giving such answers as the following : M. Arnauld in
deed talks of " transubstantiation," but he perhaps
means a " significative transubstantiation." He indeed
declares his belief in " the real presence ; " but how do
we know that he does not mean " a true and real
figure ? " Where are we, fathers, and whom will you
not make a Calvinist at your pleasure, if license is
given you to corrupt the most canonical and sacred
expression, by the malicious subtleties of your new

320 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

equivocations ? For who has ever used other terms
than these, especially in plain pious treatises, in which
no controversy is discussed ? And yet the love and
respect which they have for this holy mystery has
made all their writings so full of it, that I defy you,
fathers, with all your cunning, to find in them either
the least appearance of ambiguity, or the least accord
ance with the sentiments of Geneva.

Everybody knows, fathers, that the heresy of
Geneva essentially consists, as you yourselves state, in
holding that Jesus Christ is not contained in the
Sacrament; that he cannot possibly be in several
places ; that he is truly only in heaven, where only he
ought to be worshipped, and not upon the altar ; that
the substance of the bread remains ; that the body of
Jesus Christ does not pass into the mouth, or into the
stomach ; that he is eaten only by faith, and that thus
the wicked do not eat him ; and that the mass is not
a sacrifice but an abomination. Listen, then, fathers,
to the kind of " understanding which the books of
Port Royal have with Geneva." To your confusion we
there read that " the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ
are contained under the species of bread and wine,"
(second letter of M. Arnauld, p. 259 ;) that " the Holy
of Holies is present in the sanctuary, and should there
be adored," (ibid, p. 243 ;) that Jesus Christ " dwells
in sinners who communicate by the real and true
presence of his body in their stomach, though not by
the presence of his Spirit in their heart ; " Freq. Com.,
3rd part, c. 16, that "the dead ashes of the bodies of

JESUIT CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 321

the saints derive their principal dignity from this
seed of life which remains to them from contact with
the immortal and vivifying flesh of Jesus Christ ; "
(1st p., c. 10:) that " it is not by natural power, but
by the omnipotence of God, to which nothing is impos
sible, that the body of Jesus Christ is contained under
the host, and under the minutest part of each host ; "
(' Theo. Fam., lee. 15,') that " the divine word is present
to produce the effect which the words of consecration
express ; " (ibid.) that " Jesus Christ, who is humbled
and laid upon the altar, is at the same time exalted in
glory ; " that " he is by himself, and by his ordinary
power, in different places at the same time; in the
midst of the Church triumphant, and in the midst of
the Church militant and sojourning," (De la Suspen
sion, rais. 21 :) that " the sacramental species remain
suspended, and subsists extraordinarily, without being
supported by any subject ; and that the body of Jesus
Christ is thus suspended under the species ;" that " it
depends not on them, as substances depend on acci
dents ; " (ibid. 23 ;) that " the substance of bread is
changed by leaving the accidents immutable ; "
(' Heures dans la prose du saint Sacrement ; ') that
" Jesus Christ reposes in the Eucharist with the same
glory that he has in heaven ; " (' Lettres de M. de St.
Cyran/ tr. 1, let. 93 ;) that " his glorious humanity re
sides in the tabernacles of the Church, under the
species of bread, which visibly conceal him ; and that
knowing how gross we are, he thus conducts us to the
adoration of his divinity, present in all places, by that
21

322 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

of his humanity, present in a particular place ; " (ibid.)
" that we receive the body of Jesus on the tongue, and
that he sanctifies it by his divine contact ; " (letter 32;)
that " he enters the mouth of the priest ; " (letter 72;)
that " although Jesus Christ has made himself acces
sible in the Holy Sacrament, by means of his love and
mercy, he, nevertheless, preserves his inaccessibility as
an inseparable condition of his divine nature ; for
although the body alone and the blood alone are
there, by virtue of the words, vi verborum, as the
school speaks, this does not prevent his whole divinity
as well as his whole humanity, from being there, by a
necessary conjunction ; " (' Defense du Chaplet du S.
Sacrement,' p. 217). And, in fine, " that the Eucharist
is at once sacrament and sacrifice ; " (Theol. Fam., lee.
15 ;) and that " although this sacrifice is a commem
oration of that of the Cross, there is, however, this
difference, that that of the mass is offered for the
Church alone, and for the faithful, who are in her
communion ; whereas, that of the Cross has been
offered for all the world, as Scripture speaks " (ibid.,
p. 153).

Enough here, fathers, to show that perhaps there
never was greater impudence than yours. But I
mean, moreover, to make you pronounce your own
sentence. For what do you require in order to take
away all semblance of fraternizing with Geneva ?
" Had M. Arnauld," says your Father Meinier, p. 83,
" said that, in this adorable mystery there is no sub
stance of bread under the species, but only the flesh

JESUIT CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 323

and blood of Jesus Christ, I would have confessed that
he had entirely declared against Geneva." Confess it,
then, impostors, and give him public reparation. How
often have you seen this in the passages which I have
just quoted ? But, moreover, the Familiar Theology
of M. de St. Cyran being approved by M. Arnauld, con
tains the sentiments of both. Read, then, the whole
of lesson 15th, and especially the second article, and
you will find the words which you require, expressed
even more formally than you yourselves express them :
" Is there bread in the host and wine in the cup ?
No ; for the whole substance of bread and wine is
taken away, to make way for that of the body and
blood of Jesus Christ, which remain there alone,
covered by the qualities and species of bread and
wine."

Well, fathers, will you still say that Port Royal
teaches nothing which " Geneva does not receive ? "
and that M. Arnauld has said nothing in his second
letter which " might not have been said by a minister
of Charenton ? " Make Mestrezat, then, speak as M.
Arnauld speaks, in this letter, p. 237, etc. Make him
say, " It is an infamous lie to accuse him of denying
transubstantiation ; that the foundation of his treatise
is the truth of the real presence of the Son of God as
opposed to the heresy of the Calvinists ; that he con
siders himself happy in being in a place where the
Holy of Holies is continually adored in the sanctuary."
This is much more contrary to the belief of the
Calvinists than even the real presence is ; since as

324 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Cardinal Richelieu says in his controversies, p. 536,
" the new ministers of France having united with the
Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus
Christ in the Eucharist, have declared that they remain
separated from the Church in regard to this mystery,
only because of the adoration which Catholics pay to
the Eucharist." Make Geneva sign all the passages
which I have quoted from the works of Port Royal,
and not only the passages but the entire treatises
respecting this mystery, as the book on Frequent
Communion, Explanation of the Ceremonies of the
Mass, the Reasons of the Suspension of the Holy
Sacrament, the translation of the Hymns in the Hours
of Port Royal, etc., and, in fine, procure the establish
ment, etc., at Charenton of this holy institution for
incessantly adoring Jesus Christ contained in the
Eucharist, as is done at Port Royal, and it will be the
most signal service you can render to the Church, since
then Port Royal will not have an understanding with
Geneva, but Geneva an understanding with Port
Royal and the whole Church.

In truth, fathers, you could not have chosen your
ground worse than to accuse Port Royal of not believ
ing the Eucharist ; but I wish to show what induced
you. You know that I somewhat understand your
policy. You have strictly followed it on this occasion.
Had the Abbe de St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld only
spoken of what ought to be believed concerning this
mystery, and not of what should be done in preparing
for it, they would have been the best Catholics in the

JESUIT CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 325

world, and no ambiguity would have been found in
their terras of real presence and transubstantiation.
But because all who combat your corruptions must be
heretical, and on the very point for which they combat
them, must not M. Arnauld be so after having written
a book expressly against your profanations of this
sacrament ? What, fathers, shall he have said with
impunity, " that the body of Jesus Christ should not
be given to those who are ever relapsing into the same
sins, and in whom we see no hope of amendment, and
that they should for a time be kept away from the
altar to purify themselves by a sincere repentance, so
as afterwards to approach it with benefit " ? Do not
suffer them to speak thus, fathers ; if you do, you will
not have so many frequenters of your confessionals ;
for your Father Brisacier says, that if "you followed
this method, you would not apply the blood of Jesus
Christ to any one." It is far better for you to follow
the practice of your Society, which your Father
Mascarenhas, in a book approved by your doctors and
even by your reverend Father General, describes as
follows : " All sorts of persons, and even priests, may
receive the body of Jesus Christ, the same day they
have defiled themselves by abominable sins : so far
from there being any irreverence in these communions,
it is on the contrary laudable to use them in this
manner. Confessors ought not to dissuade them, but
ought on the contrary to counsel those who have just
committed these crimes, to communicate at the instant ;
because, although the Church has forbidden it, the

326 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

prohibition is rendered obsolete by the universal prac
tice of the whole earth."

See, fathers, what it is to have Jesuits over the
whole earth. Such is the universal practice which
you Have introduced, and which you wish to maintain.
It matters not though the tables of Jesus Christ should
be filled with abomination, provided your churches are
full of people. See, then, that those who oppose this
are made heretical on the holy Sacrament. It must
be done, cost what it may ; but how will you be able
to do it after the many invincible evidences they have
given of their faith ? Are you not afraid I will state
your four great proofs of their heresy ? Well may
you, fathers ; but I ought not to spare you the shame.
Now then, for the first of them.

" M. de St. Cyran," says Father Meinier, " in con
soling a friend for the death of his mother, torn. 1, Lett.
14, says, that the most pleasing sacrifice which can be
offered to God on this occasion, is patience ; therefore
he is Calvinist." This is very subtle, fathers ; and I
know not if any one sees the ground of it ; let us then
learn it from himself. "Because," says this great
controversialist, " he does not believe in the sacrifice of
the Mass, for it is the most pleasing of all to God."
Let them now say that the Jesuits cannot argue. So
skilful are they, that they will make any one they
please, and even the Holy Scriptures, to be heretical.
For would it not be heresy to say as Ecclesiasticus
does, " There is nothing worse than the love of money ;
Nihil est iniquius quam amare pecuniam," as if

CALUMNIES AGAINST ST. CYRAN. 327

adultery, murder and idolatry were not greater crimes ?
And is there a man who does not, every hour, say
similar things ; for example, that the sacrifice of a
broken and contrite heart is the most pleasing in the
sight of God ; because by this language we merely mean
to compare some internal virtues with others, and not
with the sacrifice of the Mass, which is of a different
order altogether, and infinitely more exalted ! Are you
not, then, ridiculous, fathers ? and must I, to complete
your confusion, give you the terms of this very letter,
in which M. de St. Cyran speaks of the sacrifice of the
Mass as " the most excellent of all," saying, " offer to
God daily, and in all places, the sacrifice of the body
of his Son, who has not found a more excellent means
than this of honouring his Father ?" And again, "Jesus
Christ has obliged us, when dying, to take his sacri
ficed body, that we may thereby render the sacrifice of
our own body more agreeable to God ; and to unite
himself to us when we die, in order to strengthen us by
sanctifying, by his presence, the last sacrifice we make
to God, of our life and our body." Conceal all this,
fathers, and cease not to say that he dissuaded from
communicating at death, as you do, p. 33, and that he
did not believe the sacrifice of the Mass. Nothing is
too hardy for calumniators by profession.

Your second proof gives strong evidence of this. To
make a Calvinist of the late M. de St. Cyran, to whom
you ascribe the authorship of Petrus Aurelius, you
bring forward a passage in which Aurelius explains,
p. 89, in what manner the Church conducts herself

328 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

towards priests, and even bishops whom she means to
depose or degrade. " The Church," says he, " not being
able to divest them of the gift of ordination, because it
is ineffaceable, does what in her lies : she erases from
her memory the character which she cannot erase from
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
we may say they are so no longer, although they
always are so in respect of character ob indelebilitatem
characteris" You see, fathers, that this author, who
was approved by three general assemblies of the Clergy
of France, says clearly, that "the character of the
priesthood is ineffaceable." Here, therefore, you have
uttered a notable calumny ; in other words, according
to you, committed a petty venial sin. For this book
had injured you, by refuting the heresies of your
colleagues in England, respecting Episcopal authority.
But here is a remarkable extravagance : having falsely
supposed that M. de St. Cyran holds the character to
be effaceable, you conclude that he does not believe the
real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Do not expect me to answer this, fathers. If you
have not common sense, I cannot give it to you. All
who have, will, without any aid, laugh enough at
you, as well as at your third proof, which you found
upon these words of the Frequent Communion 3rd p.
ch. 11, " that God in the Eucharist gives us the same
meat as he gives to the saints in heaven, with only this
difference, that here he removes the sensible sight and

CALUMNIES AGAINST ARNAULD. 329

taste, reserving both for heaven." Indeed, fathers,
these words so simply express the sense of the Church,
that, at this moment, I forget what means you take to
pervert them. For I see nothing in them but what
the Council of Trent teaches, sess. 13, c. 8 ; that there
is no difference between Jesus Christ in the Eucharist,
and Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled,
and there, not. M. Arnauld says not that there is no
other difference in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ,
but only that there is no other in Jesus Christ who is
received. And yet you insist, against all reason, on
making him say in this passage, that Christ is not
eaten with the mouth here any more than in heaven ;
and hence you infer his heresy.

