■. 
 
 1 
 
 

 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
Date Due 
 
 KOVi 01 948 1 £ 
 
 D E C 1 3 19 4 9 
 
 ~> 
 
 m 
 
 NOV 2 6 
 
 1957 B X 
 
 AN 1 7 1! 
 
 w*js- 
 
 jjU.n l ) ;ft/ i 
 
 iUDi/ frfHQQ: , 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BX4720 .P36 1828 
 
 Provncial letters, containing an exposu 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 444 381 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029444381 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN EXPOSURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REASONING AND MORALS OF THE JESUITS, 
 
 BY 
 
 BLAISE PASCAL. 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OP 
 
 LOUIS DE MONTALTE. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 & BTfeto nt the f^fstorg ot the Sesutts, 
 
 THE LATE BULL FOR THE REVIVAL OF THE ORDER 
 IN EUROPE. 
 
 The bishop of Lucon, son of the celebrated Bussy, told me, that asking one day r - 
 the bishop of Meaux what work he would covet most to be the author of, sup- 
 posing hiB own performances set aside, Bossuet replied, The Provincial Letters . 
 Examples of all the species of eloquence abound in tlaem.-z-P'oUaire. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY J. LEAVITT, 182 BROADWAY. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 Crocker & Brewster, 47 Washington-street. 
 
 1828. 
 
 31 
 
9< 
 
 
 Vanderpool & Cole, Printers. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 ■' The name of Pascal (that prodigy of parts, as Locke 
 calls him,") says Mr Dugald Stewart,* " is more fami- 
 liar to modern ears than that of any of the other learned 
 and polished anchorites who have rendered the sanctuary 
 of Port-Royal so illustrious. Abstracting from his great 
 merit in mathematics and in physics, his reputation rests 
 chiefly on the ' Provincial Letters ;' a work from which 
 Voltaire, notwithstanding: his strong prejudices against the 
 Author, dates the fixation of the French language ; and 
 
 of which the same exonllcnt judge baa said, ' Moliere's 
 BEST COMEDIES DO NOT EXCEL THEM IN WIT, NOR THE COM- 
 POSITIONS of Bossdet in sublimity." The author was 
 originally induced to compose and publish them by a very 
 casual circumstance. Accustomed frequently to visit a 
 sister, who had taken the veil in the monastery of Port- 
 Royal, he was introduced to the society of some celebra- 
 ted Jansenists, particularly M. Arnauld, who had recently 
 been engaged in a dispute with the doctors of the Sor- 
 bonne. The subjects of difference related chiefly to 
 those points of faith which have continually divided Ar- 
 minians and Calvinists in the Protestant community ; the 
 Jesuits being allied in sentiment to the former, and the 
 * Supplement to Eneyc. Brit. vol. i. p. 1. 
 
iv translator's preface. 
 
 Jansenists to the latter. The Jesuits had selected five 
 propositions from a posthumous work of Jansen or Janse- 
 nius^Jbjshop bTTpres, which his adherents believed to 
 contain the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Fathers on 
 the litigated articles of faith, and procured their condem- 
 natiopjby the Faculty of Theology at Paris and by Pope 
 -JnBacfi.nt_X- Arnauld published a letter in_1655, in which 
 he declared that the condemned propositions were not to 
 be found in the book of Jansenius, and then proceeded to 
 controvert the Jesuitical Motion of efficacious grace. 
 Being at this time a member of the Sorbonne, violent al- 
 tercations arose ; and as his adversaries were in power, 
 they procured his expulsion from the Faculty of Theolo- 
 gy, by a decree in January 1656. The defence which he 
 made was not in itself very satisfactorily written, and 
 some of his friends intimated their wish to M. Pascal, 
 with whom they had become recently acquainted, and of 
 whose talents they had formed a very just idea, that he- 
 would write something upon the subject. This occasion- 
 ed his first letter, which being, much admired, was soon 
 succeeded by others, under the fictitious name of Louis 
 de Montalte ; the consequence was, the Jesuits became 
 the objects of ridicule and contempt to all Europe. 
 
 It is quite needless to accumulate testimonies in favour 
 of the extraordinary merit of this work ; otherwise the 
 encomiums of numerous French writers might be intro- 
 duced ; and our elegant Gibbon is said to have possessed 
 so enthusiastic an admiration for the book, that he was 
 accustomed to read it through once every year. Amongst 
 those, however, who are always entitled to marked atten- 
 tion, must be ranked d'Alembert, whose words are as fol- 
 low : " This master-piece of pleasantry and eloquence di- 
 verted and moved the indignation of all Europe at their 
 
TBANSLATOK 'S PREFACE, V 
 
 (the Jesuits') expense. In vain they replied that th e 
 greatest part of the Theologists and' Monks had taugh t, 
 a s well as them, the scandalous doctrine with which they 
 were reproached. Their answers, ill written and full of 
 gall, were not read, while every body knew the * Provin- 
 cial Letters' by heart. This work is so much the more 
 admirable, as Pascal, in composing it, appears to Have 
 theologized two things which seemed not made for the 
 theology of that time — language and ; pleasantry. The 
 (French) language was very far from being formed, as we 
 may judge by the greater part of the works published at 
 that time, and of which it is impossible to endure the 
 reading. In the ' Provincial Letters,' there is not a sin- 
 gle word that is grown obsolete ; and that book, though 
 written above a hundred years ago, seems as if it had 
 been written but yesterday. 
 
 " Another attempt, no less difficult, was, to make peo- 
 ple of wit, and good people, laugh at the questions of 
 sufficient gracejmA next jpower, and the decisions of the 
 casuists — subjects very little favourable to pleasantry, or, 
 which is worse still, susceptible of pleasantries that are 
 cold and uniform, and capable, at most, of amusing only 
 priests and monks. It was necessary, to avoid this rock, 
 to have a delicacy of taste so much the greater, as Pascal 
 lived very retired, and far removed from the commerce of 
 the world. He could neveT have distinguished, but by 
 the superiority and delicacy of his understanding, the- 
 kind of pleasantry which could alone be relished by good 
 judges in this dry and insipid' matter. He succeeded in 
 it beyond all expression ; several of his bon-mots have 
 even become proverbial ' in our language, and the ' Pro- 
 vincial Letters' will be ever regarded as a model of taste 
 and style." 
 
VI TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 A considerable portion of the merit of this perform- 
 ance, consists in the ingenious manner in which Pascal 
 has brought together the extravagant maxims of the 
 principal Jesuitical writers, so as to make them appear 
 truly ridiculous. He does not, as Voltaire, (who, other- 
 wise, bestows upon him great praise,) insinuates, collect 
 his citations from a few individuals, whose sentiments are 
 unwarrantably adduced as a fair specimen of the princi- 
 ples of the whole society, for he uniformly- appeals to the 
 very best of their writers, and particularly to the twenty- 
 four elders, who were so designated on account of the 
 entire confidence which the whole body of the Jesuits 
 reposed in their statements. In fact, Pascal adopted no 
 other than the usual and authorized method of obtaining 
 the real opinions of any extensive society. If their own 
 publications — the publications of their most eminent men ; 
 be not the proper standard of appeal, by what other 
 means can their opinions be obtained ? Besides, none of 
 their writings were issued without the sanction of the su- 
 periors of their order. 
 
 One peculiarity of these ' Letters,' it is impossible to 
 perceive through the medium of a translation. The 
 words, selected by the writer, are uniformly the purest 
 which the language furnished ; and. according to the tes- 
 timony of Voltaire, " not a single word occurs, savouring 
 of that vicissitude to which living languages are so sub- 
 ject. Here, then, we may fix the epocha, when our lan- 
 guage may~be said to have j^sume^^ettl&d form." The 
 conversational form in which the subject is treated, pre- 
 cludes that oratorical elegance and Ciceronian flow which 
 debgbts the ear. A certain sprightliness and humour 
 constitute their chief characteristics, interspersed with 
 passages of grave instruction, which prove that Pascal 
 
TRANSLATORS PREFACE. VII 
 
 wrote for a higher purpose than to furnish a comedy, or 
 to gratify a malignant feeling. After all, a severe critic 
 might detect in this work some minor faults of composi- 
 tion, as redundancies and repetitions, unless, as is most 
 probable, even he should be too much occupied with its . 
 numerous beauties. ;>* 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 "LETTER I. 
 
 PACE. 
 
 Remarks on the Disputes of the Sorhonne, and on 
 the Invention of the Term next power, employed 
 by the Molinists to draw a Censure upon M. Ar- 
 nauld 25 
 
 ' LETTER II. 
 
 On the Subject of sufficient Grace 35 
 
 Reply of the Provincial to the two farmer Letters of 
 his Friend 45 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 The Injustice, Absurdity, and Nullity of the Censure 
 upon M, Arnauld 47 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Of actual Grace, and of Sins of Ignorance ... 55 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new Mo- 
 rality. Two kinds of Casuists amongst them : the 
 great Remissness of the one, and the equal Rigi- 
 dity of the other. Reason of this Difference. 
 Explanation of the Doctrine of Probability. A 
 
t CONTENTS. 
 
 Crowd of modern and obscure Authors substituted 
 for the Holy Fathers 68 
 
 ^LETTER VI. 
 
 The different Artifices of the Jesuits to evade the 
 Authority of the Gospel, the. Councils, and the 
 Popes. Consequences which follow from their 
 Doctrine of Probability. Their Abatements in 
 favour of the Clergy, Monks, and Servants. His- 
 tory of John d' Alba 82 
 
 v LETTER VII 
 
 On the Method of directing the Attention. The Per- 
 mission to kill in defence of Honour and of Pro- 
 perty, which is extended to Priests and Friars. A 
 curious Question proposed by Caramuel, namely, 
 whether the Jesuits may kill the Jansenists ? . . 95 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Corrupt Maxims of the Casuists respecting Judges, 
 Usurers, the Contract Mohatra, Bankrupts, Resti- 
 tutions, &c — Various other extravagant Notions . Ill 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 The false Wdrship of the Virgin Mary which the Je- 
 suits have introduced. The various Facilities 
 they have invented to procure Salvation without 
 any Trouble and amidst the Indulgences of Life. 
 Their maxims respecting Ambition, Envy, Glutto- 
 ny, Equivocation, mental Reservations, the Liberty 
 which young Females enjoy, the Habits of Wo- 
 men, Gaming, and the Manner of hearing Mass . 127 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 ^ LETTER X. 
 
 Mitigating Expedients of the Jesuists with regard to 
 the Sacrament of Penitence. Their Maxims re- 
 specting Confession, Satisfaction, Absolution, Oc- 
 casions of Sin, Contrition, and the Love of God 142 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 Ridiculous Errors may be refuted by Raillery. The 
 Precautions it is necessary to use, which the Au- 
 thor has observed, but which have not been re- 
 garded by the Jesuits. The impious Buffooneries 
 of Fathers le Moine and Garasse 159 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Refutation of the Quirks and Turns of the Jesuits on 
 the Subjects of Almsgiving and Simony ... 1 74 
 
 Refutation of the Reply of the Jesuits to the last 
 Letter 190 
 
 / LETTER XIII. 
 
 The Doctrine of Lessius respecting Murder the 
 same with that of Victoria. The Ease with which 
 we pass from Speculation to Practice. Reason 
 why the Jesuits make use of this vain Distinction, 
 and how unavailing it is to their Justification . . 205 
 
 'J LETTER XIV. 
 
 Jesuitical Maxims on the Subject of Homicide refut- 
 ed by the holy Fathers. Reply, in passing, to 
 some of their Calumnies, and a Comparison of 
 their Doctrines with the Form observed in pro 
 nouncing Judgment in Criminal Cases ... 22 J 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 The Jesuits omit Calumny in their Catalogue of 
 Crimes, and make no Scrapie of using it against 
 their Enemies 237 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 The horrible Calumnies of the Jesuits against pious 
 Ecclesiastics and holy Monks 254 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 By the unanimous Consent of all the Divines, and 
 particularly of the Jesuits, the Authority' of the 
 Popes and of (Ecumenical Councils is not infallible 
 in questions of Fact 276 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 Evidence still more incontestable adduced even from 
 Father Annat's Reply, that no Heresy exists in the 
 Church. Every body condemns the Doctrine 
 which the Jesuits impute to Jansenius ; and thus 
 all Christians agree on the Subject of the Five 
 Propositions. Difference respecting the Ques- 
 tions of Right and Fact pointed out. With re- 
 gard to the latter, one ought to rely more upon our 
 own Senses than upon any human Authority . . 297 
 
A VIEW 
 
 HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. 
 
 A society, which at one period extended its influence 
 
 r !i e V6ry ends of the earth ' and P roved the main P illar 
 ot the papal hierarchy, which not only wormed itself into 
 
 almost absolute power, occupying the high places, and 
 leading captive the ecclesiastical dictator of the world, 
 must be an object of some curiosity to the inquisitive mind, 
 especially as it has been recently restored by the present 
 pope, from that ruin to which Clement XIV. had reduced 
 it. 
 
 Ignatius Lotoxa, a native of Biscay, is well known to 
 nave been the founder of this, nominally, religious order. 
 
 av b ° rn in 1491 ' and became the first P a S e t0 Ferdi ' 
 nand V. king of Spain, then an officer in his army. Bi 
 
 1521, he was wounded in both legs at the siege of Pam- 
 peluna, when having had leisure to study a ' Life of the 
 fcaints,' he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin ; 
 and his military ardour becoming petamorphosed into 
 superstitious zeal, he went on a pijgrimage into the Holy 
 Land. Upon his return to Europe, he studied in the uni- 
 versities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and 
 formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which 
 he presented to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high 
 
 2 
 
14 A VIEW OF THE 
 
 pretensions of Loyola to inspiration, Paul III. refused bis 
 request, till his scruples were removed by an irresistible 
 argument addressed to his self-interest : it was proposed 
 that every member should make a vow of unconditional 
 obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from 
 the Holy See The order was therefore instituted in 1540, 
 and Loyola appointed to be the first General. 
 
 The plan of the Society was completed by the two im- 
 mediate successors of the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, 
 both of whom excelled their master in ability and the 
 science of government ; and, in a few years, the Society 
 established itself in every Catholic country- acquiring pro- 
 digious wealth and exciting the apprehensions of all the 
 enemies of the Romish faith. 
 
 To Lainez are ascribed the Secreta Monita, or secret 
 
 instructions of the order, which were first discovered on 
 
 Christian, duke of Brunswick, seizing the Jesuits' college 
 
 at Paderborn, in Westphalia, when he gave their books 
 
 and manuscripts to the capuchins, who found these secret 
 
 instructions among the archives of their rector. After 
 
 this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college 
 
 ^of the Jesuits. 
 
 ' The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed 
 
 for action, in opposition to the monastic orders, who re- 
 
 I tire from the concerns of the world ; and engaging in all 
 
 civil and commercial transactions, insinuating themselves 
 
 : into the friendship of persons of rank, studying the dispo- 
 
 j sition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influen ce 
 
 ; over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations ; it 
 
 | is an essential principle of their policy, by every means to 
 
 \ extend the Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigu e 
 
 omitted' that may prove conducive to this p urpose . 
 
 The constitution of this Society is monarchical. A 
 General is chosen for life by deputies from the several pro- 
 vinces, whose power '« supreme and universal. Every 
 member is at his entire disposal, who is required to submit 
 his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his 
 injunctions, as if uttered by Christ himself. The fortune, 
 person, and conscience of the whole Society are at his 
 
HISTORY OP THE JESUITS. ^15 
 
 disposal ; and he can dispense his order not only from the 
 v ows of poverty, chastity, and monastic obedience, but 
 even from submission to the pope, whenever he please s? 
 He nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, 
 and all officers of the order, superintends the universities, 
 houses, and missions, decides controversies, and forms or 
 dissolves contracts. No member, can Jiave. any opinion o f 
 his„own-; -and..-,the So cTety„has-.itaJMisQns. independeitt[of 
 the seculai'-anlhntitv^.— 
 
 There are four classes of members, — the noviciates or 
 probationers,, the approved disciples the coadjutors, and 
 the professors of the tour vows. The education of youth 
 was alafay.s.CQ,nsidered.i).v them as their peculiar ptovince,. 
 aware of the influence whicTrgnEtTaTneasiire would infal- 
 l ibly secure over another generation : and before the con- 
 clusion of the sixteenth century, the Jesuits had obtained 
 the chief direction of the youthful mind in every Catholic 
 country in Europe. They had become the confessors o f 
 almost aJLit|S_monarchs, and the spiritual guides of nearly 
 every person distinguished for rank or influence . At dif- 
 ferent periods, they obtained the direction of the most con- 
 siderable courts, and took part in every intrigue and revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Notwithstanding their vowof poverty they accumulated , 
 upon various pretences, immense wealth. They claimed 
 exemption from tithes under a bull of Gregory XIII. who 
 was devoted to their interests ; and, by obtaining a special 
 licence from the court of Rom% to trade with the nations 
 whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucra- 
 tive commerce in the East and West Indies , formed set- 
 tlements in different countries, and acquired possession of 
 a large province in South A.merica, where they reigned as 
 sovereigns over some hundred thousand subjects. 
 
 Their policy is uniformly to inculcate attachment to the 
 order, and by a pliant morality, to soothe and gratify th e 
 p assions of mankind, for the pur pose of securing their pa - 
 t ronage . They proclaim (he duty of opposing princes 
 i who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed 
 
J g A VIEW OF THE 
 
 e very weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure . 
 to resist the progress of Protestantis m. 
 
 In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they 
 obtained the direction of the court, which for many years 
 delivered to them the consciences of its princes, and the 
 education of the people. Portugal opened the door to 
 their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia, 
 Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of 
 Paraguay, and resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, 
 who claimed it. The court of Lisbon, and even Rome 
 herself, protested in vain against their excesses. The 
 league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Je- 
 suits, under the sanction of Sixtus V to disturb the suc- 
 cession to the throne of France. The Jesuits' college at 
 Paris was the grand focus of the seditions and treasons 
 which then agitated the state and the ruler of the Jesuits 
 was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave 
 the impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout 
 France. Matthieu, a Jesuit and confessor of Henry III. 
 was called « The Courier of the League,' on account of 
 his frequent journies to and from Rome, at that disastrous 
 period. 
 
 In Germany the Society appropriated the richest bene- 
 fices, particularly those of the monasteries of St. Benedict 
 and St. Bernard. Catharine of Austria confided in them, 
 and was supplanted ; and loud outcries were uttered 
 against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of 
 Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruet- 
 ties in Poland will never be forgotten. They were ex - 
 pelled from Abyssinia, Japan Malta, Cochin, Moscow , 
 Venice, and other places, for their gross misconduct ; and 
 in America and Asia, they carried devastation and blood 
 wherever they went. The great object of the persecuti on 
 of^the Protestants in Sanoy wM3Bfi*cbnfiscation of the ir 
 property, in order to .endow the colleges of. the Jesuit s. 
 They bad, no doubt a share in the atrocities of the duke of 
 Alva, in the .Low Countries. They boasted of the frien d- 
 ship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their caus e, 
 
HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. 17 
 
 a nd under whoseinfluence' the massacre of St. Bartholo- 
 mew was exacvJfiST." Louis ~~XTVT~ had" three "Jesu'iTcbn - 
 fessors, which may explain" thV revocation pTfE&jedict o f 
 JNantz.^T -" 
 
 JQie-Lasuks have been natoxipus for attempting the lives 
 of Rcioce^.Affhe reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a suc- 
 cession of pTOts. In her proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 
 1602. she says, that ' the Jesuits had fomented the plots 
 against her person, excited her subjects to revolt, provoked 
 foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs 
 of state, and by their language and writings, had under- 
 taken- to dispose of her crown." 
 
 Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against 
 James I. before he had reigned a year. They contrived 
 the gunpowder plot4w3o late as the time of George I. 
 both houses of parliament- reported, that the evidence ex- 
 amined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer, 
 had satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the de> 
 struction of the king, the subversion of the laws, and the 
 crowning of the popish Pretender ; and they state, that 
 " Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up at the Jesuits' 
 college at Vienna." Henry III. of France was assassi- 
 nated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 15K9. The Jesuits mur- 
 dered William Prince of Orange, in 1584. They at- 
 tempted the life of Louis XV. for imposing silence on the 
 polemics of their order, besides innumerable other atro- 
 cities. 
 
 The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order, ren- 
 dered it early detested by the principal powers of Europe ; 
 and while Pascal, by his ' Provincial Letters,' exposed 
 the morality of the Society, and thus overthrew their in- 
 fluence over the multitude, different potentates concurred, 
 from time to tinTe, to destroy or prevent its establishments. 
 Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions : it was 
 expelled in England, by the proclamation of James I. i n 
 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in Portugal, in 1759 ; in 
 France, in 1764 ; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and sup- 
 pressed and abolished by pope Clement XIV. in 1 775. 
 Recently, however, the pope has dared to re-establish it, 
 2* 
 
18 A VIEW OF THE 
 
 though Clement had acted on the entreaties of even Ca- 
 tholic sovereigns, who deemed it incompatible with the 
 existence of civil society. It must be acknowledged, in- 
 deed, to be a fit instrument for ecclesiastical despotism , 
 and may therefore be regarded with indifference by all 
 who are Unconcerned to secure the liberties aflseir fellow- 
 men ; but those who feel as men and think like Christians, 
 will read the following Bull for the revival of the order 
 Of the Jesuits, with no ordinary sensations. 
 
HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. 1 9 
 
 Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God. 
 
 " (Ad perpetuam rei raemoriam.) 
 
 " The care of all the churches confided to our humility 
 by the Divine will, notwithstanding the lowness of our de- 
 serts and abilities, makes it our duty to employ all the aids 
 in our power, and which are furnished to us by the mercy 
 of Divine Providence, in order that we may be able, as 
 far as the changes of-tkiies and places will allow, to relieve 
 the spiritual wants of the Catholic world, without any dis- 
 tinction of people and nations. 
 
 " Wishing to fulfil this duty of our apostolic ministry, as 
 soon as Francis Kareu, (then living,) and other secular 
 priests, resident for many years in the vast empire of Rus- 
 sia, and who had been members of the company of Jesus, 
 suppressed by Clement XIV. of happy memory, had suppli- 
 cated our permission to unite in a body, for the purpose of 
 being able to apply themselves more easily, in conformity 
 with their institution, to the instruction of youth in religion 
 and good morals to devote themselves to preaching, to 
 confession, and the administration of the other sacraments, 
 we felt it our duty the more willingly to comply with their 
 prayer, inasmuch as the then reigning Emperor Paul I. 
 had recommended the said priests in his gracious despatch, 
 dated August 11, 1800, in which, after setting forth his 
 special regard for them, he declared to us that it would be 
 agreeable to him to see the company of Jesus established 
 in his empire, under our authority ; and we, on our side, 
 considered attentively the great advantages which these 
 vast regions might thence derive ; considering how useful 
 t hose ecclesiastics, whose morals and learning were equally 
 t ried, would be to the Catholic religion, tho ught fit to se- 
 cond the wish of so great and beneficent a prince. 
 
.'0 A VIEW OF THE 
 
 "In consequence, by our brief, dated March 7, 1801, 
 we granted to the said Francis Kareu, and his colleagues 
 residing in Russia, or who should repair thither from other 
 countries power to form themselves into a body or con- 
 gregation of the company of Jesus ; they are at liberty to 
 unite in jone or more houses, to be pointed out by their 
 superior, provided these houses are situated within the 
 Russian empire. We named the said Francis Kareu, 
 general of the said congregation ; we authorized them to 
 resume and follow the rule of St. Ignatius of Loyola, ap- 
 proved and confirmed by the constitutions of Paul III. 
 our predecessor, of happy memory, in order that the com- 
 panions in a religious union, might freely engage in the 
 instruction of youth in religion and good letters, direct se- 
 minaries and colleges, and with the ponsent of the ordinary, 
 confess, preach the word of God, and administer the sacra- 
 ments. By the same brief we received the congregation 
 of the company of Jesus under our immediate protection 
 and dependence, reserving to ourselves and our successors 
 the prescription of every thing that might appear to us 
 proper to consolidate, to. defend it, and to purge it from 
 the abuses and corruptions that might be therein intro- 
 duced ; and for this purpose we expressly abrogated such 
 apostolical constitutions, statutes, privileges, and indul- 
 gences granted in contradiction to these concessions, 
 especially the apostolic letters of Clement XIV. our pre- 
 decessor, which begin with the words, Dominus ac Re- 
 demptor noster, only in so far as they are contrary to our 
 brief, beginning CatholiccB, and which was given only for 
 the Russian empire. 
 
 " A short time after we had ordained the restoration of 
 the order of Jesuits in Russia, we thought it our duty to 
 grant the same favour to the kingdom of Sicily, on the 
 warm request oF-our dear son in Jesus Christ, King 
 Ferdinand, who begged that the company of Jesus might 
 be re-established in his dominions and states, as it was in 
 Russia, from a conviction that, in these deporable times, 
 the Jesuits were instructors most capable of forming youth 
 to Christian piety and the fear of God, which is the begin- 
 
HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. 21 
 
 ning of wisdom, and to instruct them in science and let- 
 ters The duty of our pastoral charge leading us to second 
 the pious wishes of these illustrious monarchs, and having 
 only in view the glory of God and the salvation of souls, we 
 by our brief, beginning Per alias, and dated the 30th July, 
 1804, extended to the kingdom of the Two Sicilies the 
 same concessions which we had made to the Russian em-» 
 pire. 
 
 '' The Catholic world demands with unanimous voice 
 the re-establishment of the company of Jesus. We daily 
 .receive to this effect the most pressing' petitions from our 
 venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops, and the 
 most distinguished persons, especially since the abundant 
 fruits which this company has produced in the above coun- 
 tries have been generally known. The dispersion even of 
 the stones of the sanctuary in those recent calamities, 
 (which it is better now to deplore than to repeat ;) the 
 annihilation of the discipline of the regular orders, (the 
 glory and support of religion and the Catholic church, to 
 the restoration of which, all our thoughts and cares are at 
 present directed,) require that we should accede to a wish 
 so just and general. 
 
 *' We should deem ourselves guilty of a great crim e 
 t owards God, if, amidst these dangers of the Christian re - 
 public, we neglected the aids which the special providence 
 o f God has put at our disposal ; and if, placed in the bark 
 of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual storms, we re- 
 fused to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who 
 volunteer their services, in order to break the waves of a 
 sea which threatens every moment shipwreck and death. 
 Decided by motives so numerous and powerful, we have 
 resolved to do now what we could have wished to have 
 done at the commencement of our pontificate. After hav- 
 ing by fervent prayers implored the divine asistance, after 
 having taken the advice and counsel of a great number of 
 our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman 
 church, we have decreed, with full knowledge, in virtue of 
 the plenitude of apostolic power, and with perpetual vali- 
 dity, that all the concessions and powers granted by us 
 
22 A VIEW OP THE 
 
 solely to the Russian empire and the kingdom of the Two 
 Sicilies, shall henceforth extend to all our ecclesiastical 
 states, and also < to all other states. We therefore concede 
 and grant to our well-beloved son. Taddeo Barzorowski, 
 at this time general of the company of Jesus, and to the 
 other members of that company, lawfully delegated by 
 him, all suitable and necessary powers, in order that the 
 said states may freely and lawfully receive all those who 
 shall wish to be admitted into the regular order of the 
 company of Jesus, who, under the authority of the Gene- 
 ral ad interim, shall be admitted and distributed, according 
 to opportunity, in one or more houses one or more col- 
 leges, and one or more provinces, where they shall con- 
 form their mode of life to the rules prescribed by St. Ig- 
 natius of Loyola, approved and confirmed by the consti- 
 tutions of Paul III. We declare besides, and grant 
 towkr that they may freely and lawfully apply to the 
 education of youth in the principles of the Catholic faith, 
 to form them to good morals, and to direct colleges and 
 seminaries; we authorize them to hear confessions, to 
 preach the word of God, and to administer the sacraments 
 in the places of their residence with the consent and ap- 
 probation of the ordinary. We take under our tutelage, 
 under our immediate obedience, and that of the Holy See, 
 all the colleges, houses, provinces and members of this 
 order, and all those who shall join it ; always reserving to 
 ourselves, and the Roman pontiffs our successors, to pre- 
 scribe and direct all that we may deem it our duty to pre- 
 scribe and direct to consolidate the said company more and 
 more, to render it stronger and to purge it of abuses, 
 should they ever creep in which God avert. It now re- 
 mains for us to exhort with all our heart, and in the name 
 of the Lord, all superiors, provincials, rectors compa- 
 nions, and pupils of this re-established Society, to show 
 themselves at all times and in all places, faithful imitators 
 of their father ; that they exactly observe the rule pre- 
 scribed by iheir great founder ; that they obey with an 
 always increasing zeal the useful advices and salutary 
 counsels which he has left to his children, 
 
HISTORY OF TUB JESUITS. 23 
 
 " In fine, we recommend strongly, in the Lord* the com- 
 pany and all its members to our dear sons in Jesus Christ, 
 the illustrious and noble princes and lords temporal, as 
 well as to our venerable brothers the archbishops and 
 bishops, and to all those who are placed in authority ; we 
 exhort, we conjure them not only not to suffer that these 
 religious be in any way molested, but to watch that they 
 be treated with all due kindness and charity. 
 
 " We ordain that the present letters be inviolably ob- 
 served, according to their form and tenor, in all time 
 coming, that they enjoy their full and entire effect ; that 
 t hey shall never be submitted to the judgment or revision 
 of any jud ge, with whatever power he may be clothed, de - 
 claring null and of no effect any encroachment on the pre - 
 s ent regulations, either knowingly or from ignorance ; and 
 this notwithstanding any apostolical constitutions and ordi - 
 nances, especially the brief of CLEMENT XIV. of happy 
 memory, beginning with the words Dominus ac Redemptor 
 • master, issued under the seal of the Fisherman, on the 22d 
 o f July. 1773, which we expressly abrogate as far as con- 
 t rary to the present orde r. 
 
 " Tt is also our will that the same credit be paid to co- 
 pies, whether in manuscript or printed, of our present brief, 
 as to the original itself, provided they have the signature 
 of some notary public, and the seal of some ecclesiastical 
 dignitary ; that no one be permitted to infringe, or by an 
 audacious temerity, to oppose any part of this ordinance ; 
 and that should any one take upon him to attempt, let him 
 k now that he will thereby incur the indignation of 
 ALMIGHTY GOD, and of the HOLY APOSTLE S 
 PETER AND PAUL . 
 
 " Given at Rome, at Sancta Maria Major, on the 7th 
 of August, in the year of our Lord, 1814, and the 15th 
 of our pontificate. 
 
 ''Signed) " Cardinal Prodataire. 
 
 « Cardinal Beaschi." 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Remarks on the Disputes of the Sorbonne, and on the In- 
 vention of the Term next power, employed by the 
 Molinists to draw a Censure upon Mr. Arnauld. 
 
 Sir, Paris, Jan. 23, 1656. 
 
 We have been greatly mistaken. It was only yesterday 
 that I was undeceived ; for, till then, I had imagined that 
 the disputes of the Sorbonne were really of the utmost 
 consequence to the interests of religion. The frequent 
 meetings of a society so celebrated as the faculty of the- 
 ology at Paris, in which have transpired so many extra- 
 ordinary and unexampled things, have so raised universal 
 expectation, that every one believes some great subject 
 has been agitated. You will be much surprised, however, 
 to learn by this communication, the issue of this splendid 
 affair, which, as I have made myself thoroughly acquainted 
 with it, I shall state in a few words 
 
 The two subjects under examination relate — the one to 
 a question of fact — the othar, to. 1 a question of right. 
 
 The former is to ascertain whether Mr. Arnauld be 
 guilty of rashness, for saying, in his second letter, that he 
 has carefully read the book of Jasqsenius, but has not been 
 able to find the propositions condemned by the late Pope 
 (Innocent X) ; nevertheless, as he condemns these pro- 
 positions wherever they exist, he condemns them in Jan- 
 senius if they should be there. 
 
 "3. "'■ , 
 
26 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 The question, therefore, is, whether it be not extremely 
 rash to intimate a doubt respecting these propositions 
 actually occurring in Jansenius, after the bishops have 
 affirmed that they do ? 
 
 This affair being proposed in the Sorbonne, seventy-one 
 doctors undertook the defence of Mr Arnauld, maintain- 
 ing that he could give no other reply to the numerous 
 inquirers into his opinion of the existence of these propo- 
 sitions in the said book than this, that he had not seen 
 them there, nevertheless he condemned them if they were. 
 
 Some went further- and declared that after a diligent 
 search they had not been able to discover them, but that 
 they had even found some quite of a contrary nature. 
 They then proceeded with some warmth , to require that 
 if any doctor had seen them, he would be good enough to 
 point them out. This they pleaded was so easily done, 
 that no person could refuse the request, and it was an in- 
 fallible way of convincing every one, even Mr. Arnauld 
 himself. This, however, has never been conceded. 
 
 Such have been the proceedings on one side ; on the 
 other, eighty secular doctors and about forty mendicant 
 friars have condemned Mr. Arnauld's statement without 
 any examination into its truth or falsehood ; and have even 
 affirmed that the question did not respect the truth of his 
 assertion, but merely his rashness in advancing it. 
 
 Moreover, fifteen were indisposed to concur in the cen- 
 sure ; and they are called the indifferent. 
 
 In this manner the question of fact terminated, about 
 which I confess I feel very little concern ; for whether 
 Mr. Arnauld be or be not guilty of rashness, does not at 
 all affect my conscience, tf I had any curiosity to ascertain 
 whether the propositions occur in Jansenius, his book is 
 neither so scarce nor so Voluminous, as to prevent my 
 reading it for my own satisfaction, without consulting the 
 Sorbonne. ^- 
 
 But were I not apprehensive of being rash myself, I be- 
 lieve I should agree with almost every body I meet, who 
 having hitherto adopted the general belief that these pro- 
 positions were in Jansenius, really begin to mistrust it, on 
 
MOVINCIAL LETTERS. 27 
 
 account of this strange refusal to point them out. I posi- 
 tively have not found a single individual who could say he 
 had seen them. This censure then, I fear, will do more 
 harm than good, and give those who may be acquainted 
 with the circumstances, quite a different impression from 
 what is intended. In fact, people are now becoming so 
 mistrustful^ they will believe nothing but w hat they see. 
 This point however, as I observed before, is of little Tm- 
 portance, since it does not touch our faith. 
 
 The question of right seems at first sight more momen- 
 tous ; I have therefore taken the utmost pains to inform 
 myself upon the subject ; but you will be gratified to find 
 that this is as insignificant as the former. 
 
 The investigation respected Mr. Arnauld's words in the 
 same letter, 'Hhat the grace without which we can do 
 nothing, was deficient in St. Peter when he fell." You 
 and 1 expected that the great principles of grace would 
 have been examined, as, whethei grace be bestowed on all I 
 men, and whether it be certainly efficacious. Alas! howl 
 were we deceived ! For my part I am become a great 
 divine in a very little time, of which you shall have some 
 signal proofs ! 
 
 To ascertain the real truth, I went to my near neigh- 
 bour, Mr. N., a doctor of the college of Navarre, who is, 
 as you know, one of the bitterest opponents of the Jan- 
 senists,; and as my curiosity rendered me almost as zeal- 
 ous as himself, I inquired if, to prevent all future doubts, 
 they would not come to a formal decision, "that grace is 
 given to all men." But he repelled me wfth great rude- 
 ness, saying, that was not the point, although some of his 
 party maintained ' that grace is not given to all," and that 
 even the examiners had declared in full assembly, that 
 this opinion was problematical. This, indeed, was his own 
 sentiment, which he confirmed by a celebrated passage of 
 St Augustin : •'' We know that grace is not given to all 
 men." 
 
 ~ T apologized for mistaking his meaning, and requested 
 to know whether they would not. at least, condemn that 
 other opinion of the Jansenists, which had excited so 
 
28 PROVINCIAL LETTER9. 
 
 much clamour, " that grace is efficacious, and determines 
 the will in the choice of good." But I was again unlucky ; 
 ' " You know nothing about it," said he ; " that is no 
 heresy ; it is perfectly orthodox ; all the Thomists main- 
 tain it, and I have done the same myself in my Sorbonnic 
 disputations." 
 
 I dared not proceed — still, I could not discover where 
 the difficulty lay ; but to gain some kind of information, I 
 begged him to state wherein consisted the heresy of Mr. 
 Arnauld's proposition. " It is in this," said he, " that he 
 does not admit that the righteous possess the power of ful- 
 filling the commands of God, in the manner in which we 
 [understand it." ' 
 
 Afjter this information I withdrew, elated with having 
 found out the difficult point of the question. 1 hastened 
 to Mr. N., who was sufficiently improved in his health to 
 accompany me to his brother-in-law, a most thorough Jan- 
 senist, but nevertheless a very good man ! In order to se- 
 cure a better reception, I pretended to be of his party, and 
 asked if it were possible that the Sorbonne should intro- 
 duce such an error as this into the church, " that the just 
 always, possess a power of fulfilling the commands of God ?" 
 "What," replied ' he, " are you saying?" Do you call 
 such a Catholic sentiment as that an error, a doctrine 
 which none but Lutherans and Calvinists ever oppose ?" 
 " And is not this your opinion then ?" returned I «* Cer- 
 tainly not : we condemn it as heretical and impious." All 
 astonishment, I perceived that I had now over-acted the 
 Jansenist, as I had before, the Molinist. But not being 
 fully satisfied" with this reply, I entreated him to tell me 
 ingenuously if he really maintained, •' that the just always 
 had a real power to keep the divine precepts " My gen- 
 tleman grew a little angry at this — but it was all a holy 
 zeal of course — and said he would never disguise his sen- 
 timents for any consideration in the world ! that this was 
 his firm belief, that both he and all his party would defend 
 it to the last moment of life, as the genuine doctrine of St. 
 Thomas and St. Augustin their master. 
 
 He was so serious that I could not disbelieve him : and 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 29 
 
 I instantly returned to my first doctor, to assure him, with 
 the utmost satisfaction, that. I was confident peace would 
 soon be restored in the Sorbonne ; that the Jansenists were 
 agreed upon the just possessing power to perform the com- 
 mandments ; that I would answer for it, and would make 
 them all sign it wjth their blood. " Hold," said he, " a 
 man must be an excellent divine to discriminate these 
 niceties ; so fine and subtle is the difference between us, 
 that we can scarcely discern it ourselves ; — you therefore 
 cannot be supposed to comprehend it ; but rest satisfied 
 that the Jansenists will tell you. that the just always pos- 
 sess a power of fulfilling the divine commandments, which 
 we do not dispute, but they will not inform you that this is 
 next power. This is the point. 
 
 This term was to me quite new and unintelligible. I 
 understood the matter till this moment ; but now all was 
 obscurity, and I could imagine no otherwise than that this 
 kind of phraseology was invented solely to confuse the 
 subject. I therefore requested some explanation, but he 
 made a great mystery of it, and dismissed me without any 
 further satisfaction, to inquire of the Jansenists whether 
 they admitted this next power. My memory, you will ob- 
 serve, retained the expression ; but, as to my understand- 
 ing, verily it had no concern with it. Fearful of forgetting 
 it, I hastened off to my Jansenist, and after the first com- 
 pliments. " Pray," said I, " do you'admit of a next power ?" 
 He fell a laughing, and coldly replied, " Tell me yourself, 
 in what sense you understand it, and I am then prepared to 
 say what I believe." But as I was not wise enough for 
 this, I could find no answer ; but unwilling to lose my visit, 
 I answered at random, " I understand it in the sense of the 
 Molinists." '' O," returned my gentleman, without the 
 least emotion, " and to which of the Molinists would you 
 refer me ?" " All of them," said I, '• as they constitute 
 but one body and are animated by one spirit." 
 
 " You know little." said he, " of the subject. They are 
 
 so much disunited in opinion, that they are quite opposite 
 
 to each other. In one thing, however, they are all agreed, 
 
 to ruin Mr. Arnauld ; and accordingly have determined, by 
 
 " ' 3* 
 
30 PBOVTNCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 mutual consent, to use the term next, though the} under- 
 stand it in very different senses, that by a similarity of lan- 
 guage and an external conformity, they may seem to con- 
 stitute a more considerable body, and be able to seek his 
 ruin with the greater confidence of success." 
 
 This answer filled me with astonishment : still, I was 
 unwilling to receive an impression of the base designs of 
 the Molinists upon the word of an individual, and my only 
 concern being to ascertain the different senses in which 
 they employ the term next power. He assured me of his 
 perfect readiness to explain it, but remarked, " You will 
 see such gross contrariety and contradiction, as will almost 
 surpass your belief, and make yon suspicious of my vera- 
 city. But you will be better satisfied to have it immedi- 
 ately from themselves ; and if you allow me to direct you, 
 I should recommend a separate visit to a Mr. le Moine 
 and father Nicolai." " I have no acquaintance," said I, 
 " with either of these gentlemen." >' But possibly you 
 may know some others I may name, who entertain the 
 same opinions." This was, in fact, the case. " Do you 
 not know," continued he. '' some of the Dominicans, who 
 are called the new Thomists, and all agree with father 
 Nicolai ?" I was acquainted with some of them, and 
 being resolved to avail myself of his advice and pursue my 
 object, I immediately left him, and went to one of the dis- 
 ciples of M. le Moine. v/ 
 
 I entreated him to inform me what it was to have the 
 next power to do any things " O," said he, " thlsls~suflj- 
 ciently odvtousx it i§ to have whatever power is requisite 
 to accomplish it, in such a manner that nothing is wanting 
 to complete the action.'*" ,l So then," answered I, "to 
 have the mexTpoiver to cross a river, is to have a bpat, wa- 
 termen, oars, and other requisites, so that nothing be 
 wanting." " Quite right." " And to have the next 
 power to see, is to have good eyes and a good light. For, 
 in your estimation, if a person possessed good eyes in the 
 dark, he would not have the next power to see, because 
 light would be needed, without which it is impossible to 
 see at all." " Very logical indeed." » Consequently," 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. * 3 1 
 
 continued I, " when you say that all the just, at all times 
 possess the next power of observing the commandments, 
 you mean that they always have all theTgrace which is ne- 
 cessary for their performance; at least that nothing is 
 wanting on the part of God." " Gently," said he, " the 
 just always possess whatever is requisite for their oSedi- 
 ence, or at least what is requisite to ask it of God." '' I 
 understand, very well, said I, " they have all that is neces- 
 sary to seek divine assistance by prayer, but^need ; no other 
 grace to enable them to pray." " Perfectly correct." 
 " But is not an efficacious grace requisite to excite us to 
 pray ?" " No," returned he, following the opinion of M. 
 le Moine. 
 
 To lose no time, I hastened to the Jacobins, inquiring 
 for those whom I knew to be Thomists of the new school ; 
 and I begged them to give me information respecting this 
 next power : first asking if it were not that in which nothing 
 was deficient in point of active energy. The answer was 
 categorically, " No." I asked, •' Pray, Fathers, do you 
 call it next power when any such deficiency exists ; and 
 will you affirm, for instance, of a person in the night, with- 
 out any kind of light, that he has the next power to see?" 
 -■ Most assuredly, if he be not blind." " I have no ob- 
 jection to this," said I> " but M. le Moine has quite a 
 different view of the subject." "True,, but 1 tell you 
 how we understand it." To this I bowed, '' For I will 
 never," returned I, " dispute about a term, if I am only 
 informed of the meaning attached to it. 1 perceive that 
 when you state that the just always have the next power to 
 pray to God, you intend that they require some other aid, 
 without which they could never pray at all." " Excellent, 
 excellent," replied one of the Fathers, embracing me, — 
 " most excellent ; for the just need an efficacious grace not 
 bestowed upon all men, and which influences their will to 
 pray ; and whoever denies the necessity of this efficacious 
 grace is a hereti c. ' 
 
 " Excellent, indeed, very excellent," exclaimed I, in my 
 turn : " but, according to your opinion, the Jansenists are 
 orthodox, and M. le Moine a heretic ; for they affirm that 
 
32 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the just have power to pray, but efficacious grace is never- 
 theless essential, which you approve ; he says that the just 
 can pray without efficacious grace which is the statement 
 you condemn." " True, 1 ' said they, ' but then M. le 
 Moine calls that power by the distinguishing epithet of 
 next power. 
 
 " But really- good Father," continued I, " it is a mere 
 play upon words to say that you agree respecting the 
 same common term, but use it in a contrary sense." To 
 this I had no reply ; but most fortunately, in came the dis- 
 ciple of M. le Moine I had before consulted. This struck 
 me at the time as a marvellous coincidence ; but I have 
 since learned that these fortunate accidents are not uncom- 
 mon, as they are in the habit of perpetual intercourse. 
 
 Addressing myself instantly to M. le Moine's disciple, 
 " I know a gentleman," said I, " who maintains that all the 
 just have ajwjiys, at all times, the power to pray, but that 
 nevertheless they never will pray without an efficacious 
 grace to impellfcem, which God does not always vouchsafe 
 to all the just. Is this heretical ?" " Stop," said the doc- 
 tor, " you take me by surprise — hold a little — distinguo — 
 if he call that power next power, he is a Thomist, and 
 therefore orthodox — if not. he is a Jansenist and conse- 
 quently a heretic." " But he neither calls it next nor not 
 next." " Then he is a heretic — I appeal to these good 
 Fathers." However, I did not take the opinion of these 
 judges, for they had already given consent by a significant 
 nod, but proceeded — " The gentleman refuses to adopt 
 the term next, because he can obtain no explanation of it." 
 One of the Fathers, upon this, was going to favour us 
 with a definition, but the disciple of M. le Moine in- 
 terrupted him, saying, " Why do you wish to renew our 
 quarrelsome disputations ? Have not we agreed not to 
 explain the term next, and to use it on both sides without 
 defining what it signifies ?" — to this he instantly assented. 
 
 I was now let into the secret ; and, rising to take my 
 leave, " Fathers," I exclaimed, ■« verily I feel extremely 
 apprehensive that the whole ofthis affair is mere chicanery, 
 and whatever may result from your meetings, I will venture 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTEHS. 33 
 
 to predict, that whatever censure may be inflicted- peace 
 will not be established. For, if it should be agreed to 
 pronounce the syllable next, who does not perceive that, 
 as no explanation is given, each party will claim the vic- 
 tory ? The Dominicans will say it is understood in their 
 sense. M. le Moine will affirm it is in his ; and there will 
 arise more disputes respecting the signification of the word, 
 than about its being introduced ; for, after all, there would 
 be no great hazard in receiving it without affixing any 
 meaning, since it can only do mischief by its meaning. 
 It would, however, be unworthy of the Sorbonne and the 
 faculty of theology to make use of ambiguous terms with- 
 out giving some explanation ; but, Fathers, I beseech you, 
 only this once, what must I believe in order to be an or- 
 thodox Catholic ?" ' Y ou must." said they, all speakin g 
 together, " you must say, that all the just possess the nex t 
 power, without attaching any meaning to the tvofds — Ab- 
 strahendo a sensu Tkomistarum, et a sensu aliorum Theo- 
 logorum. 
 
 " That is to say," returned I, taking my leave, " this 
 word must be pronounced with the lips, through fear of 
 being stigmatized with the name of heretic. Is it a scrip- 
 tural term ?" '' No." " Is it used by the Fathers, the 
 councils, or the Popes ?" " No." " Is it patronised by 
 St. Thomas ?" " No." " Whence then arises the ne- 
 cessity of using it at all, since it is neither supported by any 
 authority, nor has any peculiar signification of its own ?" 
 " You are prodigiously obstinate," they exclaimed, " but 
 you shall pronounce it, or be accounted a heretic, and 
 Mr. Arnauld also ; for our party constitutes the majority, 
 and, if it be necessary, we can compel as many of the Cor- 
 deliers to vote as will carry the point." 
 
 This last reason was so forcible, that I bowed, and with- 
 drew to give you this statement, by which you will perceive 
 that none of the following points have been examined, and 
 consequently neither condemned nor approved. 1 . That 
 grace is not given to all men. 2. That all the just have 
 power to keep the divine commandments. 3. That never- 
 . theless they need efficacious grace to determine their will 
 
ij4 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 to obey them, and even to pray. 4. That this eJEcacious 
 grace is not always given to all the just, and that it de- 
 pends solely on the mercy of God. So that there is no- 
 thing but the poor word next, without any meaning, that 
 runs any risk. 
 