I pity you, fathers. Must further explanation be
given you ? Why do you confound this divine nourish
ment with the manner of receiving it ? There is, as I
have just said, only a single difference between this
nourishment on earth, and in heaven, namely, that
here it is hidden under veils, which deprive us of the
sight and sensible taste of it; but there are several
differences between the manner of receiving it here and
there, the principal of which is, as M. Arnauld says,
part 3, ch. 16, "here it enters the mouth and stomach
both of the good and the bad, which is not the case in
heaven."

If you are ignorant of the cause of this difference, I
will tell you, fathers, that the reason why God has
established these different modes of receiving the same
meat, is the difference which subsists between the

330 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

state of Christians in this life, and that of the blessed
in heaven. The state of Christians, says Cardinal
Perron, after the Fathers, holds a middle place between
the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews. The
blessed possess Jesus Christ really, without figures
and without veil. The Jews possessed Jesus Christ
only by figures and veils, as were the manna and
paschal lamb. And Christians possess Jesus Christ in
the Eucharist, truly and really, but still covered with
veils. "God," says St. Eucherius, "has made three
tabernacles ; the synagogue, which had only shadows,
without reality ; the Church, which has reality and
shadows ; and heaven, where there are no shadows but
reality only." We should change the state in which
we are (which is the state of faith, and which St. Paul
contrasts as well with the law as with clear vision),
did we possess figures only, without Jesus Christ;
because the peculiarity of the law is to have only the
shadow of things, and not the substance ; and we should
also change it, did we possess them visibly, because
faith, as the same apostle says, respects not things
which are seen. And thus the Eucharist is perfectly
adapted to our state of faith, because it contains Jesus
Christ truly, though under a veil. So that this state
would be destroyed, were not Jesus Christ really under
the species of bread and wine, as heretics pretend ; and
it would also be destroyed if we received him un
covered, as in heaven, since this would be to confound
our state, either with the state of Judaism or that of
glory.

CALUMNIES AGAINST ARNAULD. 331

Behold, fathers, the mysterious and divine ground
of this most divine mystery. It is this which makes
us abhor the Calvinists, as reducing us to the condi
tion of the Jews, and makes us aspire to the glory of
the blessed, when we shall have the full and eternal
fruition of Jesus Christ. Hence you see that there
are several differences between the manner in which
he communicates himself to Christians and to the
blessed ; among others, that here we receive him with
the mouth, not so in heaven; but they all depend
merely on the difference between the state in which
we are, and that in which they are. And this, fathers,
is what M. Arnauld expresses so clearly in these
terms : " There cannot be any other difference between
the purity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the
Eucharist, and that of the blessed, than there is be
tween faith and the clear vision of God, on which
alone depends the different modes in which we eat on
earth and in heaven." Your duty, with regard to
these words, fathers, was to have revered their holy
truth, instead of corrupting them, for the purpose of
rearing up a heresy, which they do not, and never can
contain, namely, that we eat Jesus Christ only by
faith, and not by the mouth, as they are maliciously
expounded by your fathers, Annat and Meinier, so as
to form the head of their accusation.

Here, then, you are sadly at a loss for proof, fathers ;
and this is the reason why you have had recourse to
a new artifice, namely, to falsify the Council of Trent,
in order to make out that M. Arnauld is not conform-

332 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

able to it ; so numerous are the means you have to
make people heretical. This is done by Father Mei-
nier in fifty places of his book, and eight or ten times
in the single page 54 ; where he pretends that, in
order to speak orthodoxly, it is not enough to say, " I
believe Jesus Christ is present really in the Eucharist,"
but that it is necessary to say, " I believe, with the
Council, that he is present with a true local presence,
or locally." And on this he quotes the Council, sess.
13, can. 3, can. 4, can. 6. Who would not believe, on
seeing the words " local presence," quoted from three
canons of a universal Council, that they are there in
reality ? This might have served your purpose before
my Fifteenth Letter ; but people are no longer taken
in by it. They go and look at the Council, and find
you impostors. For these terms, "local presence,
locally, locality," never were there. And I declare to
you, moreover, fathers, that they are not in any
other part of this Council, nor in any other preceding
Council, nor in any Father of the Church. Here,
therefore, fathers, I beg you to say, if you mean
to bring a suspicion of Calvinism on all who have not
used this term. If so, the Council of Trent is sus
pected, and all the holy fathers without exception.
Have you no other way of rendering M. Arnauld
heretical, without offending so many persons who
never did you harm ? among others, St. Thomas, who
is one of the greatest defenders of the Eucharist; and
who, so far from using that term, has expressly re
jected it, 3 p. qu. 76, a. 5, where he says : Nullo modo

CALUMNIES AGAINST ARNAULD. 333

corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. Who
are you, then, fathers, that of your own authority
impose new terms, which you ordain us to use for the
proper expression of our faith, as if the profession of
faith prepared by the popes, on the order of the
Council, where this term is not to be found, were de
fective, and left in the creed of the faithful, an am
biguity which you alone have discovered ? What
presumption, to prescribe these terms even to doctors !
What falsehood, to palm them upon general Councils !
• And what ignorance, not to know the difficulties which
the most enlightened saints have had to admit them !
Blush, fathers, at " your ignorant impostures ; " as
Scripture says to impostors like you : De mendacio
ineruditionis tuae confundere.

No longer, then, attempt to play the master. You
have neither character nor ability for it. But if you
would advance your propositions more modestly, one
might listen to them. For although the term " local
presence " was rejected by St. Thomas, as you have
seen, because the body of Christ is not in the Eucharist,
with the ordinary dimensions of bodies in their place :
nevertheless, the term has been received by some new
authors on controversy, because they simply mean by
it, that the body of Jesus Christ is truly under the
species ; and as these are in a particular place, the
body of Christ is also there. In this sense, M. Arnauld
will have no difficulty in admitting it, M. de St. Cyran
and he having so often declared that Jesus Christ in
the Eucharist, is truly in a particular place, and

334 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

miraculously in several places at once. Thus, all your
refinements tumble to the ground, and you have not
been able to give the least semblance to an accusation
which ought not to have been advanced without in
vincible proof.

But of what use is it, fathers, to oppose their inno
cence to your calumnies ? You do not attribute heresy
to them in the belief that they are heretical, but in
the belief that they do you harm. This, according to
your theology, is enough to calumniate them without
criminality ; and you may say mass without confes^
sion or repentance, at the very time you are charging
priests who say it every day with believing it to be
pure idolatry ; sacrilege so dreadful, that you your
selves hung your own Father Jarrige in effigy for
having said it " at a time when he was in terms with
Geneva."

I am astonished, then, not at your charging them
so unscrupulously with great and spurious crimes,
but at your imprudence in charging them with
crimes which are so very improbable. For you in
deed dispose of sins at your pleasure ; but do you
think you can in the same way dispose of men's belief ?
Truly, 'fathers, were it the only alternative, that either
you or they must be suspected of Calvinism, I should
consider you in a bad plight. While their language
is as orthodox as yours, their conduct confirms their
faith, and yours belies it. For if you believe, as well
as they, that the bread is'really changed into the body
of Jesus Christ, why do you not, like them, require

CALUMNIES AGAINST ARNAULD. 335

that the hard and stony heart of those whom you
counsel to approach, should be truly changed into a
heart of flesh ? If you believe that Jesus Christ is
there in a state of death, that [those approaching may
thereby learn to die in the world, to sin, and to them
selves, why do you induce any to approach, while
their criminal passions are altogether unmortified ?
And how do you deem those worthy to eat the bread
of heaven who would not be worthy to eat earthly
bread ?

0 great worshippers of this sacred mystery ! wor
shippers who manifest their zeal by persecuting those
who honour it by many holy communions, and flatter
ing those who dishonour it by so many sacrilegious
communions ! How becoming in those defenders of
this pure arid adorable sacrifice, to surround the table
of the Lord with hardened sinners, who have just
sallied forth from their places of infamy ; and to place
amidst them a priest, whom even his confessor sends
from his unchastity to the altar, there to act as the
representative of Jesus Christ, presenting this holy
victim to the God of holiness, and putting it, with his
polluted hands, into their polluted mouths ! Is it not
most seemingly in those who thus act " over all the
earth," according to maxims approved by their own
General, to charge the author of 'Frequent Com
munion/ and the Daughters of the Holy Sacrament,
with not believing the holy sacrament ?

Even this does not suffice. To satisfy their passion
they must at last accuse them of having renounced

336 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Jesus Christ and their baptism. These, fathers, are
not the blustering tales you generally tell ; they are
the fatal excesses by which you have filled up the
measure of your calumnies. This notable falsehood
would not have been in fit hands, had it been allowed
to remain in the hands of your good friend, Filleau,
to whom you suggested it : your Society has openly
taken it upon itself ; and your Father Meinier has just
maintained " as a certain truth/' that Port Royal has
for thirty-five years formed a secret cabal, of which
M. de St. Cyran and M. d'Ypres have been the heads,
" for the purpose of overthrowing the mystery of the
incarnation, making the Gospel passjfor an apocryphal
history, exterminating the Christian religion, and
rearing Deism upon the ruins of Christianity." Is this
all, fathers ? Will you be satisfied if all this is be
lieved of those whom you hate ? Will your animosity
be at last satiated, when you have produced a feeling
of abhorrence against them, not only among those who
are in the Church, because of their being on terms
with Geneva, as you accuse them, but also among all
those who believe in Jesus Christ, though out of the
Church, because of the Deism which you impute to
them ?

But how do you expect to persuade us on your word
alone, without the least appearance of proof, and in
the face of the strongest imaginable contradictions,
that priests who preach only the grace of Jesus
Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the obliga
tions of baptism, have renounced their baptism,

CALUMNIES AGAINST PORT ROYAL. 337

the Gospel, and Jesus Christ ? Who will believe it,
fathers ? Do you believe it yourselves, wretches that
you are ? And to what extremes are you reduced, since
you are under the necessity of either proving that they
do not believe in Jesus Christ, or of passing for the
most abandoned calumniators that ever existed ? Prove
it, then, fathers. Name " this ecclesiastic of merit,"
who you say was present at the assembly of Bourg-
Fontaine, and disclosed to your Father Filleau the
design which was there formed to destroy the Chris
tian religion. Name the six persons who you say
formed this conspiracy. Name him who is designated
by the letters A. A., which you say, p. 15, "means not
Antony Arnauld," because he has convinced you he
was then only nine years of age, but another who you
say " is still in life, and too good a friend of M. Arnauld,
to be unknown to him." You know him, then, fathers;
and consequently, unless you are yourselves without
religion, you are obliged to denounce the impious man
to the king and the parliament, that he may be pun
ished as he deserves. You must speak out, fathers ;
you must name him, or submit to the ignominy of
being henceforth regarded as liars, unfit even to be
believed. This, as the worthy Father Valerien has
taught us, is the way to " curb " and push such impos
tors. Your silence will amount to a full and complete
proof of your diabolical calumny. The most blinded
of your friends will be compelled to confess that "it
will be the effect not of your virtue, but of your impo
tence," and to wonder how you have been so wicked
22

338 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS.

as to extend the charge even to the nuns of Port Royal,
and to say as you do, p. 14, that " the Secret Chaplet
of the Holy Sacrament," framed by one of them, was
the first fruit of this conspiracy against Jesus Christ;
and in p. 95, that "they have been taught all the
detestable maxims of that writing," which is, according
to you, a lesson in Deism. Your impostures, in regard
to this writing, have already been completely ruined
by the defence of the censure which the late arch
bishop of Paris pronounced on your Father Brisacier.
You have no answer to give, and yet you cease not to
act more shamefully than ever, by attributing the
worst of impieties to virgins whose piety is known to
all. Cruel and cowardly persecutors ! Cannot even
the most retired cloisters be asylums against your
calumnies ? While these holy virgins day and night
worship Jesus Christ in the holy sacrament, according
to their institution, you cease not day and night to
publish that they do not believe him to be either in
the Eucharist, or even on the right hand of his Father;
and you publicly cut them off from the Church, while
they are in secret praying for you, and for the whole
Church. You calumniate those who have no ears to
hear, no mouth to answer you. But Jesus Christ, in
whom they are hid, to appear one day along with him,
hears you, and answers for them. This day is heard
that holy and dreadful voice which at once fills nature
with dismay, and consoles the Church. And I fear,
fathers, that those who harden their hearts, and
obstinately refuse to hear him when he speaks as God,

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 339

will be forced to listen in terror, when he shall speak
to them as Judge. For, in fine, fathers, what account
will you be able to give of all these calumnies, when
he will examine them, not on the fancies of your
fathers, Dicastillus, Gans and Pennalossa, who excuse
them, but on the rules of eternal truth, and the holy
ordinance of his Church, which, far from excusing this
crime, so abhors it that she has punished it as severely
as wilful murder ? For calumniators, as well as mur
derers, were debarred from the holy communion until
death by the first and second Councils of Aries. The
Council of Lateran adjudged those convicted of it to
be unfit for the priesthood, though they had reformed.
The popes have even threatened the calumniators of
bishops, priests or deacons, with exclusion from the
communion till death. And the authors of a libellous
writing, who cannot prove what they have advanced,
are condemned by Pope Adrian to be whipped;
reverend f&thers, flagellentur ! So far has the Church
been from countenancing the errors of your Society, a
Society so corrupt as to excuse the heinous sin of
slander, that it may itself be able to commit it with
more freedom.