 Happy the people who live entirely ignorant of it ? 
 Happy they who existed before the birth of this next! ! 
 I see no remedy, if the gentlemen of the academy do not, 
 by some authoritative mandate banish this barbarous term 
 out of the Sorbonne — a term which has occasioned so 
 many divisions Unless this be done, the censure must be 
 confirmed ; but I can see no other evil consequence than 
 that of rendering the Sorbonne contemptible, which how- 
 ever will annihilate the authority it ought to possess on 
 other occasions. 
 
 Now I have you at liberty to vote for or against the term 
 next, for I h;ive too much affection for you to persecute 
 you upon so frivolous a pretext. 
 
 If this account should afford you any gratification, 1 
 shall continue to give you every information of what 
 passes. 
 
 I am, &c, 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 On the Subject of sufficient Grace. 
 
 Sir, Paris, Jan. 29, 1656. 
 
 At the very moment I was sealing up my last letter, our 
 old friend Mr. N. came in, most fortunately for my cu- 
 riosity, for he is thoroughly acquainted with the controver- 
 sies of the day, and is perfectly in the secret of the Jesuits, 
 being with them constantly, and intimate with Aeir princi- 
 pal men. After mentioning the particular purpose of his 
 visit, I requested him to state, in a few words, the points in 
 debate between the two parties. 
 
 These, with the utmost readiness, he told me were chiefly 
 two : the one respecting next power, the other sufficient 
 grace. The first I have already explained ; allow me to 
 speak of the second. 
 
 The difference, then, on the subject of sufficient grace 
 is chiefly this ; the Jesuits maintain that there is a general 
 grace bestowed upon all mankind, but in such a sense 
 subordinated to free will, that this grace is rendered effi- 
 cacious or inefficacious as the will chooses, without any 
 additional assistance from God, and without needing any 
 thing exterior to itself to make its operations effectual ; on 
 which account it is distinguished by the epithet sufficient. 
 T he Jansenists, on the contrary, affirm that no grace is 
 act ually sufficient, unless it be also efficaciou s, that is, that 
 all those principles which do not determine the will to act 
 effectively, are insufficient for action, because, they say, no 
 one can act without e fficacious gr ace. 
 
36 PIIOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Wishing afterwards to be informed respecting the doc- 
 trine of the new Thomists, " It is," exclaimeJ he, '' quite 
 ridiculous ; for they agree with the Jansenists, to admit of 
 a sufficient grape given to all men, but insist that they can 
 never act with this alone, and that it is still necessary that 
 God should bestow an efficacious grace really to influence 
 the will, and which is not bestowed upon all." " Then," 
 said I, " this grace is at once sufficient and insufficient." 
 " Very true," he answered ; for if it be sufficient, nothing 
 more is requisite to produce the action ; and if not, it can- 
 not be called sufficient." 
 
 " But," I inquired, " where is the difference between 
 them and the Jansenists ?" >' They differ," said he, "in 
 this, that the Dominicans at least acknowledge that all 
 men have sufficient grace." " I understand you ; but they 
 say so without thinking so, because they proceed immedi- 
 ately to state, that in order to act, we must possess effica- 
 cious grace, which is not given to all ; and hence, although 
 they agree with the Jesuits in using the same nonsensical 
 terms, they contradict them in the substantial meaning, and 
 agree with the Jansenist." " True." " How is it then," 
 I asked, ■ that the Jesuits and these men are so united, 
 and why do not they oppose them as well as the Jan- 
 senists, for they will always find them powerful opponents ; 
 who, while asserting the necessity of efficacious grace to 
 determine the will, prevent the establishment of that which 
 they deem to be of itself sufficient ?" 
 
 " The Dominicans," said he, " are a powerful body, 
 and the Jesuits are too cunning openly to encounter them. 
 They are content with having brought them to admit the 
 term sufficient grace, though the sense in which they use it 
 is widely different ; by which means they gain the advan- 
 tage of easily making their opponents' sentiments appear 
 indefensible whenever they please. For, supposing that 
 all men have sufficient principles of grace it is quite natu- 
 ral to infer that efficacious grace is not necessary to ac- 
 tion, because the sufficiency of the general principle will 
 preclude the necessity of any thing additional. He who 
 uses the term sufficient, includes whatever is essentially 
 
PKOVINCIAL LETTEKS. 37 
 
 requisite, and it will he of no avail for the Dominicans to 
 protest that they impute a different sense to the expression. 
 The peopje accustomed to the general use of the word, 
 will not listen to their explanation. Thus the society of 
 Jesuits has profited abundantly by the expression adopted 
 by the Dominicans, without urging them farther ; and 
 were you acquainted with what occurred during the pope- 
 doms of Clement VIII. and Paul V., and how the Domi- 
 nicans opposed the efforts of the Jesuits to establish the 
 doctrine of sufficient grace, you would no longer be sur- 
 prised at the present cessation of hostilities, and the ready 
 consent of the latter to their enjoying their own opinion, 
 provided they have equal liberty, especially as the Domi- 
 nicans have adopted and agreed publicly to their favourite 
 term. 
 
 This complaisance is satisfactory, and the Dominicans 
 are in consequence not required to deny the necessity of 
 efficacious grace This would be advancing a step too 
 far: friends should , not be tyrannized over ; the Jesuits 
 have gained enough ; for the world is satisfied with words, 
 little solicitous of penetrating into things ; so that the 
 name sufficient grace being equally received by both par- 
 ties, though with a wonderful difference of meaning, there 
 are no persons, except it be some of. the most sharp- 
 sighted theologians, but will think that Jacobins and Je- 
 suits agree in sense as much as in expression." I acknow- 
 ledged that I thought the Jesuits a shrewd set of peo- 
 ple • /and, availing myself of my friend's advice, I went 
 straight to the former, at whose gate 1 found a good friend 
 of mine, a staunch Jansenist (for you must know I have 
 friends of all parties,) who was in search of one of the 
 Fathers, though not the same. However, I persuaded 
 him after much entreaty, to accompany me. Asking for 
 one of the new Thomists, who was delighted to see me — 
 " Oho !" said I, " my good Father, it is not enough for 
 all men to have a next power, by which they can in fact do 
 nothing ; they must possess sufficient grace, by which they 
 can do — as little. Is not this the doctrine of your 
 schools ?" " Yes, certainly," returned he, " and I firmly 
 
 4 
 
38 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 maintained it in the Sorbonne this very morning : I spoke 
 out my half-hour ; and, but for the hour-glass, I should 
 have exterminated that abominable proverb which is so 
 current in Paris — he votes with his cap like a monk in the 
 Sorbonne." " And pray, what may you mean by your 
 half-hour and your hour-glass 1 Do they confine your 
 speeches so exactly to a specified time ? : ' " Yes," said 
 he, " they have done so for some days past." " And are 
 you obliged to occupy your half-hour ?" " O no, you may 
 speak as little, but not as much as you please." " A capital 
 regulation for an ignoramus ! A noble excuse for such as 
 have nothing worth hearing to say ! But to the point, 
 Father. Is this grace, which is given to all men suffi- 
 cient ?" " Yes," said he, " and yet it is of no avail without 
 efficacious grace !" " No." •' And all men have suffi- 
 cient, but all have not efficacious grace 1" •• Exactly so." 
 " That is to say, all men have grace enough, and all 
 have not grace enough — this grace is sufficient and it is 
 not sufficient — that is, in fact, it is nominally sufficient and 
 really insufficient. --Upon my word, Father, this is a very 
 fine doctrine ! Have you forgot, since you quitted the 
 'world, what the term sufficient signifies ? Do you recol- 
 lect that it includes all that is necessary to an action ? 
 You cannot have forgotten this ; for to take a very ob- 
 vious illustration, if your table were only supplied with 
 two ounces of bread and a glass of water per day, should 
 you be satisfied with your Prior, upon his pleading that 
 with one thing more, which however he would not fur- 
 nish, you would have quite sufficient for your support ? 
 How then can you state that all men have sufficient grace 
 for acting, while you confess something more, which all do 
 not possess, is absolutely necessary ? Is this so unim- 
 portant an article of faith, that every one is left at liberty 
 to decide whether efficacious grace be or be not requi- 
 site ? Or is it altogether a matter of indifference ?" 
 " What do you mean," replied the good Father, " by in- 
 different ? This is heresy, rank heresy. To admit the 
 necessity of efficacious grace to act effectually, is faith ; 
 but to deny it is downright heresy." 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 39 
 
 ,( Where are we now," exclaimed I, " and which side 
 am I to take hero ? If I deny sufficient grace, 1 am a 
 Jansenist; if I admit it with the Jesuits in such a sense, 
 that there is no necessity for efficacious grace, I am, say 
 you, a heretic ; and if I concur with you, I sin against 
 common sense. I am a madman say the Jesuits. What 
 then am I to do in this inevitable necessity of being 
 deemed a madman, a heretic, or a Jansenist ? [_And to 
 what a situation are we reduced, if the Jansenisls alone 
 avoid confounding faith and reason, and thus save them- 
 selves at once frqm absurdity and error/] Ojuj-ik^ ', 
 
 My good friend the Jansenist seemed pleased with my 
 remarks, and thought he had already gained me. He said 
 nothing to me, however; but turning to the Father — 
 " Pray," said he," " in what respects do you agree with 
 the Jesuits ?" He replied, •' In this, that we both acknow- 
 ledge that sufficient grace is_given'to all men." li But," 
 returned he, " there are two things in the term sufficient 
 grace ; the sound, which is mere air, and the sense, which 
 is real and significant. So that when you avow an agree- 
 ment with the Jesuits in the word, but oppose them in the 
 sense, it is obvious that you disagree with them in the es- 
 sential matter, though you accord in the term. Is this 
 acting with openness and sincerity ?" " But," said the 
 good man, " what cause of complaint have you, since we 
 deceive no one by this mode of speaking 1 for in our 
 schools we publicly declare that we understand the ex- 
 pression in a sense quite opposite to the Jews." " I com- 
 plain," said my friend. ' that you do not declare to all 
 the world, that by sufficient grace, you mean a grace which 
 is not sufficient. Having changed the signification of the 
 usual terms in religion, you are obliged in conscience to- 
 declare, that when you admit of sufficient grace in all men, 
 you really intend that they have not sufficient grace. 
 Every one understands the word sufficient in the same 
 sense, the new Thomists alone excepted. Women of all 
 classes, who constitute one half of the world, the whole 
 court, the army, the magistrates, lawyers, merchants, arti- 
 ficers, and in fact the mass of mankind, the Dominicans 
 
10 PKOVINCIAl LETTERS. 
 
 apart consider the word sufficient as denoting whatever 
 is necessary. And no one is aware of your singular inter- 
 pretation ; every where it is said that they maintain the 
 doctrine of sufficient grace. What then is the natural 
 inference, but that thi'ir opinion is, that all men pussess 
 grace sufficient for action ? Especially when they are 
 seen to coalesce with the Jesuits, who receive it in this 
 sense, for selfish and intriguing purposes ? I» not the uni- 
 formity of your expressions connected with this union of 
 parly, an undeniable exposition and proof of the.uniformity 
 of your sentiments ?" 
 
 "Christians inquire of divines, what is the real condi- 
 tion of human nature since the fall? St. Augustin and 
 his disciples reply, that it does not possess sufficient 
 grace, unless it pleases God to bestow it. The Jesuits 
 come forward and assert that all do absolutely possess it. 
 Consult the Dominicans upon this contradiciory repre- 
 sentation, and what is the consequence ? They coalesce 
 with the Jesuits. By this artifice their numbers appear 
 so considerable. They divide from those who deny suffi- 
 cient grace and declare that all men have it ; and who 
 would imagine otherwise than that they sanction the Je- 
 suits ? When, lo ! they proceed to intimate that this 
 sufficient grace is useless, without the efficacious, which is 
 jjot bestowed upon all men ! 
 
 " Shall I present you with a picture of the churcjj 
 amidst these different sentiments 1 I consider it like a man 
 who, leaving his native country to travel abroad is met by 
 robbers who wound him so severely that they leave him 
 half dead. He sends for three physicians resident in. the 
 neighbourhood. The first after probing his wounds, pro- 
 nounces them to be mortal, assuring him that God alone 
 can restore him ; the second, wishing to flatter him, de- 
 clares he has sufficient strength to reach home, and insulting 
 the first for opposing his opinion, threatens to be the ruin 
 of him. The unfortunate patient, in this doubtful condition 
 as soon as he perceives the approach of the third, stretches 
 out his hands to welcome him who is to decide the dispute. 
 This physician, upon examining his wounds, and ascertain- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 41 
 
 ing the opinions already given, coincides with the second, 
 and these coalesce against the first to turn him out with 
 contempt ; and they now form the strongest party. The 
 patient infers from this proceeding, that the third physician 
 agrees with the second, and upon putting the question, he 
 assures him most positively that his strength is sufficient for 
 the proposed journey. The wounded man, however, ex- 
 patiating upon his weakness, asks upon what he founds his 
 opinion ? ' Why, you have still got legs, and legs are the 
 means" which, according to the constitution of nature, are 
 sufficient for the purpose of walking.' ' Very true,' re- 
 plies the wounded traveller ; ' but have I all the strength 
 which is requisite for making use of them : for really they 
 seem useless to me in my present languishing condition V 
 ' Certainly they are.' returns the physician, ' and you 
 never will be able to walk unless God vouchsafes some ex- 
 traordinary assistance to sustain and guide you.' ' What 
 then,' says the infirm man, ' have not I sufficient strength 
 in myself to be fully able to walk ?' ' O no- far, very far 
 from it.' 'Then you have a different opinion from your 
 friend respecting my real condition.' ' I candidly admit, 
 1 have.' 
 
 " What do you suppose the wounded man would say to 
 this ? He complains of their strange proceeding, and of 
 the ambiguous language of this third physician. He cen- 
 sures him for coalescing with the second, when he was in 
 fact of a contrary opinion, though they agreed in appearance 
 and for driving away the first, with whom he really coin- 
 cided ; and then, after trying his strength, and finding by 
 experience the truth of his weakness, he dismisses them 
 both -, and recalling the first- puts himself under his care, 
 follows his advice, and prays to God for the strength which 
 he confesses he needs. His petitions are heard, and he 
 ultimately returns home in peace." 
 
 The good Father was all astonishment at this parable, 
 and made no reply. Anxious to encourage him, I said, in 
 the softest manner, " But after all, what do you think, my 
 good Father, of applying the term sufficient to a grace 
 which, you say, it is a point of faith to believe is really 
 4* 
 
42 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 insufficient ?" " You," said he, " are at liberty to speak 
 whatever you choose upon these subjects, being a private 
 person ; I am a monk and belong to a society. Cannot 
 you perceive the wide difference ; We are dependent on 
 our superiors : they depend elsewhere, and have promised 
 our votes. What do you suppose would become of me ?" — 
 Half a word was sufficient, and we recollected that one of 
 his brethren was banished to Abbeville on a a similar oc- 
 casion. 
 
 " But," inquired I, *' how is it that your community 
 pledges itself at all upon the subject of this grace ?" 
 '* Oh, that is another question : all I can say is, our order 
 has most strenuously maintained the doctrine of St. 
 Thomas respecting efficacious grace. How zealously did 
 it oppose that of Molina from the very moment of its in- 
 troduction! How has it laboured to establish the neces- 
 sity of the efficacious grace of Jesus Christ ! You cannot 
 be ignorant surely of what was done under Clement VIII. 
 and Paul V., that the former being prevented by death, 
 and the latter by some Italian affairs, from publishing bis 
 bull, our arms were retained in the Vatican. But the 
 Jesuits, who, from the very commencement of the here- 
 sies of Luther and Calvin, took advantage of the peoples' 
 incapacity to discern betwe.en the truth and falsehood of 
 the doctrine of St. Thomas, circulated their sentiments 
 with such rapidity, that they soon obtained a dominion 
 over the popular faith, and we should have been decried 
 as Calvinists, and treated as the Jansenists now are, if we 
 had not qualified the truth of an efficacious grace by the 
 acknowledgement, at least in appearance, of a sufficient 
 one. In this dilemma what better expedient could be de- 
 vised, at once to preserve the truth and save our credit, 
 than that of admitting the name of sufficient grace, but 
 denying the reality? This then is the state of the case." 
 
 He spoke in so melancholy a tone, that I really pitied 
 him ; but not so my friend, who continued, " Do not flat- 
 ter yourself with having preserved the truth ; if she had 
 no other protectors, she would have perished in such fee- 
 ble hands. You have received the name of her enemy 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 43 
 
 into the church, which is as baneful as having received 
 the enemy himself. Names are inseparable from things. 
 If the term sufficient grace be once established, it will be 
 vain to say that you understand a grace which is Insuffi- 
 cient. It will never do ; the explanation will be detested : 
 the world uses more sincerity on the most unimportant 
 occasions : the Jesuits will triumph ; for this will in fact 
 be establishing their sufficient grace, while yours will be 
 only nominal, and thus you will propagate an article of 
 faith which is contrary to your own belief." 
 
 "No," said the Father " we would all suffer martyr- 
 dom, rather than consent to the establishment of sufficient 
 grace in the Jesuitical sense of the term. St. Thomas, 
 whom we have sworn to follow, even to death, is diame- 
 trically opposed to it." My friend, more grave than I 
 could be, replied, " Your fraternity, Father, has received 
 an order which is miserably managed : it abandons the 
 grace which was entrusted to it, and which was never be- 
 fore abandoned from the creation of the world. That 
 victorious grace which the patriarchs anticipated which 
 the prophets predicted, which was introduced by Jesus 
 Christ, preached by St. Paul, explained by St. Augustin, 
 the greatest of the Fathers, embraced by all his followers, 
 confirmed by St. Bernard, the last in the succession of the 
 Fathers, maintained by St. Thomas, the angel of the 
 schools, transmitted from him to your society, maintained 
 by so many of your Fathers, and so gloriously defended 
 by your fraternity under the popes Clement and Paul ; 
 this efficacious grace which has been thus committed to 
 you as a sacred deposit, in order to secure, by means of 
 an indissoluble holy order, a succession of preachers, to 
 proclaim it to the end of the world, is at length deserted 
 for the most unworthy considerations. It is high time for 
 others to arm in its defence. It is time for God to raise 
 up some intrepid supporters of the doctrine of grace, 
 who, happily unacquainted with the principles of the age, 
 shall serve God from motives of genuine love. The 
 Dominicans may no longer defend it ; but it will not 
 therefore be destitute of protectors, for it will raise and 
 
14 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 qualify others by its own almighty energy. Grace de- 
 mands holy and sanctified hearts — hearts which she puri- 
 fies herself, and detaches from those worldly interests 
 which are so incompatible with the Gospel. Reflect, 
 seriously, my Father, and take care lest God remove the 
 candlestick from its place, and leave you in darkness and 
 dishonour, as a punishment for your indifference to a 
 cause of such vital importance to his church." 
 
 He would have said much more, for he kindled as he 
 proceeded, but I thought proper to interrupt him, and 
 getting up, said, '• Verily, Father, had I any influence in 
 France, I would have it proclaimed with the sound of a 
 trumpet — ' Know all men, that when the Jacobins state 
 that sufficient grace is given to all, they mean that all have 
 not the grace which is really sufficient.' — After which you 
 might state the same, but no otherwise, as often as you 
 pleased." Thus our visit terminated. 
 
 You will perceive from this communication, that there 
 is a political sufficiency not dissimilar to a next power ; and 
 yet it seems to me, that any one who is not a Jacobin, 
 may, without incurring any hazard, doubt of both next 
 power and sufficient grace. 
 
 As I am folding up my letter, I hear that the censure 
 is inflicted ; but as I know nothing respecting the word- 
 ing of it, and as it will not be made public till the 15th of 
 February, I shall write no more till the next post. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
Reply of the Provincial to the two former Letters of 
 his Friend. 
 
 Sir, Feb. 2, 1656. 
 
 I have not kept your former letters to myself; every 
 body sees, understands, and believes them. They are 
 not only in high estimation with divines, but prove very 
 amusing to others, ;ind even to the ladies. 
 
 A gentleman of the academy, one of the most illustri- 
 ous of that illustrious body, who had only read your first 
 letter, wrote me as follows: "I wish that the Sorbonne, 
 which owes so much to the memory of the late Cardinal, 
 (Richlieu,) would acknowledge the jurisdiction of his 
 French academy. The author of the letter ought to 
 have satisfaction ; for, as an academician, I would autho- 
 ritatively condemn, banish proscribe — I am ready to say 
 I would exterminate, with all my might, this next power, 
 which creates such an unmeaning clamour about nothing: 
 the mischief is that our academic power is so remote and 
 circumscribed. I am extremely concerned about it : the 
 more so, that my feeble ability is inadequate to render 
 you a suitable return for your favours. 
 
 I am, &c." 
 
 The following was written by a person whom I cannot 
 name, to a lady who had sent him your first letter : 
 
 " It is impossible for you to conceive the obligation you 
 conferred in sending the letter you conveyed to me : it is 
 remarkably witty and well written. Its details are without 
 tediousness, its statements respecting the most perplexed 
 affairs perfectly clear ; its raillery is in a fine style ; it is 
 instructive to those who are ignorant of these disputes, 
 
46 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 and renews the pleasure of such as were previously ac- 
 quainted with them. It is moreover, an excellent apo- 
 logy, or, if you will, a delicate piece of satire, and quite 
 innocent. In a word, there is so much skill, spirit, and 
 judgment in it, that I am anxious to know the writer. 
 
 I am, &c." 
 
 And you. Sir, are desirous of knowing the person who 
 could give such an account ; but he content to respect 
 without knowing him, and when you know him you will 
 honour_him the more. 
 
 Continue your communications, and let the censure 
 come whenever it will, we are prepared to receive it. 
 The terms next power and sufficient grace with which we 
 are menaced alarm us no more. We have learned too 
 well from the Jesuits, the Jacobins, and Mr. le Moine, 
 how strangely they have been distorted, and bow little 
 there is in these new phrases to give us any concern. __J^ 
 
 Ever yours, kc< 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 WRITTEN IN REPLY TO THE PRECEDING. 
 
 Hie Injustice, Absurdity, and Nullity of the Censure 
 upon Mr. Arnauld. 
 
 Sir, Paris, Feb. 9, 1656. 
 
 I received your letter, and at the same time, a manu- 
 script copy of the censure. I find myself as well treated 
 in the one as Mr. Arnauld is ill used in the other. I am 
 apprehensive there may be extremes on both sides, and 
 that neither of us is sufficiently known by our judges : if 
 we were, I feel assured Mr. Arnauld would have merited 
 the approbation of the Sorbonne, and I the censure of the 
 academy. Such is the contrariety that has awaited us ! 
 To defend his innocence he has only to procure publicity ; 
 to preserve my reputation I must seek the shades. Una- 
 ble therefore to make my appearance, I must trouble you 
 to discharge my duty to those excellent persons with 
 whose approbation I have been favoured, while I commu- 
 nicate some farther information respecting the censure. 
 
 I freely confess, Sir, my extreme astonishment at it : 
 expecting, as I did, nothing less than a condemnation of 
 the most horrible heresies ; but you will participate my 
 surprise when informed, that all these splendid prepara- 
 tions vanished into nothingness at the very moment when 
 the mighty effect was to be produced. 
 
 This will be obvious, if you will be good enough to re- 
 collect the strange accounts which have so long been cir- 
 culated respecting the Jansenists. Of what cabals, errors, 
 
43 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 schisms, and conspiracies have they been accused ! How 
 have they been decried and blackened in the pulpit and 
 from the press ! And how prodigiously has this violent 
 torrent increased within these few years, in which they 
 have been openly and publicly accused, not only of being 
 heretics and schismatics, but apostates and infidels, as de- 
 nying the mystery of transubstantiation, and renouncing 
 Jesus Christ and the Gospel ! 
 
 After so many accusations, a resolution was taken to 
 examine their writings, as the means of forming a correct 
 judgment. The second letter of Mr. Arnauld was se- 
 lected, as containing the worst errors. The examiners 
 were his mo9t avowed enemies, who, devoting their ut- 
 most attention to the search of objectionable passages, 
 eventually produce a single proposition relating to doc- 
 trine, which they exhibit for censure. 
 
 What is the natural inference, but that the proposition 
 selected under such circumstances, must contain the very 
 essence of the vilest imaginable heresies ? And yet 
 there is nothing in reality which is noFTo plainly and 
 formally expressed in the passage Mr. Arnauld quotes 
 from the Fathers, that I have never found any individual 
 capable of pointing out the least difference. Still it is 
 believed an essential difference must exUt, because the 
 citations from the Fathers being unquestionably orthodox, 
 the proposition of Mr. Arnauld must be perfectly con- 
 trary to become heretical. 
 
 The Sorbonne. it was of course anticipated, would 
 afford the requisite explanation. All Christendom opened 
 its eyes to discover in the censure they inflicted, that 
 point which to vulgar minds was imperceptible. Mr. 
 Arnauld defends himself by furnishing his own propo- 
 sition and the passages in the Fathers whence he took it, 
 in parallel columns, which rendered their conformity ob- 
 vious to the meanest understanding. He shows in a quo- 
 tation from St. Augustin, " that Jesus Christ exhibits a 
 just man in the person of St. Peter, who teaches us by 
 his fall to avoid presumption," and again, " that God left 
 St. Peter destitute of grace, to prove that man can do 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 4'J 
 
 nothing without it." He cites St. Chrysostora, as saying, 
 " that the fall of St. Peter was not occasioned by any luke- 
 warmness towards Christ, but from a want of grace ; and 
 that this did not arise so much from that apostle's negligence, 
 as from his being forsaken of God, which was to teach all 
 Christians that without God they can do nothing." He 
 then states his own criminal proposition, namely, " The 
 Fathers point out to us a just man in the person of St. 
 Peter, in whom grace, without which we can do nothing, 
 wa^ wanting " 
 
 Vain must be the attempt here to make Mr. Arnauld's 
 statement as perfectly different from that of the Fathers, as 
 truth is from error, and faith from heresy : for wherein does 
 the difference consist ? Is it in his saying that " the Fathers 
 point >ut a just man in the person of St. Peter ?" But 
 these are the identical words of St. Augustin. Is it in the 
 phrase, " Grace was wanting ?" But the same St. Augus- 
 tin who says that " Peter was a just man," says that " he 
 wanted grace on that occasion." Is it in the expression, 
 that, " without grace we can do nothing ?" But does not St. 
 Augustin declare the same in the very same paragraph ? — 
 a truth which St. Chrysostom had before advanced, in these 
 much stronger terms — " His fall did not originate in his 
 lukewarmness, nor in his negligence, but from a defect of 
 grace and through his being forsaken of God." 
 
 These coasiderations produced an universal suspense, to 
 ascertain wherein the alleged diversity consisted, till at 
 length this celebrated and long expected censure, which had 
 occasioned so many meetings, appeared. But alas ! alas ! 
 what a disappointment ! Whether the learned doctors did 
 not choose to condescend to instruct our feeble capacity, 
 or for any other undivulged reason, certain it is they have 
 done nothing else but pronounce the following words, — 
 -This proposition is rash, impious, blasphemous, accur- 
 sed, and heretical !!!" 
 
 Is it incredible, Sir, that most people, deceived in their 
 expectations, are very much displeased, and censure the 
 very censurers themselves, and that they deduce the most 
 charming inferences in favour of Mr. Arnauld's innocence ? 
 
50 PROVINCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 " What!" say they, "is this all that so many infuriated 
 doctors, after so long an examination of his works, have 
 been able to discover 1 What ! only three objectionable 
 lines, and these composed of the very words of the greatest 
 divines of the Greek and Latin churches ? Is this author 
 to be ruined when his writings afford no better a pretext for 
 his condemnation 1 who can possibly produce a nobler evi- 
 dence of the faith of this accused, but excellent individual ? 
 How is it that this censure comprises so many imprecations, 
 dreadful as were ever invented against Arius and Antichrist 
 himself? poison, plague, horror, rashness impiety, blasphe- 
 my, abomination execration, anathema, heresy — and all to 
 combat what is imperceptible and invisible 1 If this war be 
 waged against the words of the Fathers what becomes of 
 faith — what of tradition ? If it be against Mr. Arnauld's 
 proposition, let them explain this prodigious disagreement ; 
 for really we can at present perceive nothing but the most 
 perfect coincidence. Whenever we discover the guilt, we 
 are prepared to detest it ; but so long as we can see nothing 
 but what the holy Fathers themselves believed and express- 
 ed in the identical terms, how can we possibly -withhold 
 our reverence ?" 
 
 Such then is the unhappy situation of people who pen e- 
 t rate too deeply into these affair s ; you and 1, methinks, 
 being not so profound, may remain at ease. Why should 
 we be wiser than our masters ? O let us by no means attemp t 
 it : we should wander into a boundless labyrinth ! One siep 
 more and this censure will itself be heretical! Truth is 
 of so delicate a nature, that the least deviation betrays us 
 into error ; but this errt>r of Mr. Arnauld is so minute, 
 that the slightest conceivable departore from it restores us 
 to truth. The difference between this proposition and the 
 true faith dwindles into an imperceptible point ; the dis- 
 tance is so small, that being incapable of perceiving it, I 
 became really apprehensive of opposing the doctors of the 
 church, while aiming at too precise a conformity to the doc- 
 tors of the Sorbonne. In this perplexity I deemed it 
 necessary to consult one of those who remained neutral on 
 the fust question, for the purpose of ascertaining the real 
 
PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 51 
 
 truth. Meeting with a very sensible person of this de- 
 scription, I entreated him to point out the circumstances 
 of this difference, frankly owning myself incapable of dis- 
 cerning any. He replied, smiling at my simplicity, "Are 
 you really weak enough to believe there is any difference 1 
 In what can it consist ? Do you imagine, if it had been dis- 
 covered, it would not have been announced triumphantly, 
 and exposed to the people with the same eager delight as 
 is evinced in decrying Mr. Ainauld ?" — 1 now perceived 
 that they who were neutral upon the first question, did not 
 however disregard the second. Still being anxious to hear 
 his reasons, I inquired why this proposition had been attack- 
 ed ? " Can you then," returned he, " be ignorant of two 
 things- which even the most superficial inquirer knowSj 
 namely, that Mr. Arnauld always avoided asserting any 
 thing which was not entirely founded on the tradition of 
 the church — and that his enemies resolved nevertheless 
 to excommunicate him at any rate ? And as the writings 
 of the one furnished no pretext to the designs of the other, 
 they have been necessitated in order to gratify their malig- 
 nity to take the very first proposition they found, and con- 
 demn it without saying why or wherefore ? Are you not 
 aware that t he* Jansenists hold them in check, and urg e 
 them so vehemently that Tf the "least syll'a"ble"*escape them 
 joontrarv to the opinions of the Fathers, whole volumes ar e 
 instantly accumulated, to which they are obliged to 
 yi eld ? so that after such numerous evidences of th eir 
 o wn weakness their opponents have thought it more con- 
 v enient and more easy to censure than to reply, to fin d 
 co ndemning monks rather than substantial argume nts. ' ' 
 " But," said l, " it tins be the case, their censure is 
 unavailing, for wh o will attach any credit to what is 
 u tterly unfounded, and capable of being at once refu ted ?"' 
 « A h, replied the doctor, " you would adopt a"dlfieren t 
 ] a nguage, were you acquainted with the spirit of the peo - 
 ple T heir censure, all censurable as it is, writ lor a time 
 '"produce nearly its intended effect : for, however invalid 
 it may be proved to be, it will be regarded by the gene- 
 rality of people with as much deference, as though it were 
 
52 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the justest censure in the world. Let it only be cried 
 about the streets, — < Here is the censure of Mr. Arnauld 
 — here is the condemnation of the Jansenists,' — and the 
 Jesuits will have effected their purpose. How many, do 
 you suppose, of those who read it, will understand it ? 
 How many will perceive that it is objectionable ? Who 
 will deeply interest himself in the affair, or take tho trou- 
 ble of giving it a thorough examination ? You sec then 
 it will be prodigiously serviceable to the enemies of the 
 Jansenists. They are sure, by this artifice- of a triumph : 
 and however vain, as usual, it may be, it will at least con- 
 tinue some months, after which they will invent some new 
 mode of subsistence. They live, according to the pro- 
 verb, from hand to mouth. This is their present plan ; 
 sometimes they have a catechism, in which a child is 
 made to anathematize their adversaries ; then a procession, 
 in which sufficient grace leads efficacious grace in tri- 
 umph ; anon a comedy, where the devils fly off with 
 Jansenius ; one while an almanack ; and now— this said 
 censure." 
 
 " Once, Sir," said I, " I thought the method of the 
 Molinists indefensible, but after what you have said, I ad- 
 mire their prudence and policy. I see tHey could do 
 nothing more judicious or more sure." " You understand 
 it," returned he; ■ the safes* expedient has alv?ay3~freeti 
 to be silent, which made a learned divine say, ' the wisest 
 among them are those who intrigue much, speak littleTancT 
 write nothing.' 
 
 " It was in this spirit that from the very commencement 
 of their meetings, they prudently decreed, that if Mr.' 
 Arnauld should come into the Sorbonne he should only 
 be allowed simply to explain what he believed, and not 
 enter the lists of controversy with any one. The- ex- 
 aminers being desirous of some little deviation from this 
 rule, found themselves much mistaken, and were too 
 vigorously refuted by his second apology. 
 
 " In the same spirit they discovered this rare and 
 novel "invention of the half-hour and hour-glass : by 
 which they avoided the urgency of those troublesome 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 63 
 
 doctors, who undertook to refute all their reasons, to pro- 
 duce books to demonstrate their falsehood, to challenge 
 them to answer, and to reduce them to total silence. 
 
 ll They foresaw, that the secession of so considerable a 
 number of doctors from their assemblies, in consequence 
 of an abridgement of the liberty of discussion, would dis- 
 credit their censure, and that Mr. Arnauld's protesting 
 its nullity from the very first would prove but a miserable 
 preamble to procure it a favourable reception. They are 
 satisfied that those who have no prepossessions will, at 
 least, respect the judgment of the seventy doctors who 
 had nothing to gain by defending Mr. Arnauld, quite as 
 much as that of others, who had nothing to lose by con- 
 demning him. But after all, they consider ft a very fine 
 thing to procure a censure- though it be from only a part 
 of the Sorbonne,. and not from the whole body ; though 
 it passed in defiance of the liberty of discussion, and suc- 
 ceeded by mean, unwarrantable artifices ; though it furnish 
 no explanation of the point of dispute ; though it deter- 
 mine not wherein the alleged heresy consists ; though in 
 fact it speaks but little through fear of mistake. This 
 silence itself is, to the generality, very mysterious ; and 
 this remarkable advantage will ensue, that the most cri- 
 tical and penetrating divines will never be able to charge 
 upon it one erroneous argument ! 
 
 " Do not, then, disturb yourself ; be assured there is 
 nothing heretical in the condemned proposition : it is 
 only offensive as being introduced into Mr. Arnauld's 
 second letter. Are you incredulous ? inquire of M. le 
 Moine. the most zealous of the examiners, who, in speak- 
 ing this very morning to a doctor, one of my friends, who 
 happened to question him respecting the nature of this 
 difference, and whether he might be allowed any longer 
 to adopt the language of the Fathers, made this charming 
 reply : " This proposition would be orthodox in any other 
 mouth ; it is>,onlv in Mr. Arnauld that the Sorbonne has 
 condemned it, " And now, do you not admire this Mo- 
 linistical machinery, which produces such wonderful ef- 
 fects in the church, that what is orthodox in the Fathers, 
 5* 
 
54 FKOVINCIAI/ LETTERS, 
 
 is heretical in Mr. Arnauld ; that what is heretical in the 
 semi-Pelagians, is nrthnrigy m-thp-mriiings of the Jesuits ; 
 thatTHe" ahcieij)jQctcu»e-of-St-AagJifiliais an untenable 
 noveJtjr, and that the_iiaveLinxentipn§j which spring up 
 every day, must pass for the ancient faith of the 
 chufch?" 
 
 Here we parted ; but to me the meeting was instruc- 
 tive, for I discovered a new species of heresy. The 
 sentiments jaLMx.~Jj. rua . \i\ & ~ tnrfi * net _hjretical, but, his 
 person. He is a heretic, not for any thing he has written 
 or said, but solely because he is Mr. Arnauld. This is all 
 that can be alleged against him. It is $,. personal heresy. 
 Whatever he may do, never, never will he be a good 
 Catholic till he ceases to be The grace of St. Augustin" 
 will never be true, so long as he defends the doctrine. It 
 will come to nothing, unless he oppose it : this would be 
 the certain and almost the only method of establishing it, 
 and of exterminating Molinism : such is his destructive 
 influence upon the opinions he ventures to adopt ! 
 
 Here then let us leave these differences : thev belon g 
 to divines, not to divinity. We are no doctors, and have 
 no right to intermeddle with their disputations. Let all 
 our friends be informed of my account of the censure, 
 and continue your affectionate confidence so long as 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 Of actual Grace, and of Sins of Ignorance. 
 
 Sin, ' Paris, Feb. 25, 165G. 
 
 The Jesuits are an incomparable set of men. I have 
 seen Jacobins, doctors, and all descriptions, but my know- 
 ledge was still incomplete. Others are mere copyists of 
 them. The stream is purest at the spring-head ; I there- 
 fore went to one of their most intelligent partizans, ac- 
 companied by my faithful Jansenist, who had been with 
 me in my former visits. 
 
 Anxious to obtain full information respecting the dis- 
 pute between them and the Jansenists, on the subject of 
 what they call actual grace, I intimated to the good Fa- 
 ther, the obligation he would confer in condescending to 
 instruct me ; and. as I did not even tyiow the signification 
 of the* term, I entreated him to explain it. " Most 
 readily," said he; "for I am pleased with people that 
 are inquisitive. Our definition is as follows : actual 
 grace— is, an inspiration of God, by which he teaches us 
 his will, and by which he excites wftESTus "a -desirelo 
 fulfil it." "What then is the precise point of dispute." 
 said I,' 1 ' between you and the Jansenists ?" " It is this," 
 answered he ; " we maintain that God be fitpws j ^u ^ l 
 grace upon all men, in every temptation. Otherwise if 
 t hey did not possess actual grace "to 'prevent the commis - 
 sion ot sin, guilt could never be imputed to them : but 
 ffle Jansenists affirm that sins cojnmitted without actua l 
 grace must be impute d : but they~a~re sureTydreaming." 
 I perceived his drill ; but, for the purpose of obtaining 
 
56 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 clearer information, I said, "(My goodlFather, this phrase, 
 actual grace, perplexes me : I am really unaccustomed to 
 it, and if you will have the goodness to state the meaning, 
 without using the term, you will confer a great obliga- 
 tion." " Oh, that is to say, you wish me to substitute the 
 definition for the thing defined. Very well, the sense will 
 remain unaltered. We maintain then, as an incontrover- 
 tible principle, that an action cannot be deemed sinful, if, 
 previous to the commission of it, God does not communi- 
 c ate thfi.Jfnowlpdgfi ojLaLhat Jivil. there is.in— it, and -an 
 i nspiration which excites us to avoid it. Do you under- 
 stand me- now 7" 
 
 Astonished at this doctrine, according to which all un- 
 premeditated sins and those committed from forgetfulness 
 of God, are not chargeable upon the criminal, I turned to 
 my friend the Jansenist, and perceived from his manner, 
 that he did not believe this statement ; but, as he was si- 
 lent, I remarked to the Father, that I should wish for 
 some substantial proofs of the truth of his representations. 
 " Do you require proofs ?" said he. " I will furnish them, 
 proofs the most irrefragable : trust me." Upon this, he 
 withdrew to search after some books, and I in the mean- 
 time inquired of my friend if he thought any other being 
 was of his opinion. " Is this, then," he replied, " such a 
 novelty to you ? Assuredly, neither the Fathers, the 
 Popes, the Councils, the Scriptures, nor any book of de- 
 votion, ancient or modern, have delivered such senti- 
 ments ; but as fo r Casuists and ngjv jj&alflstics, he will 
 produce them in prodigious numbers." " Oh. bat I des- 
 pise such writers' as these, if they contradict tradition.'' 
 '' You are right," said he ; and at that moment the- good 
 Father returned laden with volumes. " There, read 
 that" — offering me the first of the load — '■ it is a sum- 
 mary of sins by Father Bauny, and as a proof of its ex- 
 cellence, this is the fifth edition." "This book," ob- 
 served my Jansenist, in a whisper, ■• has been condemned 
 at Rome, and by the bishops of France." Turn to page 
 906," said the Father. I did so, and found theee words 
 — " To sin so as to be accounted guilty before God, it is 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 57 
 
 necessary to know that what is going to be perpetrated i s 
 not good, or at least to be doubtful of it, to entertain ap- 
 prehensions, or to suppose that God will be displease d 
 with the premeditated action- and forbids it; not withstand - 
 i ng which, it is done in defiance of every obstacle ." 
 
 "This," I remarked, ''is a fine beginning!" " And 
 yet," said he. " mark the power of envy. Upon this very 
 point, M. Hallier, previous to his uniting with us, ridi- 
 culed Father ISauny. by applying these words to him, 
 Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi, ' See the man who takes 
 •away the sins of the world !" ' " True," replied 1, " this 
 redemption of M. Bauny is rather of a novel description." 
 He asked if I wished for a still higher authority 1 " Then 
 read this performance by Father Annat, the last which he 
 produced against Mr. Arnauld. Look at the thirty-fourth 
 page which I have turned down and marked with a pen- 
 cil : every syllable is gold " The words were as follow : 
 '.' He who has no thought of God, or of his sins, nor any 
 a pprehension, that is, (as he explained it) any knowledge 
 of his obligation to exercise acts of contrition or love to 
 God, possesses no actual grace to exercise such acts ; but 
 i t is true also that he does not sin in omitting them, and 
 if he be finally condemned, it will not be as a punishment 
 f or this omission." A few lines lower it is added, " The 
 same may be affirmed of committing si n . ' ' 
 
 " Po you observe," said the Father, "in what manner 
 the author speaks respecting sins of omission and of com- 
 mission ? He forgets nothing. Whai say you 1" " Oh, it 
 is charming — the consequences deducible, how fine ! I 
 Can already discern surprising mysteries ! An incompara- 
 b ly greater number, I see, are justified by their ignoran ce 
 a nd forgetfulness of God, than by grace and the sacra - 
 ments of religion ! But pray. Father, is this a well found- 
 ed transport ? Is there not some resemblance here to that 
 sufficiency which does not suffice ? I am tremendously ap- 
 prehensive of the distinguo, having been already entrap- 
 ped by it. Are yon really in good earnest ?" " How !" 
 said the Father, with some warmth — " this is no jest : 
 raillery, Sir, is inadmissible upon this subject." " Indeed 
 
58 THOVINCIAL LETTEES. 
 
 I am not in sport, but fear that what seems desirable may 
 not prove to be true." 
 
 •» For the purpose then," said he, •■ of further confirma- 
 tion, study the writings of M le Moine, who has taught 
 the same in full council. In fact, he learned it of us, but 
 has had the merit to disentangle its intricacies : and how 
 incontestable the evidence he has adduced ! His doctrine 
 is, that for an action to be sinful, all the following thought s 
 must pass in the mind — but read it yourself, and weign 
 every word." I then read the Latin. original, of which I 
 give you a translation. " 1. On the one side God diffuses 
 over the soul a certain love which disposes it to the thing 
 commanded ; and, on the other, a rebellious concupiscence 
 allures it to disobedience. 2. God inspires it with the 
 knowledge of its own infirmities. 3. God inspires it with 
 the knowledge of the physician who must cure it. 4. God 
 inspires it with the de>ire of being healed 5. God in- 
 spires it with ihe desire to pray and implore his aid," 
 " And," said the Jesuit, " if all these do not concur, the 
 action is not properly sinful, and cannot be imputed, as 
 M. le Moine states in this and the succeeding passage. 
 Are you desirous of other authorities ? Behold they are 
 here " " Yes, yes," said my Jansenist, whimpering ; " but 
 all modern authorities." — " I see them," replied 1. — ' But, 
 /my good Father, this would be a delightful thing for some 
 of my acquaintance; really I must introduce them ! Pec- 
 haps- you scarcely ever saw such innocent people : they 
 aerer think of God ; vice has blinded their reason : the y 
 have never known any thing of their infirmities, or of the 
 physician who can cure them : they have never cherishe d" 
 a wish for the health of their souls, much less have th« y 
 besought God to bestow it ; so that, to adopt M. le 
 Moine's language, they are now as innocent as at theh - 
 baptism : they have never entertained a thought of lovin g 
 God, or of contrition for sin" — ac cording to Father Annat, 
 they never committed any sin through defect of char ity or 
 penitence: their life is one continual search after diversi- 
 fied pleasure, unattended with the least interruption fro m 
 remorse. These excesses induced me to believe t heir 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 59 
 
 destruction inevitable : but, mv good Father, vou have 
 t aught me. that these very excesses render their salva - 
 t ion the more infallible. O what a blessedness is yours 
 to justify mankind in this manner ! O thers prescribe pain- 
 ful austerities to save the soul ; but you demonstrate that 
 such as were considered in the most desperate state, are 
 perfectly Well ! O, what a glorious method to procure 
 happiness both in this world and in another ! I have alwa ys 
 supposed that our criminality was enhanced in proportion 
 t o our forgetfulness of God ; hut now I see, whenever on e 
 i s able to arrive at this point, to be totally thoughtle ss, 
 e very thing henceforth becomes allowable and innocen t. 
 Away then with those who sin by halves, still retaining 
 some attachment to virtue ! These demi-transgressors will 
 be all lost ; but, as to open sinners, hardened offenders, 
 sinners without restraint, whose iniquity is full and over- 
 flowing, there is no hell for them ; they have cheated the 
 devil by abandoning themselves entirely to his influ- 
 ence !" — 
 
 The good Father, who clearly perceived the connexion 
 between his principles and my consequences, dexterously 
 made his escape, and without exhibiting any symptoms of 
 passion, either from a natural mildness of temper, or lrom 
 motives of policy, merely said, "To explain our mode of 
 avoiding these incongruities, you must understand that 
 our statement respecting the transgressors of whom you 
 speak is, that' they w ould not incur guilt, if they had neve r 
 thought of'repentance or the dedication of themselves to 
 God; but we maintain they have all cherished such 
 "thoughts, and that God never permits any man to commit 
 sin without previously giving him a view of the evil he is 
 about to perpetrate, and a desire to avoid it, or at least 
 to implore his aid to enable him to shun it ; none but Jan- 
 senists will contradict this statement." 
 
 " And," replied I, " does the heresy of the Jansenisfs 
 consist in denying that every time sin is committed, the 
 offender feels remorse of conscience, and that in defiance 
 of it he overleaps every barrier, as Father Bauny ob- 
 serves ? Really this is a curious kind of heresy enough ! I 
 
gO rnovmciAL letters. 
 
 have been accustomed to suppose that a man was con 
 demned for being devoid of all good thoughts, but to be 
 so for not believing that every one else possesses them«~ 
 positively, I never imagined such a thing before ! But 
 Father, I feel myself bound in conscience to undeceivt 
 you, and to say, that there are thousands who cherish nc 
 such desires, who sin without any remorse, nay, who ab 
 solutely make a boast of their iniquities. Can any per 
 sons be better aware of this than yourselves ? It is no 
 surely that you do not confess any one of this description 
 for they are usually found amongst people of the greates 
 distinction : but beware, good Father, of the dangeroui 
 consequences of your doctrine. Are you unaware of the ef 
 feet it may produce on libertines, who eagerly avail them 
 selves of every means of discrediting religion ? And witl 
 what a pretext do you furnish them, by affirming as ai 
 indubitable article of" faith, that they feel,. on every fresj 
 commission of sin, a secret rejstramt_and a.wishi6.abstain 
 Is it not obvious that, Being conscious from personal ex 
 perience of the falsehood of your statement, they will ex 
 tend the consequences beyond this single point ? They wil 
 maintain that your incorrectness on this subject, render 
 you suspicious on others, and thus you will compel then 
 to infer, either that religion is untrue or that you are to 
 tally ignorant of it." 
 
 Here my friend interposed to second my remarks, b 
 saying, " Father, you would promote your opinions bettc 
 by avoiding so lucid a statement as you have now give 
 of the signification of the term actual grace: for hoar ca 
 you expect persons to believe in so undisguised a senti 
 ment as this, ' that no one can commit sin without bein 
 previously acquainted with his infirmity, and his physiciac 
 and cherishing a desire to be healed and to solicit a cur 
 from God V Is your mere affirmation sufficient to convinc 
 the world that the avaricious, the impure, and those wh 
 commit blasphemy, or indulge in murderous revenge, rpt 
 bery, and sacrilege, really wish to possess chastity, humi 
 lity, and the other Christian virtues ? Is it credible tha 
 tho^e philosophers who so highly celebrated the power c 
 
PR.OVIKCIAL LETTERS. 6i 
 
 nature, knew its weakness and its remedy ? Would you 
 assert that such as confidently maintained this maxim — 
 ' that God does not bestow virtue, nor did any one ever 
 solicit it of him* — really thought of asking it themselves 1 
 Who can imagine that the Epicureans, who denied the ex- 
 istence of a Divine Providence, felt any disposition to 
 pray to God ? They aver, ' that it is an affront to implore 
 his interference in our necessities, as<if he could descend 
 to concern himself about our affairs !' Who can suppose 
 that idolaters and atheists, amidst the incalculable diver- 
 sity of their temptations to sin, entertain a desire to seek 
 the true God, with whom they are utterly unacquainted, 
 for the bestowment of real virtues, of which they are as 
 ignorant ?" 
 
 "Yes," said the good Father, in a firm and resolute 
 tone — " yes, we do, and ipill say so ; and rather than ad- 
 mit that it is possible to commit sin without clearly per- 
 ceiving^its__vilgjie^a-and--efaerisiMBg-a n oppos ing wish, we 
 wiH maintain that the whole world, including even the 
 most impious and intidel of the human race, have these 
 inward suggestions and desires in every moment of temp- 
 tation. You can produce no evidence to the contrary at 
 least from Scripture." 
 
 Here I interposed, and said, " What, Father, is it ne- 
 cessary to recur to Scripture to prove what is so obvious ? 
 This is no point of faith, nor of argumentation; it is a 
 matter of fact : we see it, know it, and feel it." 
 
 My Jansenist, strictly adhering to the prescribed rules, 
 replied, "If you really determine to be guided solely by 
 the Scriptures, I. readily consent, but at least do not resist 
 that ; and since it is written ' that God has not revealed 
 his judgments to the heathen, but has left them to wander 
 in their own ways,' do not say that God has enlightened 
 those whom the sacred writings affirm to be left in dark- 
 ness and in the shadow of death ? Is not the error of your 
 sentiment sufficiently exposed by St. Paul representing 
 himself as the chief of sinners, for a sin which he declares 
 he committed through ignorance and unbelief? Is it not 
 obvious from the Gospel, that they who crucified Jesus 
 
 6 
 
(32 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Christ needed that forgiveness which he solicited for them, 
 though they know not the wickedness of their conduct, 
 and which, according to St. Paul, they never would have 
 perpetrated, had they been aware of it? Does not Jesus 
 Christ forewarn us that persecutors will arise, imagining 
 they do God service by- aiming to destroy his church, 
 showing that the sin which the apostle represents as the 
 greatest of all others, may be committed by those who, so 
 far from being conscious of its criminality, would really 
 suppose they sinned in omitting to do it ? Lastly, has not 
 Jesu s Christ himself taught us that there are two descrip- 
 tions' of sinners ; the one sins knowingly, the other igno- 
 ra ntly : and both will suffer punishm ent, thnngrh in differ- 
 ent proportions ?" 
 
 Urged by so much Scriptural evidence, to which the 
 good Father had appealed, he began to give way ; andy al- 
 lowing that the wicked were not under an immediate in- 
 spiration to sin, he claimed at least the admission that the 
 
 righteous never sin, unless God gives them " Oho," 
 
 interrupting him, " you are for retracting your statement 
 — you are abandoning your general principle ; and, aware 
 that it is unavailing with respect to sinners, you are desi-^. 
 rous of a compromise, at least in behalf of the righteous. 
 But even in this case it would be so circumscribed in its 
 application, as scarcely to be of any service, and is not 
 therefore worth an argument." 
 
 My friend, who seemed as profound in the subject as if 
 he had been studying it that very morning, replied, " O 
 Father, this is the last refuge to which your party repairs ; 
 but it is of little avail : the example of the righteous is by 
 no means more advantageous to your cause. Who doubts 
 that they are frequently surprised into sin ? Do they not 
 assure us that concupiscence often spreads its secret 
 snares in their path, and that it is common for sober-minded 
 persons to concede to pleasure what they only intended to 
 yield to necessity 1 as St. Augustin admits with respect to 
 himself in his confessions. How frequently do we see 
 zealous people become exasperated in a discussion in de- 
 fending their own interests, when at the moment they con- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 63 
 
 scientiously believe themselves contending only for the 
 interests of truth, and long retain the same conviction ! 
 
 " But what shall we say of those who zealously do evil, 
 imagining it to be really good, of which the history- of the 
 church furnishes many instances, and all of them admitted 
 by the Fathers to be sinful 1 If not. how could any secret 
 iniquities be imputed to the righteous ? How would it be 
 true that God ody knows their extent and number ? That 
 no one knows whether be is deserving of love or hatred, 
 and that the most holy persons ought to live in perpetual 
 fear and trembling, although, in the language of St. Paul, 
 ' they know nothing (criminal) by themselves ?'.* 
 
 " These examples, then, of the righteous and the wick- 
 ed, equally controvert the necessity which you imagine, 
 of knowing the evil 01 an action and loving the opposite 
 virtue, in order to constitute it sinful ; since the passionate 
 eagerness for their vices which the wicked manifest, is 
 sufficiently demonstrative of their being destitute of all 
 desire after virtue ; and the attachment which the righte- 
 ous have to virtue, strikingly evinces that they do not al- 
 ways know, as the Scriptures state, the sins which they 
 are daily committing. 
 
 " It is thus evident that the righteous transgress through 
 ignorance, and that the most eminent saints seldom sin 
 Otherwise ; for how i3 it conceivable that such holy per- 
 sons, who avoid, with so much care and diligence, the 
 minutest thing which they believe to be displeasing to 
 God, but who nevertheless commit many sins every day- 1 — 
 how is it possible, that on every occasion, immediately 
 previous to their fall, they should have a knowledge of 
 their weakness, and of the physician, and possess a desire 
 to be healed, and to solicit divine assistance ; yet, in de- 
 fiance of all these pious inspirations, these zealous souls 
 should be left to overleap every opposing barrier," and rush 
 into sin ?" 
 
 " The inference, then, Father, is this, that neither the 
 sinners, nor saints, are always in possession of this know- 
 ledge, these desires, and these inspirations ; that is, to 
 adopt your own phraseology, they have not always actual 
 
64 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 grace upon every such occasion. No longer, therefore, 
 believe your new authors, who assert it is impossible to 
 sin while in ignorance of what is right, but rather say, in 
 concurrence with St. Augustin and the ancient Fathers, 
 that it is impossible not to sin while continuing ignorant of 
 what is right— Necesse est ut peccet, a quo ignoratur jus- 
 tilia." 
 
 Though the good Father found that his sentiments, both 
 with regard to the righteous and the wicked, were equally 
 untenable, he was not totally discouraged ; but, after a 
 little pause — " I will now convince you," said he ; and, 
 again taking up Father Bauny, at the very page before 
 cited, '- Look, look at the reason on which his opinion is 
 founded. I assure you he is not deficient in demonstra- 
 tion. Read his quotation from Aristotle, and- after such 
 express authority, you must either coincide with our opin- 
 ion, or burn the writings of this prince of philosophers. 
 Hearken to Father Bauny's principles. He first states 
 ' that an action cannotbe deemed criminal whep it is in - 
 ■voluntary.'" " ''True, said my friend. I remarked, 
 " This is the first time 1 have ever seen you agree : this, 
 then, is the very point at which you should stop : take my. 
 advice." " That would be doing nothing," returned he ; 
 " for you must be informed of the circumstances which 
 are essential to a voluntary action." "lam very much 
 afraid," said I, "you will disagree again." "Odoa'ibe 
 alarmed, it is all right — Aristotle is on my side. Pray 
 attend to Father Bauny ; in order that an action be volun- 
 tary, it must be the action of a man who sees, knows, and 
 well understands what degree of good and evil attaches to 
 it — Voluntarium est, as we commonly say with the philo- 
 sopher — {Aristotle, you know," said he, with great self- 
 complacency, squeezing my hand) " quod fit a principio 
 cognoscente singula in quibus est actio ; so that when the 
 will chooses or rejects inconsiderately and without investi- 
 gation, before the understanding has been able to discover 
 4he evil of complying or refusing, doing or neglecting an" 
 action, it is neither good nor bad, inasmuch as, previous 
 to this examination, this observance and reflection of the- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 65' 
 
 mind on the good or bad qualities of the object in view, 
 the action is not voluntary. — Are you satisfied now ?" 
 
 " Why. really," replied 1, " Aristotle is of the same 
 opinion with Father Bauny, but this does not lessen my 
 surprise. What ! i s it not acting • voluntarily when on e 
 knows what he does, and does it with a fixed determinatio n 
 of mind ? Is it r equ isite fu rt her, that he should ' see, un - 
 d erstand, and fully investigate the degree of evil in th at 
 action V If this be the case, it is scarcely possible that 
 any conduct should be strictly voluntary, for few persons 
 have all these considerations in view. How many oaths 
 in gaming, how many excesses in debauchery, how many 
 irregularities in the Carnival must be involuntary, and by 
 consequence neither good nor bad, because unaccompa- 
 nied with these reflections on the good or evil qualities of 
 the deed ! But can Aristotle be really chargeable with 
 such a sentiment ? for I have understood he was a man of 
 sense." 
 
 " I will soon explain this," said my Jans enist ; and re- 
 questing to look into Aristotle's Ethics, he opened the 
 volume at the commencement of the third book, whence 
 Father Bauny had taken the very words already cited, 
 saying, " 1 can forgive you, my good Father, for believing 
 upon the testimony of Father Bauny, that this was the 
 sentiment of Aristotle ; but you would have thought other- 
 wise, had you read him yourself. He states, indeed, that 
 ' for an action to be voluntary, it is necessary to know its 
 peculiarities: singula in quibus est actio : but nothing 
 else is meant by this than the particular circumstances of 
 the action, as appears most obviously from the examples 
 he adduces in justification of his position, such as those 
 which refer to an ignorance of the circumstances, as, ' if 
 a person, when exhibiting a machine, inadvertently shoots 
 a dart at another,' and the instance of Merope slaying 
 her son when intending to kill her enemy, with others of 
 a similar nature. 
 
 " Hence it is apparent what description of ignorance 
 that is which renders actions involuntary,— an ignorance 
 of the particular circumstances, called, as you know, by 
 
 6* 
 
66 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the divines, the ignorance of- fact : but,' in the regard to 
 the ignorance of tight, that is, of the good and evil in an 
 actioD, which is the present subject of our consideration, 
 let us inquire whether Aristotle and Father Bauny agree. 
 ' All the wicked,' says the philosopher, - are ignorant of 
 iv hat they ought to do, and what they ought to avoid , 
 and it is this which renders them wicked and vicious. 
 On this account, it cannot be said, that because a man is 
 ignorant of what is proper to be done to discharge his 
 duty, his -conduct is therefore involuntary . for this igno- 
 rance in the choice of good and evil does not constitute 
 an action involuntary, but vicious. The same may be 
 said of him who is unacquainted with the rules of duty, 
 as this ignorance is blameworthy and not excusable : so 
 that the ignorance which constitutes actions involuntary 
 and pardonable, is that only which regards the fact in 
 particular, with all its individual circumstances ; we ex- 
 cuse and forgive the person whom we consider as having 
 acted contrary to his will..' 
 
 " Will you now say, Father, that Aristotle is of your 
 opinion ? What must be the universal astonishment to 
 perceive that a pagan philosopher was more enlightened 
 than your doctors upon a point so important to morality 
 and the conduct of souls, or the knowledge of those con- 
 ditions which .render actions voluntary or involuntary, and 
 consequently which excuse or condemn them ? Do not 
 expect any support, then, from this prince of philosophers, 
 and no longer oppose the prince of divines who decides 
 the point in the following words (B. I. of his Retr. ch. 
 15 :) ' They who sin through ignorance commit the ac- 
 tion with the consent of the will, though they have not 
 the intention of committing sin ; so that a sin of this de- 
 scription cannot be perpetrated without the will, but the " 
 will induces the action only, not the sin, which, however, 
 does not prevent the action being sinful, its contrariety to 
 the interdicting precepts being a sufficient crimination." 
 
 The Jesuit seemed surprised still more at the quotation 
 from Aristotle than that from St. Augustin : but, as he 
 was revolving in his mind what reply to offer, a servant 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 67 
 
 came in to say, that Madam the Marechale of 
 
 and Madam the Marquise of , requested an inter- 
 view : and thus leaving us abruptly, " I will speak," said 
 he, " to some of our fathers upon this subject : they will 
 be able to suggest a reply. We have some very subtle 
 divines amongst us, who are profoundly acquainted with 
 the controversy:" 
 
 We understood him ; and being alone with my friend, 
 I expressed my astonishment at the total subversion of 
 morals which this doctrine tended to produce. " How !" 
 said he, " I am absolutely astonished at your astonish- 
 ment ! And do you not know, then, that they are much 
 greater delinquents in morality than even in other sub- 
 jects?"' 
 
 He instantly furnished me With some monstrous ex- 
 amples, deferring more ample illustrations to another op- 
 portunity. The first time I enjoy the pleasure of an in- 
 terview, these will supply matter for conversation. 
 
 T am. &c. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 The Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new Morality. 
 Two kinds of ( 'asuists amongst them : the great Remiss- 
 ness of the one, apd the equal Rigidity of the other. 
 Reason of this Difference Explanation of the Doctrine 
 of Probability. A Crowd of Modern and obscure 
 Authors substituted for the Holy Fathers. 
 
 Sin, Paris, Mar. 20, 1656. 
 
 i 
 
 In fulfilment of my promise, I here transmit you the " 
 first outlines of Jesuitical morality, the views of those 
 men who are so " eminent in learning and wisdom, who 
 are all under the guidance of a divine wisdom, which is so 
 much more certain than all the light of philosophy !" 
 
 You imagine, perhaps, I am jesting ; indeed I am 
 serious, this is their own language in their publication, en- 
 titled, Imago primi seculi. 1 have copied ^their words, 
 which I shall continue to do in the following eulogkim : 
 " It is a society of men, or rather of angels, of whom 
 Isaiah prophesied, ' Go, ye angels, prompt and swift.' Is 
 not this prediction obvious ? ' They have the spirit of 
 eagles : it is a troop of phoenixes, so numerous are they. 
 as a late author has shown : they have changed the face 
 of Christianity." Their ipse dixit is doubtless sufficient, 
 as you will see by their maxims which I am going to in- 
 troduce to your notice. 
 
 Anxious to be fully informed, I was unwilling to confide 
 implicitly in my friend's representations, but felf deter- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 69 
 
 mined to converse with them personally. I found every 
 syllable he had said correct : he had indeed never de- 
 ceived me : you shall have an account of these confer- 
 ences. 
 
 My friend had given such extravagant statements that I 
 could scarcely credit them ; but he pointed out his 
 authority in their own publications, and no defence could 
 be made, but that the opinions of individuals ought not to 
 be imputed to the whole body, and I assured him that I 
 knew some who were as rigid as those whom he quoted 
 were lax. This gave him occasion to exhibit the true 
 spirit of the society, which is by no means generally 
 known, and which perhaps to you may be a desirable 
 piece of information. He thus began : 
 
 " You suppose that it tells considerably in their favour 
 to show that some of their fathers coincide as much with 
 the maxims of the Gospel, as others oppose them ; and 
 hence you infer, that these lax opinions are not attributa- 
 ble to the whole society. I am well aware of this, for if 
 it were the case, they would not tolerate such contradic- 
 tions : but since they have those who maintain so liber- 
 tine a sentiment, you must conclude that the spirit of the 
 society is not that of pure Christianity : if it were, they 
 would not endure those who so diametrically opposed.it." 
 " What then," said I " what can be the design of the 
 whole body ? Doubtless they have no fixed principles, 
 and every one is at liberty to say what he pleases." '' No, 
 this cannot be : so large a society could not subsist, were 
 it so rash as to leave itself without a soul to govern and 
 regulate its concerns. There is, besides, an express order 
 that nothing shall be printed without the approbation of 
 their superiors." -'But how can the superiors them- 
 selves permit such opposing sentiments?" "I will ex- 
 plain it," said he. 
 
 " Their object is not to corrupt morals : this certainly 
 is not their design: but neither is it their sole purpose to 
 reform them: this would be bad policy . Their intention 
 is this — Having the best opinion of themselves, they thin k 
 it both beneficial and necessary to the interests of re- 
 
70 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 lift ion. that their reputation should be extended throug h 
 t he world, and that they should obtain the direction of 
 every one's conscience ; and as the strict maxims of t he 
 Qospel are adapted to govern some people, they mak e 
 u se of them whenever the occasion favours it : but in as- 
 mu ch as these m a xims do not accord with the view s of 
 t he generality of mankind, they dispense with them In r e"^ 
 gard to such predilections, for the saTce of affording un i- 
 v ersal satisfaction . On this account, as they are connec- 
 ted with persons of every condition in life, and of every 
 country and clime, it becomes ^necessary to employ 
 casuists whose varieties of sentiment should suit every 
 existing diversity of circumstance. Hence you will easily 
 perceive, that if they had none but- casuists of lax no- 
 tions, they would defeat their principal purpose, which is 
 to please every body, because the truly religiou s are 
 solicitous o f a more rigorous leader" iJut as there are 
 not many of this description they do not require many 
 guides of the, stricter .xlasa- to .direct them : a few of the 
 one will suffice for a few of the other ; while the multi- 
 tude of lax casuists offer their services to the numerous 
 classes that wish to be allowed an undisciplined remiss- 
 ness. 
 
 " It is by this ohlisins and accommodating conduct, as 
 Father Petau calls it, that they open I their armS'to all the 
 world For, if a person should apply to them who w as 
 resolved upon the restoration of any thing he had obtain ed 
 b y fraudulent means do not imagine they would attem pt 
 to dissuade him from his purpose ; on the contra ry they 
 would applaud and confirm his determination. ~ But if 
 another should present himself soliciting absolution wi th- 
 out restitution it would be strange indeed if they did not 
 furnish him with expedients, and guarantee his success . 
 
 *• By this means they preserve all their friends, and 
 defend themselves against all their enemies. [f they 
 should be reproached for their extreme laxity, they in- 
 stantly exhibit to the public their austere directors with 
 some volumes which they have composedon the strictness 
 of the Christian law ; and with these' prools they satisfy 
 the superficial, who cannot fathom their depths^ 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 7! 
 
 " Thus they accomodate all descriptions of people, and 
 are so well prepared with an answer to every question, 
 that in countries where a crucified Jesus passes for fool- 
 ishness, they suppress the scandel of the cross and preach 
 only Jesu£ Christ in his glory, and not in a state of suf- 
 fering ; as in India and China, where they allow their 
 Christians to practise idolatry itself, by the ingenious de- 
 mise of making them conceaLan image of Christ under 
 their cloaks, to which they are instructed to address 
 menially, the adorations rendered publicly to the idols 
 Cachin-choam and Keum-fucum. This is charged upon 
 them by Gravina, a Dominican, and the same policy is 
 described in a Spanish memorial presented to Philip IV., 
 king of Spain, by the friars of the Philippine islands, as 
 reported by Thomas Hurtado, in his book of Martyrology, 
 p. 427. The cardinals of the society de propaganda fide, 
 were obliged expressly to forbid the Jesuit's, upon pairi of 
 excommunication, to allow the worship of idols under any 
 pretext whatever, and to conceal the mystery of the cross 
 from those whom they instructed in the faith, positively 
 commanding them to admit no one to baptism till after 
 such instruction, and enjoining them to exhibit a crucifix 
 in their churches ; as is amply detailed in a decree of the 
 congregation on the ninth of July, 1646, signed by Car- 
 dinal Capponi. 
 
 " In this manner they have spread over the whole 
 world by their &os£xixi&-s£-fvepQ>bte-ef^ons, which is the 
 spring and foundation of all this disorder. You must 
 learn what it is from their own testimony, — for they take 
 no more pains to conceal it than they do the facts I am 
 stating, with this difference only, that they veil their 
 human, and political, prudence under the pretext of divine 
 and christian prudence, asiMaith, , isttpp{5rTecrBy"tradition, 
 were not invariable in all times and places, as if the rule 
 were to bend to the accommodation of the person who 
 was to submit to it, and as if there were no other means 
 for sinners to purify their stains of guilt," than corrupting 
 the law of God ; whereas ' the law of the Lord is per- 
 fect, converting the soul,' to conform to its salutary di- 
 rections ! 
 
72 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 " Let me beg you to go and visit these worthy Fathers, 
 and I assure* you that you will at once perceive the reason 
 of their doctrine respecting grace, in the laxity of their 
 morals : you will see the Christian virtues so disguised 
 and so completely divested of that charity which is their 
 life and soul, you will witness jojnany crimes palliated, 
 and so many disorders -^perjnitteeL. that it will no longer 
 appear strange that they, should maintain, ' that all men 
 hav£ at all times sufficient grace to lead, in their sense of 
 the phrase, a religious life.' As their morality is entirely 
 pagan, nature is sufficient to guide them. When we af- 
 firm the necessity of efficacious grace, the object pre- 
 sented to view embraces other virtues. It is not simply 
 to cure vices by other vices, it is not to induce men to 
 conform to the external duties of religion, but to practise 
 a nobler virtue than that of the Pharisees or the sages of 
 the "pagan worlds Law and reason are sufficient for these 
 effects.. But to detach the soul from the love- of the 
 world, to withdraw it from what is an object of the fond- 
 est affection, to make a man die to himself and to love 
 God with supreme and unalterable attachment, can be 
 accomplished only by an omnipotent power. It is as ir- 
 rational to pretend that we possess a perfect command 
 over these graces, as it is to deny that those virtues which 
 do not include the love of God, and which the Jesuits 
 confound with Christian virtues, are not practicable by 
 our own power." 
 
 Hitherto my friend spoke with much concern, for he is 
 seriously afflicted at these disorders. For my own part I 
 applauded the excellence of JLeauiti&a] Ljjqhcy, and went 
 immediately to one of their best casuists, with whom I 
 wished, at this moment, to renew a former acquaintance. 
 Knowing^ how to proceed, I had no difficulty .in introdu- 
 cing' ana conducting the subject. Retaining his attach- 
 ment to me, I was welcomed by a thousand expressions 
 of kindness, and after some desultory conversation, I took 
 occasion from the season, to make an inquiry respecting 
 fasting, for Jthe purpose of leading insensibly to the parti- 
 cular object of my solicitude. "~ Instated" how-difficult I felt 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 73 
 
 it. He exhorted me to resist my own disinclinations ; 
 but persisting in my complaints, he became compassion- 
 ate, and began to frame some excuses for me. Many 
 which he offered did not exactly accord with my taste, 
 till at length he asked if I could npt_sle.ep_without-a sup- 
 per ? " No," said I, " in consequence of which I am 
 obliged to breakfast at noon and to sup at night." " I 
 am very happy," answered he, " that I have discovered 
 an innocent method of relieving your anxiety ; go, go, 
 you are under no obligation to fast. However, do not 
 depend on my word, come with me into the library." 
 
 I went — •' Here, here," said he, taking up a book, 
 ' ' is your proof, and oh, what a noble one it is ! furnished 
 by Escobar." " Who is Escobar ?" " What, are you 
 ignorant of the name of Escobar, of our society, who 
 has compiled this moral theology from twenty-four of our 
 Fathers, who in his preface compares this book to ' that 
 of the Revelation which was sealed with seven seals,' 
 and says that Jesus delivered it thus sealed to the four 
 living creatures, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, and Valentia, 
 in the presence of four-and-twenty Jesuits, who repre- 
 sent the four-and-twenty elders ?" All this allegory he 
 read, which of course he found to be very just, and by 
 which he gave a vast idea of the excellence of this 
 work ! When he turned to the passage respecting fasting 
 — "See, see," he exclaimed; " Tr. 1, Ex. 13, N. 67, 
 Is he who cannot sleep without a supper obliged to fast ? 
 By no means." '' Are you now satisfied 1" " Not en- 
 tirely, so," replied I, " for I can fast pretty well by mak- 
 ing a breakfast in the morning and a supper at night." 
 " Oho, then, look at what follows ; there is not a single 
 consideration omitted. If a person can content himself 
 with a breakfast in the morning and a supper at night," 
 — " That is exactly my case" — " he is not obliged to 
 fast ; for no one is under any obligation to disarrange the 
 order of bis meals." " Noble reason !" " But," con- 
 tinued he, " do you accustom yourself to much wine ?" 
 " No, Father, I exceedingly dislike it." " I said this," 
 added he, " simplv to intimate that you might take it in 
 
 7 
 
74 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the morning, or whenever you pleased without breaking 
 your fast ; and a glass of wine is always cheering. Pray 
 observe N. 75." ,; May a person, without breaking his 
 fast, drink wine at any hour he pleases, and in consider- 
 able quantities ?" " He may, and a dram too. I did not 
 recollect the dram," said he, " I must note it v down in 
 my memoranda." " Truly this Escobar," said I, " is a 
 fine man." " O," rejoined he, >* every body admires 
 him : he puts such lovely questions. Look again, N. 38, 
 If a man doubt whether he be of age, is he obliged to 
 fast ? No. But suppose I should come of age to-night, at 
 an hour after midnight, and to-morrow is to be a fast, 
 should I be obliged to fast to-morrow ? No : for you may 
 eat as much as you please from twelve to one, because 
 you would not yet have completed twenty-one years; and 
 so having a right to break your fast, you are not obliged 
 to keep it.' " " O," said I, " what an agreeable pub- 
 lication !" >■ Indeed it is — one is never tired of it. I 
 pass whole days and nights in reading it : absolutely I 
 can do nothing else." 
 
 The good Father seeing my satisfaction, proceeded in 
 a perfect ecstacy : " Look here, at a passage in Filiutius, 
 one of the twenty-four Jesuits, vol. ii. tr. 27. p. 2. ch. 6. 
 n. 143. 'Suppose a person is fatigued, ad insequendam 
 jmellam, is he obliged to fast ? Certainly tot. But sup- 
 pose be has fatigued himself for the express purpose of 
 being released from fasting, must he then observe it ? No ' 
 — though it should be his premeditated design, he is not 
 obliged.' Would you ever have believed this 1" appeal- 
 ing to me. " Why, really I cannot tell how to believe 
 it yet. What, is it no sin to break a fast when I can 
 keep it ? And is it allowable to seek opportunities of sin- 
 ning, or rather are we under no obligations to avoid 
 them ? This is accommodating indeed !" " Not always, 
 
 that is according " " According to what ?" said I, 
 
 " Oh," replied the Jesuit, >' suppose one has sustained 
 any inconvenience in avoiding such opportunities, do you 
 think there is still an indispensable obligation ? If so, it 
 is more than Father Bauny concedes, p. 1084; 'We 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 76 
 
 must not refuse absolution to those who live on the con- 
 fines of sin, if they should be so situated that they can- 
 not quit them without becoming the subjects of public 
 observation, or without bringing themselves into difficul- 
 ties.' " " I am rejoiced at this, Father, and since we are 
 allowed not to avoid opportunities of sin, it only remains 
 that we be permitted deliberately to seek them." " Some- 
 times," he remarked, >' even this may be granted ; so 
 says the celebrated casuist Basil Pontius, whose opinion 
 is quoted and approved by Father Bauny, in his Treatise 
 on Penitence, q. 4. p. 94 : 'A person may seek an oc- 
 casion to sin directly and by itself, primo et per se ; when 
 either our own temporal or spiritual good, or that of our 
 neighbour, demands it." 
 
 " Verily," said I, " this must be a dream ! Do I 
 really hear religious people talk in this manner ? Tell 
 me, Father, are you absolutely and conscientiously of this 
 opinion?" " No, certainly." "Why, then, speak against 
 your conscience ?" " Not at all : I did not speak ac- 
 cording to my conscience, but in conformity to Pontius and 
 Father Bauny ; and you may follow them with safety, for 
 they are skilful polemics." "What! because they have 
 inserted these three lines in their writings, am I allowed 
 to search out occasions and pretences to commit sin ? I 
 imagined fhaT'Oie "Scriptures and the~ tradition of the 
 church constituted the only rule of conduct, not your 
 casuists!" "Why," said he, all astonishment, "you 
 absolutely remind me of tbe_Jansenists ! Is' it not in the 
 power of Father Bauny and Basil Pontius to make their 
 opinions probable?" "But I am not satisfied with 
 probability, I am anxious to obtain certainty." " Oh," 
 said he, ' you know nothing respecting the doctrine of 
 probable opinions: if you did, you would speak in a very 
 different manner : you must really come under my in- 
 structions : your time is by no means thrown away- by 
 coming here to-day, I can assure you : for without being 
 acquainted with this doctrine, you can know nothing ; it 
 is the very foundation, the a b c of all our morality." 
 
76 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 I was enchanted to find him at the very point I wished, 
 and entreated him to state what was meant by a probable 
 opinion. ' Our author," said he, '• will furnish you with the 
 best explanation. AH of them, including the twentyrfour 
 elders, agree in the following representation in princ. ex. 
 3. n 8. ' An opinion is called probahle-Vfiwn it is-foujoded 
 upon reasons i of someimportance. Hence it sometimes 
 happens that only one very grave, doctor can reader— an 
 opinion probable ;* and observe the reason ; ' for a man 
 who is particularly .dexoted. to stfldy, would not ^dopt an 
 opinion unless he were induced by <j. good and sufficient 
 reason? " " n And thus," I remarked, " a single doctor may 
 turn and overturn, settle and unsettle the consciences of 
 men at his own pleasure, and be always safe." " Sir," said 
 he, " you must not ridicule or think of opposing this doctrine. 
 Whenever the Jansenists have attempted it they have com- 
 pletely failed. No, no, it is too firmly established. Attend 
 to Sanchez one of our most celebrated casuists, Som. 1. 1 . 
 c. 9. n. 7 : 'You may perhaps doubt whether the authority 
 of a single good and learned doctor be sufficient to render 
 an opinion probable. I answer, it is ; and Angela;, Syl- 
 vius, Navarre Emanuel Sa, &c. assert the same, furnish-- 
 ing this proof; — a probable opinion is that which has a 
 considerable foundation, but the authority of a wise and 
 pious man is not of small but of great importance ; — for — 
 and pray listen to this reason — if th e^tjestjmon y of such a 
 man possess sufficient weight to convinee-ws-that any oc- 
 currence took place, for example, at Rome ; why should it 
 not be equally satisiaCtofy-in^iaecid&g-a douhtfuLpnint of 
 morality ?" " 
 
 '• This is a curious comparison indeed." said I, ■' be- 
 tween the ordinary events of the world and the scruples of 
 conscience !" *■ Have patience and Sanchez suggests the 
 answer in the next paragraph — '-and J disapprove of the 
 limitation prescribed by certain writers, that the authority 
 of such a doctor is sufficient in questions relating to hu- 
 man affairs, but not in those which refer to religious con- 
 cerns ; for it is of the greatest importance in both.' " 
 " Father," speaking frankly, " I can place no dependence 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 77 
 
 upon this rule. Who can assure me, while your doctors 
 assume such a liberty of examining every thing by mere 
 reason, that what appears certain to one shall appear the 
 same to all ? The diversity of opinions is so considera- 
 ble " " You do not understand," interrupting me, 
 
 " their views are indeed frequently different, but this is 
 nothing to the purpose ; every one may render his own 
 probable and certain. We are well aware their opinions 
 are not all coincident : so much the better ; in fact, they 
 scarcely ever agree ; for a very few questions can arise 
 in which you will not find one say yes and another no ; 
 but each of these contrary opinions is probable, as Diana 
 states on a certain subject, part 3. torn. 4. v. 244 : ' Pon- 
 tius and Sanchez are of an opposite opinion, but inasmuch 
 as they are both learned men, each one makes his own 
 sentiment probable." ' 
 
 " But, Father, in such cases it must be very embarrassing 
 to know which to prefer." " O no, not at-atl"? it is only to 
 follow the one which is most agreeablfi-to yourself." " But 
 what if the other "opinion should be the most probable ?" 
 " It does not signify." " But what if it should be the most 
 sure ?" " Still it does not signify ; only observe the ex- 
 planation of Father Emanuel Sa, of our society, in his 
 Aphorisms de Dubio, p. 183 : — ' A person may do what 
 he conceives to be permitted by one probable opinion, 
 although the contrary be more sure ; but the opinion of 
 one grave doctor is sufficient." " But suppose an opinion 
 is both less probable and less sure, is it permissible to fol- 
 low it, rejecting that which is believed to be more proba- 
 ble and more sure ?" " Yes," once more : hear that great 
 Jesuit Filiutius, Mor. Qumst. tr. 21. c. 4. n. 128. ' It is 
 allowable to follow the opinion which is less probable, 
 though it be also less sure. This is the concurrent senti- 
 ment of modern authors.' Is not this explicit ?" " Most 
 certainly," said I, "we are left at the most perfect liberty, 
 reverend Father, thanks to your probable opinions ! Our 
 consciences are entirely free aud unconstrained ! Pray, 
 as to your other casuists, do you enjoy the same license in 
 
 your answers 1" " O yes : we give what answers we 
 7* 
 
TZ PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 please, or rather whatever they please who consult us. 
 Oar rules are deduced from our Fathers Laiman, TheoL 
 Mar. 1. 1. tr. 1. c. 2, § 2. n. 7; Vasquez, Disp. 62. c. 9. 
 n. 47"; Sanchez, in Sum. 1. I.e. 9. n. 23 ; and from our 
 twenty-four in prin. ex. 3. n 24 The words of Laiman, 
 Which the twenty-four elders have followed, are, ' When 
 a doctor is consulted, he may give his advice not only as 
 probable, according to his opinion, but contrary to his opi- 
 nion, if it should be deemed probable by others when the 
 advice which _ is opp qsed_to our own is more favourable 
 and agreeaTjIeto the jperson who consults him ; si forte et 
 illi favor abWor sen exopfatieraitr -but- 1 say farther, that 
 he will not act without reason, if he should give those who 
 consult him an opinion, held probable by some learned 
 individual, though be felt confident at the same time it 
 was absolutely false." 
 
 " Charming, charming my good Father ; your doctrine 
 is admirably accommodating indeed !" To have a reply 
 always at band, yes or no, just as yon please — what an 
 inestimable privilege, and how can it be sufficiently va- 
 lued ! Now I perceive the use which you doctors make 
 of their contrary opinions on all subjects ; one is always 
 for you, and the other is never against you ; if you do not 
 find your account in one way, you are sure to do so in an- 
 other ; andThus"you are always safe." "True, true; 
 and we can say with Diana, who found Father Bauny on 
 his -side when Father Lugo was in direct opposition, — 
 Sape prcmente Deofert Deus alter opum, i. e. ' if one God 
 distress us, another will defend us.' " " I understand 
 this very well : but another difficulty strikes me. After 
 having consulted one of your doctors, and taking his opi- 
 nion, which left me at entire liberty, suppose one should 
 be entrapped by a confessor who refuses absolution with- 
 out a total change of sentiment : have you provided for 
 such a case, Father?" "To be sure^Jhey are_oh|iged 
 to absolve their penitents who hold some probable opinions, 
 upon pain of. committing a Tnojrtal offehcey"s6 that they 
 can never be at a loss. This is luminously stated by our 
 Fathers: amongst others, by Father Bauny, tr. 4. De 
 Pamit. q. 13. p. 93. ' When the penitent,' says he, ' fol- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 79 
 
 lows a-£robable opinion, the confessor must absolve him, 
 although TuTopjaion be c^mTraTy-ttrfn'af of i"Tie~perritent.' ! 
 "But, Father, he does not affirm tTVafit would be a mortal 
 sin not to absolve him." " How hasty you are! Hear, 
 hear ! he proceeds with this express conclusion : ' To re- 
 fuse to absolve a penitent who acts conformably to a pro- 
 bable opinion, is a sin in its own nature mortal ;' and he 
 quotes, in confirmation of this sentiment, three of our 
 most distinguished divines, Suarez, torn. 4. dist. 32. sect. 
 5; Vasquez, Disp. 62. c 7; and Sanchez, n. 29." 
 
 " O m; good Father,'' said I, " how admirable are the 
 regulations you have adopted ! No reason remains for 
 future apprehension, no confessor will ever dare to dis- 
 obey. But I had no idea before of your power to enjoin 
 upon pain of damnation ; but imagined you were only ca- 
 pahlp of taking mumming, got .thinking. thaL»you could 
 introduce them! Now,*T~perceive you can accomplish 
 every thing." " You are not correct," said he ; '■ wc 
 cannot introduce sins, we can only point them out : I have 
 more than once observed that you are not well versed in 
 scholastic theology." <>' Be that as it will, Father," return- 
 ed I, " my doubtsjire thus far removed ; but I have another 
 perplexity ; what/do you do when the Fathers of the church 
 are in direct opposition to any one of your casuists ?" " Sur- 
 prising ignorance ! The Fathers were good authority for 
 the morals of their age, but th«y4iKe3,at too remote a 
 periocLJiu;. us. They can no longer regulate our .princi- 
 ples ; it now belongs to the new casuists. Attend to 
 Father Cellot, de Hier. 1. 8. cap. lrj. p. 714, who follows 
 our celebrated Father Reginaldus : ' In questions of mo- 
 rality, the new casjriste^rjsjn-ejeridplej^the ancient Fa- 
 thers, although they lived nearer the japostolic times i 1 
 and in conformity with the same " senlime'ntirTJIanV in- 
 quires, p. 5. tr. 8. reg. 31. ' Are the clergy obliged *o 
 make restitution for revenue which has been improperly 
 applied? The ancient Fathers reply in. thfi^ffi rmat J. v e, 
 but the modern ones in the negative ; let us then adhere 
 to that opinion which, dispenses us from the obligation of 
 making restitution." 
 
80 PKOVINClAi LETTERS. 
 
 " Oh," said I, " what charming maxims, and how re- 
 plete with comfort !" " We leave the Fathers," returned 
 he, " to those who treat of positive divinity ; but we who 
 guide the consciences ofmenjread them but little, and 
 quote no writingS-mTTthose of th~e~new"Ca5nisTsr "" Consult 
 Diana, in the beginning bTWBSSB^umefous works is in- 
 serted a list of two hundred and ninety-six authors, the 
 most ancient of whom is about eighty years old." " Is 
 not this the period of the foundation of your society ?" 
 " Thereabouts, that is to say, as soon as you made your 
 appearance in the world. St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom, 
 St. Ambrose St. Jerom, and others were obliged to with- 
 draw. But may I at least be informed of the names of 
 their successors ? Who are these new authors?" "Who? 
 — able and celebrated men ; such as Villalobos, Conink. 
 Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer, Dellacrux, Venacruz, Ugo- 
 lin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, Suarez, Henriquez, 
 Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez, Sanchez, de Vechis, de Grasses, 
 dc Grassalis, de Pitigianis, de Graphaeis, Squilanti, Bizo- 
 zcri, Barcola, de Bobadilla, Bisbe, Simancha, Perez de 
 Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, de Scarcia, Quaranta, Scophra, 
 Pedrczza, Cabrezza, Dias, de Clavasis, Villagut, Adam a 
 Manden, Tribarus, Binsfeld, VoJfangi a Vorberg, Vos- 
 theri, StrevesdorfF — " " O my Father," exclaimed I, in 
 great alarm, " were all these people Christians ?" " How 
 do you mean, Christians ? Did I not state that by these 
 men alone we at this moment govern all Christendom ?" 
 — I really felt extreme pity, but did not express it, con- 
 tenting myself with asking if all these authors were Jesu- 
 its. " No," was his reply, '* but that is of no conse- 
 quence ; they have, notwithstanding, written many excel- 
 lent things. Most of them, indeed, have borrowed from 
 our authors, or have been copied from ours, but we arc 
 not punctilious : besides, they constantly quote and eulo- 
 gize our authors. Thus Diana, who is not of our frater- 
 nity, in speaking of Vasquez, calls him the phoenix of wit, 
 and elsewhere says, ' that Vasquez alone is as good au- 
 thority as all the world besides — instar omnium : on which 
 account our Fathers frequently make use of this good 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. BI 
 
 Diana : for if you understand our doctrine of probability, 
 you will see that their belonging to another society is of 
 no consequence; we are, on the contrary, gratified with 
 others besides Jesuits, being able to render their opinions 
 probable, so that all is not imputed to us. On this princi- 
 ple, whenever any author advances a probability, we 
 have a right to avail ourselves of it, if we think proper, 
 by the doctrine of probable opinions, or we may reject it 
 if the author be not attached to our society." " Oh, I 
 understand it all," said I : " all are welcome but the an- 
 cient Fathers, and you remain in full possession of the 
 field ;"you may take any direction, and ramble wherever 
 you please. But I foresee three or four .prodigious incon- 
 veniences, barriers of the most formidable description, to 
 obstruct your progress." " And pray," said the Father, 
 all astonishment, " what are they ?" " The Holy Scrip- 
 ture, the Popes fi and Councils, — whom you cannot con- 
 tradict, and who all agree with the. Gospel." "Oho ! is 
 that all ? You really terrified me. Do you imagine that 
 so obvious a case as this has not been foreseen and pro- 
 vided for ? I am really astonished that yoa should think 
 we we opposed to Scripture, to Popes, and to Councils. 
 You sljall have perfect demonstration to the contrary. I 
 should be excessively chagrined that you should suppose 
 we are deficient in our duty ; but you have doubtless 
 adopted this idea from certain opinions of our Fathers, 
 which seem to controvert their own decisions, though it 
 is not so in reality. But to explain this agreement, re- 
 quires more leisure than 1 can at present command. I 
 trust you will not be unedified by what has passed ; if you 
 will return to-morrow, I will undertake to furnish you with 
 complete information on the subject." 
 
 Thus ended the conference, and here I close my letter. 
 I flatter myself you will find enough to afford you amuse- 
 ment till my next communication. 
 
 I am. &c. 
 
LETTER VI. 
 
 The different Artifices of the Jesuits to evade the Authority 
 of the Gospel, the Councils, and the Popes. Conse- 
 quences which follow from their Doctrine of Probability. 
 Their Abatements in favour of the Clergy, Monks, and 
 Servants. History of John a" Alba. 
 
 Sib, Paris, April 10, 1656. 
 
 At the close of my last letter, I informed you that the 
 good Father Jesuit promised to show me the manner in 
 which the casuists reconciled the contradictory aspect of 
 their opinions, and the decisions of Popes, Councils, and 
 Scripture. The following is a recital of his statements. 
 He began thus : 
 
 " One method of reconciling these apparent contradic- 
 tions is, by the interpretation given to a term. For exam- 
 ple ; Pope Gregory XIV. declares, that assassins are un- 
 worthy of enjoying the protection of a church, and that 
 they ought to be dragged out by force : our twenty-four 
 elders say, tr. 6 ex. 4. n. 27 : ' Whoever kills another in 
 a treacherous manner, does not incur the penalty of tKis 
 bull.' This, you perceive is contradictory, but by inter- 
 preting the word assassin, the passages are made to 
 agree: thus, 'Are not assassins unworthy of enjoying 
 the privilege of church protection?' Yes, by the bull of 
 Gregory XIV But, by the term assassins, we under- 
 stand those who have received money to kill another in a 
 treacherous manner. Hence ^hose who have not commit- 
 ted murder for hire or rewaxcHLifut only to oblige their 
 friends, are not called assassins." Thus we are exhorted 
 
fEOVINClAX LETTERS. 0.: 
 
 in the Gospel, " to give alms out of our abundance ;" bul 
 many casuists have discovered a mode of exonerating 
 even the most' opulent persons from the obligation 01 
 alms-giving. This will, perhaps, appear to you a contra- 
 diction ; but it is easy to reconcile it, by an interpretatior 
 of the term abundance or superfluity, so that it can scarcely 
 ever be shown that a person, possesses it. The learnec 
 Vasquez has done this in his treatise on alms-giving, c. 4 
 " That which is accumulated for the purpose of aggran 
 dizing our own condition, or that of relatives, is not callec 
 superfluity ; for which reason people can jeldom be saic 
 to possess superfluity, „ jnot„ even . kings, themselves.' 
 Diana, in quoting these words, (for he usually builds upor 
 the foundation of our Fathers,) deduces this strong con 
 elusion: 'that as to the question whether the rich arc 
 obliged to give alms out of their superfluity, although the 
 affirmation be theoretically true, it will scarcely, if ever 
 happen to be necessary in practice.' " 
 
 " This," I observed, l< is certainly a fair inference fron 
 the doctrine of Vasquez ; but if it be objected that, ac 
 cording to Vasquez, salvation would be as sure in refus 
 ing to give alms and retaining a moderate degree of am 
 bition, as, according to the Gospel, it is in renouncing am 
 bition in order to be capacitated to dispense alms, wha 
 reply is to be given ?" " That both these ways are equall; 
 sure according to the same Gospel ; the one, in the mos 
 literal and the most obvious sense, the other, according 
 to- the same Gospel, as interpreted by Vasquez. , Henc< 
 you perceive the utility of the interpretative sysiejS^fin 
 when the terms are so plain as to admit of no such expla 
 nation, we make use of the consideration ^pf favourabl 
 circumstances ; as, for example^ the Popes have excommu 
 nicated all monks who leave off their, habit, but ou 
 twenty-four elders speak in this manner, tr. 6. ex. 7. n 
 103 : ' Upon what occasions may a monk quit his habi 
 without incurring excommunication ?' Many are stated 
 amongst others, this one : ' if he quit it for any disgracefu 
 reason, as to turn pick-pocket, to go incog, to places of i! 
 
84 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 fame, inten4ipSJBSSdilX-tft-re4Uin e ,.'^' ft is obvious that 
 the papal bulls do not refer to cases of this description." 
 
 I was scarcely able to give credit to this representation, 
 and requested to have it pointed out in the original title, 
 where I noticed " The Practice according to the School 
 of the Society of Jesus — Praxis in Societatis Jesu Schola" 
 — where it was written, Si habitum dimittat utfuretur oc- 
 culte vel fornicetur. He showed me the same thing in 
 Diana, Ut eat incognitas ad lupanar. '' And how is it, 
 Father," proceeding with my inquiries, " how is it that 
 they are released from excommunication in this particular 
 instance i" " And do jou not really comprehend this 1" 
 replied he. " Do you not see how scandalous it would 
 be to surprise a monk in such a situation in the haiit.of 
 religion ? Have you nevTer-heard of the answer to the first 
 bull, contra sollicitantes ? And in what manner the twenty- 
 four elders in a chapler of the school praxis of our society 
 explain the bull of Pius V. contra clencog," &c. 1 " No — 
 really I know nothing of it." " Then you have not read 
 Escobar ?" it I never could meet with him, Father, till 
 yesterday, and that after great inquiries." " I know not," 
 said he, " how it happens ; but of late every body is in 
 search of Escobar. What I mentioned is in tr. 1. ex. 8. n. 
 102. Examine it at your leisure, and you will find a 
 -plendid specimen of the manner of interpreting bulb fa- 
 vourably." 
 
 I perused the subject that very evening, but the state- 
 ments are so revolting that I dare not repeat them. 
 