Certainly, fathers, you might thus be capable of
doing a world of mischief had not God permitted that
you should yourselves furnish the antidote, and render
all your impostures unavailing. For it is only neces
sary to publish the strange maxim which exempts
them from sin in order to deprive you of all credit.
Calumny is unavailing, if it is not combined with a

340 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

great reputation for candour. An evil speaker cannot
succeed if he is not thought to abhor evil speaking as
a crime of which he is incapable. And thus, fathers,
your own principle betrays you ; you have established
it to secure your conscience ; for your wish was to
slander without being damned, and to belong to those
pious and holy calumniators of whom St. Athanasius
speaks. You have, accordingly, to save yourselves
from hell, adopted a maxim which saves you from it
on the faith of your doctors, but a maxim, which,
guaranteeing you from the evils which you dread in
the other life, deprives you of the advantage which
you hoped to gain by it in the present life ; so that,
while thinking to avoid the punishment of evil speak
ing you have lost the benefit of it; so self -contradictory
is evil, and so much does it embarrass and destroy
itself by its innate malice.

You would calumniate more successfully by pro
fessing to hold with St. Paul, that evil speakers,
maledici, are unworthy to see God. In that case,
your slanders would, at least, be more readily believed,
although you would thereby pronounce your own con
demnation. But in saying, as you do, that calumny
against your enemies is not a sin, you cause your
calumnies to be disbelieved, and you damn yourselves,
notwithstanding. For it is certain, fathers, that your
grave authors cannot annihilate the justice of God,
and that you cannot give a surer proof of not being in
the truth than by having recourse to falsehood. If
the truth was for you, it would combat for you, it

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 341

would vanquish for you ; and whatever enemies you
might have, the truth would, according to the promise,
make you free. You have recourse to falsehood
merely to maintain the errors with which you flatter
the sinners of the world, and to prop up the calumnies
with which you oppress the pious who oppose them.
Truth being contrary to your ends, you have found it
necessary to put your confidence in lies, as a prophet
expresses it. You have said : " The evils which afflict
men will not befall us, for we have hoped in falsehood,
and falsehood will protect us." But what says the
prophet ? " Inasmuch as you have put your trust in
calumny and tumult, sperastis in calumnia et in
tumultu, your iniquity will be imputed to you, and
your overthrow will be like that of a lofty wall which
tumbles down unexpectedly, and like an earthen vessel
which is broken and dashed in pieces by a blow so
mighty and so complete, that not a fragment shall
remain fit for carrying a little water, or carrying a
little fire;" "because," as says another prophet, "you
have afflicted the heart of the just, whom I have not
afflicted, and you have flattered and confirmed the
malice of the wicked. I will therefore withdraw my
people from your hands, and will cause it to be known
that I am their Lord and yours."

Yes, fathers, it is to be hoped that if you do not
change your spirit, God will deprive you of the charge
of those whom you have so long deceived, by either
leaving these disorders uncorrected through your mis
conduct, or by poisoning them with your slanders. He

342 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

will give some of them to understand that the false
rules of your casuists cannot shelter them from his
anger, and he will inspire others with a just dread of
destroying themselves by listening to you and giving
credit to your impostures, as you will destroy your
selves by inventing and circulating them. For be not
deceived, God is not mocked ; no man can with
impunity violate the command which he has given in
the Gospel, not to condemn our neighbour without being
well assured of his guilt. And thus, whatever pro
fession of piety may be made by those who lend a
willing ear to your falsehoods, and under whatever
pretext of devotion they may do so, they have reason to
apprehend that they will be excluded from the king
dom of God for this single sin, for having imputed such
heinous crimes as heresy and schism to Catholic priests
and holy nuns, without other proof than your gross
impostures. " The devil," says the bishop of Geneva,
"is on the tongue of the evil speaker, and in the ear of
him who listens to him." And, " evil speaking," says
St. Bernard, " is poison which extinguishes charity in
both. So that a single calumny may be mortal to an
infinite number of souls, not only killing those who
publish, but also those who do not reject it."

Reverend fathers, my letters were not wont to follow
so close, or to be so much extended. The little time I
have had is the cause of both. I have made this one
longer, only because I have not had leisure to make it
shorter. The reason which obliges me to hasten is

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 343

better known to yourselves than to me. Your answers
were succeeding badly; you have done right to change
your plan, but I know not if you have taken the right
one, and if people will not say that you were afraid of
the Benedictines.

I have just learned that he who is universally regard
ed as the author of your Apologies, disavows them, and
is sorry they should be attributed to him. He is right ;
and I was wrong in suspecting him ; for however
strongly assured of the fact, I should have considered
that he has too much judgment to believe your impos
tures, and too much honour to publish them without
believing them. Few persons in the world are capable
of the excesses which are proper to you, and which too
well mark your character, so that I cannot be excused
for not having recognized you. Common report misled
me. But this excuse, which would be too good for you,
is not sufficient for me, who profess not to say anything
without certain proof, and have not, with this excep
tion. I repent it, I retract it, and I wish that you may
profit by my example.

LETTER SEVENTEENTH.

TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT.

PROOF ON REMOVING AN AMBIGUITY IN THE MEANING OF JAN-
SENIUS, THAT THERE IS NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH: BY
THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL THEOLOGIANS, AND ES
PECIALLY OF THE JESUITS, THE AUTHORITY OF POPES AND
(ECUMENICAL COUNCILS NOT INFALLIBLE IN QUESTIONS OF
FACT.

REVEREND FATHER, — Your procedure made me sup
pose you desirous that we should remain at rest on
both sides; and I was disposed to do so: but you have
since, within a short time, produced so many writings
as makes it very apparent that peace is far from being
secure, when it depends on the silence of the Jesuits.
I know not if the rupture will be much to your ad
vantage ; but for my part, I am not sorry at the op
portunity it gives me of refuting that ordinary charge
of heresy with which you fill all your books.

It is time to put a stop, once for all, to your effron
tery, in treating me as a heretic ; an effrontery which
increases every day. You do it in the book which
you have just published, in a way which cannot be
tolerated, arid which would bring me under suspicion

CALUMNIES OF THE JESUITS. 345

were I not to answer a charge of this nature as it
deserves. I despised this insulting charge in the writ
ings of your colleagues, as well as an infinite number
of other charges, in which they deal on all occasions.
To them my Fifteenth Letter was a sufficient reply ;
but you now speak in another style. You seriously
make it the leading point of your defence ; it is almost
the only one which you employ. For you say, that
" as a complete reply to my fifteen Letters, it is suffi
cient to say fifteen times that I am a heretic ; and that
being declared such, I am unworthy of belief." In fine,
you put my apostacy as no longer a question ; you pre
suppose it is a sure principle on which you build
boldly. You are thus, father, quite serious in treating
me as a heretic ; quite seriously, also, am I going to
reply.

You know well, father, from the serious nature of
this accusation, that it is intolerable presumption to
advance it if you have not the means of proving it.
I ask you, then, what proofs you have ? When was I
seen at Charenton ? When did I fail at mass, or in
the duties which Christians owe to their parish ?
When did I do an act in union with heretics, or in
schism from the Church ? What Council have I con
tradicted ? What papal constitution have I violated ?
You must answer, father, or ... You perfectly
understand me. And what is your answer ? I pray
all the world to attend to it. You assume, first, that
"he who writes the Letters is of Port Royal." Next,
you say " that Port Royal is declared heretical ; " and

346 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

thence you infer that " he who writes the Letters is
declared heretical." It is not on me, then, father, that
the chief weight of your accusation falls, but on Port
Royal, and you charge me only because you suppose
I belong to it. I shall thus have no great difficulty in
defending myself ; since I have only to say that I do
not belong to it ; and to refer you to my Letters, in
which I have said "I am single;" and in express
terms " that I am not of Port Royal," as I said in the
Sixteenth Letter, which is earlier in date than your
book.

Prove, then, in some other way, that I am heretical,
or it will be universally understood that you cannot.
Prove by my writings that I do not receive the Con
stitution. They are not very numerous ; you have
only sixteen Letters to examine, and in these I defy
you, you and the whole world, to produce the least
evidence of this. But I will show you plainly the
contrary. For example, when I said, Letter Four
teenth, that " by killing our brethren in mortal sin,
agreeably to your maxims, we damn those for whom
Jesus Christ has died," have I not distinctly admitted
that Jesus Christ died for those so damned, and con
sequently, that it is not true " he died only for the
elect ; " the point condemned in the fifteenth proposi
tion ? It is certain, then, father, that I have said
nothing in support of those impious propositions,
which I detest with all my heart. Even should the
Port Royal hold them, I declare to you, that you can
not from this infer anything against me, because,

LETTER TO FATHER ANNAT. 347

thank God, I have no tie upon earth but the Catholic
Apostolic Roman Church, in which I mean to live and
die ; and in communion with the Pope, its sovereign
head, out of which Church I am persuaded there is no
salvation.

What will you make of a person who speaks in this
manner, and on what side will you attack me, since
neither my language nor my writings give any pretext
for your charges of heresy ; and I am secured against
your menaces by the obscurity in which I live ? You
feel struck by an invisible hand, which makes your
corruption visible to the whole earth ; and you try, in
vain, to attack me in the person of those with whom
you think me united. I am not afraid of you, either
for myself or any other, not being attached to any
community, or to any individual whatever. All the
influence you may have, is useless as regards me. I
hope nothing from the world ; I apprehend nothing ;
I wish nothing : by the grace of God, I have no need
either of the property or the patronage of any one.
Thus, father, I escape all your machinations. You
cannot reach me in any direction which you may try.
You may reach Port Royal, but not me. People have
indeed been dislodged from Sorbonne ; but that does
not dislodge me from my home. You may prepare
violent measures against priests and doctors ; but none
against me, who am in none of these capacities. And
thus, perhaps, you never had to do with any one who
was so completely beyond your reach, and so proper to
combat your errors ; being free, without engagement,

348 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

without attachment, without tie, without relation,
without business ; while I am sufficiently acquainted
with your maxims, and firmly resolved to assail them,
so far as I think God approves ; no earthly considera
tion being capable either to arrest or retard my pursuit.

Of what use, then, is it, father, seeing you can do
nothing against me, to publish so many calumnies
against persons who are not meddling with our quarrel,
as all your fathers do ? You shall not escape by these
evasions. You shall feel the force of the truth which
I oppose to you. I tell you that you annihilate Chris
tian morality, by separating it from the love of God,
from which you give a dispensation ; and you speak to
me of the death of Father Mester, whom I never saw
in my life. I tell you that your authors give permission
to kill for an apple, if it is disgraceful to lose it ; and
you tell me that " a trunk has been opened at St. Merri!"
What, again, do you mean by daily taking me to task
on the book of ' Holy Virginity,' composed by a father
of the Oratory whom I never saw any more than his
book ? I wonder, father, at your thus considering all
who are opposed to you, as a single individual. Your
hatred embraces them all at once ; and packs them, as
it were, into one body of reprobates, each of whom,
you insist, shall answer for all the rest.

There is a wide difference between the Jesuits and
those who combat them. You truly compose one body,
united under a single head ; and your rules, as I have
shown, forbid anything of yours to be printed without
the sanction of your superiors, who thus become

HERESY. 349

responsible for the errors of all individuals, and cannot
excuse themselves by saying they have not observed the
errors taught, because they ought to observe them, as is
said in your regulations, and the letters of your generals
Aquaviva, Vitelleschi, etc. Rightly, then, are you
charged with the errors of your brethren, when these
exist in works approved by your superiors, and by
the theologians of your Company. But, with regard
to me, father, the process must be different. I have
not subscribed the treatise of ' Holy Virginity.' All
the trunks in Paris might be opened without making
me less orthodox. In short, I declare, to you publicly
and distinctly, that nobody is responsible for my Letters
but myself ; and that I am responsible for nothing but
my Letters.