 The good Father proceeded — " You are now aware of 
 the use we make of favourable circumstances: but some 
 are so precise, that it is impossible to reconcil&contradic- 
 tions by means of them, so that you are ready to believe 
 they do in some degree exist. For instance— three 
 Popes have decided, ' that the monks, who are obliged, 
 by a particular vow, to a life of abstinence, cannot be dis- 
 pensed from it, though they become bishops ;' yet Diana 
 states, ' that, notwithstanding these decisions, they are 
 dispensed.' " " Well, Father, how is this made to ac- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 85 
 
 cord ?" By the roost .acute of all the new methods, and 
 the most^gsmouat^-^robabiMiy ! T wTiTexplain it. The 
 affirmative and negative oF most opinions, as you were 
 shown the other day, have each some probability ; and 
 enough in the judgment of our doctors to be followed with 
 a safe conscience. It is not that the pro and the con can 
 be at the same time true, and in the same sense ; this is 
 manifestly impossible ; but it is only that they are at the 
 same time probable and consequently safe. On this prin- 
 ciple, our good friend Diana speaks in p. 6. tr. 13. r. 39 : 
 'I reply to the decision of the three Popes, which is con- 
 trary to my opinion, that, by adhering to the affirmative, 
 they have given a statement which is in fact probable ac- 
 cording to my judgment ; but it does not follow that the 
 negative may not also be probable ; and in the same trea- 
 tise, r. 65 on another point, in which he again differs 
 from a Pope, he says, ' the Pope affirms this as head of 
 the church, I admit ; but he does so only within the 
 sphere of the probability of his own opinion.' You per- 
 ceive that this is no disparagement to the sentiments of 
 the Popes, otherwise it would not be tolerated at Rome, 
 where Diana is in the utmost credit. For he does not af- 
 firm that the decision of the Popes is not probable, but, 
 allowing their opinion the utmost extent of probability, he 
 only maintains that the contrary is also probable." " This 
 is very respectful," observed I. " Yes ; and it is far 
 more subtle than the reply of Father Bauny, when a cen- 
 sure was passed upon his books at Rome ; for he was 
 provoked by the furious persecution of Mr. Hallier, to 
 say, ' What has the censure of Rome to do with that of 
 France ?' Hence it is sufficiently clear, that either by the 
 interpretation of terms, by the observation of favourable 
 circumstances, or by the double probability of pro and con, 
 all these pretended contradictions which so alarmed you, 
 may always be reconciled without injury to the decisions 
 of Scripture, Councils, or Popes." 
 
 " Reverend Father," said I, " how happy is the world 
 to be blessed with such guides as you ! How useful are 
 these probabilities ! I never discovered till now, the rea- 
 
86 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 son of your taking so much pains to inculcate, that a sin- 
 gle doctor, if he be grave, can make an opinion probable ; 
 that the contrary may also be probable ; and then pro or 
 con may be chosen as is most agreeable to the individual, 
 though he do not believe it to be rwie, and with such a 
 safe conscience that a confessor who should refuse abso- 
 lution upon the credit of these casuists would be in a state 
 of damnation. Hence I understand that a single casuist 
 may, at his pleasure, construct new rules of morality, and 
 dispose of every thing relative to moral conduct according 
 to his own fancy." "No," said he. "what you state 
 must be taken with some restriction^! But observe this. 
 It is our method by which you will trace the progress of a 
 new opinion from its birth to its maturity?" "The grave 
 doctor who invented it. ushers it into the world, dispersing 
 it abroad as a seed which is to take deep root. In this 
 state it is tender, but time ripens it by "degrees. On this 
 account Diana, who has introduced many sentiments of 
 this nature, says, in one passage, - I advance this opinion ; 
 but because it is new, I leave it to the operation of time 
 to ripen, — relinquo tempori maturandam. Thus, in g. few 
 years, it insensibly gains strength, and after the lapse of a 
 considerable period, it becomes authorized by the tacit 
 approbation of the church, according to that grand maxim 
 of Father Bauny, ' when anjapinionjs. advanced by some 
 casuists, and not opposed byj.he.~church i it is an evidence 
 that the church approves it. Upon this very principle ho 
 gives authority to one of bis own sentiments, in his trea- 
 tise 6. p. 312." " What, Father, is the church to be re- 
 sponsible for all the abuse she suffers and all the errors 
 which pervade the volumes which she does not formally 
 censure?" 'Oh, you must contend that point with Fa- 
 ther Bauny : I merely," said he, -'recite his words : you 
 must not make me the party in the debate. It will be of 
 no avail to dispute against fact. I stated that when time 
 had so matured an opinion, it becomes completely proba- 
 ble and sure. Hence the learned Cararauel, in a letter 
 in which he dedicates his fundamental theology to Diana, 
 says, ' that this great man has made many opinions pro- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 87 
 
 habit which were not so before,' qum antea non erant, and 
 therefore it is no sin to follow them, though once it was 
 sinful — jam non peccant licet ante peccaverint." ''Really, 
 Father, there is much to be obtained from you doctors. 
 What then, of two persons who do the same things, shall 
 the one who is unacquainted with your doctrine, commit 
 sin, while the other who knows it, is innocent 1 Does your 
 doctrine justify at the same time that it instructs ? The 
 law of God, according to St. Paul, included all under sin, 
 yours makes them almost all innocent. Pray, Father, do 
 give me minute and full information, for I cannot leave you 
 till you have explained the principal maxims which your 
 casuists have established." 
 
 " Alas !" exclaimed the Jesuit, " our chief design was 
 to authorize no other maxims than those of the Gospel in 
 their utmost strictness : and it is sufficiently evident by the 
 regulation of our own conduct, that if we allow of any 
 remissness in others, it is rather attributable to our con- 
 descension than to our plan. 'We are in fact compelled to 
 it : mankind are now so corrupt, that being unable to <■ 
 bring them to oilr principles we must bring our principles 
 to them. They would otherwise leave us, nay worse, they 
 would become totally abandoned. Our casuists have 
 therefore found it necessary to .consider. Jo,"„w-hat- viees 
 they are most inclined in every condition, that they might 
 prescribe such agreeable rules, without offending against 
 truth, as to render the compromise perfectly easy. The 
 capital object which our society has in, view to . promote 
 religion, is to avoid disgusting any one or producing de- 
 spondency. We have" maxims therefore adapted to per- : 
 sons of every description, to beneficiaries, priests, monks, ; 
 gentlemen, servants rich tradesmen, bankrupts, poor wo- ' 
 men of piety, and the reverse, married persons and liber- ; 
 tines ; in short, nothing has escaped our foresight." " That . 
 is," interposed I. 'you have provided for the clergy, the j 
 nobility, and the commonalty. I should be happy to hear 
 these maxims." 
 
 '• Well, then," said the good Father, " let us begin 
 with the beneficiaries. You are aware of the traffic in 
 
08 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 benefices, which is so prevalent at the present day ; and 
 were we to appeal to (he statements of St. Thomas and the 
 ancients we should find many Simonists in the church. 
 On this account, it was deemed very necessary that our 
 Father should make certain prudent abatements and quali- 
 fications, as Valentia, one of the four beasts of Escobar, 
 has taught. It is at the close of a long dissertation where 
 he suggests many expedients, of which, in my opinion, the 
 following is the best, p. 2039. torn 3. • If a person give a 
 temporal possession for a spiritual possession, that is, money 
 for a living, and give the money as the price of the benefice 
 it is a manifest simony ; but if it be given as the motive tor 
 induce the patron to confer it, it is not simony, though he] 
 who confers it, have the pecuniary consideration alone in 
 view.' Tannerus, who is also one of our society speaks 
 in a similar manner in bis third volume, p. 1519, though he - 
 acknowledges ' that St. Thomas is of a contrary opinion ; 
 peremptorily declaring, that it is always a simoniacal act to 
 give a spiritual office in exchange for a temporal consider- 
 ation, if the latter be the end in view.' By this means we 
 prevent an infinity of simoniacal transactions : for who 
 would be so wicked, when he offers his money for a bene- 
 fice, to do it as the price and not as the motive to influence 
 its bestowment ? No one surely, can act so criminally." 
 
 •« I perfectly agree with you," said I ; •• every body has 
 sufficient grace lo make sucb a bargain." " Yes, cer- 
 tainly : and you see bow we have compromised the mat- 
 ter with regard lo beneficiaries. As to the priests, we 
 have a variety of maxims in their favour ; for example, 
 this of our twenty-four elders, tr t. ex. 11 n. 96 : ' Can 
 a priest, who has received money for saying a mass, take! 
 money a second time for the same mass ?' ' Yes,' says; 
 Filintuis ' by applying that part of tbe sacrifice which 
 belongs to him as priest, to the person who pays the ] 
 second donation, provided he does not receive the price 
 of a whole mass, but of a part only, as for instance, one' 
 third.'" "Very good, Father; then here we have a 
 specimen of the pro and con, where both are probable ; 
 for what you assert as such, cannot fail of being so upon 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 89 
 
 the authorities of Filiutius and Escobar. But leaving it 
 within its sphere of probability, it appears to me that the 
 contrary might, with very good evidence, be maintained. 
 When ihe church allows the poor priests to take money 
 for their masses, upon the principle that they who serve 
 the altar should live by the altar,- it is aot meant that they 
 should exchange the sacrifice for money, still less that 
 they should deprive themselves of all those graces of 
 which they ought to be the first recipients. I might go 
 further, and say, with St. Paul, ' they are obliged to of- 
 fer the sacrifice, first for themselves, and afterwards for 
 the people :' and thus they are allowed to associate 
 others in the benefits of the sacrifice, but nol voluntarily 
 to renounce them all for themselves, and bestow them on 
 another for a third part of the mass ; that is to say, for 
 four or five pence. In truth, Father, however little 
 grave I might be. I could make this opinion probable." 
 " Doubtless, for there is no great difficulty in it ; the 
 thing is already evident. The difficulty is to find a 
 probability in opinions manifestly contradictory to those 
 which are true. This is the achievement for superior 
 men to accomplish. Father Bauny excels in this, and it 
 is truly delightful to see how this learned casuist pene- 
 trates the pro and the con, of a question which relates to 
 the priests, and finds reasons on either side, with astonish- 
 ing skill and subtlety. He says in his tenth treatise, p. 
 474 : ' It is impossible to make a law to oblige curates to 
 say mass every day, because such a law would undoubt- 
 edly expose them (hand dubie) to the danger of saying 
 it sometimes in a state of mortal sin ;' but he adds, in the 
 same book, p. 441 : ' the priests who take money to say 
 mass every day, ought to say it every day, and cannot 
 excuse themselves by alleging that they are not always' 
 properly prepared for it, because they can at any time 
 perform an act of contrition, and if they do not, it is 
 their own fault, and not the sin of the persons who hire 
 them to say mass.' In order further to remove every 
 possible hinderance, he resolves this question also in the 
 same treatise, q. 32. p. 457 : ' Can a priest gay mass on • 
 8* 
 
90 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the very day be is commit ting a mortal sin, and one of 
 the worst description, if be make a previous confession ?' 
 ' ./Vo,' says Villalobos, ' on account of his impurity,' 
 Sanchius, however, says yes, and without any iffence, and 
 this latter opinion I hold to be safe, and it ought to be 
 jfollowed in practice — et tuta et sequenda in praxi " 
 
 " Do you really, Father," said I, " affirm, that this 
 opinion ought to be followed in practice ? What, ought 
 a priest who has perpetrated such an enormity, to dare 
 to approach the altar on the same day, because Father 
 Bauny says so ? And ought he to pay no deference to 
 the ancient laws of the church, which interdict from the 
 sacrifice for ever, or at least for a very considerable 
 time, the priest that commits such iniquities, rather than 
 attend to the novel opinions of the casuists, who re-ad- 
 mit him the very day of his transgressions ?" " Where 
 is your memory ?" answered the Father : " did not 1 be- 
 fore- state, that according to our Fathers, Cellot and 
 Reginaldus, ' in morality we ought not to follow the an- 
 cients, but the new casuists ?,' " '■ O yes — I recollect it 
 perfectly: but here is something more, in relation to the 
 laws of the church." " You are right ; but you have 
 not yet discovered this beautiful maxim of our Fathers, 
 1 the laws of the church lose their force, when they are ' 
 no longer observed — cum jam desuetudine abierunt,' as 
 Filiutius says, torn. 2. tr. 25. n. 33 We can surely see the! 
 present necessities of the church better than the ancients.' 
 Were we so austere as to banish our priests from the 
 altar, you can easily comprehend we should have fewer 
 masses ; but the multiplication of masses conduces so 
 much to the glory of God and the good of souls, that 1 
 will venture. to affirm, with Father Cellot, in his work 
 upon the hierarchy, p. 61 1, printed at Rouen, ' that ther£ 
 would not be too many priests, if not only every man ana! 
 woman, were that possible, but all inanimate bodies, ancj 
 even brute beasts — bruta animalia, could be metamor- 
 phosed into priests to celebrate mass.' " 
 
 1 was so surprised at this extravagance, that I could 
 • not utter a syllable, so that he continued in a similar 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 91 
 
 strain — " But enough of the priests ; let us, to avoid 
 greater prolixity, hasten to the monks. As their most 
 pressing difficulty relates to the obedience they owe to 
 their superiors, listen to the lenity of our Fathers. 
 Thus speaks Caslrus Palaiis of our society, Op. mor. p., 
 1. disp 2. p. 6 : 'it is not disputed — non est controversion 
 that a monk who has a probable opinion in his favour, is 
 not necessitated to obey his superior, though the superior 
 may have a more probable opinion : for a monk is allowed 
 to take the opinion which is most agreeable to himself- — 
 qua sibi gratiorfuerit as Sanchez observes. And though 
 the commandment of the superior be just, this does not 
 compel obedience ; for it is not just in every particular 
 and respect — non undequaque juste preecipit, but only 
 probably, so that you are only engaged to obey him 
 probably, and you are disengaged probably — probabiliter 
 obligatus, et probabiliter deobligatus." •' Good Father, 
 one cannot estimate too highly the glorious benefits re- 
 sulting from this double probability !" " Oh," said he, 
 " they are great indeed ; but to be brief, 1 will mention 
 hut a single passage more, from the celebrated Molina, in 
 favour of those monks who have teen expelled from their 
 monasteries for their irregularities. Our Father Escobar 
 quotes it, tr. 6. ex. 7. n. 1 1 1 : ' Molina assures us, that a 
 monk expelled from his monastery, is not obliged to re- 
 form in order to return, and that he is no longer bound 
 by hts vow of obedience." " So then, Father- these 
 ecclesiastics enjoy a very fine liberty. Your casuists, I 
 perceive, have treated them very kindly : they have really 
 legislated as they would for themselves. I am afraid, 
 however, that people in other situations will not be so 
 liberally treated : every one must look to himself." " No," 
 said he, " they could not have taken better care of them- 
 selves. The same indulgence has been extended to all, 
 from the greatest to the least : but you lead me to point 
 out our maxims in reference to servants." 
 
 " We have fully considered the distress they must feel 
 when they are conscientious, in the service of dissipated 
 masters : for if they do not deliver all the messages in- 
 
92 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 trusted to them, they must lose their situations ; and if 
 they do, 4hey hurt their coiiscieBces. Our twenty-four 
 elders have thus provided for their comfort, tr. 7. ex. 4. 
 n. 223, stating the particular services they may render with 
 a safe conscience : ' to carry letters and presents — open 
 doors and windows — help their masters up to a window — 
 hold the ladder while he climbs up— all these are permit- 
 ted as things indifferent. It is true, as to holding the lad- 
 der, they should only do it when they are violently threat- 
 ened if they refuse, for it is doing an injury to the master 
 of a house, to break in at the window. Is not all this 
 very judicious ?" " I expected nothing less," said I, " in 
 a book deduced from four-and-twenty Jesuits." " But 
 our Father Bauny," added he, " has taught servants how 
 to render all these services very innocently, by having a 
 view merely to the pecuniary reward they may gain, not 
 to the sins themselves which tbey are required to manage. 
 This is well explained, in his Summary of Sins, p. 710, 
 last edition : • Let confessors observe that they must not 
 absolve those servants who carry indecent messages, if, 
 they consent to the sins of their masters; but they may, 
 do so if it be done for their own temporal advantage : and] 
 this is easily accomplished ; for why should they obstinately 
 consent to sins, of which they participate only the trouble ?' 
 And the same Father Bauny has established this great 
 maxim in favour of those who are not content with their 
 wages, in his Summary, p. 213, 214, sixth edition. ' May 
 servants who complain of their wages, add to them, by 
 swindling from their master's property, as much as they 
 deem necessary to recompense their services.' They may 
 do it sometimes, as when they are so poor in looking out ( 
 for a situation, that they have been obliged to accept what- 
 ever offer was made them, whilst other servants of the 
 same class gain more elsewhere.' " " That," I remarked.- 
 " is exactly the case with John d' Alba." " What John 
 d'Alba ? who do you mean ?" " Have you then forgot, 
 Father, what occurred in this place in the year 1647? 
 pray, where could yon have been ?" " Oh, I was then a 
 teacher of cases of conscience, in one of our colleges, at 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 93 
 
 some distance from Paris." "I see then you are not 
 acquainted with the story ; allow me to tell it you ; it was 
 related to me the other day by a person of veracity. He 
 -^stated • that this John d' Alba, a servant of your Fathers 
 of the college of Clermont, in St. James's street, not 
 being satisfied with his wages, stole something to recom- 
 pense himself. Your Fathers having detected the theft, 
 they put him in prison, accused him of robbing the house, 
 and, if my memory "be correct, had him examined at Cha- 
 telet, the sixth of April, 1647. These details were men- 
 tioned in order to authenticate it. This fellow, upon his 
 examination, confessed that he had taken some pewter 
 plates, but maintained it was no theft justifying himself by 
 the doctrine of Father Bauny. which he presented to his 
 judges with a piece written by one of your Fathers, under 
 whom he had studied cases of conscience, and who taught 
 him the same thing. Upon this, M. de Montrouge one of 
 the most considerable of the society said, ' that he was 
 not of opinion that the writings of these Fathers, con- 
 taining such an unlawful and pernicious doctrine, contrary 
 to all laws divine and human, adapted to ruin families and 
 authorize domestic thievery, were sufficient to absolve the 
 delinquent ; but that he thought this too faithful disciple 
 ought to be whipped "before the gate of the college, by 
 the common hangman, who should at the same time, 
 burn the writings of these Fathers relating to theft, forbid- 
 ding them to teach such a doctrine, upon pain of death.* : 
 Universal attention was excited to the result of this ad- '; 
 vice, which was fully approved, when a circumstance hap- 
 pened to defer its execution. The prisoner disappeared, 
 nobody knew how ; not a word more was said about the 
 affair, and John d'Alba went off without returning the 
 plates. The narrator added, that the opinion of M. de 
 Montrouge is registered at Chatelet, where it is accessible 
 to any one's inspection. The company present were 
 mightily delighted." " And pray," said the Father, " what 
 amused them so wonderfully ? What does all this amount 
 to ? I was speaking of the maxims of our casuists, and 
 was just about to mention those which relate to gentlemen, 
 
94 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 and you must, forsooth, interrupt me with irrelevant sto- 
 ries !" " Oh, Father, this was only by the bye- and to 
 intimate an important consideration attached to this sub- 
 ject, which 1 find you have forgot in settling your doctrine 
 of probability." " What then can be omitted by such 
 skilful casuists ?" " It is this : you have indeed confirmed 
 those who admit your probable opinions in their confidence 
 both towards God and conscience ; for, as you state, all is , 
 safe on the side of following a grace doctor ; and you have 
 emboldened thein, as it respects confessors, because you 
 have obliged the priests to absolve them on a probable opi- 
 nion, upon pain of committing a mortal sin : but you have 
 not fortified them against their judges so as to deliver 
 them from the whip and the gallows, by following your 
 probabilities. This is a capital defect." ' Thank you, 
 Sir this is true ; but we have not the same power over the 
 magistrates as ever the confessors, who are necessitated to 
 refer to us in all cases of conscience ; for we are the sove- 
 reign judges.'* " I understand you." said I " but if on 
 the one side you are the judges of the confessors are you 
 not on the other, the confessors of the judges ? Your 
 power is very exiensive. Oblige them to absolve crimi- \ 
 nals that have a probable opinion, on pain of exclusion from 
 the sacraments ; that it may no longer happen, to the great 
 contempt and scandal of the doctrine of probability, that 
 those whom you make innocent in theory, are whipped 
 and hanged in practice ! How, without this measure, can 
 you expect disciples ?" " True, true, this must be consi- 
 dered," said he, — " 1 shall not forget it, but propose the 
 subject to our Father Provincial. Still you might have 
 reserved your advice for another opportunity, without in- 
 terrupting me at the moment I was explaining our maxims 
 in favour of gentlemen ; and I shall now pass them over, 
 unless you will engage to introduce no more stories." 
 
 Such is the whole of my communication for to-day. for 
 one letter would be insufficient to relate all that I learned 
 in this conversation. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 On the Method of directing the Attention. The Permission 
 to kill in defence of Honour and of Property which is 
 extended to Priests and Friars. A Curious Question 
 proposed by Caramuel, namely, whether the Jesuits may 
 kill the Jansenists l 
 
 Sik, Paris, April, 25, 1656. 
 
 Having pacified the good Father, who was a little dis- 
 concerted by my narrative respecting John d' Alba, he 
 resumed the conversation, on being assured that I would 
 introduce no more stories of the same kind : and he spoke 
 of the maxims of his casuists nearly in the following words ; 
 
 " You know," said he, " that the ruling passion in per- 
 sons of this class, is the point of honour, by which they are 
 perpetually impelled to those violent deeds which appear 
 very contraryjothe spirit of Christianity, so that it would 
 be necessary to exclu3e almost all of them from our con- 
 fessionals, unless our Fathers had a little relaxed the rigour 
 of religious requirements in tenderness to human infirmi- 
 ties. But as they wished to adhere to the Gospel by ful- 
 filling their duty to God, and to the people of the world 
 by charity to their neighbour, it required all their penetra- 
 tion to devise expedients for the adjustment of, these things 
 with so much nicety, that it might be possible for a person 
 to defend and retrieve his honour according to the usual 
 methods of the world, but without doing violence to con- 
 science ; and thus to preserve, in consistent union, two 
 things apparently so opposite as^religion and honour. 
 
96 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 " But the execution of this design was as difficult as 
 the design itself was useful ; and I believe you are suf- 
 ficiently aware both of the greatness and difficulty of the 
 undertaking." '' It does astonish me," said I, coldly- 
 " It astonishes you ? I believe so, indeed ; and it has 
 astonished others. Are you ignorant that on the one 
 hand, the evangelical law commands not to render evil 
 for evil, but to leave vengeance to God — and on the; 
 other, that the laws of the world prohibit our enduring ; 
 injuries without demanding reparation, and frequently the, 
 death of one's enemies ? Did you ever know any thing j 
 which appeared more contradictory ? And yet, when I 
 inform you that our Fathers have reconciled these oppo- 
 sites, you merely tell me you are astonished !" " Father, I 
 did not fully explain myself. I should certainly have con- 
 sidered the thing impossible, if I did not feel persuaded 
 from what I have seen of your Fathers, that they can ea- 
 sily accomplish what to other men is impossible. This 
 induces me to believe they may have discovered some ex- 
 pedient, which I am disposed to admire, even without 
 knowing it, but which I beg you to reveal to me." 
 
 " Since this is your view," said he, " I cannot refuse 
 your request. Understand, then, that this wonderfuK 
 principle, consists in our grand method of directing the] 
 intention, the. importance of which, in our system of 
 morality, is such that I should almost venture to compare 
 it to the doctrine of probability. You have already, in 
 passing, seen some features of it in a few of the maxims 
 already mentioned ; for when I showed you how servants 
 might, with a safe conscience, manage certain trouble- 
 some messages, did you not observe that it was simply 
 taking off their intention from the sin itself, and fixing it 
 on the advantage to be gained ? This is what we term 
 directing the intention. You saw, at the same time, that 
 those who gave money to obtain benefices, would be 
 really guilty of simony, without giving some such turn to 
 the transaction. But, that you may judge of other cases,! 
 let me now exhibit this grand expedient in all its glory, in 
 reference to the subject of murder, which it justifies in a! 
 thousand cases." I 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 97 
 
 " I already perceive," replied I, " that in this way, one 
 may do any thing without exception." " You always go 
 from one extreme to another," returned the Father ; 
 '* pray stop your impetuosity. ' To convince you that we 
 do not permit every thing, take this as a proof, that wc 
 never suffer the formal intention of sinning, for the sake, 
 of sinning, and whoever persists in having no other design 
 in his wickedness than wickedness itself, we instantly dis- 
 card. This would be diabolical indeed, a jule without 
 exception of ager'sex, or quality. But when this aban- 
 doned disposition does jiot_jaxislL_we endeavour to make 
 use of our method of directing the intention, which con- 
 sists iiT pfQposingTrhrW'ful object as the end of an action.] 
 We exert, indeed, the utmost of our power to dissuade 
 men from doing what is forbidden ; but when we cannot 
 prevent the action, we at least aim to purify the intention, 
 making amends for the vice of the means by the purity of 
 the end. Thus our Fathers have discovered n method of 
 permitting those violent methods of defending their 
 honour, to which gentlemen resort. It is only for them to 
 renounce the intention of desiring revenge, which is 
 criminal, and to substitute the desire of defending their 
 honour, which our Fathers allow. In this manner they ', 
 can discharge all their duty both to God and man : for 
 they satisfy the world, by permitting their actions, and 
 conform to the Gospel by purifying their intentions. We , 
 are obliged to our modern Fathers for these discoveries ; 
 the ancients knew nothing about them. Do you under- 
 stand me now V T " O yes, perfectly well," said I ; " you 
 allow men the external Euid material action, and give to 
 God the internal* and spiritual intention ; and by this 
 equitable division you aim to harmonize divine and human 
 laws. But Father, to speak the truth, I am a little dis- 
 trustful of you, and question whether your authors go the 
 same lengths with yourself." 
 
 "You wrong me," answered he ; " I advance nothing 
 which I am unable to prove, and by such a variety of 
 citations, that their number, authority, and arguments will 
 fill you with astonishment. To show vou the agreement 
 
 9 
 
98 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 which our Fathers have. established between the maxims 
 of the Gospel and those of the world, by this reference 
 to the intention, I beg your attention to Father Reginal- 
 dus, in Praxi, b. 21. sect. 62. p. 260 : ' Private persons 
 are prohibited from revenging themselves ; for it is said 
 by St. Paul, in the twelfth chapter of the Romans, i Re- 
 compense to no man evil for evil,' and again, ' Vengeance 
 is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.' In addition to 
 which, consider what is said in the Gospel on the forgive- 
 ness of offences in the sixth and eighteenth chapters of 
 Matthew." " Undoubtedly, Father, if after this any thing 
 be advanced besides what is contained in Scripture, it 
 would not be amiss to know it. What is the conclusion 
 to which he comes ?" " It is this," said he ; ' from all 
 these considerations it appears, that a warrior may in- 
 stantly pursue a wounded enemy, not indeed with the in- \ 
 tention of rendering evil for evil, but to maintain his own 
 honour : Non ut malum pro malo reddat, sed ut conser- 
 vet honorem.'' 
 
 « Do you observe, then, how careful they are to forbid 
 the intention to render evil for evil, because Scripture 
 condemns it ? Mark Lessius de Just. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect. 
 12 : ' He who receives a blow must not indulge a spirit of 
 revenge, but he may cherish a wish to avoid disgrace, ancl/ 
 for this purpose repel the assault even with his sword — J 
 etiam cum gladio." We are so far from permitting the 
 desire of revenge against our enemies, that our Fathers 
 prohibit a wish for their death, arising merely from an 
 emotion of hatred. Thus our Father Escobar writes, tr. 
 5. ex. 5. n. 145: ' If your enemy be disposed to hurt 
 you, you ought not to wish fdr his death through hatred,.; 
 but you may do it to avoid injury ;' and in accordance" 
 with this principle our great Hurtado de Mendoza says, 
 ' it is proper for us to pray God speedily to inflict death i 
 upon those who are preparing to persecute us, if we can-:' 
 not otherwise escape.' " 
 
 " My reverend Fatter," said I, " the church has forgot- 
 ten to frame a petition among her prayers, suited to ; this 
 motive." " O, but," he replied, " she has not introduced 
 
fcaOVINCIAL LETTERS. 99 
 
 every thing that may become the subject of a Request to 
 God. Besides, this could not have been inserted, for the 
 sentiment itself is of more recent origin than the Bre- 
 viary. You are a bad chronologist ; but not to enter upon 
 this subject, listen to the following passage of Father Gas- 
 par Hurtado de Sub. pecc. diff. 9. quoted by Diana, p. 5. 
 tr. 14. r. 99 ; he is one of Escobar's four-and-twenty 
 elders ; ' An incumbent may, without being guilty of a 
 mortal crime, wish for the death of the person who is a 
 pensioner upon his benefice ; and a son for that Of his 
 father, and rejoice in it whenever it happens, provided that 1 
 it is only on account of ,the property that accrues to himi 
 not from any personal hatred.' " \ 
 
 "O Father," said I, "what admirable fruit does this 
 direction of the intention produce ! Really its power is 
 wonderfully extensive : but there are certain cases ex- 
 ceedingly perplexing, yet very necessary for these gentle- 
 men." " Let us hear what they are," said he. " Show 
 me, then, with all this direction of the intention, that it is 
 lawful to fight a duel." "Oh! our great. Hurtado de 
 Mendoza shall satisfy you in a moment, in a passage cited 
 by Diana, p. 5. tr. 14. r. 99 : ' When a gentleman who is 
 challenged to a duel, is known to be not remarkably pious, 
 but daily commits sins without the least scruple, plainly 
 evincing that his refusal to accept the challenge does not 
 proceed from the fear of God, but from timidity, he may be 
 called a chicken, and not a man — gallina et non vir. He 
 may, in order to preserve his honour, proceed to the ap- 
 pointed place, not indeed with the express intention of 
 fighting, buf only of defending himself, if his antagonist 
 should unjustly attack him ; and this action would be in 
 itself altogether indifferent. For what harm would there 
 be in going into a field and walking about, waiting for a 
 person, and defending oneself against any attack V Thus 
 he does not, in any respect, commit sin. because here is no 
 acceptance of a duel, the intention being directed to other 
 circumstances: for the .acceptance of a duel consists in 
 the express intention of fighting, which is by no means the 
 case with such an individual." 
 
100 ittOVINCIAIi LETTEBS. 
 
 " Father," said I, " you have not kept your word : this 
 is not properly to permit duelling; on the contrary, this 
 writer so far considers it forbidden, that to render it allow- 
 able, he avoids calling it by that name." " Ho ! ho ! you 
 begin to penetrate deeply into these subjects ; I am quite 
 delighted: still I may say that enough is allowed to all 
 who wish to engage in duels. But as you require a direct 
 answer, our Father Layman shall furnish it, who permits 
 this practice in so many words, providing only that the 
 person direct his intention solely to the preservation of his 
 honour or his fortune : 1. 3. p. 3. c. 3 n. 2 and 3 ; ' If a sol- 
 dier in the army, or a gentleman at court, find that he shall 
 inevitably lose his honour or his fortune should he refuse 
 to accept a challenge, I do not see how a person can be 
 condemned for accepting it in his own defence.' Petrus 
 Hurtado speaks exactly in the same manner as quoted by 
 our celebrated Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 96 and 98 : • A 
 man may fight a duel even to defend his goods, if there be 
 no other way of preserving them, because every one has a 
 right to defend his goods, even by killing his enemy.' " 
 Here I was. all admiration, to see that the piety of the king, 
 was employed in prohibiting and banishing duelling out of 
 the state and the piety of the Jesuits was engaging all 
 their subtlety to permit and authorize it in the church .' 
 
 But the good Father was proceeding so fast, it was im- 
 possible to stop him — " Sanchez (pray observe what great 
 authors I quote) goes still farther ; for he not only allows 
 a man to accept, bnt to give a challenge, if he direct his 
 intention aright Our Escobar agrees with him in this, n. 
 97." " If this be the fact, then I shall abandon his tui- 
 tion ; but I can never believe he has written such a thing 
 till I see it." " Read it, then, yourself," said the Father, 
 pointing out 1. 2 c. 39. n. 7, in the moral theology of 
 Sanchez : 'It is perfectly reasonable to say, that a man 
 may fight a duel to save his life, his honour, or his goods, 
 if there be any considerable quantity of them, when it is 
 apparent that his adversary has an evil design unjustly to 
 rob him of them by suits at law and chicanery ; and there 
 is no other way of preserving them. Navarrus well says. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 101 
 
 in such a case he may accept or send a challenge — licet 
 acceptare et offerre duelhim. A person may also kill an 
 enemy secretly, and when this can be done, so as to get 
 clear out of the affair, it is far better than fighting a duel ; 
 because by this means he avoids every evil consequence ; 
 on the one hand, the exposure of his own life to hazard, 
 and on the other, partaking of the crime of his enemyj 
 which he must do in a duel.' 
 
 "This, Father," said I, " is a sort of pious ambush; 
 but, pious as it is, it is still an ambush, for a man is allowed 
 to kill his enemy in a treacherous manner.'" " Did I say 
 that one man might kill another in a treacherous manner ? 
 God forbid : I said he might kill him secretly, and hence 
 you infer he may do it treaclierously, as if these were one 
 and the same thingi Attend to Escobar, and then give 
 your opinion, tr. 6. ex. 4. n. 26 : ' It may be called killing 
 treacherously, when a man slays another who had not any) 
 reason to suspect him. Hence, he who slays an enemy: 
 cannot be said to kill him treacherously, though he perpe* 
 trated the deed by laying in wait or stabbing him — licet 
 per insidias, out a tergo percutiat ;' and in the same trea- 
 tise, n. 56 : < Whoever kills his enemy after a reconcilia- 
 tion, and under a promise no more to attempt his life, is 
 not said absolutely to kill him in a treacherous manner, as 
 there had been no very strict friendship subsisting between 
 them — arctior amicitia.' You see by this explanation, that 
 you are quite unacquainted even with the signification of 
 the terms in use, and yet you presume to talk like a learn- 
 ed divine.!' '' Well, I must acknowledge," said I, " this 
 is new to me ; and from this definition it should seem that 
 it is not possible to kill a man treaclierously ; for no one 
 surely ever thought of destroying any but his enemies ! 
 But, passing this, one may, according to Sanchez, kill a 
 false accuser, I do not Say treaclierously, but only by stab- 
 bing him behind!" "Yes, but by rightly directing your 
 intention ;— you always forget the main point. Molina 
 maintains the same sentiment, torn. 6. tr. 3. disp. 12 : and 
 our learned Reginaldus, 1. 21. c. 5. n. 57 : «It is allowa- 
 able to kill the false witnesses brought against us :' and, 
 9* 
 
102 PROVINCIAI. LETTEBS. 
 
 finally, according to our great and illustrious Fathers Tan- 
 nerus and Emanuel Sa, we may not only kill the false wit- 
 nesses, but the judge also, if he act in concert with them. 
 Mark his words, tr. 3. disp. 4. q. 8. n. 83 : ' Sotus and 
 Lessius affirm, that it is not allowable to kill the false wit- 
 nesses and the judge who conspires with them to put an 
 innocent person to death, but Emanuel Sa and other au- 
 thors very properly disallow such a sentiment, at least in 
 point of conscience.' In the same place, he states that 
 both witnesses and judge may be killed." " Father, I am 
 now quite sufficiently acquainted with your principle of 
 directing the intention ; but I am desirous of understand- 
 ing also the consequences, and all the instances in which 
 this method gives authority to kill. To avoid mistakes, 
 let us recur to what you have already£stated — for all equi- 
 vocation here is extremely dangerous. It is not allowable 
 to kill another, but when it is very opportune and upon aj 
 good probable opinion. You have assured me, that bjf 
 rightly directing the intention, one may, according to your 
 Fathers, for the purpose of preserving one's honour, or 
 even one's possessions, accept a duel, sometimes give a 
 challenge, kill a false accuser secretly, and his witnesses 
 with him, and even the corrupt judge who favours them ; 
 and you have farther represented that he who receives a 
 box on the ear, may repair the injury by the sword, but 
 without a spirit of revenge. But, Father, you have not 
 told me to what length he may proceed." " Oh ! you can 
 scarcely be mistaken in that point, because he may go as 
 far as to kill another. This is fully proved by our learned 
 Henriquez, 1. 14. c. 10. n. 3 ; as well as others of our 
 Fathers-, quoted by Escobar, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 48, in the fol-j! 
 lowing words : ' It is allowable to kill a person who gives' 
 you a box on the ear, though he run away, provided you 
 can divest yourself of hatred and revenge, and do not pret 
 pare the way for murders in excessive numbers and inju-t 
 rious to the state :' the reason is, that one may as well ruri 
 after him who has robbed us of our honour, as after) 
 him who has stolen property ; for though your honour 
 may not be in the hands of your enemy as your clothe^ 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 103 
 
 may be, it may nevertheless be recovered in a similar man- 
 ner, by displaying such evidences of greatness and autho- 
 rity, as may command respect. In fact, is not he who has/ 
 received a blow reputed to be without honour till he has/ 
 killed his enemy ?" This was so shocking, that I could 
 scarcely contain myself; but, in order to be master 
 of the whole subject, I permitted him to proceed thus,' 
 — " Nay, farther, you may kili the person who only'. 
 
 intends to give you a blow, if there be no other means 
 
 of- avoiding it, This is one of the most common maxims/ 
 in our Fathers : for example, Azor. Inst. mor. part 3. 
 p. 105; he is one of our twenty-four elders : 'Is it allow- 
 able for a man of honour to kill the person who intends to 
 give him a blow or a stroke with his cane ? Some say 
 no ; and assign as a reason, that a neighbour's life is more 
 important than personal honour ; besides that, it is cruel 
 to kill a man merely to avoid a box on the ear. But others 
 affirm that it is allowable, and T most certainly think it ^ro- 
 table, when it is the only means of escaping such an af- 
 front : otherwise the honour of the innocent would be 
 perpetually exposed to the malice of the insolent.' Our 
 great Filiutius advances the same opinion, torn. 2. tr. 29. 
 c. 5. n. 50. and Father Hereau, in his writings upon the 
 subject of homicide, Hurtado do Mendoza, disp. 170. sect. 
 16. § 137, and Becan, Som. torn. 19. 64. de homicid. and 
 our Fathers Flahaut and le Court, in their writings, which 
 the university has endeavoured, but in vain, to suppress, 
 and Escobar, in the same place, n. 48 — all agree in the 
 same doctrine. It is indeed so generally maintained, that 
 Lessius decides upon it as uncontested by any casuist, 1. 
 2. c. 9, n. 70. He cites a great number who aver this 
 opinion, and not an individual that opposes it, mentioning 
 (n. 77) even Peter Navarre, who, speaking generally upon 
 the subject of affronts, of which a box on the ear is one of 
 the most insulting, declares, in conformity with the uni- 
 versal consent of the casuists, that ex sententiCt omnium 
 licet contumeliosum occidere, si aliter ed injuriA arceri 
 nequit. Are you satisfied 1 Will you have any thing 
 mor& ?" 
 
104 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 " Thank you, Father," said I ; " I have already bad 
 too much." But desirous of*seeing how far this damnable 
 doctrine would Jead, I added, <' Pray, would it not be 
 allowable to kin a man for something less than a blow ? 
 Cannot you so direct my intention that I may kill another 
 for a lie ?" '' Yes, surely, according to Father Baldelle, 
 1. 3. disp. 24. n. 24, quoted by Escobar, in the same 
 place, n. 49 : « It is laWful to kill any one who says yvu 
 lie, if he can be stopped by no other means ;' and the sen- 
 timent of our Fathers is, that you may kill a person in the 
 same manner for slander ; for Lessius, whom Father Ile- 
 reau, -with many others, follows word for word, in the place 
 already introduced, says, > If you aim to ruin my reputa- 
 tion, by calumniating me before persons of honour, and I 
 cannot prevent it by any other means than killing you, may I 
 do so ? Yes — such is the concurrent opinion of the modern 
 authors, even though the reports you circulate be true, but 
 so secretly as to be undetected by the usual proceedings 
 of law. Observe the proof. If when you attempt to take 
 away my honour by giving me a blow, I may prevent it by 
 force of arms, the same kind of defence is allowable, when 
 you aim to do me the same injury with your tongue. 
 Moreover, we may prevent affronts — therefore we may 
 prevent slander. Lastly, honour is dearer than life ; but 
 it is lawful to kill another in defence of life ; therefore it 
 is equally so to kill in defence of honour.' This is sound, 
 logical argument. It is not talk and rant, but demonstra- 
 tion ! And this great author Lessius shows, in the same 
 place, n. 78, that it is allowable to kill a person even for 
 a simple motion or gesture in sign of contempt. < One 
 may attack,' says he, ' and take away a person's honour, 
 in a variety of ways, against which it would be highly 
 proper he should defend himself; as when you are threat- 
 ened with a stroke of a stick or a box on the ears, or if 
 you should be insulted with opprobrious language or con- 
 temptuous gestures — sine per signa.'" 
 
 " I perceive, then, my good Father^that you have done 
 everv thing that could be wished to shelter a man's 
 
"PROVINCIAL IETTEKS. 105 
 
 honour from violation, but still his life is exposed, if onetj 
 may kill another with a good conscience merely forj 
 slander or contemptuous treatment." "True; but the', 
 vigilance and caution of our Fathers is such, that they 
 have discovered a method of preventing the practice of 
 this doctrine upon insignificant occasions. They say that 
 this must not be universally practised, practice vix probari 
 
 potest : and the reason is obvious" ' Yes. yes, I know 
 
 the reason perfectly well," said I, " it is because the law 
 of God forbids murder." " Oh ! by no means, the rea- 
 son is quite different : they feel it to be admissible in con- 
 science and regarding truth in itself." '< Why forbid it 
 then ?" " Pray," exclaimed the Father, " pray hear me : 
 if people were allowed to kill others merely for detrac- 
 tion, we should depopulate kingdoms in an instant. At- 
 tend to our Reginaldus, 1. 21. n. 63. p. 260 : ' Although 
 the opinion that a man may be killed for a slander, be not 
 destitute of probability in theory, yet the reverse must be 
 followed in practice: for it is always necessary to seek 
 the welfare of a state while resorting to measures of self- 
 defence. But it is obvious, that by killing every body in 
 such an unqualified manner, there would be too great a 
 number of murders.' Lessius expresses the same sen- 
 timent — ' We must be careful that the practice of this 
 maxim do not become injurious to a state ; in that case it 
 must not be allowed — tunc enim non est permittendus.' " 
 
 '• How, Father ! is your prohibition founded solely on 
 political views, and are those of a religious kind disre- 
 garded ? Few, alas ! will stop here, especially when un- 
 der the strong excitement of passion. For it may seem : 
 probable, that the removal of a wicked person from a ; 
 state is by no means detrimental to its interests." "True, 
 and our Father Filiutius assigns this very reason in con- 
 junction with another of very considerable importance, 
 tr. 29. c. 3. n. 51 : -A person may be capitally punished 
 for killing others on that account.' " " I told you, Fa- 
 ther, that you would never do any thing to the purpose> 
 unless the judges were in your favour." " The judges," 
 
106* PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 said he, " who cannot search into the heart, can give no 
 decision but from the evidence of the outward action, 
 whilst we chiefly regard the intention. Hence our 
 maxims sometimes differ a little from theirs." " Be that 
 as it may, Father, the inference deducible from yours is 
 clear, that, independently of any injury to a state, one 
 may kill slanderers without violating conscience, if it can 
 be done without endangering one's person But after 
 providing so well for honour, have you no security for 
 property ? I am aware this is an inferior affair ; it is bow- 
 ever of some consideration It seems to me that it would 
 be possible to direct the intention so as to authorize the 
 killing of a person for the sake of preserving it." 
 "Surely," said he ; "and 1 have already touched upon 
 an idea that illustrates this permission. All our casuists 
 agree in allowing you to kill a man who attempts a rob- 
 bery of your goods, though you do not apprehend any 
 personal violence from him, and though he run away. 
 See Azor, who proves it, p. 3. 1. 2. c. 19, 20." 
 
 " But, Father, what must the stolen property be worth 
 to admit ef proceeding to this extremity ?" " According 
 to Reginaldus, 1. 21. c. 5. n. 66, and Tannerus in 22, 
 disp. 49. 8. d. 4. n. 69, ' The article must be of consider-! 
 able value in the opinion of a prudent man.' Layman 
 and Filiutius concur in this statement." ■• But, Father ,l 
 this is saying nothing. Where are we to find a prudent 
 atid wise man to give the required estimate ? How is it 
 they do not determine upon the exact sum ?" " How ? — , 
 Do you imagine it to be so very easy a thing to fix the re- 
 lative value of human life, the life of a Christian too, in 
 comparison with money ? It is precisely in this particular, 
 that I wish to show you the necessity of resorting to our 
 casuists. Examine the ancient Fathers : inquire of them 
 how much money is requisite to purchase permission to 
 kill a man ? What do they say ? Nothing but non occides, 
 1 thou shalt not kill.' " " Who- then." I inquired, " has 
 ventured to determine this sum ?" " Who ? Our great 
 and incomparable Molina, the glory of our society, the 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 1Q7 
 
 man who, by liis inimitable wisdom, has estimated it at 
 ' six or seven ducats, for which he declares that it is law- ) 
 ful to kill the thief though he run away,' t 4. tr. 3. disp. ; 
 16. d. 6 : and he adds, ' that he should not presume to/ 
 condemn a man as guilty of any crime for killing a person 
 who attempts to rob another of the value of a crown or 
 less, unius aurei vel minoris adhuc valoris :' which has 
 led Escobar to establish this general rule, n. 44 : ' that 
 one may kill another regularly, according to Molina, for 
 the value of a crown.' " 
 
 " Well, Father, and how came Molina to possess such 
 penetration as to determine an affair of this importance, 
 without any aid from Scripture, the Councils, or the 
 Fathers ? I see he must have been endowed with most 
 peculiar light, though very different from that by which 
 St. Augustin wrote on Homicide and on Grace. I am 
 really becoming quite learned upon this subject, and I 
 perceive, with perfect clearness, that none but clergymen 
 will henceforward abstain from killing those who shall' 
 violate their honour or steal their goods." " What do 
 you mean ?" said the Father : " would it be reasonable 
 in your opinion, that the persons to whom the greatest 
 respect is due, should alone be exposed to the insolence 
 of the wicked ? Our Fathers have anticipated -this evil ; 
 for Tannerus, torn. ii. d. 49. 8 d. 4. n. 76. says ' it is 
 allowable for ecclesiastics and even monks to kill, notl 
 only in defence of their lives, but also their goods,! 
 whether belonging to themselves or the community.'' The 
 very same words are used by Molina, as quoted, by Escd- 
 bar, n. 43. Becan in 2. 2. t. 2. 9. 7 de Horn, concl. 2. n. 
 5, Reginaldus, 1. 21. c. 5. n. 68. Layrgan, 1. 3. tr. 3. p. 
 3. c. 3. n. 4: Lessius, 1. 2. c. 9 d. 1 1 n. 72. According 
 to our celebrated Father Launy, it is lawful for priests 
 and monks to kill others to prevent their design of in- 
 juriously calumniating them ; but always under the in- 
 fluence of a well-directed intention. See t. 5. disp. 36. n.| 
 118: 'A priest or monk is allowed to kill a calumniatori 
 who threatens to publish scandalous crimes of their; 
 
J 08 PROVINCIAL 1ETTERB. 
 