Here, father, I might rest without speaking of the
other persons whom you treat as heretics, in order to
include me in the charge. But as I am the occasion, I
feel in a manner obliged to use it, in order to draw
three advantages from it. One, of some importance, is
to display the innocence of the many persons calumni
ated. Another, very suitable to my subject, is to give
constant proof of the artifices of your policy in this
accusation. But the third, on which I set the highest
value, is that I will thereby acquaint all the world
with the falsehood of the scandalous report which you
are disseminating in all quarters, that " the Church is
divided by a new heresy." And as you impose upon a
vast number of persons, by making them believe that
the points about which you try to raise so great a

350 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

storm are essential to faith, I deem it of the utmost
importance to destroy those false impressions, and to
explain precisely wherein they consist ; so as to show
that, in point of fact, there are no heretics in the
Church.

For is it not true that were the question asked,
Wherein consists the heresy of those whom you call
Jansenists ? you would forthwith answer, that it con
sists in their saying, "that the commandments of God
are impossible ; that grace cannot be resisted, and that
we are not free to do good and evil ; that Jesus Christ
died not for all men, but only for the predestinate ;
and in fine, in their maintaining the five propositions
condemned by the pope." Do you not give out that
it is for this cause you persecute your opponents ? Is
not this what you say in your books, in your dis
courses, in your catechisms, as you did last Christmas
at St. Louis, asking one of your little shepherdesses,
" For whom did Jesus Christ come, my girl ?" " For
all men, father." " Wha,t, my girl, then you are not
one of those new heretics, who say that he came only
for the predestinate ?" The children believe you on
this, and many others besides, for you entertain them
with the same fables in your sermons as did your
Father Crasset at Orleans, when he was interdicted.
And I confess that at one time I also believed you
myself ; you had given me the same idea of all those
persons ; so that when you were pressing them on
those propositions, I carefully attended to what their
answer might be, and was very much disposed never

IMAGINARY HEEESY. 351

to see them again, had they not declared that they
renounced them as visibly impious. But this they did
very distinctly. For M. de Sainte Beuve, king's pro
fessor at Sorbonne, censured these five propositions in
his published writings long before the pope, and those
doctors printed several works, among others, that of
Victorious Grace, which they produced at the same
time, in which they reject those propositions as both
heretical and novel. For they say in the preface,
"that they are heretical and Lutheran propositions,
fabricated and forged at pleasure, and not found either
in Jansenius or his defenders." These are their terms.
They complain of being charged with holding them,
and on this account apply to you the words of St.
Prosperus, the first disciple of St. Augustine their
master, to whom the Semi-Pelagians of France im
puted similar sentiments, to throw obliquy upon him :
" There are persons," says the saint, " who have such a
blind passion for decrying us, that they have taken to
a course which ruins their own reputation. For they
have purposely fabricated certain impious and blas
phemous propositions, which they circulate in all
quarters, to make it believed that we hold them in the
sense expressed in their writings ; but from this reply
will be seen both our innocence and the malice of
those who impute to us impieties of which they are
the sole inventors."

Indeed, father, when I heard them speak in this
way before the Constitution, when I afterwards saw
that they received it with all possible respect, that

352 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

they offered to subscribe it, and that all this had been
declared by M. Arnauld in his second Letter more
strongly than I am able to express, I should have
thought it a sin to doubt their faith ; and, in fact, those
who had been inclined to refuse absolution to their
adherents before M. Arnauld's Letter, have since
declared, that after he had so distinctly condemned the
errors imputed to him, there was no ground for cutting
off either him or his friends from the Church. But
you have not acted so. It was on this I began to sus
pect that you were actuated by passion.

You had threatened that you would compel them to
sign the Constitution, when you thought they would
refuse ; but when you saw them inclined of their own
accord, you spoke no more of it. But although it
seems that after this you ought to have been satisfied
with their conduct, you still continued to treat them
as heretics, " because," as you expressed it, " their heart
belied their hand, and they were outwardly orthodox^
but inwardly heretical, as you yourself have said in
your reply to certain demands, pp. 27, 47.

How strange this procedure appeared to me, father !
For of whom may not as much be said ? And what dis
turbance might not be produced by this pretext ? "If
we refuse," says St. Gregory, " to believe the Confes
sion of Faith, by those who make it agreeably to the
sentiments of the Church, we bring the faith of all the
orthodox into doubt." I feared then, father, that
your purpose was to make those persons heretical with
out being so, as the same pope says on a similar dis-

THE FIVE PROPOSITIONS. 353

pute in his day : " Because," says he, " it is not oppos
ing heresies, but making a heresy, to refuse to believe
those who testify by their confession that they are
in the true faith : hoc non est haeresim purgare, sed
facere!' But, indeed, I knew that there was truly no
heretic in the Church, when I saw them so completely
exculpated from all those heresies, that, instead of con
tinuing to accuse them of any error in faith, you were
reduced to the necessity of confining your charge to
questions of fact concerning Jansenius, which could
not be matter of heresy; for you insisted on compelling
them to admit, that " these propositions are in Jan
senius, word for word, all of them, and in exact terms,"
as you yourselves expressed it, Singulares, individuce,
totidem verbis apud Jansenium contentce, in your
Cavilli,' p. 39.

From that time your dispute began to be a matter
of indifference to me. When I thought you were dis
puting as to the truth or falsehood of the propositions,
I listened to you with attention, for faith was con
cerned; but when I saw that the whole subject of
your dispute was, whether or not they were " word
for word " in Jansenius, as religion was no longer
interested, neither did I feel interested. Not that
there was not a very strong probability of the truth of
your assertion ; for when you said that expressions
were in an author, " word for word," the very nature
of the thing seemed to leave no room for mistake.
Accordingly, I am not astonished at the many persons,
both in France and at Rome, who believed in a state-
23

354 PKO VINCI AL LETTERS.

ment so unsuspicious, that Jansenius had, in fact,
taught these propositions. I was, of course, not a
little surprised to learn that this point of fact, which
you had set forth as so certain and important, was
false ; and that, though defied to quote the pages of
Jansenius, in which you had found these propositions
" word for word," you have never been able to do it.

I give this full statement, because it seems to me
that it fully discloses the spirit of your Society in all
this business ; and people will be surprised to see that,
notwithstanding all I have just said, you have not
ceased to publish that they are heretics, but have only
changed their heresy to suit the times. For the
moment they cleared themselves of one heresy, your
fathers supplied its place by another, in order that
they might never be without one. Thus, at one time,
their heresy was on the merits of the propositions ;
afterwards, it was the " word for word." Since then,
you placed k in their heart. But, in the present day,
nothing of all this is spoken of ; you only insist that
they must be heretics if they do not, by subscription,
declare that "the meaning of the doctrine of Jansenius
is contained in that of those five propositions."

Such is the subject of your present dispute. It is
not enough for you that they condemn the five pro
positions, and, moreover, everything in Jansenius
which might be conformable to it, and contrary to St.
Augustine. For they all do this. So that there is no
question, for example, " whether Jesus Christ died
only for the predestinate (they condemn this as well

THE FIVE PKOPOSITIONS. 355

as you), but whether or not Jansenius thought so.
And on this I declare to you more strongly than before,
that your dispute concerns me little, as it little con
cerns the Church. For though I am not a doctor any
more than yourself, father, I nevertheless see that
there is here no point of faith, the only question being
the meaning of Jansenius. If they believed his doc
trine conformable to the proper and literal sense of
these propositions, they would condemn it ; and they
refuse to do so, only because they believe it to be very
different. Hence, though they should understand it
wrong, this would not make them heretical ; since
they only understand it in an orthodox sense.

To illustrate this by an example, I will take the
difference of sentiment between St. Basil and St.
Athanasius, concerning the writings of St. Dionysius,
of Alexandria, in which St. Basil, thinking that he had
detected the views of Arius against the quality of the
Father and Son, condemned them as heretical ; while
St. Athanasius, on the contrary, thinking he found the
true sense of the Church, maintained them as orthodox.
Think you, father, that St. Basil, who held these
writings to be Arian, would have been entitled to treat
Athanasius as a heretic because he defended them ?
What ground would there have been, since it was not
Arianism that he defended, but the true doctrine
which he thought they contained ? Had these two
saints agreed as to the true meaning of these writings
or had they both recognized this heresy, then, doubt
less, St. Athanasius could not have approved them

356 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

without heresy ; but as they differed as to the meaning,
St. Athanasius was orthodox in maintaining them, even
though he should have understood them ill ; since it
would only have been an error of fact, and the only
part of the doctrine defended by him was the orthodox
faith which he supposed them to contain.

I say the same to you, father: if you were consider
ing the meaning of Jansenius, and your opponents
were agreed with you, that he held, for example, that
grace is irresistible, those refusing to condemn him
would be heretical ; but when you are disputing as to
his meaning, and they believe his doctrine to be, that
grace may be resisted, you have no ground for treating
them as heretics, whatever heresy you may attribute
to him; since they condemn the meaning which you
suppose in him, and you dare not condemn the mean
ing which they suppose. If you would convict them,
show that the meaning which they attribute to Jan
senius is heretical ; for in that case they, too, will be
heretical. But how could you do so, since it is evident,
on your own confession, that the meaning they assign
to him is not condemned.

To show you this clearly, I will assume the principle
which you yourselves admit, namely, "that the doc
trine of effectual grace has not been condemned ; and
that the pope has not touched it by his Constitution."
And, in fact, when he was pleased to give sentence on
the five propositions, the point of effectual grace was
reserved from all censure. This is perfectly apparent,
from the opinion of the counsellors to whom the pope

THE FIVE PROPOSITIONS. 357

remitted the examination of them. I have these
opinions in my possession, as well as several other
persons in Paris ; among them, the bishop of Mont-
pellier, who brought them from Rome. It appears
they were divided in opinion ; the Master of the
Sacred Palace, the Commissary of the Holy Office, the
General of Augustinians, and others, holding that
these propositions might be understood in the sense of
effectual grace, were of opinion that they ought not to
be censured ; whereas, the others, while agreeing that
they ought not to be condemned if that had been their
meaning, thought they ought to be censured, because,
as they declared, the natural and proper meaning was
very different. It was for this the pope condemned
them, and all submitted to his decision.

It is certain, then, father, that effectual grace has
not been condemned. Indeed, it is so powerfully
maintained by St. Augustine, by St. Thomas and his
whole school, by so many popes and Councils, and by
all tradition, that it would be impiety to tax it with
heresy. Now, all those whom you treat as heretics,
declare that they find nothing else tin Jensenius than
this doctrine of grace, Accordingly, this was all they
maintained at Rome. You yourself have admitted
this, Cavilli p. 35, when you declare that, " in plead
ing before the pope, they did not say a word on the
propositions, ne verbum quidem, and that they em
ployed the whole time in speaking of effectual grace."
Hence, whether they are mistaken in this supposition
or not, it is at least beyond a doubt, that the meaning

358 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

which they suppose is not heretical ; and, consequently,
that they are not heretical. For, to say the thing in
two words, either Jansenius merely taught effectual
grace, and in that case he is free from error ; or he
taught something different, and in that case he has no
defenders. The whole question, then, is whether Jan
senius, in fact, taught anything else than effectual
grace. And if this question is decided in the affirma
tive, you will have the honour of having understood
him best ; but they will not have the unhappiness of
having erred in the faith.

Let us, therefore, father, thank God that there is
indeed no heresy in the Church, since the whole subject
under discussion is matter of fact, which cannot form
a heresy ; for the Church decides points of faith with
divine authority, and cuts oft from her body all who
refuse to receive them ; but she does not act so in regard
to matters of fact. The reason is, that our salvation
is annexed to the faith that has been revealed to us,
and is preserved in the Church by tradition, but de
pends not on other particular facts which God has not
revealed. Thus, we are obliged to believe that the
commandments of God are not impossible ; but we are
not obliged to know what Jansenius has taught on
this subject. This is the reason why God guides his
Church in the determination of points of faith, by the
assistance of his Spirit, which cannot err ; whereas, in
matters of fact, he leaves her to act by sense and reason,
the natural judges of fact. For God only could instruct
the Church in faith ; whereas, one has only to read

THE CH0KCH FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 359

Jansenius to know whether certain propositions are in
his book. Hence it is heresy to resist decisions in
faith, because it is to oppose our own spirit to the
Spirit of God. But it is not heresy, although it may
be presumption, not to believe certain particular facts;
because this is only to oppose reason, which may be
clear, to an authority which, though great, is not in
fallible.

This all theologians acknowledge, as appears by the
following maxim of Cardinal Bellarmine, of your
Society : " General and lawful Councils cannot err in
defining dogmas of faith ; but they may err in ques
tions of fact." And elsewhere : " The pope, as pope, and
even at the head of a general Council, may err in par
ticular controversies of fact, which depend principally
on the information and testimony of men." And
Cardinal Baronius, likewise : " It is necessary to sub
mit implicitly to the decisions of Councils in points of
faith ; but, in regard to what concerns individuals and
their writings, the censures which have been made are
not found to have been regarded so strictly, because
there is nobody who may not happen to be deceived.'
For this reason, also, the archbishop of Toulouse has
drawn this rule from the letters of the two great popes,
St. Leon and Pelagius II. : " That the proper object of
Councils is faith ; and that any point decided there
which is not of faith, may be reviewed and examined
anew ; whereas, what has been decided in matter of
faith must no longer be examined ; because, as Ter-
tullian says, the rule of faith is alone immovable,
irretractable."