 %ociety or themselves, if there exist no other means of 
 ' prevention ; as when just ready to propagate his maligni- 
 ties, if he be not instantly killed. For in such a case, as 
 t would be lawful for a monk to kill the person who was 
 lesirous of taking away his life, so is it to kill him who 
 wishes to take away his honour, or that of his fraternity, 
 in the same manner as it is for the people of the world in 
 general.' " 
 
 '' Really, Father," said I, '< this is what I never knew 
 before ; 1 have always been simple enough to imagine 
 just the reverse, having constantly heard that the church 
 was so averse to the shedding of blood, that she would 
 not even permit the ecclesiastical judges to attend when 
 the verdict was pronounced upon criminals." " Oh, Sir," 
 replied he, -'you need not perplex yourself ; our Father 
 I<auny proves this doctrine, but with a modesty worthy of 
 so great a man, submits it to the prudence and discretion 
 of the reader : and Caramuel, our illustrious defender, in 
 his Fundamental Theology, p. 543, considers it as so 
 certain, that he maintains, ' the contrary is not probable,' 
 and deduces many admirable inferences ; one of which, 
 especially, he calls < the conclusion of conclusions, con- 
 clusionum conclusio, ' that a priest not only may, on cer- 
 tain occasions, kill a calumniator, but there are cases 
 when he ought to do it ; etiam aliquando debet occidere.' 
 He enters into the examination of many new questions 
 resulting from this principle ; as, for example, Whether 
 the Jesuits may kill the Jansenists ?" " Alas ! Fa- 
 ther," I exclaimed, " this is a most surprising point in 
 theology ! I hold the Jansenists already no better than 
 dead men by the doctrine of Father Launy." " Aha, Sir, 
 you are caught ; for Caramuel deduces the very opposite 
 conclusion from the same principles." " How so ?" said 
 I. " Because," replied he, " they cannot injure our re- 
 putation. Observe his words, n. 1146 and 1147, p. 547 
 and S48 : ' The Jansenists call the Jesuits Pelagians : 
 may they be killed for doing so ? No — for this plain 
 reason, that the Jansenists are no more able to obscure . 
 
provincial letters. 109 
 
 the glory of our society, than an owl is to hide the sun : ' 
 in fact, they promote it, though certainly against their in- / 
 tention — occidi non possunt, quia nocere non potuerumt.' " I 
 •' Alas, Father, and does the existence of the Jansenists 
 depend solely upon their capacity of injuring your reputa- 
 tion ? If that be the case, I am afraid they are not in a 
 very good predicament : for if the slightest probability 
 should arise of their doing you any hurt, they may be des- 
 patched at once. You can perform the deed logically 
 and in form : for it is only to direct your intention right, 
 and you ensure a quiet conscience. What a blessedness 
 for those who can endure injuries to know this charming 
 doctrine ! But, on the other hand, how miserable is the 
 condition of the offending party HReally, Father, it would 
 be better to have to do with people totally destitute of all 
 religion, than with those whcrhaVe received instructions so 
 far only as to this point, relative to directing the intention. 
 I am afraid this intention of the murderer is no consolation' 
 to the wounded person. He can have no perception of 
 this secret direction : poor man ! he is conscious only of 
 the blow he receives ; and I am not certain whether 
 he would not be less indignant to be cruelly massacred by 
 people in a violent transport of rage, than to be devoutly 
 lulled for conscience sake." 
 
 " But, joking apart, I am a little surprised, my good 
 Father, at all this ; and the questions proposed by Father 
 Lamy and CaramueJ, I confess, displease me." "Why 
 so ?" said he ; " are you a Jansenist ?" " I have a rea- 
 son," said I, " quite of a different description. I am in 
 the habit of writing, from time to time, to a friend in the 
 country, all the information I can obtain respecting your 
 maxims ; and although I simply and faithfully report your 
 words, I cannot by any means be certain but that some 
 strange and fanciful mortal, imagining I am inimical to your 
 society, may deduce some extravagant inferences from 
 your principles." " Ob," said the Father, " you need 
 not cherish any apprehensions : I will ensure you ; our 
 Fathers have printed nothing but with the approbation of" 
 
 10 
 
110 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 their superiors. No danger can therefore result from 
 any kind of publicity." 
 
 Guaranteed, therefore, by this good Father, I send you 
 this communication ; but I find my paper is failing, not 
 my subject, which it would absolutely require volumes to 
 exhaust. 
 
 I am. &c. 
 
LETTER VIII. 
 
 Corrupt Maxims of the Casuists respecting Judges, Usurers, 
 the Contract Mohatra, Bankrupts, Restitutions, Ape.' — 
 Various other extravagant Notions. 
 
 Sir, Paris, May 28, 1656. 
 
 You did not perhaps imagine, that any person would 
 have the curiosity to inquire who we were ; there are, 
 however, people who attempt to guess it, but without suc- 
 cess. Some suppose that I am one of the doctors of the 
 Sorbonne, others attribute my letters to four or five per- 
 sons, who, like myself, are neither priests nor ecclesiastics 
 of any description. All these erroneous conjectures tend 
 to convince me, that my plan is not a bad one to conceal 
 myself from every one excepting yourself and the good 
 Father who bears with my visits, while I bear with his 
 conversation, but not, I assure you, without some degree 
 of punishment. It is necessary, however, to impose some 
 restraint upon my own feelings, for he would not utter 
 another syllable, were he to perceive my real disgust, in 
 which case I should not be able to perform my promise of 
 giving an account of Jesuitical morality. You ought, in- 
 deed, to set some value upon the violence I am obliged to 
 do to my own feelings. It is truly distressing to see the 
 whole system of Christian morals overturned by such ex- 
 travagances, without daring pointedly to contradict them. 
 But after having endured so much for your pleasure, I 
 verily believe I shall at last blaze out for my own satisfac- 
 tion, when he has finished all he has to say. Still, I shall 
 
1 1 2 FBOVINCIAX LETTERS . 
 
 refrain as long as possible ; for, the more silent I am, the 
 more comnHinicative is he. At the last interview, he gave 
 me so much information, that I shall be scarcely able to 
 detail it all. You will, however, find some very conve- 
 nient principles to oppose restitution : for, in whatever 
 manner he may qualify his maxims, they, in fact most evi- 
 dently favour corrupt judges, usurers, bankrupts, thieves, 
 prostitutes, witches ; all of whom are sufficiently dispensed 
 from the obligation of making restitution of what they gain 
 in their respective trades. This was fully explained in 
 the following discourse. 
 
 " I promised," said he, " at our first conversation, to 
 state the maxims of our authors respecting every class of 
 mankind. You have already heard those which relate to 
 the beneficed clergy, priests, monks servants, and gentle- 
 men: let us hasten to others, and begin with the judges. . 
 
 " Allow me to point out one of the most important and 
 most advantageous maxims which our Fathers have pro- 
 mulgated in their favour. It is that of our learned Cas- 
 tro Palao, one of the twenty-four elders. His words are, 
 ' May a judge, in a question of right, decide according to 
 one probable opinion, and abandon another which is more 
 probable ? Yes ; though it be contrary to his own senti- 
 ments — into contra propriam opinionem :' with this our 
 Father Escobar perfectly concurs, tr 6. ex. 6. n. 65." 
 ■' Well, Father, this is a noble beginning ! The judges are 
 extremely obliged to you, and I do think it is very strange 
 that they should oppose your doctrine of probability, as 
 they sometimes plainly do, since it is so, completely in i 
 their favour. You have givea them the same power over ( 
 the fortunes of mankind as you have yourselves over their \ 
 consciences." •' You see, then," returned he, " we are 
 not acting from motives of self-interest, but solely from a 
 regard to the peace of their consciences ; and it is on 
 this account that our great Molina has laboured so assidu- 
 ously and usefully respecting the presents which are sent 
 them. In order to relieve them from those scruples which 
 they might otherwise feel in certain cases, he has taken 
 care to enumerate all the cases in which they may con- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 113 
 
 scientiously receive, such presents, unless there should 
 exist any particular law to prohibit them, t. 1. tr. 2. d. 86. 
 n. 6 : : Judges may receive presents from parties, when 
 they are given either from friendship or from gratitude, in 
 consideration of the justice which has been rendered 
 them, or in order to induce them to render it, or to excite 
 them to pay particular attention to their business, or to 
 engage them to expedite it.' Our learned Escobar says, 
 tr. 6. ex. 6. n. 63 : ' If there should be many persons 
 who possess an equal right to have their cause promptly 
 investigated, and the judge should take any thing from 
 one upon condition (ex pacto) of despatching him first — is 
 he doing wrong ? No, certainly not, according to Lay- 
 man ; for by the law of natural right, he does not injure 
 others, by granting to one in consideration of his present, 
 that which he might have granted to any other if he 
 chose ; and, being equally obliged to do justice to all, as 
 they have an equal right, he becomes placed under a 
 greater obligation to him who has made the present to 
 procure a preference, and this preference seems to be a 
 worthy equivalent for the reward — qua, obligalio videtur 
 pretio mstimabilis.' " 
 
 " Reverend Father," exclaimed I, '• this permission, 
 of which the first magistrates in the kingdom are at pre- 
 sent ignorant, really astonishes me : for the first president 
 has introduced an order into parliament for the purpose 
 of preventing secretaries from taking bribes to procure 
 such preferences, which shows that he was far from think- 
 ing it allowable for judges to do it, and all the world has 
 applauded a reformation in this department so important 
 to all parties." 
 
 Surprised at this, the good Father exclaimed, " Is that 
 a fact ? I never heard of it. Our opinion indeed is only 
 ■probable, the contrary is probable also." " Why, truly," 
 said 1, " it is believed that the president has more than 
 probably done well, for he has by this means arrested the 
 progress of public corruption, which had but too long 
 been tolerated." " I am of the same opinion," said he ; 
 "but passing that, let us leave the judges." "Agreed: 
 
 10* 
 
114 FROVIHCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 you are quite right : they are very ungrateful, considering 
 what you have done for them." " Oh ! it is not on that 
 account ; but there is such a variety of topics before us, 
 that we must be brief upon each. 
 
 " Let us now speak about men of business. You arc 
 aware that our greatest difficulty with them is to prevent! 
 usury, for which purpose our Fathers have exerted the 
 utmost care : for such is»;their utter detestation of this 
 vice, that Escobar says, tr. 3. ex. 5. n. 1, ' that to affirm 
 of usury it is no crime, is to be guilty of heresy ;' and 
 our Father Bauny, in. his Summary of Sins, ch. 14, has 
 filled a number of pages with an account of the punish- 
 ments due to usurers. He pronounces them 'infamous 
 when alive, and unworthy of burial when dead.' " " In- 
 deed !" said I, " is Father Bauny so severe 1 I could not 
 have imagined it." " It is so, however," said he, "when 
 it is necessary ; but then this learned casuist, observing 
 that men are only induced to usury by the desire of gain, 
 adds, in the same place, ' the world would be very much 
 obliged, if guaranteeing them against the badeffects of 
 usury, and at the same time against its guilt, some ex- 
 pedient could be adopted of legally procuring as much or 
 more pecuniary profit than is obtained by usurious prac-f 
 tices.' " " Undoubtedly, Father ; then we should noff 
 have any more usurers." " This he has accomplished by 
 furnishing ' a general method for persons of every de- 
 scription, gentlemen,-presidents, counsellors,' &c. — and so 
 easy, that it consists simply in pronouncing certain words 
 when the money is lent, in consequence of which the 
 profit may be taken without being guilty of a usurious 
 transaction, which it would be without such a precaution." 
 " Pray, what are these mysterious words ?" " Not at all 
 mysterious : they are his own words, for you know that he 
 wrote his Summary of Sins in French, as he says in his 
 preface, to be understood by all mankind. The person of 
 whom you wish to borrow shall answer thus : ' I have no 
 money to lend, though I have some, to be sure, to place 
 out for an honest and lawful •profit. If you wish to im- 
 prove the sum you request by honest industry, by a co- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 116 
 
 partnership of half and half, possibly I might be induced 
 to accommodate you. But as it is a troublesome affair to 
 settle the profits of trade, if you will ensure me a certain 
 gain and my whole principal, without any hazard, we 
 shall agree the sooner ; and, in fact, you shall have the 
 money immediately.' Is not this an admirable method of 
 acquiring money without committing sin ? And has not 
 Father Bauny good reason for saying in conclusion, ' By 
 this means, in my opinion, a great number of people who, 
 by usury, extortion, and illegal contracts, provoke the di- 
 vine indignation, may save themselves, and acquire 
 good, honest and lawful profits." 
 
 "Father," said I, "these are most powerful words? 
 They must certainly possess some secret charm to drive 
 away usury, with which I am unacquainted, for I have 
 always supposed, that this sin consisted in taking back 
 more money than was lent." " This shows," said he, 
 " how little you understand it. Usury, according to our 
 Fathers, consists in little or nothing more than the inten- 
 tion of taking an advantage merely as usurious. Hence 
 our Father, Escobar, points out the method of avoiding 
 usury, by simply diverting the intention, tr 3. ex. 5. n. 
 4,33,34: 'It would,' says he, 'be usurious, to take a 
 profit from those to whom money is lent, if it were exact- 
 ed as a just debt ; but if, as a debt of gratitude, it is not ( 
 usury;' and, n. 3, 'it is not lawful to have an intention 
 of profiting by the loan of your money directly, but to 
 expect it from the goodness of the person who has bor- 
 rowed it, (medid, benevolentid) is not usury.' Such are 
 the subtle and admirable methods we have adopted ! But, 
 after all, one of the very best in my judgment, (for we 
 have a great variety of them,) is that of the contract 
 Mohatra." " The contract Mohatra, Father 1" "Oh! 
 I see very well you don't understand it. The name, in- 
 deed, seems a little strange, but Escobar shall explain it, 
 tr. 3. ex. 3. n. 36 : ' The contract Mohatra is that by 
 which one purchases cloth at a dear rate, and upon credit, 
 in order to resell it immediately to the same person for 
 ready money and cheap.' This is the nature of the con- 
 
116 PRO VINCI AX. LETTERS. 
 
 tract referred to, by which you perceive that a certain 
 sum is received in hand by remaining debtor for more." 
 
 " But, Father, I believe that Escobar is the only 
 writer that ever made use of this term : is not that the 
 fact?" ''How strangely ignorant you are," said he; 
 " the very last book of Moral Theology, printed at Paris, 
 this year, treats of Mohatra in the most learned manner.' 
 It is entitled, • Epilogm Summarum: an abridgment of 
 all the bodies of divinity deduced from our Fathers Sua- 
 rez, Sanchez, Lessius, Fagundez, Hurtado, and other ce- 
 lebrated casuists.' In page 54, you have these words :, 
 'Mohatra is, when a man, who has occasion for twenty^ 
 guineas, purchases cloths of a tradesman for thirty, at a 
 bill payable in twelve months, and resells them to him 
 immediately for twenty guineas down.' You see, by this 
 quotation, that Mohatra is no new invented term." " But, 
 Father, is this a lawful contract?" "No; for Escobar 
 informs you, at the same place, that ' there are laws 
 which prohibit it under the severest penalties.'" "It 
 is useless, then." " Not at all ; for Escobar, in the same 
 passage, states some expedients to render it lawful, ' even 
 though,' says he, ' the person who purchases and resells, 
 fixed his intention chiefly upon nothing but the profit, . 
 provided only that he do not, in selling, exceed the high- 
 est price of articles of this description, and that in pur- 
 chasing, he do not give less than the lowest, excepting it 
 had been before agreed upon, in so many express terms, 
 or otherwise." " But Lessius de Just. 1. 2. c. 21. d. 16. 
 says, 'that even though the person had sold his goods 
 with the intention of re-purchasing them at an inferior: 
 price, he is not obliged to return the profit, except, per- 
 haps, out of charity, supposing the individual from whom 
 lie exacts it be in indigent circumstances, and then pro- 
 vided he can do it without any personal inconvenience—' 
 si commode potest.' This is saying as much as can be 
 said." " Indeed, Father, a greater indulgence would, I 
 think, be the extreme of vice." "Yes, yes: our Fathers 
 well know where to stop ; and you now see sufficient evi- 
 dence of the utility of Mohatra. I might point out a va- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 117 
 
 riety of other methods, but these are sufficient. I now 
 propose to speak of those whose affairs are in a ruined 
 state." 
 
 " Our Fathers dispense comfort suited to every one's 
 condition ; for if persons do not possess enough to live 
 genteelly, and discharge their debts, they are allowed to 
 become bankrupts, and conceal a part of their property 
 from their creditors. Our Father Lessius has settled 
 this point, and Escobar confirms his decision, tr. 3. ex. 2. 
 n. 163 : ' May a bankrupt retain, with a good conscience, 
 as much of his property as is necessary for the support of 
 his family with credit — ne indecore vivat? I maintain, 
 with Lessius, that he may, even though he had gained it;; 
 by injustice, and notorious crime — ex justitia et notorio, 
 delicto: in this case, however, he cannot retain quite so 
 much as he otherwise might." " How, Father ? What a 
 strange kind of charity is this, to allow of the retention 
 of property which has been acquired by robbery for the 
 subsistence of a family, to the detriment of creditors to 
 whom it properly belongs ?" " Oh !" said he, " it is im- 
 possible to give universal satisfaction, and our Fathers 
 have been particularly solicitous of comforting the mise- 
 rable and indigent, and it is for their benefit that our Fa- 
 ther Vasquez, quoted by Castro Palao, torn. 1. tr. 6. d. 6. 
 p. 6. n. 12, says : > If you see a thief ready and deter- 
 mined to rob a poor person, you may, in order to prevent 
 him, point out some other individual who is rich, whom 
 he may attack instead." If neither Vasquez, nor Castro 
 Palao happen to be in your possession, you will find the 
 same doctrine in Escobar ; tor. as you are aware, he has 
 scarcely advanced any thing but what is taken from our 
 twenty-four most celebrated Fathers. See tr. 5. ex. 5. 
 n. 120. " The practice of our Society respecting Charity 
 towards a Neighbour.'" 
 
 " Father," said I, "this is really a most extraordinary 
 kind of charity, to save one by sacrificing another ! But 
 charity should not be partial, and he who has given such 
 advice, should be afterwards obliged in conscience to re- 
 pay the rich man whatever he lost." " Not at all, not at 
 
118 PROVINCIAL LETTEHS. 
 
 all : he vras not the thief; he simply advised another to 
 do it. But hear the wise decision of our Father Bauny 
 upon a much more astonishing case, and in which you 
 would be ready to believe, that restitution was still more 
 obligatory. It is in ch. 13. of his Summary: ' A person 
 desires a soldier to beat his neighbour, or burn the barn 
 of a man who has given him some offence. The ques- 
 tion is, whether in case the soldier absconds, the person 
 who employed him to commit these injuries, ought to 
 make reparation for the damage that has ensued. My 
 opinion is, that he ought not : for no one is bound to 
 make restitution, if he have not violated justice; and 
 pray, where is any such violation in requesting another to 
 do one a favour ? Whatever demand you were induced 
 to make, the man was always at liberty to grant or refuse 
 it. To whichever side he inclines, he is influenced by 
 his own free will, nothing compels him but his own oblig- 
 ing disposition and temper. If, therefore, the soldier 
 make no compensation for the mischief he has done,' it 
 would not be obligatory on him to do it who employed 
 the delinquent." 
 
 This passage nearly put an end to our conversation, 
 for T was on the very point of bursting into a fit of 
 laughter at the obliging disposition and good temper of an 
 incendiary, and at the extravagant reasons adduced to 
 exempt the real culprit from the duty of making repara- 
 tion for the damages he inflicts, when the judges would 
 not have reprieved him from a sentence of death ; but if 
 I had not checked my risibility, the good Father would 
 have been completely offended, for he spoke with great 
 seriousness, and continued in the following strain : — 
 
 " You ought now to be convinced, from such a variety 
 of proofs, that your objections are quite nugatory, though 
 they are perpetually diverting us from the-subject. Let 
 us then return to these wretched individuals, for whose 
 consolation our Fathers, and among them Lessius, de- 
 clare, 1. 2. c. 12. n. 12, ' they are allowed to commit 
 theft not only in cases of extreme necessity, but when 
 their afflictions, though heavy, are not extreme,' Esco- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 119 
 
 bar states the same in tr. 1. ex. 9. n. 29." "This is 
 very surprising, Father ! Because there is scarcely any 
 person in the world who cannot plead this kind of neces- 
 sity, and who may not therefore commit robbery with a 
 safe conscience ; and though you should restrict this 
 permission to those only who are bond fide in that condi- 
 tion, it would be opening the gates to an infinity of 
 thefts, which the judges will punish notwithstanding this 
 heavy necessity, and which you have the best possible 
 reason to suppress — you', whose duty it is not only to 
 maintain justice amongst mankind, but charity also, which 
 is annihilated by such a principle. For, is it not violating 
 charity and injuring your neighbour, to destroy his pro- 
 perty to enrich yourself ? This is what I have hitherto 
 been taught to believe." '' Perhaps so," said he, " but 
 it is not always the fact : for our great Molina says, t. 2. 
 tr. 2. disp. 328. n: 8. ' that the rule of charity does not 
 require any one to deprive himself of an advantage for 
 the purpose of screening his neighbour from a loss.' 
 This is stated in illustration of what he had undertaken 
 to demonstrate, namely, ' that we are not in conscience 
 Tinder an obligation to restore the property which another 
 has put into our possession in order to swindle his 
 creditors.' Lessius maintains the same opinion, and con- 
 firms it by the same principle, 1. 2. c. 20. disp. 19. n. 
 168. 
 
 " You really do not cherish sufficient compassion for 
 people in distressed circumstances ; our Fathers evince 
 far, greater charity. They do justice to the poor as well 
 as the rich : nay, more, they render justice even to the 
 guilty : for though they denounce such as commit great 
 crimes, yet they teach us that property acquired by the 
 perpetration of them may be lawfully retained. Lessius 
 gives this general rule, 1. 2. c. 14. d. 8 : ' We are under 
 no obligation, either by the law of nature, or by any 
 positive laws, that is to say, by any law, to restore what 
 we have acquired by having committed a criminal action, 
 as adultery, even though this action be contrary to 
 justice ;' for, as Escobar states, in quoting Lessius, tr. 1. 
 
120 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 ex. 8. n. 59, 'the property which a woman acquires by 
 adultery, though gained indeed in an illegitimate manner, 
 yet may be lawfully kept, after possession is once ob- 
 tained — quorums mulier iUicite acquirat, Unite tamen retinet 
 acquisita.' 
 
 " On this account, our most celebrated casuists formally 
 decide, that what a judge takes from parties whom he has 
 favoured by an unjust sentence, what a soldier receives 
 for having killed another, and what any one obtains for 
 the most infamous crimes, may be lawfully retained. Es- 
 cobar has accumulated abundant evidence upon the sub- 
 ject from our Fathers, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 23, where he es- 
 tablishes this general rule : « Property acquired by 
 iniquitous methods, as by murder, by an unjust sentence, 
 by lewdness, &c. may be lawfully possessed, without any 
 necessity of making restitution ;' and again, tr. b. ex. 5. 
 n. 53 : 'A person may dispose of what he receives for 
 murder, an unjust decree, and infamous sins in general, 
 &c. as he pleases, because the possession of it is just, 
 and he acquires a right and title to whatever he gains by 
 such means.' " " Oil, Father," exclaimed I, l< this mode 
 of acquiring I never heard of before ! I doubt, more- 
 over, whether it be authorized, in law or justice, or that it 
 is possible to obtain right and title to commit assassina- 
 tion, injustice, and adultery !" " I know nothing," re- 
 turned he, " of what books of law say upon the subject ; 
 but this I well know, that our writings, which constitute 
 the true guides of conscience, speak as I do ; one case 
 excepted, in which restitution is required, namely, ' when 
 money is received from persons who have no power to 
 dispose of their property ; such as children under age 
 and monks' — these our great Molina expressly exempts, 
 torn. 1 de Just. tr. 2. disp. 94 : ' Nisi mulier uccepisset ah 
 co qui alienare non "potest, ut a religioso ctfiliofamilias.' 
 In this case the money must be restored. Escobar 
 quotes this passage, tr. 1. ex. 8. n. 59, and confirms it in 
 another place, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 23." 
 
 Here I could not help remarking, that the monks 
 seemed to be much better treated in this instance than 
 
rKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 121 
 
 others. •• By no means," said he ; " are not all minor? 
 generally placed in the same situation, amongst whom the 
 monks may be considered as classing all their life-time ? 
 It is therefore proper, that they should be excepted ; with 
 regard to others, there is no obligation to return to them 
 what has been received for any iniquitous action : this is 
 satisfactorily demonstrated by Lessius, 1. 2. de Just. c. 
 14. d. 8. n. 52 : 'A wicked action may be estimated at a 
 certain price, in proportion to the advantage resulting to 
 the individual who has caused it to be perpetrated, and 
 the trouble it occasions him who engages in it ; on which 
 account the restitution of the reward is by no means 
 obligatory, whatever the crime may be, as murder, unjust 
 judgment, impurity (for these are the instances he ad- 
 duces,) unless the reward be taken of those who had.no 
 power or means to give it. You may perhaps say, that he 
 who receives money for perpetrating a wicked deed, com- 
 mits sin, and therefore ought not either to take or to keep 
 it ; I answer, that after the execution of the project, it is 
 no sin either to pay or to receive payment.' Our great 
 Filiutius enters into a still more detailed statement. He 
 remarks, ' that a person is obliged in conscience, to pay 
 for actions of this nature in different proportions, accord- 
 ing to the different circumstances of the persons who 
 commit them, and some merit more than others.' This 
 he establishes on the most solid reasoning, tr. I.e. 9. n. 
 231 : ' Occulta) fornlcarias depetur pretium in conscientia, 
 et multd majore ratione quam publiccc. Copia, enim quam 
 occulta facit mulier sui corporis, multd plus valet quam ea 
 quam publico, facit meretrix ; nee ulla est lex positiva quts 
 reddat earn incapacem pretii. Idem dicendum de pretio 
 promisso virgini, conjugate, moniali, et cuicumque alii. 
 Est enim omnium eadem ratio.' " 
 
 After this, he pointed out such infamous passages in his 
 authors, that I dare not venture to introduce them, pas- 
 sages with which he would have been disgusted himself, 
 (for he is a good man,) were it not for the reverence he 
 mtertains for his Fathers, which induces him to receive. 
 11 
 
122 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 iirith the utmost deference, every thing they choose to dic- 
 tate. I continued silent, less however for the purpose of 
 procuring 1 a continuance of his discourse, than in conse- 
 quence of the astonishment I felt to see books replete with 
 such horrible, unjust, and altogether extravagant decisions, 
 written by persons professing religion ! 
 
 He pursued his topic without interruption, concluding 
 thus : " For this reason our illustrious Molina (and I hope 
 after this you will be satisfied) settles the question in the 
 following words : ' Is the person who has received a re- 
 ward for a criminal action obliged to return it ? Why — 
 some distinctions must be made — if the action for which 
 the compensation was paid be not done, the money must 
 be refunded ; but if it be, there is no obligation to return 
 it — si turn fecit hoc malum, tenetur restituere ; secus, si fe- 
 cit.' This is cited in Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 2. n. 138. 
 
 " Such are some of our principles respecting restitution. 
 You have received a great deal of information to-day : let 
 me see how you have profited by your instructions. Now, 
 Sir, answer me this question : ' When a judge has taken 
 money from one of the parties in a law-suit to pronounce 
 a sentence in his favour, is he under any obligation to re- 
 turn it ?' " " The answer as you have taught me, is 
 plainly no." " There now — I thought how it would be — 
 did I make no exceptions ? Did I not expressly state, that 
 restitution is not necessary, if he pronounced a sentence 
 in favour of the party which had no right ; but otherwise, 
 would you have a person purchase a decision which is 
 legally due to him 1 Unreasonable, most unreasonable ! 
 Are you not aware that a judge owes justice to* all, and 
 therefore cannot sell it ? But he does not owe injustice, 
 . and therefore he may sell that. Our most approved au- 
 thors, as Molina, disp. 94 and 99. Reginaldus, 1. 10. u. 
 184, 185, and 187: Filiutius, tr. 31. n. 220 and 228: 
 Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 21 and 23: Lessius, 1. 2. c. 14. 
 d. 8. n. 52 ; concur in this, ' that a judge is under an obli- 
 gation to restore whatever he may have received for doing 
 justice, unless it were given him purely from a motive of 
 liberality ; but he is not at all obliged to return what he 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTEHS. 123 
 
 lias received of a man in whose favour he has passed an 
 unjust sentence.' " 
 
 I was dumb, absolutely dumb, at these fantastical distinc- 
 tions ; and while reflecting upon their pernicious conse- 
 quences, my worthy catechist had prepared another ques- 
 tion. " Pray," said the Father, " answer me next, time 
 with a little more circumspection — ' Is a conjurer obliged 
 to rest-ore the money he gains by his trade ?' " " Just as 
 you please, reverend Father." " As I please ? Admirable 
 indeed ! It should seem from your way of talking, that truth 
 depended upon every one's caprice. I see, however, this 
 is too puzzling a question for. you, and I readily concede 
 some assistance ; Sanchez shall resolve the difficulty — 
 who but Sanchez % — First he distinguishes (Sum. 1. 2. c. 
 38. n. 94, 95, and 96) between this conjurer ' making use 
 of astrology and other natural methods, and his employing 
 the diabolical art of necromancy ; for in one case he is 
 obliged to make restitution, in the other not.' Now pray tell 
 me in which case ?" " Oh," said I, " there can be no difficul- 
 ty here." " Ah '. I know what you mean : you would reply 
 that he is obliged to make restitution, if he made use of 
 diabolical agency. -But you understand nothing about the 
 matter ; it is quite the reverse. Listen to the decision of 
 Sanchez in the same passage : 'if the conjurer have not 
 taken the pains and care to know, by means of the devil, 
 what could not otherwise be known — si nullam operam 
 apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret — restitution must be made ; 
 but if he have taken the requisite pains, it is not obliga- 
 tory.' " " How so, Father ?" " What!" replied he, "is 
 this so incomprehensible to you ? The reason obviously is, 
 that by diabolical aid, divination may probably be accom- 
 plished ? but astrology is fallacious." " But, Father, sup- 
 pose the devil should not give a true answer, for he is 
 scarcely more to be depended upon than astrology, must 
 not the conjurer then, for the same reason, make restitu- 
 tion ?" " Not always. Distinguo — says Sanchez : ' For 
 if the conjurer be an ignoramus in the diabolical art — si 
 sit artis diabolicce ignarus — he is obliged to make resti- 
 tution : but if he be a skilful sorcerer, and have used 
 
I 24 PltoYlNCTAL LETTERS. 
 
 every means to discover the truth, he is not obliged, be 
 cause the care and diligence of such a sorcerer may be 
 estimated at a certain pecuniary value — diligentia a mago 
 ' apposita est pretio testimabilis.' " 
 
 " There is some sense, Father," said I, " in this ; for 
 here is a method of inducing sorcerers to make them- 
 selves learned and expert in their art, by presenting the 
 hope of gaining money in a lawful way, according to 
 your maxims, and moreover serving the public." *' I am 
 afraid," said he, " this is nothing but banter; but let mc 
 assure you, it is very wrong; for, if you speak in this 
 manner, in places where you are a stranger, it is likely 
 people would be exceedingly displeased at your language, 
 and censure you severely for turning religious subjects 
 into ridicule. 1 ' " Oh, I could easily defend myself; for, 
 I believe, whoever takes the trouble to investigate the 
 true sense of my expressions, will find just the contrary, 
 and, perhaps, an opportunity of showing this may occur 
 in some of our future conversations." "Ho, ho!" re- 
 turned the good Father, " you are serious now, howe- 
 ver." <> I confess," said I, " that the suspicion of being 
 capable of ridiculing sacred things, would make me very 
 unhappy, and would be equally unjust." " Nay, my dear 
 Sir, I was only joking with you ; but to be serious." " I 
 am quite disposed to be so, Father, if such be rgally your 
 intention ; but, I must acknowledge, that I was surprised 
 to observe, that your Fathers extended their care to eve- 
 ry class of mankind, so far as even to regulate the legiti- 
 mate pay of a sorcerer;" " One cannot write," said he, 
 " for too many, or particularize cases with too much ex- 
 actitude, or even repeat the same things too often in dif- 
 ferent books. You shall see this confirmed by a quota- 
 tion from one of the gravest of our Fathers, Cellot, 1. 8. 
 ch. 16. § 2. on the Hierarchy. ' We know a person who 
 was going to restore a considerable sum of money, b\ 
 order of his confessor, and, stopping on his way at a book- 
 seller's, asked if he had anything new — numquid nod ? 
 He was shown a new treatise on Moral Theology : when, 
 carelessly turning over th . leaves, without any particular. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 125 
 
 view, he happened upon his own case, and found he. was 
 not obliged to make restitution ; so, being discharged 
 from his burdensome scruple, but very well content to 
 carry the burden of his money, he returned home light at 
 heart — abjectd scrupuli sarcind, retento, auri pondere, le-> 
 vior domum repetiit.' 
 
 " After all this, will you doubt the utility of our 
 maxims ? Will you ridicule and banter them now ? Or, 
 will you not rather concur with Father Cellot in his pious 
 reflection on the happiness of such a coincidence!? In- 
 cidents of this nature, are, in God, the effects of his pro- 
 vidence ; in our guardian angel, the effect of his guidance ; 
 and in those to whom they happen, the effect of their 
 predestination. God, from all eternity, resolved that the 
 , golden chain of their salvation should depend on that 
 very writer, and not upon a hundred others who have all 
 stated the same thing ; but they did not chance to meet 
 with them. If this very author had not written, that in- 
 dividual would not have been saved. Let us then, by 
 the bowels of Jesus Christ, implore those who censure 
 the number of our authors, not to begrudge people wri- 
 tings, which the everlasting election of God, and the 
 blood of Jesus Christ, has procured for them. 
 
 '' Such, then, are the beautiful expressions which this 
 learned man employs to prove the proposition he had ad- 
 vanced, ' that it is extremely useful to have a great varie- 
 ty of writers on Moral Theology — quam utile sit de theo- 
 logia multos scribere.' " 
 
 "Father," said I, " with your permission, I will defer 
 giving my opinion of this passage to a future opportunity, 
 and will only at present speak to another point — whether, 
 since your maxims are so useful, and their publication is 
 of such consequence, you ought to continue giving me 
 such minute information. The person to whom I trans- 
 mit them, I can assure you, shows them about ; not that 
 we have any other intention in making use of them, than 
 to serve the public by giving them information." " Well," 
 said he, "you are aware that I conceal nothing ; and the 
 next - time we meet, I shall fully state those comforts and 
 11* 
 
120 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 indigencies which our Fathers allow to facilitate the ser- 
 vices of religion, and smooth the path to heaven ; so that, 
 having already learned what respects the particular" con- 
 dition and circumstances of mankind, you shall be inform- 
 ed of every thing relating to. them generally, and thus 
 your knowledge upon this subject will be complete. 
 Here we parted. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 P. S. I have always forgot to say, that there are differ- 
 ent editions of Escobar. If you purchase his works, be 
 sure to have that of Lyons; at the beginning of which, 
 you will find the figure of a lamb on a book, sealed with 
 seven seals, or the editions published at Brussels in 1651. 
 As these are the latest, they are better and more ample 
 than the earlier editions of 1644, and 1646, at Lyons. 
 
l'KOVINCIAL LETTEBS. 127 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 The false worship of the Virgin Mary, which the Jesuits 
 have introduced. the various facilities they have in- 
 vented to procure Salvation without any trouble, and 
 amidst the indulgences of life. Their maxims respecting 
 Ambition, Envy, Gluttony, Equivocation, mental Reser- 
 vations, the Liberty which young Females enjoy, the Ha- 
 c bits of Women, Gaming, and the Manner of hearing 
 . Mass. 
 
 Paris, July 3, 1656. 
 Sib, 
 
 I shall begin unceremoniously, as the good Father did 
 at my last interview. No sooner did he perceive me, 
 than looking at a book which he had in his hand— - 
 " Would not you," says he, " be extremely obliged to any 
 person who should open to you the gates of Paradise ? 
 Would not you give millions of gold and silver for a key 
 to enter in whenever you please ? But you need not par- 
 chase an admission at so dear a rate j — here is one, nay a 
 hundred, to be easily obtained." 
 
 Whether the good Father was reading er speaking to 
 me, I could not tell; but it soon became apparent, by his 
 saying, '■ This is the commencing paragraph of a beauti- 
 ful work of Father Barry, of our society ; for I never 
 speak without authority." " May I ask," said I, " what 
 book it is 1" " The title is, 'Paradise opened to Philagie 
 by a hundred devotions to the mother of God, of easy per- 
 formance.'" "And pray, Father, will each of these de- 
 votions suffice to open heaven?" '' Yes, surely — mark 
 what follows : ' As many separate devotions to the mother 
 of God as you find in this book, are so many keys of hea- 
 ven, which will open all Paradise to you, provided you 
 
128 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 only practise them :' this is the reason, he says at the con- 
 clusion. ' it is sufficient to practise any one of them.' " 
 " Teach me, then, good Father, one of the easiest of that 
 number." " They are all easy : for example, ' Salute 
 the holy Virgin whenever you meet her image ; repeat 
 the little chaplet of the ten pleasures of the Virgin ; oi ten 
 pronounce the name of Mary ; commission the angels to 
 give your duty to her ; cherish a desire to build more 
 churches to her than all the kings of the world put toge- 
 ther ; wish her a good day every morning, and a good 
 night every evening ; say the Ave Maria every day in 
 honour of the heart of Mary.' This last devotion he af- 
 firms will ensure the heart of the Virgin." "But, Fa- 
 ther, is it not upon the supposition of giving her our 
 own ?" " Oh, no ; that is not at all necessary, when one 
 is too much attached to the world. Observe what he 
 says : ' Heart for heart is what should be ; but yours is a 
 little too much captivated, and devoted to creatures; on 
 which account, I dare not at present write you to offer 
 this little slave called your heart ;' so he remains satisfied 
 with the ave Maria which he required. These are the 
 devotions of pages 33, 59, 145, 156, 172, 258, and 420 
 of the first edition." ■' A very comfortable doctrine in- 
 deed, Father ! No one, I think, can ever be damned af- 
 ter this !" " Alas !" exclaimed he, '< I perceive you 
 have no idea to what extremes the obduracy of> some 
 persons will lead them. There are people who will never 
 bind themselves even to pronounce every day these two 
 simple phrases, good morning, good night, because it can- 
 not be done wjthout at least some exercise of memory. 
 Father Barry, therefore, deemed it necessary to furnish 
 still easier methods ; as, ' to wear a chaplet night and day 
 upon the arm, in the form of a bracelet, or to carry some- 
 where about one a rosary, or a picture of the Virgin.' 
 These devotions are to be found in pages 14, 326, and 
 447, ' and say,' adds Father Barry, ' whether I have not 
 furnished devotions sufficiently easy, to gain the good 
 graces of the Virgin.' " In this idea of facilky^.I most 
 fully concurred. "It is," continued he, "all that can 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 129 
 
 possibly be done, and will, no doubt, prove sufficient : for 
 how dreadful it would be for an individual not to devote 
 a single moment of his whole life, to put a chaplet upon 
 his arm, or a rosary of beads into his pocket by which he 
 might so indubitably secure his salvation, that those who 
 have made the experiment, have never failed, whatever 
 has been their conduct ; though we admonish them to] 
 live virtuously. Allow me to quote only one example' 
 from page 34, of a woman, who, devoutly saluting images 
 of the Virgin every day, constantly lived, to her dying, 
 day, in the practice of a mortal sin, but was, nevertheless,! 
 saved by the merit of this devotion." " But how," said 
 I, "pray how can you know that ?" " How, Sir ? Be- 
 cause our Saviour raised her from the dead for the ex- 
 press purpose. Such is the complete Certainty, that no 
 one can perish who performs any of these devotions !" 
 " True," answered I, " they are, I know, very powerful 
 means of salvation, and the least of them are extremely 
 meritorious, when they originate in the principle of faith 
 and charity possessed by real saints ; but to make one 
 believe that without any change of character, they are 
 available to conversion in the hour of death, or that God 
 will raise such persons again, is a doctrine very well 
 adapted, doubtless, v to encourage sinners in their iniqui- 
 ties, by imparting a false peace, but not to effect that ge- 
 nuine conversion which divine grace can alone produce." 
 " Pshaw," said the Father, " what does it signify by 
 what means we obtain admission to Paradise, if we do but 
 obtain it? as our late celebrated Father and provincial 
 Binet says, speaking on a similar subject, in his excellent 
 book, ' on the mark of predestination,' n. 31. p. 130, fif- 
 teenth edition : ' Whether by storm or stratagem, hook or 
 crook, never mind — let us rejoice, so that we do but take 
 the city of glory.' " " Agreed — but the main question is, 
 whether we shall ever enter into it ?" " The Virgin will 
 answer for that. Observe the closing paragraph of Fa- 
 ther Barry's book : ' If it should happen at the hour of 
 death, that the enemy should have any claim upon you, 
 and any disquiet should arise in the little republic of your 
 
130 
 
 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 thoughts, you have only to, say, that Mary answers fur 
 you, and to her he must make his application.' " 
 
 Here I remarked, that this subject might be pursued to 
 a very embarrassing point, for " who has assured us that 
 the Virgin engages to answer for us ?" " Father Barry," 
 replied he, " promises on her behalf, p. 465 : ' As to the 
 advantage and happiness accruing, I take upon me to an- 
 swer for them, and pledge myself that the good mother 
 will procure them.' " " But, who will answer for Father 
 Barry ?" '• Who ? — Pray remember he is one of our so- 
 ciety ; and are you ignorant that we answer for all the 
 writings of our members ? If you do not know this, it is 
 time you should. A rule exists in our society, which 
 prohibits all booksellers printing any work of our Fathers 
 without the approbation of our divines and the permission 
 of our superiors. It was made by Henry III., on the 
 tenth of May, 1583, and confirmed by Henry IV., on the 
 fourteenth of February, 1612, so that our whole fraternity 
 is responsible for the publications of each of our Fathers. 
 This is a peculiarity attaching to our society, on which ac- 
 count no work originates with us. but what expresses the 
 spirit of the whole body. I thought it proper to give you 
 this information." 
 
 Acknowledging my obligation, I expressed myself ex- 
 tremely sorry that I did not know this circumstance before, 
 as I should certainly have paid more attention to these au- 
 thors.. " Nothing " he remarked, " but a want of oppor- 
 tunity had prevented his mentioning it ; but the advantage 
 of it will be felt in future ; in the mean-time let us pursue 
 our subject. I believe that I have explained certain means 
 of-salvation that are sufficiently easy, sure, and numerous ; 
 but our Fathers would be extremely glad, if people would 
 not stop at this point, where nothing is required excepting 
 what is absolutely necessary for salvation. As they are 
 incessantly solicitous of promoting the glory of God in the 
 highest degree, they wish to raise mankind to the noblest 
 elevation of piety : and as people of the world are gene- 
 rally diverted from religion by their strange notions re- 
 specting it, we have deemed it of the greatest importance 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 131 
 
 to remove this first obstruction) in which Father le Moinc 
 has acquired great reputation, by his book of ' Easy De- 
 Dotion,'' written with that express design. It contains 
 a most charming picture of devotion. Never did any 
 one know the subject so well as himself. Observe the first 
 sentence : ' Virtue has never yet shown herself to any one, 
 nor has any good resemblance of her been drawn. It is 
 not surprising that so few attempt to climb up her rock. 
 She has been painted as morose, loving solitude, associating 
 only with grief and toil — in short, as an enemy to pleasure 
 and merriment, which constitute the very essence of en- 
 joyment and the sweetest relish of life, p. 92.' " 
 
 " But, Father, there have been great saints who have 
 passed a life of extreme mortification." " True," said 
 he, " but we have always seen saints polite, and devotees 
 courteous, p. 191. In page 86, you will perceive that the 
 difference in their manners proceeds from the difference 
 of their tempers. I do not deny that you may see devo- 
 tees of a pale and melancholy complexion, who love si- 
 lence and retirement, who have nothing but dulness izi 
 their veins, and fasting upon their countenances ; but there 
 are many others who wear a happier appearance, having 
 an abundance of those sweet and warm humours, and of 
 that pure blood in which the sources of joy originate. 
 
 " Hence you may notice that the love of retirement and 
 solitude does not attach to every devotee, and, as I said, is 
 rather constitutional than the effect of piety : but those 
 austerities to which you referred are characteristic of a 
 savage and a brute. Father le Moine, in the seventh 
 book-of his Moral Pictures, classes them in the ridiculous 
 and debased order of melancholy madmen. To give you 
 a specimen of his figures : ' Such a person has no eyes 
 . for the beauties of art and nature. Any kind of pleasure 
 he considers as an insufferable burden ; he spends the 
 festival days in a burying ground, and takes more delight 
 in a hollow tree or in a cavern, than in a palace or on a 
 throne. As to insults and injuries, he is as insensible to 
 them as a statue. Honour and glory are idols he knows 
 nothing about, and to whom he has no incense to offer. 
 A beauty is to him a spectre, and those lofty and com- 
 
132 PROVINCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 manding looks, those tyrant eyes which lead captive and 
 enslave the world, are as displeasing to him as the sun is 
 to an owl." . , 
 
 " Reverend Father," I exclaimed, " if you Bad not de- 
 clared that Fathecfle Moine drew this picture, I assure 
 you that I should have considered it as the production of 
 some wicked fellow who meant to render saints ridiculous ; 
 for if this be not the representation of a man totally de- 
 tached from those sentiments which the Gospel requires 
 us to renounce — really I cannot understand what is." 
 " Ignorance ! This is but ' the outline of a weak and 
 savage character, who possesses none of the honourable 
 and natural passions which he ought to have,' as Father le 
 Moine expresses it. In this manner he teaches ' virtue 
 and Christian philosophy,' conformably with the design of 
 his publication, as stated in the advertisement. And, in 
 fact, it cannot be denied that this method of treating upon 
 devotion is far more agreeable to the world than any one 
 previously adopted." ■' Surely,, surely," said I, ' l there 
 can be no comparison between them, and I begin to hope 
 you will fulfil your promise." 
 
 "This," he replied, " wiH be more obvious presently ; I 
 have hitherto only spoken of piety in general. But to 
 show you in detail how our Fathers have disburdened 
 the practice of it from every difficulty, is it not unutterably 
 consoling to the ambitious, to learn that they may have 
 real religion while they indulge an inordinate love of 
 glory ?" " What, Father, however excessive it may be ?'* 
 Yes ; for it would always be a venial sin, unless this glory 
 were desired merely to oppose, with the better prospect, 
 both God and his country. Venial sins are no impediments 
 to piety, since the greatest saints are not exempt from 
 them. - Listen attentively to Escobar, tr. 2. ex. 2. n. 
 17 : — * Ambition, which is an inordinate appetite for 
 power and glory, is of itself a venial sin ; but when great- 
 ness is desired in order to injure the state or to offend 
 God the more readily, these external circumstances 
 render it mortal.' " " This, Father, is a very comfortable 
 doctrine," said I, " I believe so, indeed ; but not more so 
 then what relates to avarice.'' ' I know,' says Escobar, 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 133 
 
 tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 154, ' that the rich do not commit a mortal 
 sin if they refuse to bestow alms out of their abundance 
 upon the neccessitous poor — scio in gram pauperum neces- 
 sitate divites non dando superfiua, non peccare mortaliter.' " 
 "If that be the case, Father — really I&now nothing about 
 the nature of sin." " Pray then — to instruct you a little 
 further — do not you suppose that a good opinion of one's 
 self, and a perfect complacency in one's own works, is one 
 of the most dangerous of sins ? And should not you be 
 astonished, were I to show you, that though this good 
 opinion be without foundation, so far from being sinful, it 
 is on the contrary a gift of God ?" " Astonishing indeed, 
 Father ! Is it possible ?" '• Certainly it is, and our great 
 Father 'Jarasse, in his book, entitled A Summary of the 
 Capita} Truths of Religion,^. 2. p 419, says, • Retributive 
 justice demands that every good work be rewarded either 
 by applause or compensation. When a celebrated genius 
 produces any performance, it is duly rewarded by public 
 approbation ; but when one of an inferior class labours 
 hard to write something of no value, and therefore cannot 
 obtain general applause, in order that he might not be 
 without any recompense, God bestows upon him self-satis- 
 faction, which it would be unjust and barbarous in the ex- 
 treme to envy him. Thus God, who is perfectly just in all 
 his proceedings, has capacitated even frogs to enjoy their 
 own croaking." 
 