260 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

Hence, while lawful general Councils have never been
opposed to each other in points of faith, " because," as
the archbishop of Toulouse says, " it is not even per
mitted to examine anew what has already been decided
in matter of faith," the Councils have sometimes been
seen opposed on points of fact, when the meaning of
an author was in question, " because," as he says again,
after the popes whom he quotes, " everything decided
in Councils, except faith, may be reviewed and ex
amined anew." Thus the fourth and fifth Councils
appear contrary to each other in the interpretation of
the same authors ; and the same thing happened
between two popes in regard to a proposition of certain
monks of Scythia. For, after Pope Hormesdas had
condemned it, understanding it in a bad sense, Pope
John II., his successor, examining it anew, and under
standing it in good sense, approved it, and declared it
orthodox. Would you say from this that one of these
popes was heretical ? And must it not, then, be admitted,
that provided we condemn the heretical sense which a
pope may have supposed in a writing, we are not
heretical for not condemning this writing, while taking
it in a sense which it is certain the pope has not con
demned, since otherwise one of the two popes would
have fallen into error.

I wished, father, to accustom you to these contra
rieties, which happen among the orthodox, on questions
of fact regarding the meaning of an author, by showing
you one father of the Church against another, and a
pope against a pope, and a Council against a Council, to

THE CHU&CH FALLIBLE IN FACTS.

lead you on to other instances of a like opposition, but
more disproportioned. For in these you will see coun
cils and popes on the one side, and Jesuits on the other,
opposing their decisions touching the sense of an
author, without your accusing your brethren, I say not
of heresy, but not even of presumption.

You know well, father, that the writings of Origen
were condemned by different Councils and different
popes, and even by the fifth general Council, as contain
ing heresies, among others that " of the reconciliation
of devils at the day of judgment." Think you from
this, that it is absolutely necessary, in order to be
orthodox, to confess that Origen in fact held these
errors, and that it is not sufficient to condemn them
without attributing them to him ? Were it so, what
would become of your Father Halloix, who maintained
the purity of Origen's faith, as well as of several other
Catholics, who undertook the same thing, as Pico de
la Miranda, and Genebrard, doctor of Sorbonne ? Is
it not also certain, that the same fifth general Council
condemned the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril,
" as impious, contrary to the true faith, and containing
the Nestorian heresy;" and yet Father Sirmond,
Jesuit, has not hesitated to defend him, and to say in
his life of this father, " that these very writings are
free of the Nestorian heresy."

You see, then, father, that when the Church con
demns writings, it supposes an error which it con
demns. It thus becomes a point of faith that this
error is condemned ; but it is not a point of faith that

362 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

these writings do in fact contain the error which the
Church supposes. I hold this to be sufficiently proved ;
and therefore I will finish these illustrations with that
of Pope Honorius, whose history is well known. We
know, that at the beginning of the seventh century,
the Church being troubled by the heresy of the Mono-
thelites, this pope, to terminate the dispute, made a
decree which seemed to favour these heretics, so that
several were scandalized at it. The thing, however,
passed over with little noise, under his pontificate ;
but fifty years after, the Church being assembled in
the sixth general Council, in which Pope Agatho pre
sided by his legates, this decree was submitted to it ;
and after being read and examined, was condemned,
as containing the heresy of the Monothelites, and
burned in this character in presence of the whole
Council, with the other writings of those heretics.
And this decision was received by the whole Church
with such respect and unanimity, that it was after
wards confirmed by two other general Councils, and
even by Popes Leo II. and Adrian II., who lived two
centuries after, nobody having disturbed this universal
and peaceful consent during seven or eight centuries.
Notwithstanding some authors in those later times,
among others Cardinal Bellarmine, did not think they
made themselves heretical by maintaining against all
these popes and Councils, that the writings of Honorius
are free from the error which they declared to be
in them, " because," says he, " general Councils being
capable of error in matters of fact, we may say in all

THE POPE DECEIVED BY THE JESUITS. 363

confidence that the sixth Council was mistaken in that
fact, and, not having rightly understood the meaning
of the letters of Honorius, did wrong in classing this
pope with heretics."

Observe, then, carefully, father, that it is not hereti
cal to say that Pope Honorius was not so, although
several popes and Councils declared it even after
examination. Now I come to our question ; and I
allow you to make your case as strong as you can.
What will you say, father, in order to make your
opponents heretical ? " That Pope Innocent X. has
declared that the error of the five propositions is in
Jansenius ? " I allow you to do all this. What is
your inference ? " That it is heresy not to acknow
ledge that the error of the five propositions is in
Jansenius ? " How seems it, father ? Is not this a
question of fact of the same nature as those above ?
The pope has declared that the error of the five
propositions is in Jansenius just as his predecessors
had declared that the error of the Nestorians and
Monoth elites was in the writings of Theodoret and
Honorius. On this your fathers have written that
they indeed condemn those heresies, but they are not
agreed that those authors hold them ; just as your
opponents in the present day say that they condemn
the five propositions, but are not agreed that Jansenius
taught them. In truth, father, the cases are very
similar ; and if there is any difference, it is easy to see
how much it is in favour of the present question, from
a comparison of several special circumstances which

364 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

are self-evident, and which I do not stay to mention.
How comes it then, father, that in the same situation
your fathers are orthodox, and your opponents hereti
cal ? And by what strange exception do you deprive
them of a liberty which you give to all the rest of the
faithful ?

What will you say to this, father ? That the pope
has confirmed his Constitution by a brief ? I will
answer, that two general Councils and two popes have
confirmed the condemnation of the letters of Honorius.
But what do you mean to found upon the words of
this brief, by which the pope declares " that he con
demns the doctrine of Jansenius in the five proposi
tions ? " What does this add to the Constitution ? and
what follows from it ? Just that as the sixth Council
condemned the doctrine of Honorius, believing it to
be the same as that of the Monothelites, in the same
way the pope has said that he condemns the doctrine
of Jansenius in the five propositions, because he sup
posed it was the same as the five propositions. And
how could he but believe it ? Your Society publishes
nothing else ; and you, yourself, father, who have said
that they are in it " word for word," were at Rome at
the time of the censure ; for I meet you at every turn.
Could he distrust the sincerity or competency of so
many grave monks ? And how could he but believe
that the doctrine of Jansenius was the same as that of
the five propositions, assured as he was by you that
they were " word for word " in that author ? It is
obvious, then, father, that if it turns out that Jan-

THE POPE DECEIVED BY THE JESUITS. 365

senius did not hold them, it will be necessary to say,
not as your fathers did in their cases, that the pope
was deceived in the point of fact, which it is always
grievous to publish, but that you deceived the pope ;
a circumstance which does not occasion much scandal,
now that you are so well known.

Thus, fathers, this whole matter is very far from
being fit to form a heresy ; but as you wish to make
one, cost what it may, you have tried to turn aside
the question of fact, and convert it into a point of
faith, and the way in which you do it is this : " The
pope," you say, " declares that he has condemned the
doctrine of Jansenius in those five propositions, there
fore it is of faith that the doctrine of Jansenius re
garding these five propositions is heretical, be it what
it may." Here, father, is a very curious point of faith,
namely, that a doctrine is heretical, be it what it may.
What ! if according to Jansenius " we can resist inter
nal grace," and if, according to him it is false to say
that Jesus Christ u died only for the predestinate," will
this also be condemned because it is his doctrine ?
Will it be true in the Constitution of the pope, " that
we are free to do good and evil," and will it be false
in Jansenius ? And by what fatuity will he be so
unfortunate, that truth becomes, in his book, heresy ?
Must it not then be confessed that he is heretical only
provided he is conformable to these condemned errors,
since the Constitution of the pope is the rule to which
we must apply Jansenius, to judge what he is accord
ing to the relation in which he stands to it ? Thus the

366 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

question, whether or not "his doctrine is heretical,
must be solved by the question of fact " whether or
not it is conformable to the natural sense of these pro
positions ; it being impossible not to be heretical, if it
is conformable to them, and not to be orthodox if it is
contrary to them. For in fine, seeing that according
to the pope and the bishops, " the propositions are con
demned in their proper and natural sense," it is im
possible they can be condemned in the sense of Jan-
senius, unless it be true that the sense of Jansenius is
the proper and natural sense of these propositions ;
which is a point of fact.

The question then always turns on this point of
fact, out of which it is impossible to take it, so as to
convert it into a point of doctrine. It cannot, there
fore, be made matter of heresy, though you might
indeed make it a pretext for persecution, were there
not ground to hope that none will be found to enter
so keenly into your interests, as to adopt such unjust
procedure, and insist, at your suggestion, on a compul
sory subscription, " condemning the propositions in
the sense of Jansenius," without explaining what the
sense of Jansenius is. Few people are disposed to
sign a confession of faith in blank. But this were to
sign one in blank which might afterwards be filled up
in whatever way you please, since you would be free
to give any interpretation you chose to this sense of
Jansenius, which had not been explained. Let us have
the explanation first, otherwise you will give us an
other case of proximate power j abstrahenda ab omni

JESUIT POLICY AND EFFECTUAL GRACE. 367

sensu. You know that that does not succeed in the
world. There ambiguity is hated, especially in matters
of faith, as to which it is but justvat least, to under
stand what it is that is condemned. And how could
doctors, who are persuaded that Jansenius has no
other meaning than that of effectual grace, consent to
declare that they condemn his doctrine without ex
plaining it ; since with the belief which they have,
and in which they are not corrected, this were nothing
else than to condemn effectual grace, which cannot be
condemned without criminality ? Would it not, then,
be strange tyranny to place them under the unhappy
necessity of either incurring guilt before God, by sign
ing this condemnation against their conscience, or of
being treated as heretics for refusing to do so ?

But all this is managed with mystery. All your
steps are politic. I must explain why you do not ex
plain the sense of Jansenius. I write only to disclose
your designs, and by disclosing, frustrate them. I
must, then, inform those who know it not, that your
principal object in this dispute being to exalt the
sufficient grace of your Molina, you cannot do this with
out overthrowing effectual grace, which is directly
opposed to it. But as you see this now sanctioned at
Rome, and among all the learned of the Church, not
being able to combat it in itself, you have fallen on the
device of attacking it in disguise, under the name of
the doctrine of Jansenius, without explaining it ; and
in order to succeed, you have given out that this doc
trine is not that of effectual grace, with the view of

368 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

making it believed that the one may be condemned
without the other. Hence your effort in the present
day .to produce this persuasion in those who have no
acquaintance with the author. This you yourself
attempt, father, in your Cavilli, p. 23, by the following
subtle argument : " The pope has condemned the doc-
. trine of Jansenius. Now the pope has not condemned
the doctrine of effectual grace ; therefore the doctrine
of effectual grace is different from that of Janse-
iiius." Were this proof conclusive, we might in the
same way show that Honorius and all his supporters
are heretics. Thus the sixth Council condemned the
doctrine of Honorius ; now the Council did not con
demn the doctrine of the Church ; therefore, the doc
trine of Honorius is different from that of the Church ;
therefore, all who defend him are heretics. It is plain
that your argument is good for nothing ; since the
pope has only condemned the doctrine of the five pro
positions, which he was given to understand was that
of Jansenius.

But no matter ; for you have no wish to use this
reasoning for any length of time. Feeble as it is, it
will last long enough to serve your purpose. The only
necessity for it is to induce those who are unwilling to
condemn effectual grace to condemn Jansenius without
scruple. This done, your argument will soon be for
gotten, and the signatures remaining as perpetual
evidence of the condemnation of Jansenius, you will
take the opportunity to make a direct attack upon
effectual grace by another argument far more solid

JESUIT POLICY AND EFFECTUAL GRACE. 369

than the other, which you will put into shape in due
time, thus : " The doctrine of Jansenius has been con
demned by the universal signatures of the whole
Church. But this doctrine is manifestly that of effec
tual grace," (you will prove this very easily,) "therefore
the doctrine of effectual grace is condemned even by
the confession of its defenders."

This is the reason why you propose to get this con
demnation of a doctrine signed without explaining it.
This is the advantage which you mean to derive from
these subscriptions. But if your opponents resist, you
lay another trap for their refusal. Having dexterously
joined the question of doctrine to that faith, without
allowing them to separate them, or to sign the one
without the other, as they will not be able to subscribe
both together, you will go and publish everywhere
that they have refused both. And thus, though they
in fact only refuse to acknowledge that Jansenius held
these propositions which.they condemn, a refusal which
cannot form a heresy, you will say boldly that they
have refused to condemn the proposition in themselves,
and that therein lies their heresy.