 " These," said I, " are admirable decisions in favour of 
 vanity, ambition, and avarice ; but have you any apology 
 for envy?" " Why, this is a delicate point. We must 
 advert to the distinction of Father Barry in his Summary 
 of Sins. His opinion is, c. 9. p. 123,jS/iA and sixth editions. 
 That to envy the spiritual good of a neighbour is a mortal 
 sin, but U envy his temporal good is venial."-" Pray, Father 
 what is his reason for this ?" " You shall hear — the good 
 which is found in temporal things, is so trifling, and of so 
 little consequence to heaven, that it is of no consideration 
 at all in the view of God and saints.' " " But, Father, if 
 this good be so trifling, and of such little value, how is it 
 that you allow mankind to kill each other for the sake of 
 
 12 
 
134 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 it?" "Ah! you always take things so perversely ; this 
 good, it was stated, is of no consideration in the sight of 
 God, but quite otherwise before men." " Trae, I did not 
 think of that ; and, I trust, by means of these distinctions, 
 we shall have no mortal sins in the world." " Oh ! don't 
 flatter yourself; for some are always mortal in their very 
 nature, as, for instance, Idleness." " O Father, are all the 
 comforts of life to be lost at once, then ?" •' Hold, Sir — 
 when you have heard the definition which Escobar gives 
 of this vice, you will alter your opinion, tr. 2. ex. 2. n. 81 : 
 ' Idleness is a grief that spiritual things should be spirit- 
 ual, as if it should be regretted that the sacraments are 
 the source of grace j and it is a mortal sin." " O Father ! 
 I cannot imagine that any one can be idle in such a sense." 
 " So Escobar says a little onward, n. 105 : 'I confess it is 
 very seldom that any person falls into the sin of idleness.' 
 Now, surely, you must see the necessity of a good defini- 
 tion !" " I do, Father ; and I well remember your other 
 definitions of assassination, ambush, and superfluities. But 
 how is it you do not extend this method to cases of every 
 description, and define every kind of sin in such a man- 
 ner that indulgence may never be a crime ?" ''It is not 
 always requisite to alter definitions, as you will perceive 
 on the subject of good cheer, one of the greatest pleasures 
 of life, and which Escobar allows in the- following para- 
 graph, n. 102, of the Practice of our Society : 'Is it law- 
 ful to eat and drink inordinately, and without necessity, 
 for the mere gratification of a voluptuous appetite ? Yes, 
 undoubtedly, says Sanchez, if it do not injure your health, 
 because it is allowable for the natural appetite to enjoy all 
 proper indulgence — an comedere, bibere, usque ad satieta- 
 tem absque necessitate ob solam voluptatem, sit peccatum ? 
 Cum Sanctio negative respondeo, modo non obsit valetudini, 
 quia licite potest appetitus naturalis suis attibus frui.' " 
 
 ■' O Father," said I, " this is the most complete pas- 
 sage, the most finished principle in all your system of 
 morals, and -the one of all others from which the most 
 comfortable conclusions may he deduced ! What, then, is 
 not gluttony even a venial sin ?" " No — not as I have 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 135 
 
 stated the case : but, according to Escobar, it may be- 
 come so, n. 66, 'if, without any necessity, you stuff your- 
 self with eating and drinking, till you vomit — siquis se 
 usque ad vomitum ingurgitet.'' 
 
 "But enough on this subject: — I proceed to the faci- 
 lities we have invented for the avoidance of sin in the 
 conversation and intrigues of the world. One of the 
 most embarrassing things to provide against is lying, 
 when it is the object to excite confidence in any false re- 
 presentation. ■ In this case, our doctrine of equivocal* is 
 of admirable service, by which, says Sanchez, ' it is law- 
 ful to use ambiguous terms, to give the impression a diffe- 
 rent sense from that which you understand yourself,' Op. 
 Mor. p. 2. 1. 3. c. 6. n. 13." " This I am well aware of, 
 Father." " We have," continued he, " published it so 
 frequently, that in fact every body is acquainted with it : 
 but pray, do you know what is to be done when no equi- 
 vocal terms can be found ?" No, Father." — >« Ha, I 
 thought this would be new to you — it is the doctrine of 
 mental reservations. Sanchez states it in the same place : 
 ' A person may take an oath that he has not done such a 
 thing, though in fact he has, by saying to himself, it was 
 not done on a certain specified day, or before he was 
 born, or by concealing any other simitar circumstance, 
 which gives another nreaning to the statement. This is 
 in numberless instances extremely convenient, and is al- 
 ways very just when it is necessary to your health, honour, 
 or property.' " 
 
 *» But, Father, is not this adding perjury to lying ?" 
 <' No — Sanchez and Filiutius show the contrary, tr. 25. 
 ch. 11. n. 331 : because ' it is the intention which stamps 
 the quality of the action :' and the latter, in page 328, 
 furnishes another and surer method of avoiding lying. 
 After saying in an audible voice, / swear that I did not do 
 this, you may add inwardly to-day ; or after affirming 
 aloud J swear, you may repeat in a whisper I say ; and 
 then resuming the former tone — / did not do it. Now 
 this you must admit is telling the truth." " I own it is," 
 said I ; " but it is telling truth in a whisper, and a lie in 
 
136 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 an audible voice : besides, I apprehend that very few peo- 
 ple have sufficient presence of mind to avail themselves of 
 this deception." "Our Fathers" answered the Jesuit, 
 » have in the same place given directions for those who 
 do not know how to manage these niceties, so that they 
 may be indemnified against the sin of lying, while plainly 
 declaring they have not done what in reality they have, 
 provided * that, in general, they intended to give the same 
 sense to their assertion which a skilful man would have, 
 contrived to do.' ' 
 
 " Now tell the truth, have not you sometimes been em- 
 barrassed through an ignorance of this doctrine ?" 
 " Certainly." — " And will you not admit too that it would 
 often be very convenient to violate your word with a good 
 conscience ?" '' Surely, one of the most convenient things 
 in the world !" " Then. Sir, listen to Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 
 3. n. 48 ; he gives this general rule : ' Promises are not 
 obligatory when a man has no intention of. being bound to 
 fulfil them ; and it seldom happens that he has such an 
 intention, unless he confirms it by an oath or bond, so that 
 when he merely says / wiU do it, it is to be understood, 
 if fie do not change his mind : for he did not intend by 
 what he promised to deprive himself of bis liberty.' He 
 furnishes some other rules which you may read for your- 
 self, and concludes thus : ' Every thing is taken from 
 Molina and our other authors — omnia ex Molina et aliis :' 
 it is, consequently, indisputable." 
 
 " Father." exclaimed I, '.' I never knew before that 
 the direction of the intention could nullify the obligation 
 of a promise." " Now- then," said he, " you perceive 
 this very much facilitates the intercourse of mankind. 
 Our greatest difficulty, however, has been to regulate 
 the conversation between men and women, for our Fa- 
 thers are more reserved on the subject of chastity. They 
 treat of questions indeed sufficiently curious and indulgent, 
 but principally in relation to persons married or betrothed." 
 
 Here I was informed of some of the most extraordinary 
 questions imaginable. They would absolutely fill many 
 letters, but 1 refrain from even pointing out the citations. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 137 
 
 because you show my letters to people of every dcscrip 
 tion, and I should not wish to gratify those whose only 
 object is amusement. 
 
 The only thing I can mention amongst the numberless 
 passages he pointed out in their writings, is that which 
 you may find in the Summary of Sins by Father Bauny, 
 p. 165. referring to certain little intimacies which he ex- 
 cuses, provided the intention be rightly directed — as, how 
 to pass for a gallant ; and you will be surprised to find, p. 
 148, a principle of morality stated relative to the power 
 which he says that daughters possess of disposing of 
 themselves without the consent of their parents. " Whqn 
 this is done with the daughter's own consent, though the 
 father has reason for complaining, yet. neither the 
 daughter, nor the person to whom she has prostituted 
 herself, have done the father any injury, or violated justice 
 with respect to him, because the daughter's purity is as 
 much her own possession as her body, and she may do 
 whatever she pleases with the latter, except committing 
 suicide or cutting off a member." From this specimen 
 you may form a judgment of the rest. 
 
 Here a passage from a heathen poet occurred to me, 
 who was a much better casuist than these divines, for he 
 says, " The virginity of a daughter does not belong en- 
 tirely to herself, but partly to the father and partly to the 
 mother, without whom she cannot even dispose of herself 
 in marriage :" and I exceedingly doubt whether there be 
 any judge who would not refuse to take the maxim of 
 Father Bauny for a law. 
 
 This is all I am able to relate of this conversation, 
 which lasted so long that I was at length obliged to re- 
 quest the good Father to change the subject ; which he 
 did, and entertained me with their regulations for female 
 dress in the following manner : " We will not speak of 
 those whose direct purpose is immodest, but as to others, 
 Escobar says, tr. I. ex. 8. n. 5 : ' If they dress without 
 , any base intention and solely to gratify the natural taste 
 ihey have for display — ob naturalem fastus inclinationem 
 
 12* 
 
138 FBOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 it is either a venial sin or no sin at all ;' and Father 
 Bauny, in his Summary of Sins, c. 46. p. 1094, declares, 
 ' Although a woman felt aware of the bad effect which 
 her studious care in adorning her person would produce 
 on the bodies and souls of those who should observe her 
 thus ornamented with costly decorations, she neverthe- 
 less would commit no sin by making use of such attire ;'• 
 and he cites our Father Sanchez as of a similar opinion." 
 " But what answer do your authors return to those 
 passages of Scripture which so severely reprehend the 
 smallest inconsistencies of this nature I" ' Lessius," 
 said lie, " has very learnedly replied to this, De Just. 1. 4. 
 c. 4. d. 14,. by stating, that ' those precepts of Scripture re- 
 garded only the ladies of that age who were required to 
 furnish an edifying example of modesty to the heathen.' !; 
 " Pray, Father," inquired I, •' whence did he obtain that 
 information ?" " Pshaw ! It signifies nothing where he 
 obtained it ; the sentiments of these great men are always 
 probable in themselves. But Father le Moine suggests a 
 limitation of this general license, for he would not allow 
 it to old women. This occurs in his Easy Devotion, p. 
 127, 157, 163: 'Young ladies have a natural right to 
 adorn their persons. It is allowable at a time of life 
 which is the very flower and bloom of existence. But at 
 that period they must stop : it would be strange and un- 
 seasonable to seek for roses in the snow, and stars should 
 only appear constantly at a ball, because they have the 
 gift of perpetual youth. It is best, therefore, to consult 
 reason and a good looking-glass, to yield to decency and 
 necessity, and retire at the approach, of night." " Very 
 judicious." " But," continued he, " that you may see 
 how careful our Fathers have been upon every point, I 
 must state, that permitting women to practise gaming, 
 and perceiving that such an allowance would be often 
 useless, if they /were not also supplied with pecuniary 
 resources for the purpose, they have established another 
 maxim in their favour which is to be found in Escobar in 
 the chapter on Thieving, tr. l.n. 13: ' A woman may 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 139 
 
 game, and for this purpose take money secretly from her 
 husband.' " 
 
 " This is noble, Father," said I. " Oh, but there aro 
 many other things to be said — we must, however, omit 
 them for the sake of mentioning' maxims of still greater 
 importance, which very materially facilitate the practice of 
 piety ; for instance, the manner of attending upon mass. 
 Our great divines Gaspar Hurtado de Sacr.t. 2. d. 5. disp. 
 2. and Coninck, q. 83. a. 6. n. 197. state, that ' it is suffi- 
 cient to present the body at mass, though the spirit be 
 absent : provided the countenance indicate a respectful 
 gravity.' Vasquez goes further, by saying, '- It is enough to 
 hear mass, though you have no intention of really perform- 
 ing any thing.' All this is likewise to be found in Esco- 
 bar, tr. 1. ex. li. n. 74 and 107, and again, tr. 1. ex. 1. 
 n. 116. where he explains the subject .by the example of 
 those who are compelled to go to mass, but who resolve 
 to pay no attention to it." " Truly, Father, I could never 
 have believed this, if I had heard it from any other quar- 
 ter." "Undoubtedly," said he, " it does require the au- 
 thority of these distinguished writers, as well as that of 
 Escobar, who says, tr. 1. ex. 11. n 31 ; > A wicked inten- 
 tion, such as unchaste desire, united with the hearing of 
 mass as it ought to be attended, is no prevention of the 
 due fulfilment of the duty — nee obest alia prava inteniio, ut 
 aspiciendi libidinose fceminas.'' 
 
 " Turrianus, one of our learned authors, suggests, how- 
 ever, a still more agreeable sentiment, Select, p. 2. d. 16. 
 dub. 7 : ' You may hear half a mass of one priest and 
 another half of another ; indeed you may hear first the 
 end of one mass, and afterwards the beginning of another' 
 — nay more, he adds, ' You may hear two halves of a mass 
 at the same time of two different priests, when one begins 
 ' a mass, and the other is at the elevation of the host, be- 
 cause the attention may be given to both at the same 
 time, and two half masses make one whole one — du<B me- 
 dietates unam missam constituunt.' Our Fathers Bauny, 
 tr. 69. 9. p. 312 ; Hurtado de Sacr. t. 2. de Missa, d. 5. 
 
140 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 diff. 4 ; Azorius, p. 1. 1. 7. cap. 3. q. 3. have given a si- 
 milar opinion ; and Escobar affirms the same in his chap- 
 ter respecting ' the Practice of hearing Mass according 
 to our Society,' tr. 1. ex. 1 1. n. 73 ; and you will see the 
 consequences he deduces in ilie same book in the several 
 editions printed at Lyons, in the years 1644 and 1646 ; 
 ' Hence 1 conclude that mass may be heard in a very short 
 time ; as, for example, if you happen upon four masses at 
 once, so arranged, that when one begins, another may be 
 at the Gospel, another at the Consecration, and the last at 
 the Communion.' " " True, true, Father ; and one might 
 hear mass in Notre Dame by this means in an instant." 
 •■ You perceive then, 1 trust, that nothing could be better 
 managed to facilitate the duty of hearing mass. 
 
 " But I wish to show you in what manner the use of 
 Sacraments is smoothed, especially that of Penitence. It 
 is in this particular that you will discover the extreme 
 kindness of our indulgent Fathers ; and you will be asto- 
 nished that the devotion which strikes the whole world 
 with wonder, has been treated with such prudence and 
 sagacity by our Fathers, ' that having destroyed that scare- 
 crow which devils had placed at the gate, they have ren- 
 dered penance more easy than vice and voluptuousness ; 
 so that, to use the language of Father le Moine, p. 244 
 and 291 of his Easy Devotion — ' simply to live is incom- 
 parably more difficult than to live piously.' Is not this a 
 marvellous change ?" " Upon my word, Father, it is ; 
 but I cannot forbear expressing my mind. I am very ap- 
 prehensive that you are taking bad measures, and that 
 i his indulgence will disgust more than it will gratify the 
 world. Mass, for instance, is so great and so holy a thing, 
 that your authors would suffer materially in the estimation 
 of a great many people, were they to see the manner in 
 which they speak of it." " This, to be sure, is true 
 enough respecting some ; but are you not aware that we 
 accommodate people of every description 1 It seems that 
 you do not remember what I have so frequently mentioned ; 
 but I propose to renew the subject the very first opportu- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 141 
 
 nity, deferring at present our conversation upon the miti- 
 gating expedients with, regard to confession. I shall make 
 this so plain, that you will never forget it." 
 
 We now parted ; and our next conversation will, I pre- 
 sume, relate to their politics. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
LETTER X. 
 
 .Mitigating Expedients of the Jesuists, with regard to tlie 
 Sacrament of Penitence. Their Maxims respecting Con- 
 fession, Satisfaction, Absolution, Occasions of Sin, Con- 
 trition, and the Love of God. 
 
 Paris, Aug. 2, 1656. 
 Sir, 
 
 I am not yet come to the investigation of the poli- 
 tics of the society, but I proceed to one of its great prin- 
 ciples. You will now have an opportunity of seeing those 
 allowances in reference to confession, which most cer- 
 tainly constitute the very best expedient the Jesuits could 
 have devised to conciliate all- and offend none. It was 
 necessary to know this, before we advanced further ; for 
 which reason, the Father considered it proper to give me 
 the following instructions : — 
 
 " You have seen, by what I have already stated, how 
 successfully our Fathers have laboured to show, by their 
 superior wisdom, that many things are permitted now 
 which were formerly deemed forbidden ; but as some sins 
 are still indefensible, and the only remedy for them is con- 
 fession, it has been thought necessary to obviate the diffi- 
 culty in the manner I am about to mention. And, after 
 showing you, in our past conversations, how certain con- 
 scientious scruples may be removed, by proving that what 
 was once supposed to be sinful, really is not so, it only 
 remains for me to point out the mode of expiating real 
 sins with facility, by making confession easy, which was 
 formerly so difficult." 
 
 " Pray, Father," said I, " how is this accomplished ?" 
 •'By those admirable subtleties," said he, "which are 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 143 
 
 peculiar to our society, and which our Flemish Fathers 
 call (in a book entitled, ' The Image of the Primitive Age,' 
 1. 3, or> 1. p. 401, and 1. 1. c. 2.) > pious and holy frauds, 
 and a sacred artifice of devotion — piam et religiosam cal- 
 liditatem et pietatis solertiam — in 1. 3. c. 8.' It is by these 
 inventions that ' crimes are now expiated alacrius, with 
 more gladness and zeal than they were once committed ; 
 so that many persons remove the stain of guilt as soon as 
 it is perpetrated — plurimi vix citius maculas contraliunt, 
 quam eluunt' — as it is stated in the same passage."- " Oh, 
 I beseech you, Father," said I, " teach me some of these 
 useful pieces of finesse." " Well, sir, there is a conside- 
 rable number of them ; for, as there are many painful 
 things in confession, we have applied lenitives to each of 
 them : and, as the principal difficulties consist in the 
 shame of confessing certain sins, the careful particularity 
 with which the circumstances must be explained, the pe- 
 nance which must be done, the resolution not to return to 
 the commission of the sin, the avoidance of occasions that 
 lead to it, and the sorrow for the offence, I hope to show 
 you that there is now nothing vexatious in all this, in con- 
 sequence of the extreme care which has been taken to 
 extract all the unpalatable bitterness out of so needful a 
 remedy. 
 
 " To begin with' the pain which the confession of some 
 kinds of sin must occasion. As it is frequently very im- 
 portant as you know to preserve the esteem of your con- 
 fessor, is it not a fortunate circumstance that our Fathers, 
 amongst whom are Escobar and Suarez, tr. 7. a. 4. n. 
 135. admit of having two confessors, < the one for mortal 
 and the other for venial sins, for the purpose of maintain- 
 ing a good reputation with your ordinary confessor — 
 tit bonam famam apud ordinarium tueatur — provided only 
 that advantage be not taken from this circumstance to 
 continue in a state of mortal sin.' Another ingenious 
 contrivance is afterwards suggested for confessing to your 
 ordinary confessor without his perceiving whether the sin 
 was committed previously or since your last confession : 
 ' this,' says he, ' is managed by means of a general con- 
 
144 PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 
 
 fession, and confounding your last sin with others, to 
 which your self-accusation refers in the aggregate.' See 
 also Princ. ex. 2. n. 73. and you will be convinced that 
 the decision of Father Bauny, Theol. Mor. tr. 49. 15. p. 
 137. is still more consolatory to those who are ashamed 
 of acknowledging their relapses : ' The confessor, except- 
 ing in certain cases, which rarely occur, has no right to 
 inquire whether the sin of which the individual accuses 
 himself be habitual, nor is the penitent obliged to answer 
 such a question ; because he has no right to put^the per-, 
 son confessing sins to the shame of divulging his frequent 
 relapses and falls.' " 
 
 " How can this be, Father ? I should as soon be dis- 
 posed to say that a physician has no right to ask his 
 patient respecting the time he has been afflicted with a 
 fever. Do not all sins differ from each other according 
 to the diversity of circumstances ? And ought not a 
 genuine penitent to disclose to his confessor the whole 
 sfate of his conscience, with the same sincerity and frank- 
 ness as if he were speaking to Jesus Christ, whose place 
 is held by the priest ? But is not that person very far 
 from cherishing such a disposition who conceals his fre- 
 quent relapses for the purpose of veiling the enormity of 
 his transgressions ?" 
 
 I saw that the good Father was prodigiously embar- 
 rassed ; and he thought of evading the difficulty instead 
 of resolving it, by urging upon my consideration another 
 of their rules which only establishes a new disorder with- 
 out in the least rectifying Father Bauny's decision, and 
 one which in my opinion is one of their most pernicious 
 maxims, the most directly adapted to encourage sinners 
 in their vices. " I admit," said he, " that habit increases 
 the malignity of sin, but does not change its nature ; for 
 which reason the penitent is not obliged to confess ac- 
 cording to the law established by our Fathers and cited 
 by Escobar, Prin. ex. 2. n. 39 : < No one is obliged to 
 confess more than the circumstances which change the 
 species of his sin, not those which render it more -odious.' 
 Hence Father Grenados says, in 5. part. cont. 7. t. 9. d. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 145 
 
 9. I). 22 : < that if any one has eaten flesh in Lent, it is 
 sufficient to accuse himself of having broken his fast, 
 without saying whether it was by eating flesh or making 
 two meagre meals:' and, according to our Father Re- 
 ginaldus, tr. 1. 1. 6. c. 4. n. 116 : ' A sorcerer who should 
 make use of the diabolical art, is not obliged to avow this 
 circumstance ; it is enough simply to declare that he deals 
 in divination, without explaining whether it be by chirom- 
 ancy or by covenant .with the devil ;' and Fagundez, of 
 our society, p. 2. 1. 4. c. 3, n. 17- states, that 'a man is 
 not required to confess the circumstances of a rape, if a 
 degree of consent were obtained.' Our Father Escobar 
 introduces these statements in the same place, n. 41, 61, 
 62, with many other very curious decisions respecting the 
 circumstances one is not necessitated to confess, which 
 you may read at your leisure." 
 
 " Very accommodating," said I, " very accommodating 
 artifices of devotion indeed !" '< Yes ; but all would 
 signify nothing if we had not contrived to mitigate the 
 severity of penance which is very much opposed to con- 
 fession. But now the most delicate have nothing to ap- 
 prehend, since we have maintained in our theses in the 
 College of Clermont, ' that if the confessor impose a 
 convenient and suitable penance — convenientem — and yet 
 lie should not choose to accept it, he may withdraw and 
 renounce both the absolution and the penance imposed." 
 Escobar further states, in his Practice of Penance ac- 
 cording to our society, tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 188, that, 'if the 
 penitent declare that he will defer his penitence to a 
 future world, and suffer in purgatory all the punishment 
 due to his offences, then the confessor is to impose a 
 slight penance to preserve the Sacrament entire, especially 
 if he knew that the penitent would not submit to a 
 heavier one.' " " If this be the case," observed I, 
 " confession should not be called the sacrament of pen- 
 ance." " There," returned he, " you are wrong ; for it 
 is proper to enjoin some one at least for the sake of the 
 form." " But, Father, do you conceive that a man de- 
 serves absolution, when he objects to the least painful 
 13 
 
146 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 service to expiate bis offences ? And when people are 
 in such a disposition of mind, ought you not rather to re- 
 tain than remit their sins ? Have you a correct idea of the 
 extent of your ministry, and are you not aware that you 
 possess the power of binding and loosing ? Do you sup- 
 pose it is lawful to bestow absolution indifferently upon all 
 who demand it, without previously knowing whether 
 Jesus Christ looses in heaven those whom you loose upon 
 earth ?" 
 
 " Fine talking, truly, Sir ! What ! do you think we are 
 so ignorant as not to know, that ' the confessor is to make 
 himself the judge of the disposition of his penitent, both 
 because he is under an obligation not to dispense the 
 Sacraments to those who are unworthy of them, Jesus 
 Christ having commanded him to be faithful to his charge, 
 and not to give the children's bread to dogs ; and because 
 he is to be judge, and it is the duty of a judge to judge 
 justly, by releasing those who are worthy of it, and bind- 
 ing those who are unworthy, and also because he ought 
 not to absolve those whom Jesus Christ condemns V " 
 " Pray, Father, whose words are these?" «' I have been 
 quoting Filiutius, torn. 1 . tr. 7. n. 354." " You surprise 
 me ; I concluded they were the expressions of one of 
 the Fathers of the church. But this passage ought deeply 
 to impress confessors, and make them extremely cautious 
 in dispensing this Sacrament- to ascertain whether the 
 sorrow of their penitents be sufficient, and whether thei* 
 promises to avoid future transgressions be really admissi- 
 ble." "There is no difficulty here,",- said the Father; 
 " Filiutius has taken care to prevent the confessors suf- 
 fering any embarrassment ; for, after the words I have 
 cited, he suggests this easy expedient — ' The confessor 
 may make himself quite easy about the disposition of his 
 penitent ; for if he do not discover sufficient indications 
 of grief, the confessor has only to ask if he do not detest 
 sin in his heart, and if he reply in the affirmative, he is 
 obliged to believe him. The same may be said respect- 
 ing his resolution for the future, unless he is under an 
 engagement to make any restitution, or to avoid the next 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 147 
 
 temptation.' " " This passage, Father, I see plainly 
 enough is from Filiutius." " There again you are de- 
 ceived, for he has taken it word for word out of Suarez, 
 in 3 par. to 4. disp. 32. sect. 2. n. 2." " But, Father, 
 this last quotation nullifies the former ; for confessors will 
 no longer have it in their power to judge of the disposi- 
 tion of their penitents, since they are obliged to take their 
 own assertion, even when they give no sufficient evidence 
 of repentance. Is there so much certainty in these affir- 
 mations, that no further evidence can be requisite ? I 
 question whether your Fathers have found, by experience, 
 that all those who have given them promises have kept 
 them faithfully. I am, indeed, much mistaken if they 
 have not frequently found the very reverse." ' Pshaw," 
 said he '* that signifies nothing ; the confessors are 
 nevertheless obliged to believe them. Father Bauny, 
 who has thoroughly investigated this subject in his Sum- 
 mary of Sins, c. 46. p. 1090, 1091, 1092, concludes, 
 that ' at all times when those who have often relapsed 
 into sin without manifesting any signs of amendment, 
 shall present themselves before a confessor, and tell him 
 that they repent of what they have done and resolve to be 
 better in future, he ought to believe their declaration, 
 though it be presumed that such resolutions only pro- 
 ceeded from the lips and not the heart : and though after- 
 wards such persons plunge into the same excesses and 
 even with greater licentiousness, they may, notwithstand- 
 ing, in my opinion, receive absolution.' Now, I trust, all 
 your doubts are removed." 
 
 " But, Father," continued I, " you impose, I think, a 
 very serious responsibility upon the confessors, by requiring 
 them to believe the very contrary of what they see." 
 " You do not understand the matter ; 1 mean to say, they 
 are obliged to act and to absolve, as if they believed the 
 resolution to be firm and constant, though they do not, in 
 point of fact, believe one^yllable of it. This is what our 
 Fathers Suarez and Filiutius proceed to explain ; for, after 
 saying that ' the priest is obliged to believe his penitent 
 upon his word,' they add, " it is not necessary that the 
 
148 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 confessor should be convinced that his penitent will exe- 
 cute his good determination, nor even that it is probable ; 
 but it is sufficient that he thinks the general purpose exists 
 in his mind at the moment, though in a very little time he 
 is likely to relapse.' In this all our authors concur — Ua 
 docent omnes autorcs ; and will you doubt of any thing 
 uniler these circumstances ?" " But pray, good Father, 
 what will become of the acknowledgment which Father 
 Petau himself was obliged to make in his preface to Pen. 
 pub. p. 4. ' That the holy Fathers, Doctors, and Councils 
 agree in this, as an undoubted truth, that the repentance 
 which is preparatory to the Eucharist ought to be sincere, 
 constant, courageous, not indolent and sluggish, nor subject 
 to relapses '' " "'But do you not perceive," said he, 
 "that Father Petau is speaking of the ancient church? 
 And this is now so out of date, to use the phraseology of 
 Our society, that, according to Father Bauny, tr. 49. 15. 
 p. 96. the contrary alone is true. He remarks, 'There 
 are some authors who affirm that absolution ought to be 
 refused to such as often relapse into the same sins, espe- 
 cially if after being frequently absolved no sign of amend- 
 ment appears — others negative this sentiment. But the 
 only true opinion is, that it is not necessary to refuse abso- 
 lution ; and though they do not profit by the good advice 
 so often given them, though they pay no regard to their 
 repeated promises to change their manner of living, though 
 they take no pains to reform and purify themselves — no 
 matter — the true opinion and what ought to be followed, 
 whatever others may allege, is, that in all these cases 
 absolution ought to be conferred :' and tr. 49- 22. p. 100 : 
 'Absolution ought neither to be refused nor delayed to 
 such as are in the habit of sinning against the laws of 
 God, of nature, and of the church, though no one can see 
 any hope of amendment — etsi emendationis future: nulla 
 spes apparent.' " . 
 
 " But, Father," returned I. " might not this assurance 
 of always gaining absolution induce sinners" — '- 1 under- 
 stand you," interrupting me — " but listen to Father Bauny, 
 9, 15 ; ' It is proper to absolve the person who avows that 
 
PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 149 
 
 the expectation of being absolved induced him to sin with 
 more readiness than he should have otherwise done with- 
 out such an expectation ;' and Father Caussin, in support 
 of this proposition, says, p. 2 1 1 of his reply to Theol. Mar. 
 that, ' If this representation were not true, the use of con- 
 fession would be nullified to the majority of mankind, and 
 sinners would have no other remedy but a cord and a gal- 
 lows.' " " Oh, Father, how these maxims will attract 
 people to your confessionals !" " Yes," said he, " you 
 cannot imagine the numbers that come — ' we are loaded 
 and pressed down with a crowd of penitents — poenitentiun 
 numero obruimur,' as it is expressed in the Image of om 
 first age, 1. 3. c. 8." " I know," said I, >' an easy methoc 
 of affording you some relief; it is simply to oblige sinner! 
 to avoid the immediate occasions of sinning ; you wouh 
 be amazingly eased only by this single device." " Oh 
 Sir, we are not so anxious respecting relief; on the con 
 trary, as it is stated in the same work, 1. 3. c. 7. p. 374 
 ' Our society has for its object to labour in establishing vir 
 tue, to make war against vice, and to save a multitude o 
 souis ;' but as few souls are willing to abandon the imme 
 diate occasions of sin, we have been obliged to defin 
 what is intended by immediate occasions.' This may b 
 found in Escobar on the Practice of our Society, tr. 7. ex 
 4. n. 226 : ' That occasion is not called immediate, whei 
 the sin is but rarely committed, such as a sin perpetrate 
 through a sudden transport of passion, three or four time 
 a year in the house where you reside ;' or, according t 
 Father Bauny, ' once or twice a month,' p. 1082, and agai 
 p. 1089, of his French publication, where he proposes thi 
 question, ' What ought to be done with masters and servant: 
 and cousins of both sexesTTvIhgtogeihe'f, who from this caus 
 mutually induce each other to sin V " « Separate them, 
 said I, " surely." "True, and our authors say the sam< 
 if they transgress often and almost daily ; but if they o 
 fend but seldom, as once or twice in a month, and the 
 cannot be parted without great inconvenience and detr 
 ment, they may receive absolution according to these at 
 thors; and among them we find Suarez, provided the 
 
150 FROV1NCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 firmly promise to ein no more, and are truly sorry for the 
 past." 
 
 I understood his meaning perfectly ; for he had before 
 assured me that the confessor ought to be satisfied with a 
 verbal regret. 
 
 He continued — " Father Bauny, p. 1083 and 1084, 
 allows such as are engaged in these more immediate occa- 
 sions. ' to remain in them when they cannot be abandon- 
 ed without becoming the subjects of public scandal, and 
 thus suffering great inconvenience.' He advances the 
 same idea in his Moral Theology, tr. 4. de Pcenit. q. 13. 
 p. 93, and 9. 14 p. 94 : 'A priest may and ought to give 
 absolution to a woman who has a man in her house with 
 whom she often sins, if she cannot handsomely get rid of 
 him, or has some reason for keeping him — si non potest 
 honeste ejicere, aut kabeat aliquant causam retinendi — pro- 
 vided only that she proposes to have no more criminal 
 connexion with him.' " 
 
 " Oh, Father, the duty of abandoning these occasions of 
 sinning is charmingly softened down, if persons be dis- 
 pensed from it as soon as it is inconvenient ; but. I suppose 
 they are at least obliged to separate when it is attended 
 with no trouble or difficulty." ''Yes; though there are 
 some exceptions ; for Father Bauny says in the same 
 place, ' It is lawful for any person to go into a house of ill 
 fame to convert dissolute women, though it be very pro- 
 bable he fall into sin himself ; as, if he have on former 
 occasions been frequently left to sin by their seductions ; 
 and though some doctors do not approve of this opinion, 
 and do not consider it proper voluntarily to endanger one's 
 own salvation to save a neighbour, I confess myself dis- 
 posed to embrace the sentiment which they oppose." 
 
 " This is a new order of preachers, Father ! But pray, 
 what authority has Father Bauny to send persons on this 
 kind of mission ?" " On one of the principles of Basile 
 Ponce," returned he, " quoted in the same place, J 
 spoke of it before, as I think you may remember ; ' An 
 occasion of sin may be sought directly and by itself, primd 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 151 
 
 et per se, for the temporal or spiritual good of oneself or 
 neighbour.' " 
 
 I was now struck with such horror, that I was on the 
 point. of breaking off the conversation, but managed to 
 restrain my feelings in order to see the end of it, and con- 
 tented myself with asking, • What agreement subsists be- 
 tween this doctrine and that of the Gospel, which requires 
 us to pluck out our eyes, and debar ourselves even of ne- 
 cessaries, when prejudicial to our salvation ? And how 
 can you conceive that a man who indulges in these occa- 
 sions of sin, can sincerely detest it ? Is it not, on the 
 contrary, too visible, that he is not affected with its enor- 
 mity as he ought to be, and that he is far from that true 
 conversion of heart which would make him love God as 
 much as he had before loved creatures ?" 
 
 " How surprisingly you talk !" said he : " that would 
 be true contrition : you do not seem to know, as Father 
 PFntereau says in the second part of Abb6 de Boisic, p. 
 50, that 'all the Fathers unanimously teach that it is an 
 error, amounting almost to a heresy, to represent contri- 
 tion as necessary, or to affirm that attrition alone, arising 
 solely from the fear of hell, which preserves the will from 
 sinning, is not sufficient with the Sacrament.'' " How, 
 Father ! is it almost an article of faith that attrition alone, 
 originating merely in the fear of punishment, suffices with 
 the Sacrament ? I believe this doctrine is peculiar to 
 your Fathers : for others who believe attrition to be suffi- 
 cient with the Sacrament, maintain, that it should at least 
 be mixed with some love to God. And, moreover, it 
 seems to me, that even yonr own authors did not former- 
 ly regard this doctrine as so certain ; for your Father 
 Suarez speaks of it in this manner, De Pcen. q. 90. art 4. 
 disp. 15. sect. 4. n. 17: ' Though it be a probable opi- 
 nion, that attrition is sufficient with the Sacrament, yet it 
 is not certain, and perhaps is false — non est certa, et potest 
 esse falsa. If it be false, attrition is not sufficient to save 
 a man ; he, therefore, who dies knowingly in that state, 
 voluntarily exposes himself to the moral danger of eternal 
 damnation. This opinion is neither very ancient, nor very 
 
152 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 common — nee valde antiqua, nee multim antiquis.' San- 
 chez intimates a similar uncertainty in his Summary, L 1. 
 c. 9. n. 34 : 'A sick man, and his confessor, who should 
 satisfy himself in the hour of death with attrition and the 
 Sacrament, would both commit a mortal sin, on account 
 of the great danger of damnation to which the penitent 
 would expose himself, if the opinion that attrition suffices 
 with the Sacrament should not be true.' To the same 
 purpose Comitolus, Res p. Mor. 1. 1. q. 32. n. 7. 8 : 'He 
 is not too sure that attrition is sufficient with the Sacra- 
 ment.' " 
 
 Here the worthy Father stopped me, exclaiming, " Do 
 you read our authors, then ? Very good — but you will do 
 better not to read them, without some one of us : for, by 
 reading them alone, you see that you are ready to infer 
 that these passages are opposed to those who, at present 
 maintain our ductrine of attrition, whereas we could have 
 shown, that nothing tends more to promote it. How glo- 
 rious is it for our Fathers- to see their opinion so univer- 
 sally diffused, that, excepting divines, there is scarcely 
 any person but believes our doctrine of attrition to have 
 been the uniform sentiment of the church ! When, there- 
 fore, you prove from our own Fathers, that only a few 
 years ago, this opinion was held uncertain, what is it bat 
 to allow our modern authors all the honour of its esta- 
 blishment ? 
 
 " On this account, our intimate friend, Diana, believed 
 he was obliging us by pointing out its gradual progress to 
 perfection, which he has done, p. 5. tr. 13. by saying, 
 ' that formerly the ancient scholastics maintained that 
 contrition was necessary immediately after committing a 
 mortal sin ; but since that period, it was not thought ob- 
 ligatory, except on festival days, and afterwards, when 
 some extraordinary calamity threatened a whole nation ; 
 and, according to others, it ought not to be long deferred 
 when death was evidently approaching. However, our 
 Fathers Hurtado.and Vasquez, have given an admirable 
 refutation of all these opinions, proving that contrition is 
 necessary only when a person cannot be absolved any 
 
154 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 own power, it would leave nothing to be done by the Sa- 
 crament. Thus our Father Valentia, the celebrated Je- 
 suit, torn. 4. disp. 79. 8. p. 6: ' Contrition is not at all ne- 
 cessary to obtain the principal effect of the Sacrament, 
 but, on the contrary, is rather an obstacle — imd obstat po- 
 tius quo minus effectus sequatur.' Nothing more can be 
 wished in favour of attrition." " 1 am of the same opi- 
 nion. Father," said I ; " but allow me to express my senti- 
 ment, and to show you to what extravagances this doc- 
 trine leads When you say that attrition, arising solely 
 from the fear of punishment, is sufficient with the Sacra- 
 ment for the justification of sinners, does it not follow 
 that a person may expiate his sins, and be saved without 
 ever loving God in the whole course of his life ? But will 
 you, Fathers, venture to maintain this principle ?" 
 
 " I see," said he, " by your question, that you want to 
 know the doctrine of our Fathers respecting the love of 
 God. It is the last and most important point in their 
 morality, which you might have perceived by the quota- 
 tions I have introduced upon the subject of contrition. 
 But pray do not interrupt me while I am furnishing some 
 others of a more precise nature upon the love of God, 
 for the consequences resulting from them are considerable. 
 Attend to Escobar, who relates 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 : ' When ' he asks, ' is a person obliged 
 to cherish a real affection for God ? Suarez says, ' it is 
 sufficient to love him a little previous to the moment of 
 death,' without fixing the precise time : — Vasquez, ' that 
 it is enough to love him in the very moment of dying :' — 
 others, ' at Baptism ;' others again, * at seasons of con- 
 trition ;' and some, ' upon festival days :' but our Father 
 Castro Palao opposes all these opinions and with good 
 reason — meritd. Hurtado de Mendoza states, that « we 
 are under an obligation to love God once in a year, and 
 that we are kindly treated in not being obliged to it more 
 frequently :' but Father Coninck that we are under an 
 obligation to do so ' once in three or four years' — Henri 
 
MIO VINCI AIj LETTERS. 156 
 
 quez, ' every five years ;' and Filiutius says, ' it is pro- 
 bable that we are not rigorously obliged to it every five 
 years.' When then ? — This question he refers to a wise 
 man's own judgment." 
 
 I allowed him to proceed with this nonsense, which was 
 a surprising display of the insolence with which the hu- 
 man mind can sport with the love of God : — " But," con- 
 tinued he, " our Father Anthony Sirmond, who excels 
 upon this subject, in his admirable book on the « Defence 
 of Virtue,' where, as he tells the reader, he speaks in 
 plain terms, expresses himself thus, — tr. 2. sect. 1. p. 12, 
 13, 14, &c. 'St. Thomas says, we are under obligation 
 to love God as soon as we acquire the use of reason ;' 
 but that is a little too soon. Scotus mentions every Sun- 
 day ; but on what authority ? Others, in seasons of 
 grievous temptation : right, in case this is the only way 
 of avoiding temptation. Sotus states, that when some 
 great benefit has been conferred by God,, it is well to 
 thank him for it. Others speak of the hour of death : 
 that is too little^ Nor do I believe it to be necessary on 
 every sacramental occasion : attrition will suffice with 
 confession, if it be convenient. Suarez says that we are 
 obliged to love God some time : but at what time ? You 
 are to be the judge of that ; he, professes to know nothing 
 about it. But if such a doctor as this does not know, I 
 am at a loss to conceive who does.' And he concludes 
 at last, that, in strict propriety, we are only obliged to ob- 
 serve the other commandments- without cherishing any 
 affection to God, and without having any inclination of 
 mind towards him, provided we do not hate him : this is 
 illustrated throughout his second treatise. You will see 
 it in every page, particularly in p. 16, 19, 24, 28, where 
 the following passage occurs : ' God, in commanding us 
 to love him, is satisfied if we obey him in his other com- 
 mands. If God had said, • I will consign you to perdi- 
 tion, whatever obedience you render to me, unless you 
 also give me your heart, would this motive, think you, 
 have been well suited to the end which God has in view V 
 It is said, therefore, that we shall love God by doing his 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 153 
 
 otherwise, or is at the pointjsf death.' But, to proceed, 
 respecting' the" wonderful progress of this doctrine, I must 
 add, that our Fathers Fagundez, Prcec. 2. t. 2. c. 4. n. 
 13., Granados, in 3 par. contr. 7. d. 3. sect. 4. n. 17., and 
 Escobar, tr 7. ex. 4. n. 88. in the ' Practice of our Soci- 
 ety,' have decided 'that contrition is not necessary even, 
 in dying moments, because if attrition with the Sacrament 
 be not sufficient at the point of death, it will follow, that 
 attrition would not be sufficient with the sacrament.' — 
 And our learned Hurtado de Sacr. d. 6. quoted by Diana, 
 par 5. tr 4. Misal. r 193. and by Escobar, tr. 7. ex. 4. 
 n. 91, goes still further; only listen : ' Is the sorrow for 
 sin which arises entirely from its temporal consequences, 
 as the loss of health, or property, sufficient ? — Here, a 
 distinction is requisite : if it be thought that the evil is 
 not sent immediately from the hand of God, this sorrow 
 is not sufficient; but if it be believed that it is so seut, 
 and in fact every evil, as Diana says, excepting sin pro- 
 ceeds from him, this sorrow is sufficient.' Escobar states 
 the same in his ' Practice of our Society,' in which Fa- 
 ther Francis Lamy concurs, tr. 8. disp. 3. n. 13." 
 
 "You really surprise me, Father; for I see nothing in 
 all this attrition but what is merely natural ; and thus a 
 sinner may render himself worthy of absolution, without 
 any supernatural grace : but every one knows that was 
 condemned as a heresy by the Council of Trent " " I 
 should have thought the same," said he, " but yet it must 
 be otherwise ; for our Fathers of the College of Cler- 
 mont, maintained, iu their theses of the 23d of May, and 
 the 6th of June, 1644, col. 4. n. 1. 'that attrition may 
 be holy and sufficient for the Sacrament, though it be not 
 supernatural ;' and in that of August, 1643, 'That attri- 
 tion which is only natural, is sufficient for the Sacrament, 
 provided it be honest — ad sacramentum svffhcit attritio na- 
 turalis, modd honesta.' 
 
 <■' This is all that can be said, unless an obvious infer- 
 ence be deduced from these premises, that contrition is so 
 little necessary to the Sacrament, that, on the contrary, it 
 would be detrimental to it, because, as it effaces sin by its 
 
156 PROVINCIAL LETTEHS. 
 
 ■will, as if we loved him with the affections of the sou], 
 and as if we were excited by love itself. If this should 
 really be the case, so much the better ; if not, we do not, 
 however, strictly disobey the commandment of love, 
 while performing these works ; so that we are not so 
 much commanded to love him — (pray observe the good- 
 ness of God !) as not to hate him.' 
 
 " Thus have our Fathers discharged mankind from the 
 painful obligation of actually, and with all the heart, lov- 
 ing God: and so advantageous is this doctrine, that our 
 Fathers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and A. Sirmond 
 himself have strenuously defended it whenever opposed. 
 You have only to examine their replies to the Moral 
 Theology, and that of Father Pintereau in p. 2. of Abb£ 
 de Boisic, p. 53, where you may judge of the value of 
 this dispensation by the price it cost, the price of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ. The very crown and perfection 
 of this doctrine, is its releasing from the troublesome ob- 
 ligation of loving God, which is the privilege of the 
 evangelical as distinguished from the Jewish law. ' It 
 was reasonable,' says he, ' that by the law of grace in 
 the New Testament, God should remove the irksome and 
 difficult duty which was attached to the rigorous law of 
 exercising an act of perfect contrition in order to justifi- 
 cation, and that he should institute Sacraments to supply 
 our defects, and to facilitate obedience ; otherwise 
 Christians, who are the children, could not recover the 
 good graces of their Father, any more readily than the 
 Jews, who were slaves, could obtain mercy from their 
 God.' " 
 
 " Oh, Father," exclaimed I, " you make me out of all 
 patience ; I am struck with perfect horror at these state- 
 ments." " It is not I that am responsible," said he. 
 " I know very well," said I, " they are not your own 
 words, but you cite them without any sign of disappro- 
 bation ; nay, so far are you from detesting the authors of 
 these maxims, you hold them in the highest esteem for 
 promulgating them. Have you no apprehension that 
 your concurrence renders you a partaker of their crimes ? 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 157 
 
 Can you be ignorant that St. Paul judges worthy of death. 
 not only the originators of wickedness, but those who 
 consent to it ? Was it not sufficient to allow mankind sol 
 many prohibited things by your palliatives and apologies V 
 Must you also furnish them with the opportunity of per-; 
 petrating crimes which you admit to be inexcusable, by 
 that assurance and facility of obtaining absolution which 
 you offer them, though for this purpose you destroy the 
 power of the priests, and oblige them to absolve, rather ! 
 like slaves than judges, the most abandoned transgressors, » 
 without any change of life, without any. sign of repen- 
 tance but promises 1 a thousand times violated, without 
 penance, unless they choose it, and without avoiding occa- 
 sions of sin, if such avoidance be attended with any in- 
 convenience ? 
 
 "But you advance a step further, and- the liberty you 
 take of corrupting the most holy rules of Christian con- 
 duct, extends even to the entire subversion of the divine 
 laws. You violate the great commandment which contains 
 both the law and the prophets — you stab piety to -the very 
 heart — you take away and quench the spirit which gives 
 life — you affirm that the love of God is not necessary to 
 salvation, and even assert, that ' this exemption from 
 loving God is the grand benefit which Christ has conferred 
 upon the world ;' — all which is the very acme" and per- 
 fection of impiety. 
 
 " What ! — The price of the blood of Jesus Christ ob- 
 tain an exemption from loving him ! ! — Previous to the 
 incarnation mankind were obliged to love God, but since 
 God so loved the world tliat lie gave his only begotten Son, 
 shall the world thus redeemed, be discharged from the 
 duty of loving him? Strange divinity of • our days ! Mar- 
 vellously strange ! You dare to take away the anathema 
 which St. Paul pronounces against those who love not the 
 ■ Lord Jesus Christ ! You destroy what St. John says, that 
 he that loveth not abideth in death ! and even the declara- 
 tion of Christ himself— /« that loveth me not, heepeth not 
 my commandments. In this manner you make those 
 worthv of enjoying the presence of God for ever, who 
 14 
 
158 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 never once loved him in all their lives ! This surely is the 
 mystery of iniquity complete ! Oh, ray good Father, at 
 length open your eyes ; and, if not properly affected with 
 the other monstrous doctrines of your casuists, let these 
 latter specimens withdraw your confidence by their ex- 
 cessive extravagance ! With all my heart I cherish this 
 wish for you and all your fraternity, and pray God that he 
 would condescend to show them how false -that light is 
 which conducts to such precipices and dangers, and to 
 fill the hearts of those with his love, who dare to dispense 
 others from the obligation." 
 