Such is the benefit which you would gain by their
refusal, and which would not be less useful to you than
that which you would gain from their consent. So that
if the signatures are insisted on, they will fall equally
into your snare, whether they sign or do not sign, and
you will have your account one way or other ; such
has been your dexterity in putting things into a state

24

370 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

which will always be advantageous to you, whatever
direction they may take.

How well I know you, father ! and how grieved I am
to see that God abandons you so far, as to give you
complete success in your unhappy course ! Your suc
cess is deserving of pity, and can only be envied by
those who know not wherein true success consists. It
is an act of charity to thwart you in the object at which
you aim by all this conduct ; since you found it upon a
lie, and labour to give currency to one of two falsehoods;
either that the Church has condemned effectual grace,
or that its defenders hold the five errors which have
been condemned.

It is necessary, therefore, to let all the world know
both that by your own confession effectual grace is not
condemned, and that no one maintains those errors ;
thus making them aware that those who would refuse
the subscription which you would exact from them,
refuse it only because of the question of fact ; while
being ready to sign that of faith, they cannot be here
tical in their refusal ; since, though it is indeed a point
of faith to admit that the propositions are heretical, it
will never be a point of faith to admit that they were
held by Jansenius. They are free from error ; and that
is enough. Perhaps they interpret Jansenius too fav
ourably ; but perhaps you do not interpret him favour
ably enough. I do not enter into this. I know at
least, that according to your maxims, you think you
can without sin proclaim him a heretic against your
own knowledge ; whereas, according to theirs, they

JESUIT POLICY AND EFFECTUAL GRACE. 371

could not, without sin, say that he is orthodox, if they
were not persuaded of it. They are thus more sincere
than you, father ; they have examined Jansenius more
carefully than you ; they are not less Intelligent than
you. But come of this point of fact what may, they
are certainly orthodox ; since, in order to be so, it is
not necessary to say that another is not so ; and in
regard to heresy, it is enough, without charging another,
to discharge one's self.

LETTEK EIGHTEENTH.

TO THE KEVEREND FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT.

PROVED STILL MORE INVINCIBLY BY FATHER ANNAT S REPLY, THAT
THERE IS NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH : EVERYBODY CONDEMNS
THE DOCTRINE WHICH THE JESUITS ASCRIBE TO JANSENIUS, AND
THUS THE VIEWS OF ALL THE FAITHFUL ON THE MERITS OF THE
FIVE PROPOSITIONS ARE THE SAME : DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
DISPUTES AS TO DOCTRINE, AND AS TO FACT : IN QUESTIONS OF
FACT MORE WEIGHT DUE TO WHAT IS SEEN THAN TO ANY
HUMAN AUTHORITY.

REVEREND FATHER, — You have long been labouring
to detect some heresy in your opponents ; but I am
confident you will at last confess that perhaps nothing
is so difficult as to make those heretical who are not,
and who do their utmost to avoid being so. In my
last Letter I have shown how many heresies, one after
another, you have ascribed to them, from inability to
find one which you could maintain for any length of
time, so that nothing was left for you but to accuse
them of refusing to condemn the sense of Jansenius,
which you insisted on their condemning without
explanation. You must, indeed, have wanted heresies
to charge them with, when you were reduced to this.

NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH. 373

For who ever heard, till now, of a heresy which cannot
be expressed ? Accordingly, they have easily answered
you by representing, that if Jansenius has no errors, it
is not just to condemn him ; and that if he has, you
ought to declare them, in order that they may at least
know what it is that is condemned. This, neverthe
less, you have never chosen to do ; but you have
endeavoured to strengthen your case by degrees which
make nothing for you, since they do not in any way
explain the sense of Jansenius, which is said to have
been condemned in those five propositions.. Now, that
was not the way to terminate your dispute. Did you
both agree as to the true meaning of Jansenius, and
were you no longer at variance as to whether or not
this meaning is heretical, these judgments declaring it
to be heretical would touch the true question. But
the great question in dispute being, What is this mean
ing of Jansenius ? some saying that they only see the
meaning of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and others
that they see one which is heretical, but which they
do not explain, it is clear that a Constitution which
does not say a word concerning this difference, and
which only condemns the sense of Jansenius generally,
without explaining it, decides nothing in this dispute.
Hence it has been said to you a hundred times, that
your disagreement being as to the fact, you will never
terminate it, except by declaring what you understand
to be the meaning of Jansenius. But as you have
always obstinately refused this, I have at length
brought the matter to its true bearing in my last Letter,

PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

in which I have shown that it was not without a secret
purpose you had laboured to obtain the condemnation
of this sense, without explaining it ; and that your
design is to make this indefinite condemnation one day
tell against the doctrine of effectual grace, by showing
that it is nothing but the doctrine of Jansenius, a
point which it will not be difficult for you to estab
lish. This has put yon under the necessity of replying.
For had you, after this, still persisted in not explaining
the meaning, the least enlightened would have seen
that effectual grace was really aimed at; a fact which
must have turned to your utter confusion, from the
veneration which the Church has for this holy doc
trine.

You have, therefore, been obliged to declare your
self ; and this you have done in answering my Letter,
in which I had represented to you, " that if Jansenius
had, with reference to these five propositions, any
other meaning than that of effectual grace, he had no
defenders ; and if he had no other meaning than that
of effectual grace, he had no errors." You have not
been able to deny this, father ; but you draw a dis
tinction in this manner, p. 21 : " It is not a sufficient
justification of Jansenius to say that he only holds
effectual grace, because it can be held in two ways ; the
one heretical, in accordance with Calvin, which con
sists in saying that the will moved by grace has no
power to resist it ; the other, orthodox, in accordance
with the Thomists and Sorbonnists, and founded on
principles established by Councils, namely, that effectual

NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH. 375

grace by itself governs the will, but in such a way
that there is always a power of resisting.

All this is granted, father : you end with saying,
that " Jansenius would be orthodox if he defended effec
tual grace according to the Thomists, but that he is
heretical because he is contrary to the Thotnists, and
conformable to Calvin, who denies the power of resist
ing grace." I do not here, father, examine the point
of fact, whether Jansenius is indeed conformable to
Calvin. It is enough for me that you pretend it, and
that you now inform us that, by the meaning of Jan
senius, you understand nothing else than the meaning
of Calvin. Was this, then, father, all that you meant
to say ? Was it only the error of Calvin that you
wished to be condemned, under the name of the meaning
of Jansenius ? Why did you not declare it sooner ?
You would have spared a world of trouble ; for with
out bulls or briefs, every one would have condemned
this error along with you. How necessary this explana
tion was, and how many difficulties it removes ! We
did not know, father, what error the popes and bishops
meant to condemn under the name of the sense of
Jansenius. The whole Church was in extreme per
plexity, and no one would explain it. You now do so,
father; you, whom all your party considers as the
prime mover of all its counsels, and who know the
secret of all this proceeding. You have told us, then,
that this sense of Jansenius is nothing else than the
sense of Calvin, condemned by the Council. This solves
a vast number of doubts. We now know that the

376 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

heresy which they designed to condemn, under the
term " sense of Jansenius," is nothing less than the
sense of Calvin ; and hence we yield obedience to their
decrees, when we condemn with them the sense of
Calvin, which they meant to condemn. We are no
longer astonished at seeing popes and bishops so zealous
against the sense of Jansenius. How could they be
otherwise, father, while giving credit to those who
publicly say, that this sense is the same as that of
Calvin ?

I declare to you, then, father, that you have no longer
anything to reprove in your opponents, because they
assuredly detest what you detest. I am only astonished
to see that you were ignorant of this, and have so little
knowledge of their sentiments on this subject, which
they have so often declared in their works. I am
confident, that if you were better informed, you would
regret your not having made yourself acquainted, in a
spirit of peace, with this pure and Christian doctrine,
which passion makes you combat without knowing it.
You would see, father, that not only do they hold that
we effectually resist that feeble grace which is termed
exciting and inefficacious, by not doing the good which
it suggests, but that they are also as firm in asserting,
against Calvin, the power which the will has to resist
even effectual and 'victorious grace, as in defending
against Molina the power of this grace over the will ;
as jealous of the one of these truths as of the other.
They only know too well that man, by his own nature,
has always the power of sinning and resisting grace ;

NO HERESY IN THE CHURCH. 377

and that, since his fall, he bears about with him a
miserable load of concupiscence, which infinitely aug
ments this power ; but, that, nevertheless, when God is
pleased to touch him in mercy, he makes him do what
he wills, and in the way he wills ; though this infalli
bility of the divine operation does not in any way
destroy man's natural liberty in consequence of the
secret and wonderful manner in which God produces
the change, as is admirably explained by St. Augustine ;
a manner which dissipates all the imaginary contra
dictions which the enemies of effectual grace fancy to
exist between the soverign power of grace over free
will, and the power of free will to resist grace. For,
according to this great saint, whom the popes and the
Church have made the rule in this matter, God changes
the heart of man by a mild celestial influence which he
diffuses through it, which overcoming the delight of
the flesh, has this effect, namely, that man, feeling on
the one hand his mortality and nothingness, and dis
covering on the other the greatness and eternity of
God, becomes disgusted with the pleasures of sin, which
separate him from incorruptible good. Finding his
greatest joy in the God of his delight, he infallibly
turns toward him of his own accord, by a movement
full of freedom, full of love, so that it would be a pain
and a punishment to be separated from him. Not
that he is not always liable to become estranged, or
that he might not effectually estrange himself, did
he will it ; but how should he will it, since the will
always inclines to what pleases it most, and nothing

378 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

then pleases it so much as this only good, which com
prehends in itself all other good ? " Quod enim
amplius nos delactat, secundum id operemur necesse
est, as St. Augustine says.

It is thus that God disposes of the free will of man,
without laying necessity upon it; and that free will,
which always may resist grace, but does not always
choose to do so, inclines to God as freely as infallibly,
when he is pleased to attract it by his mild but effec
tual inspiration.

These, father, are the divine principles of St. Augus
tine and St. Thomas, according to which it is true
that we are able to resist grace, contrary to the opinion
of Calvin ; and that as Pope Clement VIII. says,
in his writing addressed to the congregation de Aux-
iliis, " God forms within us the movement of our will,
and disposes efficaciously of our heart, by the empire
which his supreme majesty has over the wills of men,
as well as over the rest of the creatures who are in
heaven, according to St. Augustine."

According to these principles, moreover, we act of
ourselves, and thus have merits which are truly ours,
contrary to Calvin's heresy ; and yet God, being the
first beginning of our actions, and " working in us
what is well pleasing to him," according to St. Paul,
" our merits are," as the Council of Trent says, " gifts
of God."

This overthrows the impiety of Luther, condemned
by the same Council, that " we do not co-operate in our
salvationin any way, any more than inanimate things;"

THE JANSENISTS AGREE WITH THE THOMISTS. 379

and this moreover overthrows the impiety of the
school of Molina, who refuses to admit that it is the
power of grace itself which causes us to co-operate
with it in the work of our salvation, and by so re
fusing destroys the principle established by St. Paul,
" that it is God who worketh in us, both to will and
to do."

By this means, in fine, are reconciled all those pas
sages of Scripture which seem most opposed to each
other : " Turn unto the Lord : 0 Lord, turn us to thy
self. Put away your iniquities from you : It is God
who taketh away the iniquities of his people. Bring
forth fruits meet for repentance : Lord thou hast
made in us all our works. Make you a new heart and
a new spirit : I will give you a new spirit, and create
in you a new heart."

The only means of reconciling these apparent con
tradictions, which ascribe our good actions sometimes
to God, and sometimes to ourselves, is to acknowledge
with St. Augustine that " our actions are our own,
because of the free will which produces them ; and
are also God's, because of his grace which makes our
free will produce them," and because, as he elsewhere
says, " God makes us do what he pleases, by making
us will what we might be able not to will : " a Deo
factum est ut vellent quod nolle potuissent.

Thus, father, your opponents are perfectly at one
with the new Thomists, since the Thomists, like them,
hold both the power of resisting grace, and the infalli
bility of the effect of grace, which they profess to

380 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

maintain so strongly, according to the capital maxim
of their doctrine, which Alvarez, one of the most dis
tinguished among them, repeats so often in his work,
and expresses (Disp. 72, n. 4,) in these terms : " When
effectual grace moves free will, it consents infallibly,
because the effect of grace is to cause that though it
has the power of not consenting, it nevertheless does
in fact consent," of which he assigns the reason from
his master, St. Thomas: "That the will of God cannot
fail to be accomplished, and thus when he wills that
man consent to grace, he consents infallibly, and even
necessarily, not from an absolute necessity, but a
necessity of infallibility." Here grace does not inter
fere with "the power which we have to resist if we
will it," since it only makes us unwilling to resist, as
your Father Peter acknowledges in these terms, torn.
1, p. 602: "The grace of Jesus Christ makes us per
severe in piety infallibly, though not of necessity, for
we are able, as the Council says, not to consent if we
will ; but this same grace causes that we do not so
will."

This, father, is the uniform doctrine of St. Augus
tine, and St. Prosperus, of the- fathers who succeeded
them, of Councils, of St. Thomas, and all the Thomists
in general. It is also that of your opponents, although
you thought not ; it is that, in fine, which you your
self have just approved in these terms : " The doctrine
of effectual grace, which recognizes our power of re-
resisting it, is orthodox, founded on Councils, and main
tained by the Thomists and Sorbonnists." Tell the

THE JANSENISTS AGREE WITH THE THOMISTS. 381

truth, father : had you known that your opponents
really hold this doctrine, perhaps the interest of your
Company would have prevented you from giving it
this public approval ; but having imagined that they
were opposed to it, this same interest of your Company
has led you to sanction sentiments which you believed
contrary to theirs ; and from this mistake, while wish
ing to ruin their principles, you have yourselves com
pletely established them ; so that in the present day,
by a kind of miracle, we see the defenders of effectual
grace justified by the defenders of Molina; so admir
ably does the providence of God make all things con
tribute to the honour of his truth.

Let all the world, then, learn from your own declara
tion, that this doctrine of effectual grace, necessary to
all actions of piety, a doctrine which is dear to the
Church, and was purchased by the Saviour's blood, is
so uniformly Catholic, that there is not a Catholic,
even among the Jesuits themselves, who does not
recognize it as orthodox. At the same time it will be
known by your own confession, that there is not the
least suspicion of error in those whom you have so
often accused of it; for when you impute hidden
errors, without choosing to disclose them, it was as
difficult for them to defend, as it was easy for you to
accuse in this manner. But now, since you have made
the declaration, that the error which obliges you to
combat them is that of Calvin, which you thought they
held, every man sees clearly that they are free from all
error, seeing they are so strongly opposed to the only

382 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

error which you impute to them, and protest by
their discourses, their books, and everything which
they can produce in evidence of their sentiments,
that they condemn this heresy with all their hearts,
and in the same way as do the Thomists, whom you
recognize without difficulty to be orthodox, and who
were never suspected of not being so.

What, then, will you now say against them, fathers ?
That although they adopt not Calvin's meaning, they
are nevertheless heretical, because they will not
acknowledge that the meaning of Jansenius is the
same as that of Calvin ? Will you venture to say that
that is matter of heresy ? Is it not a pure question of
fact, which cannot form a heresy? It would indeed be
one, to say that we have not power to resist effectual
grace ; but is it one to doubt whether Jansenius main
tains this ? Is it a revealed truth? Is it an article of
faith which must be believed under pain of damnation ?
Is it not, in spite of you, a point of fact, on account of
which it would be ridiculous to pretend that there are
heretics in the Church ?

No longer, then, give them that name, father, but
some other, corresponding to the nature of your differ
ence. Say that they are ignorant and stupid, and mis
understand Jansenius ; such charges will be suitable to
your dispute ; but to call them heretics is out of the
question. This, however, being the only injurious
charge from which I wish to defend them, I will not
give myself much trouble to show that they properly
understand Jansenius. I will only say this, father,

THE SENSE OF JANSENIUS ON GRACE. 383

that, judging by your own rule, it is difficult not to
hold him orthodox : for here are the tests by which
you propose to try him.

Your words are: "To determine whether Jansenius
is free from challenge, it is necessary to determine
whether he defends effectual grace after the manner of
Calvin, who denies that we have power to resist it ;
for then he would be heretical ; or, after the manner
of the Thomists, who admit it, for then he would be
orthodox." See, then, father, whether he holds that
we have power to resist, when he says in whole
treatises, and among others, tr. 3, 1. 8, c. 20, " That we
have always the power of resisting grace according to
the Council ; that free will may always act and not
act, will and not will, consent and not consent, do good
and evil ; that man in this life has always these two
liberties, which you charge with contradiction." See,
likewise, if he is not opposed to the error of Calvin,
as you yourself represent it, when he shows through
out the whole of the 21st chap, that "the Church
has condemned this heretic, who maintains that effec
tual grace does not act upon free will in the manner
in which it has been so long believed in the Church^
namely, by leaving it the power of consenting or not
consenting ; whereas, according to St. Augustine and
the Council, we have always the power, if we choose,
of not consenting ; and according to St. Prosper, God
gives even his elect the will to persevere, but without
depriving them of power to will the contrary."
Judge, in fine, if he is not at one with the Thomists,

384 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

when he declares, c. 4, that all that the Thomists have
written to reconcile the efficacy of grace with the
power of resisting it, is so conformable to his view,
that it is necessary only to consult their books, in
order to learn his sentiments : Quod ipsi dixerunt,
dictum puta.

In this way he speaks on all these heads, and I pre
sume that he believes in the power of resisting grace,
that he is contrary to Calvin and conformable to the
Thomists, because he says it ; and therefore is, accord
ing to you, orthodox. But if you have some other
way of getting at the meaning of an author than by
his expressions, and if, without quoting from him, you
insist, in the face of all his expressions, that he denies
the power of resisting, and favours Calvin against the
Thomists, fear not, father, that I accuse you of heresy
for that ; I will only say that you seem to misunder
stand Jansenius ; but that shall not prevent us from
being children of the same Church.

How comes it, then, father, that in this misunder
standing you act so much under the influence of pas
sion, and treat as your worst enemies, and as the most
dangerous heretics, those whom you cannot charge
with any error, or with any thing but not understand
ing Jansenius as you do ? For on what do you dis
pute, except the meaning of this author ? You insist
on their condemning him, and they ask you what you
mean by it ; you say you mean the heresy of Calvin,
they answer they condemn it ; and hence, if you cling
not to syllables, but to the thing which they signify,

THE SENSE OF JANSENIUS ON GRACE. 385

you ought to be satisfied. If they refuse to say that
they condemn the meaning of Jansenius, it is because
they believe it to be that of St. Thomas. Thus the
term used between you is very ambiguous ; in your
mouth, it signifies the meaning of Calvin, in theirs the
meaning of St. Thomas ; so that the different ideas
which you attach to the same term is the cause of all
your divisions. Were I umpire, I would interdict both
from using the word Jansenius : and thus, both only
expressing what is meant by it, it w^ould seem that all
you ask is the condemnation of Calvin's meaning,
which they are willing to give, and that all they ask
is the defence of the meaning of St. Augustine and St.
Thomas, as to which you are agreed.

I declare to you, then, father, that for my part I
will always regard them as orthodox, whether they
condemn Jansenius if they find errors in him, or refuse
to condemn him when they only find what you your
self declare to be orthodox ; and I will say to them, as
St. Jerome said to John, bishop of Jerusalem, when
accused of holding eight propositions of Origen :
" Either condemn Origen, if you acknowledge that he
held these errors, or deny that he held them: Aut
negn, hoc dixisse eum qui arguitur ; aut, si locutus
est talia, eum damna qui dixerit"

Such, father, is the way in which those act who aim
at errors only, and not at persons ; whereas, you who
aim at persons more than errors, count it as nothing
to condemn errors, without condemning the persons to
whom you are pleased to ascribe them,
25

386 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

How violent your procedure, father, but how in
capable of succeeding ! I have told you elsewhere,
and I repeat it : violence and truth can do nothing
against each other. Never were your accusations
more outrageous, and never was the innocence of your
opponents better known ; never was effectual grace
more artfully attacked, and never was it seen so
firmly established. You employ your utmost efforts
to persuade us that your disputes are on points of
faith ; and never was it better known that your whole
dispute is only on a point of fact. In fine, you leave
no means untried to convince us that this point of
fact is true, and never were men more disposed to
doubt its truth. The reason, father, is obvious. You
do not take the natural way of establishing a fact,
namely, convincing the senses, by taking up the book
and pointing out the words which you allege to be in
it. You go about searching for means so foreign to
this simple course, that the most stupid are necessarily
struck by it. Why do you not take the same method
which I observed in my Letters, when, in order to dis
close the many bad maxims of your authors, I faith
fully mentioned the places from which they are
taken. It was thus the curates of Paris acted, and it
never fails to convince. But what would you have
said, what would you have thought, if, when they
charged you, for example, with the proposition of
Father L'Amy, that " a monk may kill him who
threatens to propagate calumnies against him or his
community, if he cannot otherwise prevent them," they

THE SENSE OF JANSENiUS ON GRACE. 387

had not quoted the place which contains it in express
terms ? if, notwithstanding of any demand that might
have been made, they had always refused to show it,
and instead of this, had gone to Home to obtain a bull
which should enjoin all the world to acknowledge it ?
Would it not have been at once concluded that they
had taken the pope by surprise, and that they never
would have resorted to this extraordinary means, but
from want of the natural means which, when state
ments of fact are made, lie within the reach of all who
make them ? Thus, they have simply intimated that
Father L'Amy teaches this doctrine in torn. 5, disp. 36,
n. 118, page 544, edition of Douay ; and thus all who
desired to see it have found it, and nobody has been
able to entertain a doubt. This is a very easy and
a very prompt method of disposing of questions of
fact, when one is in the right.

How comes it, then, father, that you do not act in
this way ? You have said in your Cavilli, that " the
five propositions are Jansenius, word for word, entire,
and in express terms," iixdem verbis. Others say no.
In this case, what ought to be done but just to quote
the page, if you have really seen them, or to confess
that you were mistaken ? You do neither ; but, in
stead of this, while seeing plainly that all the
passages of Jansenius which you occasionally alleged
as a blind, are not the " condemned individual and
special propositions" which you had undertaken to
point out in his book, you merely present us with
Constitutions which declare that the propositions are

388 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

extracted from his book, but make no reference to the
place.

I know, father, the respect which Christians owe to
the Holy See, and your opponents give sufficient proof
of their firm determination never to fail in it. But do
not imagine they would have failed, had they repre
sented to the pope, with all the submission which
children owe to their father, and members to their head,
that he may have been surprised on this point of fact ;
that he has not submitted it to examination since his
pontificate, and that the only point submitted to ex
amination since his pontificate, and that the only
point submitted to examination by his predecessor,
Innocent X., was whether the propositions were hereti
cal, not whether they were in Jansenius. That hence
the Commissary of the Sacred Office, one of the princi
pal examinators, observed, " that they could not be
censured in the sense of any author : Non sunt qualifi-
cabiles in sensu proferentis : because they had been
brought forward to be examined in themselves, and
without considering to what author they might belong :
In abstracto, et ut prcescindunt ab omni proferente,"
as is seen in their opinions recently printed : that more
than sixty doctors, and a great number of able and
pious persons besides, have read the book carefully,
without ever seeing the propositions, while they found
others contrary : that those who had given this im
pression to the pope might well have abused the con
fidence which he had in them, interested as they are
to discredit this author, who has convicted Molina of

THE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 389

more than fifty errors ; that this is rendered more
credible by a maxim which they hold, and regard as
one of the best ascertained in their theology, namely,
that " they can, without sin, calumniate those by
whom they think themselves unjustly attacked : " and
that thus their testimony being so suspicious, while
that of the other party is of so much weight, there is
some ground to supplicate his holiness, with all pos
sible humility, to submit this fact to examination, in
presence of doctors from both sides, in order to come
to a formal and regular decision. " Let fit judges be
assembled," said St. Basil on a similar occasion ; " let
each there be free ; let my writings be examined ; let
it be seen ^if there are errors in faith ; let the objec
tions and the answers be read, in order that judgment
may be given after examination, and in proper form ;
and not defamation without examination."

Think not, father, of charging those who should act
in this manner with want of submission to the Holy
See. The popes are far from treating Christians with
that tyranny which some would exercise in their name.
" The Church," says Pope St. Gregory, in Job, lib. 8, c.
1, " which has been trained in the school of humility,
commands not with authority, but by reason persuades
what she teaches her children, whom she believes
entangled in some error ; Recta quce errantibus dicit,
non quasi ex auctoritate prcecipit, sed ex ratione per-
suadet." And so far from deeming it dishonour to
correct a judgment in which they might have been
surprised, they, on the contrary, glory in it, as St.

390 PROVINCIAL

Bernard testifies, Ep. 180 : " The Apostolic See," says
he " has this to recommend it, that it does not pique
itself upon honour, and is readily disposed to revoke
what may have been drawn from it by surprise ;
accordingly it is very just that none should profit by
injustice, and especially before the Holy See."