 After some further considerations of the same kind, I 
 left the Jesuit ; and it is scarcely probable I shall renew 
 my visit. It need not, however, be any subject of regret 
 to you ; for if it were necessary to explain any more of 
 their maxims, I have read a sufficient number of their 
 writings to be able to tell you almost as much of their 
 morality, and perhaps more of their politics, than he 
 would have done himself. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
LETTER XL 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE REVEREND FATHERS OF THE JESUITS. 
 
 Ridiculous Errors may be refuted by Raillery. The pre- 
 cautions it is necessary to use, which the Author has 
 observed, but which have not been regarded by the Jesuits. 
 The impious buffooneries of Fathers le Moine and Ga- 
 rasse. 
 
 Reverend Fathers, Aug. 18, 1656. 
 
 I have seen the letters you have circulated in opposi- 
 tion to those I wrote to one of my friends upon the subject 
 of your morality, in which one of your principal points of 
 defence is, my not having spoken of your maxims with suf- 
 ficient seriousness This you repeat in all your commu- 
 nications* and go so far as to say, " that I have turned 
 sacred things into ridicule." 
 
 This reproach, my good Fathers, is very astonishing, 
 and very unjust. In what passage have I turned sacred 
 things into ridicule ? You notice particularly the contract 
 Mohatra and the story of John d'Alba : but do you call 
 these sacred things ? Is Mohatra something so venerable 
 that it would be blasphemous to speak disrespectfully of 
 it ? And are the lectures of Father Bauny upon thieving, 
 and which induced John d'Alba to practise it against 
 yourselves, so sacied that you have a right to represent it 
 as an act of impiety to ridicule them ? 
 
 What ! Fathers, are the fancies of your authors to pass 
 for articles of faith ? And may not some passages in 
 
160 TROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Escobar be laughed at, as well as the fantastic and un- 
 christian decisions of some of your writers without incur- 
 ring the charge of makmg a jest of religion ? Is it possi- 
 ble that you can so often venture to repeat such absurd 
 representations ? Are you not seriously apprehensive, 
 that, while censuring me for ridiculing your extravagances, 
 you will furnish me with a new subject of mockery, namely, 
 that very censure itself? that I shall retort it upon your- 
 selves, by showing that I have ridiculed nothing in your 
 writings but what was really ridiculous ? and th ii . s.r h y 
 making a jest of yonr morality, I have absolutely been as 
 far from ridiculing sacred things, as the doctrine of your 
 casuists is remote from the holy doctrine of the Gospel ? 
 
 There is a wonderful difference, my good Fathers.'be- 
 tween laughing at religion, and laughing at those who 
 profane it by their extravagant opinions. It would, indeed, 
 be impious to disregard the truths which the Spirit of God 
 has revealed ; but it would be impious also not to treat 
 with merited contempt the falsehoods with which the vain 
 spirit of man has opposed them. For, since you compel 
 me to enter upon this subject, I beg you to consider, that 
 as the great principles of Christianity deserve our love 
 and respect, those errors which are diametrically opposite 
 to them, merit contempt and hatred. There are two 
 things sufficiently obvious in the truths of our religion, a 
 divine beauty which renders them lovely, and a holy majesty 
 which make's them venerable ; and there are two obser- 
 vable peculiarities in errors, an impiety which renders them 
 horrible, and an impertinence which makes them ridicu- 
 lous. For this reason the saints always cherish these two 
 sentiments of love and fear for truth, and their wisdom is 
 comprised in fear, which is the principle, and love, which 
 is the end ; and on the other hand, they have always enter- 
 tained feelings of hatred and contempt for error, and their 
 zeal is equally engaged in vigorously resisting the malig- 
 nity of the wicked, and in putting their extravagance and 
 folly to the blush by ridicule. 
 
 Do not then, good Fathers, pretend to make the world 
 believe that it is unworthy of a Christian to laugh at your 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 161 
 
 errors, since it would be very easy to convince those who 
 do not know the fact, that this practice is just, that it is 
 common with the Fathers of the church, and that it is au- 
 thorized by Scripture, by the example of the most eminent 
 saints, and even by God himself. 
 
 Have you not observed that God both abhors and des- 
 pises sinners at the same time ? And even at the very 
 hour of their death, a time when their state is most deplo- 
 rable and wretched, divine wisdom will unite mockery and 
 ridicule with the anger which consigns them to everlasting 
 punishment— -in interitu vestro ridebo et subsannabo. Act- 
 ing upon a similar principle, the saints will do the same, 
 since David intimates, that when they witness the condem- 
 nation of the wicked, " the righteous shall see and fear, 
 and shall laugh at him — videbunt justi et timebunt et super 
 cum ridebunt." Job speaks to the same purpose : " the 
 righteous shall laugh them to scorn — innocens subsannabit 
 cos." 
 
 But it is very remarkable on this subject, that the very 
 first adddress of God to man, after his fall, was according 
 to the Fathers, ironical — a poignant sarcasm. After Adam 
 had transgressed, through the hope which the devil had 
 excited that he should be as God, the sacred writings state 
 that the Divine Being subjected Mm to the punishment of 
 death, and after inflicting this melancholy mark of the dis- 
 pleasure due to his offences, he derided him ii\ the follow- 
 ing words : " Behold the man is become as one of us ! — 
 ecceAdam quasi unus ex nobis ! which is, according to St. 
 Chrysostom and other expositors, a keen and obvious irony, 
 by which he cut him to the Mart. " Adam," says Rupert, 
 i; deserved to be thus ridiculed, and was made much more 
 sensible of his folly^by this ironical expression, than he 
 could have been by any serious address. Hugh of St. 
 Victor, after stating a similar idea, adds, " This irony was 
 due to his sottish credulity, and this kind of raillery is an 
 act of justice, when the individual against whom it is di- 
 rected really deserves it." 
 
 You see then, Fathers, that ridicule is, sometimes, best 
 adapted to reclaim men from their wanderings, and is in that 
 14* 
 
ltji.' PROVIKCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 case an act of justice; because, as Jeremiah remarks, " The 
 works of those that go astray are worthy of laughter, be- 
 cause they are vanity — vana sunt et risu digna ; and it is 
 so far from being wicked to laugh at such persons, that, 
 according to St. Augustin, it is an effect of divine wisdom ; 
 " The wise laugh at fools, because they are wise, not in- 
 deed, from any wisdom of their own, but from that divine 
 wisdom which will laugh at the death of the wicked." 
 
 The prophets under immediate inspiration made use of 
 the same kind of irony, as we see by the examples of 
 Daniel and Elijah. Specimens may be found also in the 
 discourses of Christ himself; St. Augustin remarks, that he 
 chose to humble Nicodemus, who conceived himself a 
 very skilful lawyer. Perceiving how much he was infla- 
 ted with pride as a doctor of the Jews, he tried and as- 
 tonished his presumption by the profundity of his inqui- 
 ries, and having completely perplexed and confounded 
 him, asked, " Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not 
 these things 1" As if he had said, " Proud ruler ! ac- 
 knowledge that thou knowest nothing !" Upon which 
 St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril agree in remarking, " That 
 Xicodemus deserved to be so jeered." 
 
 You see then, Fathers, if at this day persons were to 
 set up to teach Christians as Nicodemus and the Phari- 
 sees did the Jews, and were ignorant of the principles of 
 religion, maintaining, for instance, " that it is possible to 
 be saved without ever loving God in the whole course of 
 life," we should only be imitating the example of Jesu-- 
 Christ by making a jest of their vanity and ignorance. 
 
 I persuade myself that these holy examples will suffice 
 to show, that ridiculing the errors and extravagances of 
 mankind, is not acting contrary to the general conduct of 
 the saints, and that the censure you pronounce is no less 
 directed against the great doctors of the church — as St. 
 Jerome, in his letters and writings against Jovinian, Vigi- 
 lantius, and the Pelagians— Tertullian in his Apologetic 
 against the follies of idolatry — St. Augustin against the 
 monks of Africa, whom he calls the Hairy — St. Irensus 
 against the Gnostics — St. Bernard and the other Father? 
 of the church, who, having been the imitators of the 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 1G3 
 
 apostles, ought to be imitated by Christiana in all suc- 
 ceeding ages ; since, whatever may be said, they alone 
 constitute the true models for the present times. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, think I have erred in following 
 them ; and having sufficiently explained this point, 1 
 shall do no more than quote the admirable language of 
 Tertullian, which justifies my whole procedure. " Wljaj; 
 I have done is only a skirmish before the battle. I have 
 rather pointed out the wounds which may be inflicted, 
 than actually inflicted them myself. If there be citations 
 which excite ridicule, it is because the subjects them- 
 selves lead to it. There are many things which deserve 
 to be derided and jeered in this manner, lest they should 
 acquire any kind of importance by a serious attack. No- 
 thing is more worthy of laughter than vanily, and it be- 
 longs to truth to laugh because she is gay, and to sport 
 with her enemies because she is certain of victory. It is 
 true we should be careful that our raillery is not low and 
 unbecoming ; but when it can be adopted with propriety 
 and address, it is our duty to avail ourselves of it." Is 
 not this passage, Fathers, extremely appropriate to our 
 subject ? The letters I have hitherto written are but 
 preludes to the battle. I have done nothing at present 
 but play, and " pointed out rather the wounds that may be 
 given you than inflicted them myself." I have merely cited 
 passages from your authors, without making scarcely any 
 remarks. So that, '' if they excite ridicule, it is because 
 the subjects themselves lead to it." For really is any 
 thing better calculated to excite laughter, than to see so 
 grave a subject as Christian morality filled with the gro- 
 tesque fancies of your Fathers? Such a high conception 
 was formed of those maxims, which, it was said, "Jesus 
 Christ himself revealed to the Fathers of your society, •" 
 that when it is found, that " a priest who has received 
 money to say mass, may besides take more of others by 
 o-iving up all his share in the sacrifice — that a monk is 
 not excommunicated for relinquishing his habit when it is 
 done to dance, to pilfer, or to frequent incog, houses of 
 ill-fame — and that the precept of hearing mass is obey- 
 
164 PftOVINdAL LETTERS. 
 
 ed by hearing the four parts from as many different priests 
 at the same time" — when, I say, these and similar deci- 
 sions are made public, it is impossible not to be surprised 
 into a fit of laughter, because nothing produces it sooner 
 than a wonderful disproportion between what we expect- 
 ed and what we behold. And how was it possible to 
 treat the great majority of these subjects otherwise, since, 
 as Tertullian remarks, " to treat them seriously would be 
 to authorize them." 
 
 What ! is it necessary to employ the authority of Scrip- 
 ture and of tradition, to show that to stab an enemy behind 
 his back and in ambush is treachery ! And that to give 
 money as a motive to induce the resignation of a benefice 
 is simony 1 These are contemptible practices in them- 
 selves, which deserve to be jeered at and ridiculed In 
 short, what this ancient writer says, that " nothing is 
 more worthy of laughter than vanity," and the rest of the 
 same passage, applies here with such just and convincing 
 force, that one cannot hesitate in deciding whether folly 
 may be ridiculed without violating decorum. 
 
 Allow me to say, Fathers, that irony may be resorted 
 to without any breach of charity, though this is one of 
 the sins you charge upon me : for " charity obliges us 
 sometimes to ridicule the errors of men that they may be 
 induced to laugh at them themselves." As St. Augustin 
 observes Hcec tu misericordiler irride, ut cis ridenda ae 
 fugienda commendes. And the same charity sometimes 
 requires us to retort with indignation, as we are taught by 
 Gregory Naziangen, " the spirit of charity and meekness 
 has its seasons of emotions and anger." In fact, to quote 
 *-from St. Augustin, '' Who will venture to affirm that 
 truth ought to remain unarmed against falsehood, and 
 {Bat our adversaries may be allowed to terrify the faith- 
 ful by their threatening words, or triumph over them by 
 witticisms ; but that the Catholics must only reply with a 
 dull coldness and formality calculated to lull the reader 
 usleep ! Upon this principle, is it not obvious, that the 
 most extravagant and pernicious errors may be introdu- 
 ced into the church, ifthey|must not be treated with deri- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 165 
 
 sion, through an apprehension of offending against deco- 
 rum, or repressed with zeal, through fear of being ac- 
 cused of uncharitableness 1 
 
 And will you really admit, Fathers, that one man may 
 murder another to avoid a box on the ear, or any similar 
 affront, and not allow a refutation of a public error of 
 such consequence ? You assume the liberty of saying, 
 that " a judge may conscientiously retain the gains of in- 
 justice," and the world must not contradict you. You 
 pri.:t, with the privilege and approbation of your doctors, 
 that " a man may be saved without ever having loved 
 God," and will you interdict those who shall defend the 
 true faith, by declaring that an attack upon you is an of- 
 fence against charity, and ridiculing your maxims is irre- 
 concileable with Christian . modesty ? I really question 
 whether any persons can be found to believe you ; never- 
 theless, if there be individuals who imagine that I have 
 violated the charity I owe you, by decrying your morality, 
 I only wish them to examine attentively how they came 
 by such an idea : for they may suppose that it results 
 from their zeal, which cannot without scandal endure to 
 witness the accusation of a neighbour ; I would beseech 
 them to consider that at least it is not impossible it may 
 proceed from some other cause, and probably from a 
 secret dislike, often concealed from our own perceptions, 
 which an unholy principle within us never fails of exci- 
 ting against those who oppose moral irregularities. 
 
 In order to supply a rule for ascertaining the true prin- 
 ciple of this zeal, I would inquire, whether at the time 
 ihey are complaining of the treatment endured by a re- 
 ligious order, they are still more distressed that this same 
 religious body treat truth in such a manner ? If indignant 
 not only at my letters, but much more at the maxims they 
 quote and expose, I should admit that their resentment 
 partakes of something of zeal, though of a nature not 
 very enlightened, and then the passages here introduced 
 will be sufficient to open their eyes. If displeased, how- 
 ever, at the reproofs, and not at the things against which 
 they are levelled ; really, my Fathers, I cannot help re- 
 
166 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 peatiag they are grossly deceived, and their zeal is 
 miserably blind. 
 
 What, 1 demand, can be a more strange kind of zeal 
 than to be irritated against those who prosecute public 
 crimes, indeed, but not the persons who commit them ? 
 What new order of charity is this, which takes offence at 
 the exposure of glaring errors, but is not at all affected to 
 see the total subversion of morality by the propagation of 
 these errors ? Were these pprsons in danger of assassi- 
 nation, would they be offended at the conduct of an indi- 
 vidual who should step forward to forewarn them of their 
 danger, and instead of going out of their way to avoid it, 
 trifle away time in complaining of his want of charity who 
 had ventured to expose the criminal intention of the as- 
 sassins ? Are they enraged when desired not to eat of a 
 poisoned dish, or not to enter a town where the plague is 
 raging ? 
 
 How then is it that they consider it as uncharitable to 
 expose those maxims which are injurious to religion, and 
 on the contrary they believe it uncharitable not to dis- 
 cover what is prejudicial to health and life ? Unless the 
 reason be that their attachment to life induces them to 
 receive every thing well which conduces to its preserva- 
 tion, while the indifference they feel respecting truth not 
 only occasions their taking no zealous part in her defence, 
 but makes them displeased at the efforts of others to de- 
 molish falsehood. 
 
 Let such persons, therefore, consider as before God,' 
 how shameful and how dangerous to the church are the ■ 
 principles of morality which your casuists industriously 
 circulate — how scandalous and licentious is the ' liberty 
 which they have introduced into the system of morals — ■ 
 and how obstinate and violent is the hardihood with which 
 you maintain them : and if they do not believe it is time 
 to resist the progress of such disorders, their blindness 
 will be as deplorable as yours, for both you and they have 
 equal reason to fear the language of St. Augustin on the 
 words of Jesus Christ : " Wo unto you, ye blind guides!" 
 — F<p cacis ducentibus. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 167 
 
 But that you may no longer give or receive false im- 
 pressions, allow me to state, — though, Fathers, 1 am 
 ashamed to undertake to inform you, what it is in fact 
 your duty to teach — but I beg leave to state some of 
 those marks which the Fathers have specified, forjudging 
 whether rebukes proceed from a pious and charitable 
 motive, or from a spirit of impiety and resentment. 
 
 The first of these evidences is, that a spirit of piety 
 invariably prompts a man to speak with truth and sin- 
 cerity : but envy and hatred resort to falsehood and ca- 
 lumny ; splendentia et vehementia sed rebus veris, says St. 
 Augustin. Whoever makes use of falsehood is actuated 
 by a diabolical influence. No possible mode of directing 
 the intention can sanction calumny, and though you were 
 to gain over the whole world by such a proceeding, it 
 cannot be allowable to vilify the innocent, because we 
 must not perpetrate the least evil for the sake of acquir- 
 ing the greatest good : for, as Scripture asserts, " the 
 truth of God does not stand in need of our lie." St. 
 Hilary also says, ''It is the duty of the advocates of 
 truth to advance nothing but what is true." I can say, 
 Fathers, as in the sight of God, that I detest nothing so 
 much as offending against truth, even in the slightest de- 
 gree ; and I have always taken very particular care, not 
 only not to falsify, which would be horrible indeed, but 
 not in the least to alter or distort the sense of a passage ; 
 so that if I might venture on this occasion to adopt the 
 words of St. Hilary, I could say, '' if the things we af- 
 firm be false, let our words be accounted infamous ; but 
 if we prove that our representations are public and no- 
 torious, it is not departing from apostolic modesty and 
 liberty to inflict censure." 
 
 It is not sufficient however,' Fathers, to utter only what 
 is true, we must not even state all that is true : for it is 
 proper to record only what it is useful to disclose, and 
 not those circumstances whiGh merely tend to wound 
 without producing any salutary effect. Hence, as the 
 first rule is to speak the truth, the second is to speak it 
 with becoming discretion. " The wicked," says St. 
 
168 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Augustin, " persecute the good by suffering themselves 
 to be hurried forward by the blind impulse of passion, 
 whereas the good pursue the wicked with a wise discre- 
 tion, in the same manner as a surgeon will consider what 
 he lances, while the murderer is perfectly regardless 
 where he strikes." You, my good Fathers, well know, 
 that I have avoided citing some maxims of your authors 
 which would have deeply wounded you, though I might 
 have introduced them without sinning against discretion 
 any more than many learned Catholics themselves have 
 done before. Every person who is at all conversant with 
 your writers, must be aware how much I have spared you ; 
 moreover, I have not uttered a syllable against any indi- 
 vidual in particular, for I should be extremely sorry to 
 expose secret and personal faults, whatever proofs I 
 might have in my possession ; this would be an unjusti- 
 fiable piece of malignity, and what ought never to be done 
 unless the good of the church rendered it absolutely 
 necessary. It is obvious, then, that I have not been 
 wanting in discretion, while I have felt obliged to animad- 
 vert upon your maxims and morality, and that you have 
 much greater reason to praise my reserve than to blame 
 my indiscretion. 
 
 The third rule is, that when it is requisite to employ 
 raillery, piety demands that it should be employed only 
 against errors, not against sacred things : but a spirit of 
 buffoonery, impiety, and heresy ridicules even what is 
 most sacred with indiscriminating severity. I have al- 
 ready justified myself in reference to this particular, and 
 one is indeed far enough from being liable to this fault (ri- 
 diculing sacred things), when animadverting upon the 
 maxims quoted from your authors ! 
 
 Lastly ; for I will mention but one more rule, which is 
 the principle and end of all the rest — the spirit of charity 
 produces an ardent desire for the salvation of those whom 
 she reproves, and prays for the the blessings of God at 
 the same time that she addresses her censures to men. 
 " We ought always," says St. Augustin, " to preserve 
 charity in the heart, even when it is necessary to act out- 
 
PBOVINCIAIi LETTERS. 169 
 
 wardly in a rough manner, and to lash them with a severe, 
 but it should he with a kinrl-intentioned violence ; — their 
 benefit ought always to be preferred*^ their gratification." 
 
 I believe, Fathers, there is nothing in my letters to 
 evince any contrariety of feeling to this desire, and chari- 
 ty requires you to believe that this is in reality my wish, 
 when you can see nothing contrary to it. You cannot, 
 therefore, it seems, point out any violation of this rule, or 
 of any other which charity obliges me to follow ; and for 
 this reason you have no right to say that I have offended 
 in any thing 1 have done against this heavenly principle. 
 
 But if you feel desirous of seeing in a few words a spe- 
 cimen of that conduct which offends against these rules, 
 and which bears the genuine marks of a spirit of buffoon- 
 ery, envy, and hatred, I will turnish you with some exam- 
 ples ; and that they may be the better known and the 
 more familiar to you, I shall extract them from your own 
 writings. 
 
 I shall begin with the unbecoming manner in which 
 your authors treat of sacred subjects, in their railleries, 
 their gallantries, and their serious discourses. Do you 
 imagine that the ridiculous stories of your Father Binet, 
 in his Consolation for the Sick, are adapted to the pro- 
 fessed design of affording Christian consolation to those 
 whom God afflicts ? Will you affirm that the profane and 
 coquettish manner in which your Father le Moine speaks 
 of piety in his Easy Devotion, is more adapted to excite 
 respect, or to produce contempt for the idea which he 
 suggests of Christian virtue ? Does his book of Moral 
 Pictures^ breathe any thing, whether in prose or verse, 
 but a spirit of vanity and worldliness ? Is the ode in the 
 seventh book entitled The Praise of Modesty, where he 
 shows that " every thing beautiful is red, or liable to be 
 come so," worthy of a priest ? This ode was composed 
 for the purpose of comforting a lady whom he calls Del- 
 phina, because she was very apt to blush. In every stan- 
 za he says that some of the most valuable things are red, 
 as roses, granites, the mouth, the tongue ; and amongst 
 these gallantries so disgraceful to a monk, he dares with 
 15 
 
170 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 inexpressible insolence to join those blessed spirits that 
 stand in the presence of God, of -whom no Christian ought 
 to speak but with the utmost respect. 
 
 The glorious cherubs of the sky. 
 Who wave their golden wings on high, 
 Whom God enlightens with his eyes, 
 And with his breath their zeal supplies : 
 These splendid spirits, as they tread 
 Celestial fields in naming red, 
 Or to themselves or God they owe 
 The immortal blaze in which they glow, 
 And fan with mutual wings and love 
 Each other in the realms above : 
 But, oh Delphina, in thy face, 
 We see a still diviner grace ! 
 
 What say you to this, my good Fathers ? What think 
 you of the preference given to Delphina's blush above 
 the ardors of those blessed spirits who breathe nothing 
 but charity ? And of the comparison of a lady's fan with 
 those mysterious wings ? Does it not appear exceeding- 
 ly christian in the mouth of a priest who consecrates the 
 body of Jesus Christ ? I kaow that this is nothing but a 
 gallant rhodomontade, and he is only laughing ; but is not 
 this making a jest of sacred things ? And is it not a fact 
 that if he were to have justice done him, he could not 
 escape a censure ? even though he should plead, which is 
 not less censurable, the reason which he assigns in his 
 first book, " that the Sorbonne possesses no jurisdiction 
 over Parnassus, and the errors of that part of the world 
 are not subject either to censure or inquisition ;" as if 
 nothing could be blasphemous or impious but in prose ! 
 But even this will not avail to defend another passage in 
 the preface to the same book : — " The water of the 
 river on whose banks he composed his verses, is so adapt- 
 ed to make poets, that though it should be changed into 
 holy water, it could never cast out the demon of poetry;" 
 nor can any apology be offered for your Father Gorasse in 
 his Summary of the principal Truths of Religion, p. 649, 
 where he adds blasphemy to heresy in speaking of the sa- 
 cred mystery of the incarnation : " The human personality 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTEHS. 171 
 
 was grafted or mounted upon the personality of the 
 word" — not to mention many other things — such as re- 
 specting the name of Jesus, usually represented thus— 
 
 IHS, " Some," says he, " take away the Cross, in or- 
 der to read the simple characters IHS, which is Jesus 
 stripped and robbed." 
 
 Thus unbecomingly do you treat the truths of religion, 
 contrary to thnt inviolable rule which requires every one 
 to speak of them with reverence. But you offend no less 
 against that rule which demands truth and discretion upon 
 Dis subject. What is more common than calumny in 
 your writings ? Are those of Father Brisacier sincere ? 
 And does he speak the truth- when he says, p. 4, par. 24 
 and 25, that " the nuns of Port Royal do not pray to the 
 saints, and have no images in their church ?" Are not 
 these most outrageous falsehoods, when the contrary is 
 seen by all Paris ? And does he speak with discretion 
 when he attacks the pure and austere innocence of those 
 virgins, whom he calls ■• girl* without penitence, disre- 
 gardful of the sacraments, living without the huly com- 
 munion, foolish, fantastic, calagnnu, desperate, &c. or 
 what you please," blackening them by so many other con- 
 temptuous terms, as to drawdown upon his head the ec- 
 clesiastical censure of the archbishop of Paris ? What do 
 you think of the calumnies he circulates against priests of 
 the most irreproachable morals in the first part of his 
 work, p. 22, asserting that " they practise novelties in 
 confession to entrap the beautiful and the innocent ;" and 
 that " he should be terrified to mention the abominable 
 crimes which they perpetrate ?" Is it not an insuffera- 
 ble piece of rashness to advance such odious impositions, 
 not only without proof, but without the least shadow or 
 appearance of it ? I shall refrain from any further illus- 
 trations at present, deferring it to another opportunity, 
 when I can be more diffuse ; for I have more to say upon 
 this subject, but I have now given sufficient specimens of 
 your violations both of truth and discretion. 
 
172 PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 
 
 It may perhiips be said, that at leapt you do not trans- 
 gress the last rule, which demands a desire for the salva- 
 tion of those who arevthe objects of reprehension, and 
 that you cannot be accused of it without violating the se- 
 cret of your heart, which is known only to God. It is 
 indeed strange, Fathers, but nevertheless it is a fact, 
 that while your hatred against your adversaries has led 
 you to wish their everlasting perdition, your blindness has 
 been such as to discover to view such an abominable de- 
 sire, and so far from secretly forming any wish for their 
 salvation, you have made public vows for their damna- 
 tion. The city of Caen can testify this to the great scan- 
 dal of the church, and you have since dared to defend 
 this diabolical conduct even at Paris, and in your publica- 
 tions. Nothing surely can add to these monstrous impie- 
 ties — to mock and speak contemptuously of the most sa- 
 cred things — to calumniate virgins and priests by the 
 most daring and scandalous falsities, and then (o form de- 
 sires and utter vows for tbeir damnation ! Whether this 
 confounds you 1 cannot tell, nor do I know how you came 
 to think of accusing me of a want of charity — me, who 
 have spoken with so much strictness and moderation as 
 not to make a single reflection upon the horrible viola- 
 tions of charity of which you have yourselves been guilty 
 in your deplorable transports of rage. 
 
 1 shall conclude, by referring to one other charge yon 
 have preferred again«t me ; it is, that amongst the nu- 
 merous maxims 1 have cited, there are some which have 
 already been objected against you, whence you complain 
 of my "repeating to your disadvantage what has been 
 said before." 1 answer, the reason of this recurrence to 
 the objections already made, is that you have not in the 
 least profited by the statement of them. What ?ood has 
 resulted from the representations of so many learned doc- 
 tors and the whole university ? What did your Fathers 
 Annat, Caussin, Pintereau, and le Moine, do in their re- 
 plies, but accumulate reproaches upon the heads of those 
 who gave them salutary advice ? Have you ever sup- 
 pressed the volumes which contain such infamous max- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 173 
 
 ims ? Have you reprimanded their authors ? Are you 
 become more circumspect ? Is it not since that time that 
 Escobar has been so often reprinted in France and the 
 Low Countries, and that your Fathers Cellot, Bagot, Bau- 
 ny, Lamy, le Moine, and others, continue to publish the 
 same things every day, and even new ones in as licen- 
 tious a manner as ever ? Complain no more then, my 
 good Fathers, I beseech you, either of my reproaching 
 you with maxims which you have not yet relinquished, or 
 of my objecting against your new ones, or of my holding 
 them all up to ridicule together. You have nothing 
 more to do than to reflect upon them, to produce your 
 own confusion and my vindication. Who can, without 
 laughing, look at Father Bauny's decision upon the burn- 
 ing of barns ? or that of Father Cellot upon restitution ? 
 or the rule of Sanchez in favour of conjurers ? or the 
 manner in which Hurtado proposes to avoid the sin of 
 duelling, by only walking in a field and waiting for some- 
 body ? or the compliments of Father Bauny to varnish 
 over usury — to sanction simony by a turn of the intention — 
 to avoid falsehood by speaking alternately in a whisper 
 and in an audible voice — with the other opinions of your 
 gravest doctors ? Have I need of any further vindication ? 
 And can any thing better be devised than, as Tertullian 
 says, " to laugh at the vanity arid weakness of such opi- 
 nions 1" 
 
 But, my good Fathers, that corruption of morals which 
 your maxims superinduce, merits a different treatment, 
 and we may very well inquire with Tertullian, " Am I to 
 laugh at their folly or to reproach their blindness — rideam 
 vanitatem an exprobrem cotcitatem ?" I am inclined to 
 think one may either laugh or cry as we choose — Hcec 
 tolerabilius vel ridentur vel flentur, says St. Augustin. 
 '■ There is," to quote from Scripture, " a time to laugh 
 and a time to mourn :" and I sincerely wish, Fathers, 
 that. I were unable to prove in your example, the truth of 
 the following words in the book of Proverbs : '■ If a wise 
 man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or 
 laugh there is no rest." 
 
 15* 
 
LETTER XII. 
 
 Refutation of the Quirks and Turns of tlte Jesuits on tJte 
 Subjects of Almsgiving and Simony. 
 
 Reverend Fathers, Sept. 9, 1656. 
 
 I was about to write to you respecting your injurious 
 treatment of me in your publications, in which you have 
 been so long bestowing upon me the epithets of " impious 
 — buffoon — ignoramus, merry-andrew, impostor, calumnia- 
 tor, knave, heretic, disguised Calvinist, disciple of du 
 Moulin, possessed with a legion of devils." 
 
 I wished that the world should understand the reason 
 you had for treating me in this manner : for I should be 
 sorry that all this guilt should be laid to my charge ; and 
 I felt resolved to complain publicly of your calumnies and 
 misrepresentations — when behold, I received your an- 
 swers, in which I am accused to my face. This has obli- 
 ged mc to alter my design, but not entirely to relinquish 
 it ; since, in the course of my defence, I hope to convict 
 you of more real impostures than you have imputed to me 
 of false ones. 
 
 In truth, Fathers, you are more to be suspected than I 
 am ; for is it at all probable that I, standing alone, feeble 
 and destitute of all human support, should oppose so large 
 a body, and that I should expose myself to total ruin, by 
 being detected of imposture, with no other assistance than 
 truth and sincerity ? It is abundantly easy to discover 
 where the falsehood lies in questions of this description. 
 I should have plenty of accusers, and they would not be 
 lefused justice. But you, Fathers, are quite differently 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 175 
 
 circumstanced : you can say whatever you please against 
 me, and I can have no appeal. 
 
 From this difference in our respective situations, I ought 
 to be extremely cautious, even though I had no other in- 
 ducements to be so ; but by treating me as a notorious im- 
 postor, you compel me to reply : and yet you must be 
 perfectly aware this cannot be done, without exposing 
 anew and revealing the foundation of your points of mo- 
 rality ; so that I question whether your proceeding be 
 quite politic. The war is at your doors, and you must be 
 at the expense of it : for though you expected, by per- 
 plexing the subjects of dispute with scholastic terms, the 
 replies would necessarily be so long, so obscure, and so 
 intricate, as to spoil their relish ; perhaps this will not be 
 altogether the case, for I shall endeavour to introduce as 
 little as possible of that jargon. I know not how it is, but 
 the fact seems to be, that your maxims are so excessively 
 diverting, every body is delighted. Remember, how- 
 ever, that it is yourselves who provoke me to this ; and 
 we shall see who is the most successful combatant. 
 
 The firs( of your impostures relates to the opinion of 
 Vasquez, respecting almsgiving. Allow me to be per- 
 fectly explicit here, in order to remove all obscurity from 
 our disputes. ''There are two precepts in the church 
 with regard to almsgiving ; the one to give out of one's 
 superfluity to the ordinary necessities of the poor — the 
 other to give what may be necessary according to one's 
 condition of life, in cases of extreme necessity." This 
 is what Cajetan says after St. Thomas ; so that to show 
 the opinion of Vasquez, I must state the rule by which he 
 directs us to dispose of what is superfluous as well as 
 what is necessary. 
 
 The supply of superfluity, which is the most usual means 
 of assisting the poor, is totally abolished by that single 
 maxim, c. 4. n. 14. to which I have referred in my letters, 
 ■' That which people accumulate to exalt their own condi- 
 tion or that of their parents, cannot be termed superfluity ; 
 aiid therefore you will scarcely ever find superfluity in the 
 world, not even amoncrst minces." You ncrceive. Father*. 
 
176 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 by this definition, those who are ambitious cannot have 
 any thing superfluous ; and thus the charity of the greatest 
 part of the world is at once annihilated.**" But even sup- 
 posing this abundance should be possessed, the individual 
 is dispensed from the obligation of giving it in cases of 
 ordinary necessity, according to Vasquez, who opposes 
 those who wish to impose charity upon the opulent. These 
 are his words, ch. 1 . n. 32 ; -< I '-orduba teaches us, that 
 when we have any thing superfluous, it must be given to 
 those who require the common necessities of life, at least 
 some portion of it, that some kind of obedience may be 
 rendered to the precept — but this doctrine is not quite satis- 
 factory to me — sed hoc non placet — for I have shown the 
 contrary against Cajetan and Navarre." Thus, Fathers, 
 the obligation of almsgiving is absolutely nullified, at the 
 good pleasure of Vasquez. 
 
 In cases of extreme and urgent necessity, it is our duty 
 to do something for the poor ; but you will see, by the 
 conditions with which he connects this obligation, the 
 richest person in Paris is perfectly released from contri- 
 buting any thing as long as he lives. To" mention only 
 two — 
 
 1. " When you know that the poor person will not be^ 
 assisted by any other individual — hcec intelligo et ccetera 
 omnia, quando sc.io nullum alium opem latufum," ch. 1. n. 
 20. What say you to this. Fathers ? Is it likely to hap- 
 pen in Paris, where there are so many charitable people, 
 that it can be certainly known no person will be found to 
 relieve the poor petitioners of our bounty ? Yet, accord- 
 ing to Vasquez, without this knowledge, they may be dis- 
 missed without help. 
 
 2. The other condition is, that the necessity of the poor 
 man be such, that " he is in danger of his life or of losing 
 his reputation,'' n. 24 and 26, which is very uncommon ; 
 and that which evinces its infrequency is his representa- 
 tion in n. 45., that a poor man who is in such circum- 
 stances that he says we must afford him relief, " may rob 
 the rich with a safe conscience." This must be a very 
 extraordinary case, unless he will assert that it is usual to 
 
PR&VINCIAI. LETTERS. 177 
 
 permit this theft : so that, after destroying the obligation 
 of almsgiving out of our superfluity, which is the greatest 
 source of charity, he does not oblige the wealthy to assist 
 the poor out of their necessaries, but when he permits the 
 poor to rob the rich. Such is the doctrine of Vasquez, 
 whom you are in the habit of recommending to your 
 readers for their edification. 
 
 I now proceed to your impostures. And here, in the 
 first place, you expatiate upon the obligation which Vas- 
 quez imposes on all ecclesiastics to give alms : but I have 
 never yet spoken of them, though I am ready to do so 
 whenever you please : at present thoy are out of the ques- 
 tion. With regard to the laymen, who alone are concern- 
 ed, you seem to be desirous of making us believe that 
 Vasquez only gives us the opinion of Cajetan in the pas- 
 sage I have quoted, not his own. Nothing, however, can 
 be more false ; but as you have not absolutely asserted 
 this, I am willing to save your honour, by supposing you 
 did not intend it. 
 
 You complain, that after quoting the following maxim 
 of Vasquez, " it is scarcely possible to find superfluity in 
 the world, even amongst kings ;" I infer, that " the rich, 
 upon this principle, cannot be obliged to give alms out of 
 their abundance." But what can you mean, Fathers? If 
 it be true that the rich seldom have any superfluity, is it 
 not certain that they can scarcely ever be under any obli- 
 gation to give alms out of their superfluity ? I would 
 prove this by an argument in detail, but that Diana, who 
 thinks so highly of Vasquez that he calls him " the phos- 
 nis of wits," has deduced the same inference from the 
 same principle. After quoting this maxim of Vasquez he 
 adds : " In the question, whether the rich are obliged to 
 give alms out of their superfluity, although the opinion 
 which obliges them to it be true, it would never or seldom 
 happen that they are obliged to it in practice." I quote 
 Diana verbatim. What then can be meant, when Diana 
 cites the opinions of Vasquez with great approbation, 
 when he represents them as probable and .'■ very accom- 
 modating to the rich ?" It is not said that he is either 
 
178 PROVINCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 calumniator or falsifier, and you make no complaints of 
 any misrepresentation ; but when I introduce the very 
 same sentiments from Vasquez, but without dignifying him 
 with the name of phamix, I am an impostor, a liar, and a 
 corrupter of his maxims ! 
 
 Certainly, my good Fathers, you have reason to appre- 
 hend that the difference of your treatment towards those 
 who differ nothing in their statements, but solely in their 
 estimation of your doctrines, will discover the real feeling 
 of your hearts, and make it evident that your principal 
 object is to uphold the credit and glory of your society ; 
 since as long as your accommodating theology passes for 
 a wise condescension and compliance, you will not disavow 
 those who divulge it but praise them as your auxiliaries : 
 but so soon as it is exhibited in the light of a pernicious 
 relaxation, then the same interest of your society requires 
 a disavowal of those doctrines which injure your credit 
 with the world. Thus you admit or renounce opinions, 
 not according to truth, which is immutable, but in con- 
 formity to the various changes of the times, as an ancient 
 writer says, omnia pro tempore, nihil pro veritate. Take 
 care. Fathers, — and, that you may no longer accuse me of 
 deducing from Vasquez an inference which he had disa- 
 vowed, know that he has deduced it himself, c. 1. n. 27: 
 " Scarcely is any one obliged to give alms, if the obligation 
 respect his superfluities only, according to the opinion of. 
 Cajetan, and my own opinion also — et secundum nostram." 
 Confess then Fathers, from the testimony of Vasquez 
 himself, that I have exactly stated his own idea, and con- 
 sider with what kind of conscience you can venture to as- 
 sert, that '• if the original were consulted, it would be seen 
 with astonishment that he teaches the very reverse." 
 
 In short, this is your grand argument, that if Vasquez 
 do not oblige the rich to bestow alms out of their super- 
 fluity, he obliges them however to give out of their 
 necessaries. But you have forgot to point out the multi- 
 tudinous conditions which he states to be requisite, and 
 which so fetter and restrict the obligation, that it is almost 
 annihilated : and, instead of explaining his doctrine, you 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 179 
 
 only state in general terms, that he obliges the rich to 
 give even that which is necessary to their rank. But 
 this, my Fathers, is going too far : the rule of the Gos- 
 pel does not extend to such lengths, and Vasquez is far 
 enough from promulgating or patronizing this new mis- 
 take. In order to cover his indulgence, you attribute to 
 him a reprehensible excess of severity, by which means 
 you discredit your own fidelity of quotation But he 
 does not merit this reproach ; for he has established, as 
 I have shown, that the rich are not obliged, either in jus- 
 tice or charity, to give of their abundance, still less out of 
 their necessaries, to relieve the ordinary wants of the 
 poor, and they are only required to bestow what is 
 necessary on occasions which seldom or never occur. 
 
 You state no further objections ; it only remains, there- 
 fore, to show the falsehood of your representations res- 
 pecting Vasquez as more strict than Cajetan. This is 
 sufficiently easy, since the cardinal himself says : " We 
 are required in justice to give alms out of our super- 
 fluities, even in the common necessities of the poor, be- 
 cause, according to the holy Fathers, the rich are only 
 stewards to distribute of their abundance to the necessi- 
 tous :'• and thus, while Diana says of the maxims of 
 Vasquez, that they are very convenient and very agree- 
 able to the rich and to their confessors, the cardinal, who 
 has no such consolation to minister, declares, de Eleem. 
 c. 6 : " he has nothing to address to the rich, but the 
 following words of Christ : It is easier for a camel to go 
 through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven ; and to their confessors, If 
 the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch'' 
 — so indispensable in his view is this obligation ! All the 
 saints and Fathers have also established it as an unaltera- 
 ble truth. " There are two cases," says St. Thomas, q. 
 2. 9. 118. art. 4. " in which we are obliged to give alms 
 from a principle of justice — ex debito legati ; the one, 
 when the poor are in danger ; the other, when we enjoy 
 superfluous possessions ;" and 9. 87. a. 1 — " the three- 
 tenths which the Jews were to eat with the poor were 
 
1 80 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 augmented in the new law, because it is the will of Christ 
 that we give to the poor, not only the tenth part, but all 
 our superfluity." 
 
 Vasquez, however, does not approve the imposing 1 of 
 an obligation to give even a part ; such is his complai- 
 sance to the rich, his cruelty to the poor, and his opposi- 
 tion to those sweet and charitable sentiments of St. 
 Gregory, which appear so offensive to the opulent: 
 " When we bestow upon the poor what is necessary to 
 their subsistence, we do not so much give them what 
 is our own, as pay them what is theirs ; and this is 
 rather an act of justice than a work of mercy." 
 
 In this manner the ancient saints recommend to the 
 rich to divide their temporal possessions with the poor, if 
 they wish with them to participate the riches of heaven : 
 and while you are endeavouring to inflame the ambition 
 of men. which will never admit of the existence of any 
 superfluity, and their avarice, which refuses to part with 
 any they may possess ; the saints are, on the contrary, 
 labouring to induce mankind to give their superfluity, and 
 show them that they may have enough to distribute, if 
 they would measure their means, not by that cupidity 
 which knows no bounds, but by that piety which in- 
 geniously devises f/'ans of retrenchment, by which per- 
 sons may have it in their power to exercise charity. 
 ■' We may have much to spare," says St. Augustin, " if 
 we keep only what is necessary ; but if we seek after 
 vanities, nothing will satisfy us. My brethren, pursue 
 only what is sufficient for the work of God, that is, to 
 support nature, and not what will gratify concupiscence, 
 which is the work of the devil ; and remember that the 
 superfluity of the rich is necessary and due to the poor." 
 
 I very much wish, Fathers, that what I have said, may 
 not only serve for my justification — this is of trifling im- 
 portance — but may make you perceive, and lead you to 
 detest every corrupt principle in the maxims of your 
 casuists, that we may be all sincerely united in the sacred 
 rules of the Gospel, according to which we must be 
 judged. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 181 
 
 With regard to the second point, relative to Simony, 
 previous to my giving any reply to your reproaches, I pro- 
 pose to explain your own doctrine upon the subject. 
 Being extremely embarrassed with the, canons of the 
 church on the one hand, which impose tremendous pun- 
 ishments on Simonists ; and on the other, the avarice of 
 so many persons who follow that infamous traffic, you 
 have had recourse to your usual method of allowing men 
 whatever they desire, and giving mere words and forms 
 to God. For what do these Simonists require for their 
 livings * but money ? But you have exempted this from 
 the charge of Simony. But inasmuch as the word must 
 be retained, as well as some subject to which it must be 
 attached, you have chosen for this purpose an imaginary 
 idea which never came into the mind of Simonists, anjl 
 which would be perfectly useless ; which is, to esteem 
 money considered in itself as equivalent to a spiritual 
 good in itself considered. For who ever thought of 
 comparing things so disproportionate and so different in 
 sature ? And yet, without this metaphysical comparison; 
 a person may give his benefice to another, and, according 
 to your writers, receive money in exchange, without com- 
 mitting Simony. 
 
 In this manner you make a mock of religion to gratify 
 the passions of mankind ; but see, nevertheless, how 
 gravely your Father Valentia utters his dreams in the 
 passage quoted in my letters, torn. 3. disp. 6. qu. 16. p. 
 3. p. 2044 : " One may give," says he, " a temporal for 
 a spiritual good in two ways : the one, by setting a higher 
 price upon the temporal than the spiritual possession, 
 which would be Simony ; the other, by taking the tem- 
 poral as the motive and end which induces the gift of the 
 spiritual, without, however, estimating the temporal at a 
 higher rate than the spiritual— ^n it would not be 
 Simony. The reason is this: Simony consists in re- 
 ceiving the temporal as the full worth of the spiritual. If, 
 therefore, the temporal be demanded, si petatur temporale 
 
 not as the value, but as the motive which induces the 
 
 bestowment of the spiritual, it is not by any means Si - 
 
 16 
 
182 rROVlNCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 mony, even though the principal aim and wish be di- 
 rected to the temporal* possession — minime erit Simonia, 
 ctiamsi tempomle principaliter intendatur et expectatur." 
 
 Has not your great Sanchez had a similar revelation, 
 whose words are quoted by Escobar, tr. 6. ex. 2. n. 40 : 
 " If temporal possessions be given for spiritual ones, not 
 as the price, but as the motive to induce the patron to con- 
 fer it, or as a recompense for having done it, is this 
 Simony 1 Sanchez assures us it is not." Your theses at 
 Caen, in 1644, state, "It is a probable opinion, taught 
 by many Catholics, that it is no Simony to give temporal 
 for spiritual possessions, when not given as a price." 
 
 As for Tannerus, his doctrine is the same with that of 
 Valentia, which will prove how much mistaken you are in 
 complaining that I have asserted his doctrine does not 
 accord with that of St. Thomas, since he acknowledges 
 it himself in the passage quoted in my letter, torn. 3. disp. 
 5. p. 1519: -'There is not," says he, ''properly and 
 truly any Simony, but in taking a temporal gift as the 
 price of a spiritual one ; but when it is taken as a motive 
 to induce the gift of the spiritual, or as a grateful testi- 
 mony of the favour, it is not Simony, at least not in con- 
 science." A little further, he adds, " The same may be 
 said, though the individual should regard the temporal 
 (or money) as his principal end, and though he even pre- 
 fer it to the spiritual ; however St. Thomas and others 
 may seem to state the contrary, by assuring us that it is 
 absolute Simony to give a spiritual for a temporal good, 
 when the temporal is the end in view." 
 
 Such, Fathers, is your doctrine of Simony, "as taught by 
 your best authors, who in this particular follow each other 
 very accurately. It remains for me to advert to your 
 impostures. 
 
 The opinion of V^entia, as you have made no re- 
 marks upon it, remains as it did ; but you dwell upon that 
 of Tannerus, asserting that he has merely decided it is 
 not Simony by the divine law, and you wish to circulate 
 the impression that I took care to suppress the words 
 divine law in the passage. But this is unreasonable, Fa- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 183 
 
 thers, because this phrase was never inserted there at all ! 
 You afterwards add, that Tannerus declares it to be Si- 
 mony by a positive law. Good Fathers, you deceive 
 yourselves ; for he does not speak generally, but only in 
 reference to particular cases — in casibus a jure expressis ; 
 by which expression he furnishes an exception to his 
 general rule, that " it is not Simony in conscience," 
 which implies it is not so by any positive law, unless you 
 would represent Tannerus impious enough to maintain 
 that what is Simony by a positive law is not Simony in 
 conscience. But these phrases, divine law, positive law, 
 natural law, an internal and external tribunal, cases ex- 
 pressed in law, external presumption, and othegs alike un- 
 known, are invented for the purpose of escaping under 
 this veil, and diverting the mind from noticing your ex- 
 travagances. You shall not, however, be sheltered by 
 these vain subtleties, for 1 am resolved to propose to you 
 such plain questions that they shall not be liable to a 
 distinguo. 
 