Such, father, are the true sentiments with which
popes ought to be inspired ; since all theologians agree
that they may be surprised, and that their sovereign
capacity, so far from insuring them against it, on the
contrary exposes them the more, because of the great
number of the cases which distract them. Hence St.
Gregory says to some persons who were astonished
that another pope had allowed himself to be deceived,
" Why do you wonder," says he, (1. 1, in Dial.) " that
we are deceived, we who are only men ? Have you not
seen how David, a king who possessed the spirit of
prophecy, by giving credit to the imposture of Ziba,
. gave an unjust sentence against the son of Jonathan ?
Who, then, will think it strange that impostures some
times surprise us, us who are not prophets ? The load
of business oppresses us, and our spirit being distracted
by so many things, applies less to each in particular,
and is more easily deceived in any one." In truth,
father, I believe the popes know better than you,
whether or not they can ^be surprised. They them
selves declare that the _ popes and the greatest kings
are more exposed to be deceived than persons with less
important occupations. We must believe them. It is
easy to imagine that they may happen to be surprised.

THE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 391

St. Bernard, in the letter which he wrote to Innocent
II., describes it in this way : " It is nothing strange or
new for the mind of man to deceive, or be deceived.
Monks have gone to you in a spirit of falsehood and
deception, they have spoken to you against a bishop,
whom they hate, and whose life was exemplary. These
persons bite like dogs, and would fain make good pass
for evil. Meanwhile, most holy father, you become
enraged against your son. Why have you given cause
of joy to his enemies ? Believe not every spirit; but
try the spirits, whether they be of God. I hope that
when you come to know the truth, all that has been
founded on a false report will be dissipated. I pray
the Spirit of truth to give you grace to separate light
from darkness, and to reprove evil in favour of good."
You thus see, father, that the exalted station of the
popes does not exempt them from surprise, and that it
only serves to make the surprise more dangerous and
more important. So St. Bernard represents it to Pope
Eugene, de Consid., liq. 2., c. ult. : "There is another
defect so general, that I have not seen one of the great
who avoids it. It is, holy father, the excessive credulity
from which so many disorders arise. For from this
come violent persecutions against the innocent, unjust
prejudices against the absent, and ( fearful anger, for
mere nothings ; pro nihilo. Here, holy father, is a
universal evil, from which, if you are exempt, I will
say that you are the only one among all your fellows
who have this advantage."

I presume, father, this begins to persuade you that

392 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the popes are liable to be surprised. But to make it
perfectly clear to you, I will only put you in mind of in
stances which you yourself give in your book, of popes
and emperors whom heretics have actually surprised.
For you say that Apollinaris surprised Pope Damascus
in the same way as Celestius surprised Zozimus. You
say, moreover, that a person of the name of Athana-
sius deceived the Emperor Heraclius, and led him to
persecute the orthodox ; and that, in fine, Sergius, by
what you call " playing the humble servant to the
pope," obtained from Honorius the decree which was
burned at the sixth Council.

It is clear, then, from yourself, father, that those
who act thus towards kings and popes, sometimes art
fully engage them to persecute those who defend the
faith, while thinking to put down heresies. And hence
it is that the popes, who abhor nothing so much as
these surprises, have converted a letter of Alexander
III. into an ecclesiastical enactment, inserted in the
canon law, and allowing the execution of their bulls
and decrees to be suspended when it is thought that
they have been deceived. This pope, writing to the
archbishop of Ravenna, says, " If we occasionally send
your fraternity decrees which run counter to your
feelings, give yourself no uneasiness. For either you
well execute them with respect, or you will state to us
your reason for not doing it ; because we will approve
of your not executing a decree which may have been
drawn from us by surprise or artifice." Thus act the
popes who only seek to remove the differences among

THE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 393

Christians, and not to gratify the passion of those who
would produce disturbances among them. They do not
employ domination, as St. Peter and St. Paul express
it, after Jesus Christ ; but the spirit apparent in all
their conduct is that of peace and truth. Hence they
usually put into their letters this clause, which is
always to be understood : " Si ita est : si preces veri-
tate nitantur ; If the thing is as we have been given
to understand ; if the facts are true." Hence it is
plain, that since the popes enforce their bulls only in
so far as they rest on true facts, mere bulls do not
prove the truth of the facts, but, on the contrary, the
truth of the facts makes the bulls receivable.

How, then, shall we learn the truth of facts ? By
the eyes, father, which are the legitimate judges of
them, just as reason is of natural and intelligible
things, and faith of things supernatural and revealed.
For since you oblige me, father, I will tell you, that
according to the two greatest doctors of the Church,
St. Augustine and St. Thomas, these three sources of
our knowledge, the senses, reason, and faith, have each
their separate objects, and their certainty within this
sphere. And as God has been pleased to make use of
the medium of the senses to give an entrance to faith,
fides ex auditu, so far is faith from destroying the cer
tainty of the senses, that, on the contrary, to throw
doubt on the report of the senses would be to destroy
faith. And this is the reason why St. Thomas says
expressly, that God has been pleased that the sensible
accidents should subsist in the Eucharist, in order that

394 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

the senses which only judge of these accidents might
not be deceived: Ut sensus a deceptione reddantur
immunes.

Hence let us conclude, that when any proposition is
presented to us for examination, the first thing neces
sary is to ascertain its nature, to see to which of the
three principles we ought to refer it. If it relates to
something supernatural, we will not judge of it either
by the senses or by reason, but by Scripture, and the
decisions of the Church. If it relates to a proposition
not revealed, and proportioned to natural reason, rea
son will be the proper judge; and if, in fine, it relates
to a point of fact, we will believe the senses, to which
the knowledge of facts naturally belongs.

This rule is so general, that, according to St. Augus
tine and St. Thomas, when Scripture even presents to
us some passage, the primary literal sense of which is
opposed to what the senses or reason recognize with
certainty, we must not resolve to disavow them on this
occasion, in order to subject them to this apparent
sense of Scripture, but we must interpret Scripture,
and search for another meaning in accordance with
this sensible truth ; because the Word of God being
infallible even in facts, and the report of the senses
and of reason, acting within their sphere being also
certain, these two must agree : and as Scripture may be
interpreted in different manners, whilst the report of
the senses is single, we must in these matters hold
that to be the true interpretation of Scripture which
agrees with the faithful report of the senses. " It is

tHE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 395

necessary," says St. Thomas, 1 p. q. 68, a. 1, " to observe
two things according to St. Augustine : the one, That
Scripture has always a true sense ; the other, That as
it may receive several senses, when we find one which
reason proves to be certainly false, we must not per
sist in saying that it is the natural sense, but seek
another which agrees with it."

This he illustrates by the passage in Genesis, in
which is said that God created " two great lights, the
sun and the moon, and the stars also." Here Scripture
seems to say that the moon is greater than all the
stars ; but because it is clear, from indubitable demon
stration, that this is false, we should not, says this
saint, obstinately defend this literal sense, but seek
another conformable to this true fact, as in saying,
" That the word great light means only the greatness
of the moon as it appears to us, and not its magnitude
considered in itself."

Were we disposed to act otherwise, we should not
thereby render Scripture venerable, but, on the con
trary, expose it to the contempt of infidels ; " because,"
as St. Augustine says, " when they come to learn that
we believe, on the authority of Scripture, things which
they certainly know to be false, they will laugh at our
credulity in other things of a more recondite nature,
as the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life."
"And thus," adds St. Thomas, " we should make our
religion contemptible to them, and even close the
entrance against them."

We should also close the entrance against heretics,

396 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

and make the authority of the pope contemptible to
them, were we to deny the orthodoxy of those who
refuse to believe that certain words are in a book, in
which they cannot be found, because a pope had
asserted it through surprise. Only by examining a
book can we ascertain what words are in it. Matters
of fact are proved only by the senses. If what you
maintain is true, show it ; if not, do not urge any one
to believe it; it would be to no purpose. All the
powers in the world cannot by authority prove a point
of fact, any more than change it. For nothing can
make that which is, not to be.

In vain for example did monks of Ratisbon obtain
from Leo IX. a formal decree declaring that the body
of St. Dionysius, the first bishop of Paris, who is com
monly held to be the Areopagite, had been carried out
of France, and deposited in the church of their monas
tery. That does not prevent the body of this saint
from having always been, and from still being, in the
celebrated abbey which bears his name, in which you
would find it difficult to make this bull be received,
although the pope therein declares that he had ex
amined the matter " with all possible care, diligentis-
sime, and with the advice of several bishops and
prelates, so that he strictly enjoins all the French to
acknowledge and confess that they no longer have
these holy relics." And yet the French, who knew
the falsehood of the fact by their own eyes, and who,
having opened the crypt, found all those relics entire,
as the historians of that period testify, believed then,

THE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 397

and have ever since believed, the contrary of what the
pope enjoined them to believe, knowing well that even
saints and prophets are liable to be surprised.

In vain, also, did you obtain from Rome a decree
against Galileo, condemning his opinion concerning the
motion of the earth. That will not prove it to be at
rest ; and if we had uniform observations proving that
it turns, all men could not prevent it from revolving,
nor themselves from revolving with it. No more
imagine, that the letters of Pope Zachariah, excom
municating St. Virgilius because he held there were
antipodes, have annihilated this New World; and that,
although he had declared his opinion to be a very
dangerous error, the king of Spain has not found his
advantage in having believed Christopher Columbus,
who came from it, rather than this pope who had not
been there, and that the Church has not received a
great advantage from it, inasmuch as it has brought a
knowledge of the Gospel to many nations that must
have perished in their unbelief.

Thus, father, you see the nature of matters of fact,
and the principles by which they are to be judged;
and hence, with reference to our subject, it is easy to
conclude, that if the five propositions are not in
Jansenius, it is impossible that they can have been
extracted from it, and that the only means of judging
of them, and satisfying people in regard to them, is to
examine the book at a regular conference, as you have
long been asked to do. Till then, you have no right
to call your opponents obstinate ; for they will be.

398 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

without blame on the point of fact, as they are with
out error on the point of faith ; orthodox as regards
the doctrine, reasonable as regards the fact, and inno
cent in both.

Who, then, father, would not be astonished at seeing
on the one side a justification so complete, and, on the
other, accusations so violent ? Who would think that
there is no question between you but a fact of no
importance, which you insist as being believed without
showing it ? And who could venture to imagine that
so much noise should be made throughout the Church
for nothing, pro nihilo, father, as St. Bernard says.
But herein lies the most artful part of your conduct.
By making it believed that everything is at stake, in
an affair of nothing, and by giving persons in power,
who listen to you, to understand that your disputes
involve the most pernicious errors of Calvin, and the
most important principles of faith, you enlist all their
zeal and all their authority against those whom you
combat, as if the safety of the Catholic religion de
pended upon it ; whereas if they came to know that
the only question in this minute point of fact, they
would take no interest in it, but, on the contrary, deeply
regret that they had done so much to gratify your
private passions, in an affair which is of no consequence
to the Church.

In fine, to take things at the worst, were it even
true that Jansenius held these propositions, what mis
fortune could arise because some individuals doubt
this, provided they detest them as they publicly declare

THE POPES FALLIBLE IN FACTS. 399

they do ? Is it not enough that they are condemned
by all the world without exception, in the very sense
in which you have explained that you wish them con
demned ? Would they be more censured from its being
said that Jansenius held them ? Of what use, then, to
demand this acknowledgment, except to decry a doctor
and a bishop who died in the communion of the
Church ? I do not see any so great good in this, as to
justify the purchase of it by so many troubles. What
interest in it have the State, the pope, the bishops, the
doctors, the whole Church ? It does not affect them in
any way, father. It is only your Society that would
truly receive any pleasure from the defamation of an
author who has done you some harm. Still all is in
commotion, because you give out that all is threatened.
This is the secret cause which gives the impulse to all
these great movements, which would cease the moment
the true state of the dispute was known. It is because
the repose of the Church depends on this explanation,
that it becomes of the utmost importance to give it, in
order that, all your disguises being discovered, it may
be apparent to the whole world that your accusations
are without foundation, your opponents without error,
and the Church without heresy.

Such, father, is the good which it has been my aim
to accomplish, and which seems to me of such impor
tance to religion, that I have difficulty in comprehend
ing how those to whom you give so much cause to
speak can remain silent. Though they should be
unscathed by the insults which you offer them, those

400 PROVINCIAL LETTERS.

which the Church suffers ought, methinks, to lead them
to complain : besides, I doubt if ecclesiastics can aban
don their reputation to calumny, especially in a
matter of faith. Still they allow you to say whatever
you please, so that, but for the occasion which you
have accidentally given me, perhaps no opposition
would have been made to the scandalous impressions
which you disseminate on all sides. Their patience
astonishes me ; and the more that it cannot be sus
pected either of timidity or powerlessness, knowing
well that they want neither arguments for their justi
fication, nor zeal for the truth. I see them, nevertheless,
so religiously silent, that I fear there is excess in it.
For my part, father, I do not believe I can do so.
Leave the Church in peace, and I will leave you with
all my heart. But so long as you shall labour to keep
her in trouble, doubt not that there are children of
peace, who will think themselves obliged to employ all
their efforts to preserve her tranquility.

329025

BX 4720 .P313 1892

SMC

PASCAL, BLAISE,

1623-1662.
THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS

MORAL TEACHINGS OF THE

ALD-9898 (AB)