 I ask, then, without talking of positive law, or external 
 presumption, or exterior tribunal whether, according to 
 your authors, an incumbent would be guilty of Simony 
 by disposing of a living of 200/. per annum, for 500Z. 
 ready money, not as the value of the benefice, but as a 
 motive which induced him to part with it ? Tell me can- 
 didly, Fathers, what would your authors say to such a 
 transaction ? Will not Tannerus say at once, " that it is 
 not Simony in conscience, because the money is not the 
 price of the living, but only the motive for bestowing it ?" 
 Will not Valentia, your Caen theses, Sanchez, and Esco- 
 bar, give a similar decision, and for the same reason ? 
 And does this patron require any other authority to apo- 
 logize for his Simony ? And dare you treat him as a Si- 
 monist in your confessionals, whatever might be your pri- 
 vate opinion, when he would have it in his power to si- 
 lence you by appealing to your own grave doctors ? You 
 must admit, then, that such a patron is free from Simony 
 by your own confession ; and now defend this doctrine if 
 you can. 
 
f84 FROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 This, my good Fathers, is the proper method of treat- 
 ing questions, without entangling them with scholastic 
 terms, or changing the state of the question, as you have 
 done in your last attack. Tannerus, you say, declares 
 that such an exchange is a great sin, and you reproach 
 me with having maliciously suppressed that circumstance, 
 which, as you affirm, justifies him entirely. But here you 
 are mistaken in several respects : for, though your state- 
 ment were true, the question was not whether there was 
 any sin in it, but whether it amounted to Simony: this is 
 a rery different consideration : sins, according to your 
 maxims, only require confession ; Simony obliges to resti- 
 tution : aqfj. there are people who are sufficiently acquaint- 
 ed with this difference. You have discovered expedients 
 to Tender confession easy, but none to render restitution 
 agreeable. I must say further, that the case which Tan- 
 nerus accuses of sin, is not merely that in which a spiritual 
 is given in exchange for a temporal possession, which 
 latter constitutes the principal motive ; bat, he adds, " the 
 temporal being more valued than the spiritual ;" and this 
 is precisely the imaginary case to which I before adverted. 
 In fact, there is no evil in charging that with sin, since it 
 must be a piece of prodigious wickedness, or monstrous 
 stupidity, to incur a sin so easily avoided, by^ only com- 
 paring the price of these two possessions at the time 
 when the one is allowed to be given for the other. Be- 
 sides, Valentia, on the same passage, in examining whe- 
 ther it be criminal to give a spiritual good for a temporal, 
 the latter being the principal motive, relates the reasons 
 of those who decide in the affirmative, adding, sed hoe 
 non vidttur mihi satis certum : " this does not appear to 
 me quite certain " 
 
 Since that, your Father Erade Bill, professor of Cases 
 of Conscience at Caen, has decided that there is no sin in 
 such a transaction, for probable opinions are always ripen- 
 ing. This is stated in his writings of 1644, against which 
 M. Dupre, doctor and professor at Caen, made that fine 
 oration, afterwards printed and sufficiently well known. 
 For though Father Erade Bill admits that the doctrine oi 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 186 
 
 Valentia followed by Father Millard and condemned by 
 the Sorbonne- " is contrary to the common opinion, and 
 in many things suspected of simony, and justly punished 
 when the facts are discovered ;" he still says it is proba- 
 ble, therefore safe in point of conscience, and consequent- 
 ly unconnected either with simony or sin. " It is," he 
 says, " a probable opinion, and taught by the majority of 
 Catholic divines, that there is no simony, and no sin, in 
 giving money or any other temporal consideration for a 
 benefice, whether as an acknowledgment, or as a motive 
 without which it could not be conferred, provided it be 
 not given as a price equal to the benefice." 
 
 Nothing more surely can be required : for according to 
 all these maxims, simony is so uncommon, that Simon 
 Magus himself, who wished to purchase the Holy Ghost, 
 could not be convicted of it, in which he is the very mo- 
 del of your simonists who buy it ; and Gehazi, who took 
 money for a miracle, is the representative of your simo- 
 nists who sell it. It is indisputable that when Simon, in 
 the Acts, offered money to the apostles to confer this 
 power, he did not use the words buying, selling, or price ; 
 he did nothing more than offer some money as a motive 
 to induce the bestowment of that spiritual gift ; which, 
 according to your writers, being no simony, he would 
 have been perfectly fortified against the anathema of St. 
 Peter, had he been lucky enough to have known your 
 modern doctrines. 
 
 This ignorance also was very unfortunate for Gehazi, 
 when he was smitten with the leprosy by the word of 
 Elisha ; for only taking money of the prince who was mi- 
 raculously cured as an acknowledgment, and not as an 
 equivalent for that divine virtue which had operated the 
 miracle^ he might have obliged Elisha to cure him again 
 under pain of a"mortal sin. In such a case he would only 
 have acted in conformity to your grave doctors, who re- 
 quire all confessors to absolve their penitents in such cir- 
 cumstances, and to cleanse them from their spiritual lep- 
 rosy, of which the corporeal is but a figure. 
 
 16* 
 
186 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Seriously, my Fathers, nothing would be easier than to 
 turn you and your doctrines here into ridicule. How- 
 could you so expose yourselves ? I should have nothing 
 more to do than to state your own maxims ; as for instance, 
 that of Escobar in his " Practice of Simony . according to 
 the Society of Jesus," n. 40 : " Is it a simoniacal trans- 
 action when two monks enter into an engagement with 
 each other in this manner, "' Give me your vote to' 
 procure my election to a provincial, and I will give you 
 mine to make you prior ?' — By no means." Again, tr. 6. 
 n. 14 : " It is no simony to procure a benefice,, by pro- 
 mising money which you really never intended to pay, 
 because it is only a mock simony, which is no more real, 
 than a counterfeit guinea is a genuine one." 
 
 It is by such subtleties practised upon conscience, that 
 he has discovered a method, by adding knavery to simony 
 of procuring benefices without either money or simo- 
 ny. But I have not time to proceed here, and must has- 
 ten to defend myself against your third calumny on the 
 subject of bankrupts. Can any thing be more gross ? 
 You treat me as an impostor, on account of a sentiment 
 of Lessius, which I have not quoted from him, but which 
 was alleged by Escobar, in a passage "which I have intro- 
 duced ; hence, though it were true that Lessius did not 
 maintain the sentiments attributed to him by Escobar, can 
 any thing be more unjust than to censure me for it ? When 
 I quote Lessius, or your other authors myself, I agree to 
 be alone responsible. But as Escobar has collected the 
 . opinions of twenty-four of your Fathers, I ask whether I 
 am to be-ahswerable for any thing but what I quote from 
 him ; or, whether in addition to this, I must he responsi- 
 ble for the citations which he has given in the passages 
 whence I have derived them ? This would be most un- 
 reasonable ; but this is precisely the case in the present 
 instance. 
 
 I introduced into my letter the following passage of 
 Escobar, faithfully translated ; upon which, by the way, 
 you have made no remark : " Can a bankrupt, with a safe 
 conscience, retain as much as may be necessary to his 
 
I'BDVTHCIAIi LETTERS. 187 
 
 living handsomely — ne indecori vivat? I answer, with 
 Lessius, in the affirmative — cum Lessio assero posse, &c." 
 Upon which, you tell me, Lessius is not of that opinion. 
 But consider a little what you are asserting : for, if it be 
 true, that he is of that opinion, you will incur the name 
 of impostors for affirming the contrary ; and, if he be not, 
 Escobar will be deemed an impostor : so that some one 
 ofyour society must necessarily fall under this imputation. 
 But what a scandal ! And how strange that you should 
 not foresee the consequences of things! You seem to 
 imagine, that you are at liberty to circulate injurious re- 
 presentations without once reflecting upon whom they 
 may fall. 
 
 Why did you not explain your difficulty to Escobar 
 previous to its publication ? He could have satisfied you. 
 It is easy to communicate with Valladolid, where he is at 
 present in perfect health, completing his body of Moral 
 Theology, in six volumes ; on the first of which I propose 
 some day to offer a few observations. You sent him my 
 first ten letters ; you might, also, have sent your objec- 
 tion, and I feel assured he could have furnished you with 
 a reply, for he has, no doubt, seen in Lessius the passage 
 from which he took his Ne indecori -vivat : only look at- 
 tentively, my good Fathers, and you will find it there as I 
 did, lib. 2. c. 16. n. 45 : Idem colligitur aperle ex juribus 
 citatis, maxime quoad ea bona quce post cessionem acquirit, 
 de quibus is qui debitor est etiam ex delicto potest retinerc 
 quantum necessarium est, ut pro sua conditione non inde- 
 core vivat. Petes an leges id permittant de bonis quo; 
 tempore, inslantis cessionis habebat ? Ita videtur colligi 
 ex D. D. 
 
 I will not stop to show you that, in order to authorize 
 this maxim, Lessius abuses the law which allows a bank- 
 rupt mere subsistence, and not a genteel support. It is 
 sufficient to have vindicated Escobar from such an accu- 
 sation, which is, in fact, doing more than I ought. But 
 you, my good Fathers, do not do so much as you ought ; 
 for the question is to reply to the passage in Escobar, 
 whose decisions are very accommodating, being indepen- 
 
188 rROVIHCIAL 1ETTEKS. 
 
 Jent of what precedes or follows, and included in brief 
 articles, are not subject to your distinctions. 
 
 I have quoted the entire passage which permits bank- 
 rupts " to retain their goods, even though unjustly ac 
 quired, for the maintenance of their families in a hand- 
 some way ;"' upon which I exclaim in my letters — " How, 
 Fathers ! by what monstrous charity do you concede that 
 goods acquired in an iniquitous manner, belong rather to 
 those who have got them, than to their lawful creditors V 
 To this question, it became yon to furnish a reply ; but it 
 has proved so terribly embarrassing, that you endeavour, 
 though in vain, to elude it, by flying from the question, 
 and introducing other passages from Lessius, which have 
 no kind of relevancy to the subject. 
 
 I demand, then, whether this maxim of Escobar can be 
 followed with a safe conscience by persons in a state of 
 insolvency ? Be careful what you say : if you answer no, 
 what will become of your doctor, and what of your doc- 
 trine of probability ? If you say yes, I refer you to the 
 parliament. 
 
 I must leave you. Fathers, in this dilemma ; for I have 
 not room to undertake the next subject respecting mur- 
 der, but will avail myself of the very first opportunity to 
 take this and the rest in order. 
 
 I propose to say nothing at present of the advertise- 
 ments with which you finish every imposture, and which 
 are so replete with infamous falsehoods : to all this, I 
 shall reply in another letter, in which I hope to point out 
 the source of all your calumnies. Really, Fathers, I pity 
 you for having recourse to such methods : your abusive 
 language will never elucidate our differences, and your 
 menaces shall not prevent my defending myself. You 
 think that you havs power and impunity — I think that I 
 have truth and innocence. It is a strange and protracted 
 war when violence attempts to suppress truth. All the 
 efforts of violence will prove unavailable to weaken it — 
 truth will be the more advanced : her light can never be 
 extinguished by violence ; it will burn the brighter. 
 When force contends with force, the strongest destroys 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 189 
 
 the weakest — when reasons oppose reasons, those which 
 are true and convincing, confound and dissipate those 
 which are false and vain : but violence and truth can do 
 nothing with each other. Let it not be asserted, howe- 
 ver, they are upon an equality, for this mighty difference 
 exists : violence has a course limited by the commands 
 of God, who renders its efforts subservient to promote 
 the glory of the truth it attacks ; but truth subsists for 
 ever, and eventually triumphs over all her enemies, be- 
 cause she is eternal and powerful as God himself. 
 
REFUTATION 
 
 Of the Reply of the Jesuits to the last Letter. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Whoever may be the persons that have undertaken to 
 defend the Jesuits against the letters which have so clearly 
 detected the irregularity of their morals, it appears by the 
 pains you take to afford them some assistance, that you 
 well know the weakness of their principles ; and in this 
 respect your judgment is correct : but if you really thought 
 yourself capable of justifying them effectually, you are 
 inexcusable. 
 
 No, no — I entertain a better opinion of you, and per- 
 suade myself that your design was merely to divert the 
 author of the letters from keeping up this amusing game. 
 But you are not successful ; and T am extremely gratified 
 to find that the thirteenth letter, which has just made its 
 appearance, passes unnoticed your remarks upon the ele- 
 venth and twelfth, and does not seem to think about you 
 at all. This leads me to hope that the author will equally 
 neglect your other publications. 
 
 You are not to suppose, however, that he would not 
 have found it perfectly easy to have given you a deadly 
 thrust. Could he, who has so vanquished your whole 
 society, have found any difficulty in conquering an indivi- 
 dual ? You may judge of this by the manner in which I 
 am now going to reply to what you have written against 
 his twelfth letter. 
 
 I shall pass over all your abuse. The author of the 
 letters has promised to afford you ample satisfaction upon 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 191 
 
 that subject ; and he will do it, I venture to pronounce, in 
 such a way as to cover you with shame and sorrow. He 
 will find no difficulty in confounding such simple individu- 
 als as you and your Jesuits ? who, by a criminal conspiracy, 
 usurp the authority of the church to treat whoever you 
 please as heretics, when you see yourselves incapable of 
 constructing a defence against the merited reproaches in- 
 curred by their impious doctrines. For my own part, I 
 shall confine myself to the refutation of those new impos- 
 tures which you employ in justification of these casuists. 
 To begin with the great Vasquez. 
 
 You have not given the least reply to any thing which 
 the author of the letters has written respecting his erro- 
 neous statements on the subject of Almsgiving ; and only 
 prefer against him a charge at random of four misrepre- 
 sentations, of which the first is, that in a quotation from 
 Vasquez in the sixth letter, he has suppressed the following 
 words ; " Statum quern licite possunt acquirere ;" and dis- 
 regarded the accusation it had occasioned. 
 
 I plainly perceive, Sir. that you have implicitly believed 
 upon the word of your good friends the Jesuits, that these 
 words are really to be found in the passage to which 
 the author of the letters refers. Had you known they 
 were not there, you would of course have censured these 
 Fathers for their false accusation, rather than have been 
 surprised at his not deigning to answer this objection. But 
 do not place too much reliance upon them, or you will be 
 often entrapped. Examine the passage in Vasquez for 
 yourselves, in the treatise on Almsgiving, c. 4. n. 14 ; but 
 you will find nothing of the phrase which is said to have 
 been suppressed, and you will be very much astonished to 
 find them in no other situation than at the distance of fif- 
 teen pages back. I have no doubt but that, after this dis- 
 covery, you will complain of these good Fathers, and will 
 no longer deem it proper to reproach this author with 
 having suppressed the passage in question, otherwise he 
 must have quoted fifteen previous folio pages in a letter of 
 only eight pages quarto, in which he is accustomed to in- 
 
192 PROVINCIAL tETTEBS. 
 
 troduce twenty or thirty citations, which surely would be 
 an unreasonable expectation. 
 
 These words, therefore, can only serve to convict your- 
 selves of a fabrication, without justifying Vasquez. That 
 Jesuit is accused of nullifying the precept of Christ, 
 which obliges the rich to give alms out of their abundance, 
 by maintaining that " what the wealthy reserve in order to 
 assist their relations or aggrandize themselves is not su- 
 perfluous ; and that scarcely any such thing can be found 
 amongst men, not even amongst kings." The inference 
 that " there is scarcely such a thing as superfluity in the 
 world," annuls the obligation of alms-giving, since the 
 conclusion being that they have nothing superfluous, they 
 are under no obligation to dispense charity. If the author 
 of the letters had deduced this inference, you would have 
 had some pretence for intimating it was not contained in 
 this principle, " that what the rich lay up in order to ad- 
 vance their own condition or that of their relations is not 
 to be called superfluity." But he found this consequence 
 already stated in Vasquez, where he read these words, so 
 remote from the true spirit of the Gospel and the mode- 
 ration of a Christian ; " One can scarcely find any super- 
 fluity amongst mankind, not even amongst kings." There 
 also he read this last conclusion, supported in the twelfth 
 letter : " One is scarcely ever obliged to give alms, if the 
 only obligation be to do it out of one's superfluity ;" and 
 it is remarkable that this is stated in the very same place 
 with these words, by which you pretend to elude the con- 
 sequence — Statum quern licite possunt acquirere. You ca- 
 vil therefore about this principle very uselessly, when you 
 are necessitated to be silent respecting the inferences 
 formally deduced in Vasquez, and which are sufficient to 
 nullify the precept of Jesus Christ, of which he is ac- 
 cused. 
 
 If Vasquez had drawn erroneous consequences from 
 his principle, he would have superadded an error of judg- 
 ment to an error in morals ; but this would not have made 
 him more innocent, nor the precept of Jesus Christ the 
 less annihilated. But it will appear by the refutation of 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTEES. 193 
 
 the second falsity, which you have charged upon the au- 
 thor of the letters, that these pernicious consequences are 
 properly deduced from the erroneous principle which Vas- 
 quez establishes in the same place ; and that this Jesuit 
 has not sinned against the rules of logic, but against those 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 This second falsity, which you attribute to him in defi- 
 ance of his own convictions, is, that he has omitted the 
 words in question, from a malicious design to pervert the 
 sentiment of this Father, and to draw from it this scanda- 
 lous conclusion, " An ambitious man can have no super- 
 fluity." 1 have only to say to this, in one word, that there 
 never was a more unreasonable accusation. The Jesuits 
 themselves never complained of this consequence ; and 
 yet you reproach the author of the letters for not having 
 replied to an objection which has never been made to him. 
 But if you suppose that in this particiiar you have been 
 more sharp-sighted than all the rest of your fraternity, it 
 will be easy to cure yoa of a vanity so injurious to this 
 great body. How can you deny that the inevitable con- 
 clusion from this principle of Vasquez, " that what is trea- 
 sured up to aggrandize a man's condition and that of his 
 relations, is not called superfluity," is, that an ambitious 
 man can have no superfluity ? I readily allow you to add 
 the condition he specifies in another passage to improve a 
 possession by lawful means — statum quern licile possunt 
 acquirere — but this will not prevent the correctness of the 
 inference, which you deny. 
 
 It is true, Sir, some rich persons may enhance their for- 
 tune by lawful means ; the general good may sometimes 
 justify such a desire, provided they do not so much regard 
 their own honour and interest as the honour^o^-CJod'and 
 the interest of the public ; but it does no*- often happen 
 that the Spirit of Christ, without which impurity of inten- 
 tion can exist, inspires the rich of the world with desires 
 of this nature. He rather admonishes them to lay aside 
 the useless weig*' which prevents their ascent to heaven, 
 and to tremble at the words of his Gospel, " He that 
 exalteth himself shall be abased." 
 17 
 
]94 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Thus the eagerness discernible in the greatest proportion 
 of mankind, to rise to a more elevated condition, and to 
 advance the interests of their relatives, though by lawful 
 measures, is commonly nothing more than the effect of 
 covetousness and ambition. It is, Sir- a gross error, to_ 
 imagine there is no ambition in desiring to increase 
 one's fortune only when illegal methods are pursued ; and 
 it is this which St. Augustin condemns in his book on Pa- 
 tience, c. 3 : " The love of money," says he, " and the 
 passion for glory, are follies which the world thinks allow- 
 able, believing that avarice, ambition, luxury, amusement?, 
 are innocent, so long as we do not fall into any crime or 
 disorder forbidden by the laws." Ambition consists in 
 seeking distinction for the mere sake of distinction, honour 
 for the sake of honour ; as avarice is the love of riches 
 for the sake of riches. If with these you connect unjust 
 means, you rend* them the more criminal ; but you can- 
 not- by substituting legitimate methods, render them inno- 
 cent. But Yasquez says nothing of those occasions in 
 which certain good people desire an alteration in their 
 condition, and, as cardinal Cajetan expresses it, are in the 
 probable expectation of accomplishing it ; if he had, he 
 would have been ridiculed for concluding that superfluity 
 is scarcely ever to be found, because such occasions are 
 exceedingly rare, happening but once or twice in a whole 
 life, and then only to a very small proportion of the opu- 
 lent, to whom .God reveals that they shall not injure them- 
 selves by rising higher to serve others, and cannot hinder 
 most rich persons from possessing a superfluity. But he 
 speaks of a vague and indeterminate desire of aggrandize- 
 ment, of a desire which has no limits ; for if it were 
 bounded, the rich would begin to possess superfluity as 
 soon as thej attained them. In short, he believes that 
 this desire is so generally allowed of, that it almost en- 
 tirely prevents the rich from possessing any superfluities. 
 
 You may understand, Sir, by tnt preceding statement, 
 the pretence for accumulation and preying forward to a 
 
 more elevated condition, though by legitimate methods 
 
 ad station quern licite possunt acquircre — which the author 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 195 
 
 oi' tho letters denominates ambition, because this is the 
 name by which the Fathers, and, indeed, every one else, 
 distinguishes it. He was not obliged to imitate one of 
 the most ordinary pieces of finesse .practised by those 
 wretched casuists, who banish the names of vices, but 
 retain, under different appellations, the vices themselves. 
 If, then, the words statum quern liciti possunt acquirere, 
 had really been in the passage he has quoted, there was 
 no need to omit them, in order to render the passage ob- 
 jectionable. It is by adding them, he has a right to ac- 
 cuse Vasquez of maintaining, that if you possess ambition, 
 you cannot have « superfluity. He is not the first who 
 has deduced the same inference from this doctrine. Mr. 
 Du Val had done so before in express terms, when com- 
 bating this pernicious maxim, torn. 2. qu 8. p. 576 : " It 
 will follow, says he, " that whoever desires a higher dig- 
 nity, that is to say, who has greater ambition, would not 
 Lave a superfluity, though he should possess much more 
 than was necessary to h\> present condition — Sequeretur 
 cum qui hanc dignitatem cuperet ; seu qui majori ambi- 
 tione duceretur. habendo plurima supra decentiam sui 
 status, nonhabiturum superjlva." 
 
 Yon have not succeeded very well, then, in the first 
 two falsities which you have charged upon the author of 
 the letters. Let us see if you are better grounded in the 
 two otiiers, of which you have accused him in his defence. 
 The first is, that he asserts, Vasquez does not require the 
 rich to give out of what is necessary to their own rank. 
 The answer to this is easy, for I have only to say at once, 
 it is false, and he says quite the contrary. A sufficient 
 proof of this is, that very passage which you produce 
 three lines after, where he states that Vasquez " requires 
 the rich to give out of their own necessities on certain 
 occasions." 
 
 Your last complaint is equally unreasonable. The au- 
 thor of the letters has objected to two decisions in Vas- 
 quez : the one is, " that the rich are not obliged, either 
 in justice or charity, to part with their superfluities, still 
 less their necessaries, to supply the common wants of the 
 
196 PEOVUfCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 poor ;" — the other, " that they are not obliged to part 
 with what is necessary, but on sach occasions as seldom 
 or never occur." Having no reply to the first of these 
 decisions, which is the most infamous, what did you do ? 
 Why, join them together, and, imputing some great error 
 to* the last you would make people believe, that you had 
 fully replied to both. In order, therefore, to unravel what 
 you purposely perplex, I ask you pointedly, whether it is 
 not true that Vasquez teaches that the rich are never un- 
 der any obligation to give, either out of their superflui- 
 ties, or out of their necessities, in justice, or in charity, 
 to the ordinary wants of the poor ? Has not the author 
 of the letters proved this by the following quotation from 
 Vasquez ? " Corduba teaches, that if a person possess a 
 superabundance, he is obliged to give to those who are 
 in circumstances of ordinary necessity, a portion, at least, 
 in some measure, to fulfil the precept." — (Here remark, 
 that he is not inquiring, whether he is obliged in justice or 
 charity, but whether he is absolutely obliged at alL) — Let 
 us see the decision of your Vasquez — " But this does not 
 quite please cie — sed hoc non placet ; for we have shown 
 the contrary against Cajetan and Navarre." To this you 
 furnish no answer, but leave the Jesuits convicted of an 
 error so opposite to the Gospel. 
 
 As to the second decision of Vasquez, which is, that 
 the rich are not obliged to give out of what is requisite 
 to maintain their own rank, but on occasions so rare that 
 they scarcely ever occur ; the author of the letters has 
 demonstrated it with equal clearness- by collecting the 
 conditions which this Jesuit requires to constitute the ob- 
 ligation ; namely, " to be assured, that the poor person 
 in this urgent necessity, will receive assistance from no 
 one but ourselves ; and that this necessity threatens him 
 either with the destruction of life, or the loss of reputa- 
 tion." He then demands, whether such cases were of 
 very frequent occurrence in Paris ; and, lastly, presses 
 the Jesuits by this argument — whilst Vasquez allows the 
 poor to rob the rich in the same circumstances in which 
 lie obliges the rich to relieve the poor, he must either 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 197 
 
 suppose that such occasions are very unusual,, or that 
 stealing was commonly permitted. What said you, Sir, 
 to this 1 You disregarded all these proofs, and contented 
 yourselves with citing three passages from Vasquez, w.ho 
 says in the first two, that the rich are obliged to help the 
 poor in cases. of urgent necessity, which is' expressly ac- 
 knowledged by the auttror-of the letters : but, then, you 
 take especial care not to" state the restrictions he men- 
 tions, which so order these urgent necessities, that they 
 seldom oblige to the duty of almsgiving ; which is, in 
 fact, the point in dispute. 
 
 The third passage simply states, that the rich are not 
 under obligation to give alms, except in extreme necessi- 
 ties, as when a man is at the point of death, because they 
 are too rare ; whence you conclude, that it is false to say • 
 the cases in which Vasquez obliges to give alms are very 
 rare.. But you are joking, surely ; for no other conclu- 
 sion can be drawn, but that Vasquez does not admit the 
 occasions of distributing to the poor are very rare ; but 
 he, in reality, makes them so by the conditions which he 
 imposes. In this, he has only followed the example of 
 his society. This Jesuit had at once, to satisfy the rich, 
 who are not very desirous of too frequent almsgiving, 
 and the church, which enjoins them to do it often out of 
 their superfluity. He was desirous, therefore, according 
 to the usual methods of,the society, to satisfy every body, 
 and he has succeeded exceedingly well ; for he requires 
 on one side, conditions of such unfrequent occurrence, 
 that the most avaricious ought to be satisfied ; and, on 
 the other, takes away- the term rare, to please the church 
 in appearance. The question is not, then, whether Vas- 
 quez calls those opportunities by the name of rare, in 
 which we are obliged to alms-giving. He has never been 
 accused of calling them rare. Oh, no ; he was too skil- 
 ful a Jesuit to call bad things by their proper names. The 
 question is, to know whether they are not rare by the re- 
 straints he has laid upon them; and this has been so 
 plainly shown by the author of the letters, that he has 
 17* 
 
198 PROVINCIAL 1ETTEKS. 
 
 left you no other but this general answer, which never 
 fails you — dissimulation and silence. 
 
 All you have added respecting the subtlety of Vasquez, 
 in giving such a variety of senses to the words necessity 
 and superfluity, is mere illusion. He never takes them 
 but in the two significations, in which all divines concur. 
 There are, according to him, " things necessary to nature 
 and necessary to station ; superfluous to nature and super- 
 fluous to station." To constitute superfluity of the latter 
 kind, he states that it must not only be so in reference to 
 your present station or rank, but also with regard to the 
 wealth which may hereafter be acquired either by the in- 
 dividuals themselves, or their relatives, by lawful methods. 
 Hence, according to Vasquez, whatever may be stored up 
 to enhance a man's condition in the world, is simply to be 
 called necessary to his condition, and superfluous only to 
 nature : moreover, he is not obliged to bestow alms out 
 of it, excepting on those occasions which the author of 
 the letters has shown to be so rare, as seldom or never to 
 occur. 
 
 It is unnecessary to add any thing to what the author of 
 the letters has said concerning the comparison between 
 Vasquez and Cajetan. I will merely remark- in passing, 
 that you are equally unjust to them both, when you maintain 
 that, " contrary to what he (the Cardinal) had said in his 
 treatise on Almsgiving, he teaches us in his book on In- 
 dulgences, < that to violate the obligation to give what is 
 superfluous, is a venial sin.' " Now, Sir, read him your- 
 self, and no longer place such implicit confidence in the 
 Jesuits, living or dead. You will find that the Cardinal 
 solemnly avows the very opposite doctiine ; and, after 
 saying that nothing but extreme necessities, under which 
 designation he includes most of those which Vasquez de- 
 nominates urgent, constitute it a mortal sin, he subjoins an 
 exception in reference to the possession of superfluities— 
 seclusd superfluitate bonorum. 
 
 I hasten then to accompany you to the doctrine of si- 
 mony. The author of the letters had nothing in view, but 
 to show that the society of Jesuits hold the following 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 199 
 
 maxim : " that it is not simony in conscience, to give a 
 spiritual in exchange for a temporal possession, provided 
 the temporal be only the chief motive, and not the price ;" 
 and, to prove it, he quotes at length, in his twelfth letter, 
 the passage from Valentia, which so clearly avows it, that 
 you have no reply to offer ; no more than to Escobar, 
 Erade Bill, and others who maintain the same doctrine. 
 It is quite sufficient that all these authors concur in this 
 opinion, to show, that according to the whole society, who 
 assert the doctrine of probability, it is safe in conscience, 
 after so many grave authors have maintained it, and so 
 many grave provincials have approved it Acknowledge, 
 then, while leaving this sentiment to remain in full force, 
 as you do, a sentiment, in which all the other Jesuits con- 
 cur, and adhering to Tannerus alone, you really achieve 
 nothing against the design of the author of the letters, 
 whom you attack, or in favour of the society which you 
 defend. 
 
 But, in order to afford you complete satisfaction upon 
 this subject, I aver that you have distorted the language 
 even of Tannerus, quite as much as that of others. First, 
 you cannot deny, that he says in general, " it is no simony 
 in conscience — inforo conscientia, to give a spiritual pos- 
 session for a temporal one, when the temporal is nothing 
 more than the principal motive and not the price." And 
 when he states it is no simony in conscience, the meaning 
 is, that it is not so either by a divine or positive law ; for 
 what is simony by positive law is simony in conscience. 
 This is the general rule, to which Tannerus produces one 
 exception ; namely, " that in cases expressed in the law, 
 it is a simony by positive law, or a presumptive simony." 
 But, since an exception cannot be so extensive as the rule, 
 it necessarily follows that the general maxim, " it is no si- 
 mony in conscience to give a spiritual in exchange for a 
 temporal possession, which is only the motive and not the 
 price," must apply to some species of spiritual things, 
 consequently some kind of spirituals may, without simony, 
 be given by positive law for temporals, by changing the 
 word price into motive. 
 
200 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 The author of the letters has chosen the sort of livings 
 to which he applies the doctrine of Valentia and Tanne- 
 rus : nevertheless, he allows you to substitute any other, 
 and to say, that it is not livings, but sacraments or ecclesi- 
 astical preferments that may be given for money. All 
 this he believes to be equally impious and Ipaves you to 
 the choice. This, it seems, you have done, wishing it to 
 be understood, that it is no simony to say mass, when the 
 principal motive for it is merely to obtain money. This 
 follows, from your account of the custom of the church at 
 Paris. For, if you had merely stated that Christians may 
 offer temporal things to those from whom they receive 
 spiritual, and that priests, who serve at the altar, should live 
 by the altar, you would have said only what nobody dis- 
 putes, but which has no relevancy to the question. 
 
 The point is, whether a priest, whose principal motive 
 in presenting the sacrifice respects the money he receives, 
 is or is not guilty of simony in the sight of God. You 
 may exculpate him by the doctrine of Tannerus, but can 
 you do it upon the principles of Christian piety 1 " If 
 simony," says Peter le Chantre, one of the greatest orna- 
 ments of the church of Paris, " be so shameful and so 
 damnable in things connected with the sacraments, what 
 must it be in the very sacraments themselves, especially 
 jn the Eucharist, in which the holy body of Christ, the 
 ^fountain and origin of all graces, is taken ? Simon the 
 •sorcerer," he adds, " when rejected by Peter, might have 
 alleged, ' Thou rebukest me, but I will triumph over thee 
 and the whole body of the church — I will establish the 
 seat of my empire on the altars themselves ; and when the 
 angels assemble at one corner of the altar to worship the 
 body of Jesus Christ, I will be present at the other, to 
 cause the minister of that altar, or rather my own, to form 
 the body for money.' " And yet this simony, so strongly 
 condemned by this pious divine, does not consist in any 
 thing but cupidity, which, in the administration of spiritual 
 things, principally regards the temporal gain which ac- 
 crues ; which induces him to say, in general," c. 25, that, 
 " when the holy offices," which he calls works of the right 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 201 
 
 I 
 
 hand, li are exercised for the love of money, they produce 
 simony • opus dexteras operatum causa pecunia acqtdrendcc, 
 parit simoniam.''' 
 
 What would he have said then, if he had heard of this 
 horrible maxim of the casuists which you defend, " that 
 it is allowable for a priest to renounce all the spiritual ad- 
 vantage which may result from the holy sacrament, for 
 the sake of a little money ?" 
 
 You perceive then, Sir, if this be all you have to say 
 in defence of Tannerus, you only make him guilty of a 
 greater impiety : but you will never be able, from his 
 statements, to prove that it is simony by a positive law to 
 take money as a motive for the gift of a benefice. For, 
 please to observe, that he does not simply say, that it is 
 simony to bestow a spiritual possession in consideration of 
 a temporal gift, as a motive, and not as the price or va- 
 lue ; but he subjoins this alternative, that it " either is 
 simony by a positive law, or a presumptive simony." A 
 presumptive simony, is no simony in the sight of God, 
 and deserves no condemnation before the tribunal of con- 
 science To say, with Tannerus, that it is simony by po- 
 sitive law or presumptive simony, is, in fact, to say only 
 it is simony, or it is not. 
 
 Such is the amount of Tannerus's exception, which the 
 author of the letters need not have mentioned in his sixth 
 letter, because, without citing any of this Jesuit's expres- 
 sions, he merely says that he is of- the same opinion with 
 Valentia ; but he introduces and expressly answers it in his 
 twelfth, though you falsely accuse him of passing over it. 
 
 It was to avoid the perplexity of these distinctions, that 
 the author of the letters proposed this question to the 
 Jesuits, " whether, according to their authors, it was si- 
 mony in conscience to give a living of 200Z. per annum, 
 and take 500?. as a motive, and not as a price ?" He has 
 urged them to give a direct reply, without speaking about 
 positive law ; that is, without making use of those terms 
 which are unintelligible to mankind in general, but not 
 without regarding it, as you have misrepresented him, 
 contrary to all grammatical construction. Kindly, how- 
 
£!02 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 ever, to afford us satisfaction, you have given us this brief 
 conclusion, " that taking away the positive law, there 
 would be no simony, as there -would be no sin in not hear- 
 ing mass on a holyday, if the church had not commanded 
 it ;" that is to say, it is a simony, because the church has 
 constituted it such, but that without her positive decisions 
 it would be indifferent. Upon which, I must observe, — 
 
 1. Yours is no reply to the question. The author of 
 the letters demanded, if it were simony, according to the 
 Jesuitical authors he has cited ; and you tell us, ex cathe- 
 dr&, it is only a simony of positive law. But the object 
 is not to know your opinion, which is of no weight. You 
 preteud, perhaps, to be a grave doctor ? This is rather 
 questionable ; but.what say Valentia,Tannerus, Sanchez, 
 Escobar, Erade Bill, who are indisputably grave ? Your 
 answer must be coincident with their sentiments. The 
 author of the letters states, that, according to these Je- 
 suits, there is no simony in conscience in these instances. 
 As to Valentia, Sanchez, Escobar, and others, you aban- 
 don them; adhering, indeed, a little to Tannerus, but, as 
 you see, without any substantial reason ; so that, after all, 
 the society teaches, that a spiritual may be given for a 
 temporal consideration, without simony in conscience, 
 provided that the temporal be only the principal motive 
 and not the price. This was all that was demanded. 
 
 2. I maintain, that your, reply contains a shocking im- 
 piety. What, sir ! dare you affirm that, independently of 
 the laws of the church, it would be no simony to give mo- 
 ney with such a perverted intention to obtain ecclesiasti- 
 cal preferments ? — that, previous to the existence of the 
 canons upon this subject, it was lawful to purchase them, 
 provided the money were not given as the value ; and 
 thus St. Peter was to be deemed rash for so authorita- 
 tively condemning Simon Magus, since it does not appeal 
 that he offered the money more as a price than as a mo- 
 tive ? 
 
 Pray, Sir, to what school would you send us to learn this 
 doctrine ? Not, surely, to that of Jesus Christ, who al- 
 ways commanded his disciples to give freely what they 
 
PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 203 
 
 bad freely received ; by which he excludes, as Peter le 
 Chantre says, in verb. Abb. c. 36, " all expectation of pre- 
 sents or services, whether by agreement, or otherwise, 
 because God sees the heart." Nor is it the school of the 
 church, who treats those who employ money to obtain ec- 
 clesiastical offices, not only as criminals, but heretics, de- 
 nominating this kind of traffic, extenuate it as you will, 
 not a violation of her positive laws only, but a heresy — 
 simoniacam hizresim. • 
 
 The school, then, in which these maxims are learned, 
 that it is only a simony of positive law, or only a pre- 
 sumptive simony, or no simony or sin at all, to give mo- 
 ney for a living, as a motive, and not as the price, can be 
 no other than that of Gehazi, and of Simon Magus, the 
 sorcerer. This is the school in which these two first 
 dealers in sacred things are to be deemed innocent, who 
 are every where else regarded as most execrable ; and 
 where, leaving cupidity to its own desires and determina- 
 tion, is taught to evade the law of God, by changing a 
 term which cannot alter the thing itself. But let the dis- 
 ciples of this school hear in what manner that great Pope 
 Innocent III., in his letter to the archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, in the year 1199, has thundered against the damna- 
 ble subtleties of those, '' who, being blinded by the desire 
 of gain, attempt to palliate simony under an honourable 
 name — simoniam sub honesto nomine palliant: as if a 
 change of name could change the nature of a crime, and 
 the punishment it merits. But," he adds, " God is not 
 to be mocked ; and if these followers of Simon Magus 
 should escape the punishment they deserve in' the present 
 life, they cannot possibly avoid, in the other world, the 
 everlasting misery which is in reserve for them. The 
 speciousness of a name is incapable of extenuating the 
 malignity of the sin ; it is a disguise which will not hinder 
 a thing being accounted wicked — Cum nee honestas nomi- 
 nis criminis malitiam palliabit, nee vox potent abolere rea- 
 tur,i.". 
 
 The last subject of observation is bankruptcy ; upon 
 which I admire your assurance. The Jesuits, whose cause 
 
204 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 you advocate, have very improperly thrown the question < 
 Escobar upon Lessius ; for the author of the letters on! 
 quoted Lessius upon the authority of Escobar, chargir 
 the latter only with this doctrine, which has occasioned s 
 much complaint ; namely, that the bankrupts may retai 
 a sufficiency for a genteel living, though these goods we; 
 obtained by injustice and crimes universally notorious ! 
 is, besides, solely on account of Escobar that he urgi 
 them either publicly to disavow this doctrine, or as public 
 acknowledge it ; in which case he appeals to parliamen 
 Some answer is here required, and not merely the stati 
 ment that Lessius, who is out of the question, is not i 
 the same opinion with Escobar, who alone is concernei 
 Do you really think of answering questions by on] 
 changing them 1 Pray desist from such strange attempt 
 You shall reply to Escobar before we come to Lessiui 
 Not that I refuse to enter the lists, for I promise to giv 
 you a faithful and full explanation of the notions of Lei 
 sius respecting bankruptcy, which I feel persuaded wi 
 shock the parliament as much as the Sorbonne. To thi 
 then, by the help of God, I pledge my word ; but yo 
 shall previously answer the contested point relating 1 
 Escobar. You must give a precise and satisfactory a< 
 count upon this subject, before any new questions are ii 
 vestigated. Escobar is first in turn, and in spite of yoi 
 evasions, shall have the first attention. Be assured Le; 
 sius shall follow immediately. 
 
 N. B. Though this letter was the production of anothe 
 and inferior writer, it seemed, upon the whole, too intcrestin, 
 to be omitted. 
 
LETTER XIII. 
 
 The Doctrine of Lessius respecting Murder the same with 
 that of Victoria. The Ease with which we pass from 
 Speculation to Practice. Reason why the Jesuits make 
 use of this vain Distinction, and how unavailing it is to 
 their Justification. 
 
 Reverend Fathers, Sept. 30, 1666. 
 
 1 have seen your last performance, in which you pro- 
 ceed with your impositions as far as the twentieth, declaring 
 that this is the concluding part of that kind of accusation 
 of which your first consists, from which you pass to the 
 second, where ydu adopt a new method of defence, by 
 showing that many other casuists, beside yours, are as re- 
 laxed in discipline as yourselves. I perceive, now, my 
 good Fathers, to what a multitude of misrepresentations I 
 have to reply ; and since the fourth, where we stopped, is 
 upon the subject of Homicide, it will be proper in answer- 
 ing it, at the same time to investigate the eleventh, thir- 
 teenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and 
 eighteenth, which are all upon the same subject. 
 
 In the present letter, I shall prove the truth of my cita- 
 tions, in contradiction to the falsities with which you have 
 Charged me. But since you have ventured to assert, " that 
 the sentiments of your authors on murder are conformable 
 to the decisions of the Popes and to the ecclesiastical 
 laws ;" you oblige me in the following letter, to overturn 
 a proposition so extremely rash, and so prejudicial to the 
 church. It is of importance to show that she is free from 
 vour corruptions, that the heretics may not be able to avail 
 18 
 
206 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 themselves of your errors, and deduce consequences of a 
 nature dishonourable to her character. On the one hand, 
 therefore, by surveying your pernicious doctrines, and on 
 the other, the canons of the church, which have always 
 condemned them, we shall at once discover what ought to 
 be avoided and what followed. 
 
 Your fourth misstatement relates to a maxim concern- 
 ing murder, which you represent me as having falsely at- 
 tributed to Lessius. It is this : " He who has received aj 
 box on the ear may instantly pursue his enemy, and even 
 strike him with a sword- not out of revenge, but to make! 
 reparation to his insulted honour." This, you assert, is' 
 the opinion of the casuist Victoria. But this is not the 
 subject of dispute ; for it is not inconsistent to say it is the 
 opinion both of Victoria and of Lessius ; since Lessius 
 himself says, it is the sentiment of Navarre and of your 
 Father Henriquez, who teach, " that he who has received 
 a box on the ear may pursue his man instantly, and return 
 him as many as he may deem necessary to make reparation 
 to his honour." The only question therefore is, whether 
 Lessius coincides in the sentiment of these authors as well 
 as his colleagues ; and for this reason you add, " that 
 Lessius only mentions this opinion to refute it ; so that I 
 attribute to him a sentiment which he only states to oppose, 
 the most base and shameful action of which a writer can 
 be guilty." But I maintain, my Fathers, that he intro- 
 duces it with approbation and to follow it. This is a ques- 
 tion of fact, which it will be easy to determine. Let us 
 see then, how you prove your assertions, and you shall 
 afterwards see how I prove mine. 
 
 In order to show that Lessius is not of this opinion, 
 you say that he condemns the practice of it ; to demon- 
 strate which, you cite a passage, 1. 2. c. 9. n. 82, where 
 he has these words : " I condemn the practice of it." It 
 is true, if these words are sought for in Lessius, n. 82, 
 they will be found according to your quotation ; but what 
 must be said, Fathers, when we find, at the same time, 
 that in this place he is discussing a question totally dif- 
 ferent from the one of which we are speaking ; and the 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 207 
 
 opinion, the practice of which he condemns in that place, 
 is in no respect the same with what we have in hand, but 
 one entirely distinct from it ? To be convinced of this, it 
 is only necessary to open the book itself, where we shall 
 find all the rest of the discourse to the same purpose. 
 
 He treats upon the question at n. 79, il Whether we 
 may kill a person for a box on the ear," and concludes it* 
 at n. 80, without uttering a single syllable of condemna- 
 tion. .As soon as this question is determined, he enters 
 upon a new one in article 81, ■ whether we may kill an- 
 other for slander?" And upon this latter it is at n. 82, 
 he introduces the very words you have quoted : " I con- 
 demn the practice of it." 
 
 Now, Fathers, is it not most-shameful that you should 
 dare to produce these words to make people believe that 
 Lessius condemns the opinion of its being allowable to 
 kill another for a box on the ear ? and, having given only 
 the proof referred to above, triumph as you do in this 
 strain. " Many persons of honour in Paris have already 
 detected this flagrant falsity by reading Lessius, and have 
 thus learned what kind of dependence may be placed 
 upon this calumniator ?" What Fathers '. is it thus you 
 abuse the confidence which persons of honour have re- 
 posed in you ? To make them understand that Lessius is 
 not of a particular opinion you open his book for them int 
 a place where he is condemning quite another opinion jf 
 and as these persons do not question your veracity, and 
 therefore do not think of examining whether the passagi! 
 really refers to the point in debate, you cheat their 
 credulity. I am persuaded, Fathers, that in order to ex- 
 cuse so infamous a falsehood, you must have recourse to 
 your doctrine of equivocation, and reading this passage) 
 aloud- you say in a low inaudible tone, this belongs to * 
 another subject. But [ cannot tell whether this reason, ' 
 though it may satisfy your consciences, will be sufficient 
 to silence the just complaints of these people of honour, 
 when they find how you have imposed upon them. 
 
 Pray do all you can, Fathers, to prevent their seeing 
 my letters, as it is the only way which remains of main- 
 
.J08 paOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 iaining your credit with them a little longer. I make a 
 different use of yours, distributing them amongst all my 
 friends, anxious that every body should read them. I 
 fancy both of us act with good reason : for, after pub- 
 lishing this fourth imposture with such pomp, you will be 
 in sad disgrace if it should come to be known that you 
 have substituted one passage for another. It will be 
 easily believed, that if you had found what you wished in 
 the place where Lessius treats upon the subject, you 
 would not have sought it elsewhere, and that you only had 
 recourse to this measure, because you could not discover 
 apy thing where you were looking to answer your pur- 
 pose. You were resolved to find something in Lessius to 
 authorize your assertion, p. 10. 1. 12: " that he does not 
 admit this opinion to be probable in speculation :" and 
 Lessius expressly states, in his conclusion, n. 80, " the 
 opinion that one person may kill another for having 
 given him a box on the ear is probable in speculation." 
 Is not this, in so many explicit words, a contradiction to 
 your statement ? And who can sufficiently admire the 
 effrontery with which you contradict a plain matter of 
 fact, even by using the very same terms ; so that, instead 
 of concluding from your supposititious passage, that 
 Lessius was not of this opinion, he positively declares by 
 bis own expressions that he really is. 
 
 You were desirous, again, that Lessius should be made 
 to affirm that ■' he condemns the practice of it ;" but, as 
 I have before said, there is not a syllable of condemnation 
 to be found in the passage. His language is, " It appears 
 that one ought not easily to allow the practice of it — in 
 praxi non videtur facile permittenda.'" Is this, my Fa- 
 thers, the mode of speaking adopted by a man who con~ 
 demns a maxim ? Would you say that one ought not 
 easily to allow the practice of adultery or incest ? Ought 
 we not, on the contrary, to conclude, that as Lessius says 
 no more, but that the practice ought not to be easily per- 
 mitted, his opinion is that it may be sometimes though 
 rarely permitted ? And, as if he were solicitous of teach- 
 ing every body, when it ought to .be permittee}, and thus 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 209 
 
 removing all scruples out of tHe way of persons likely to 
 be disgusted, and that might prove unseasonably trouble- 
 some, not knowing upon what occasions they might in 
 practice be allowed to kill others, he has been careful to 
 point out what they ought to avoid in practising this 
 doctrine conscientiously. Do hear him, my Fathers : 
 " One ought not, methinksj" says he, " easily to permit 
 it, because of the danger of being excited by a spirit of 
 hatred and revenge or passion, or lest it should occasion 
 too many murders." Hence it is obvious that, according 
 to Lessius, murder is still permitted in practice, if incon- 
 veniences be avoided, that is to say, if one can perpetrate , 
 the deed without hatred or revenge, and under circum- 
 stances which do not excite to a too frequent repetition of K 
 murders ! 
 
 Are you desirous of an example, my good Fathers 1 
 You shall have one of recent occurrence. It is that of 
 the box of the ear at Compeigne. You must admit that 
 the person who received it has evinced by his behaviour,; 
 the great command he possessed over the passions of 
 hatred and revenge. Nothing remained but to avoid too 
 numerous murders ; and you know, Fathers, that it is so 
 very rare for Jesuits to give blows to- officers of the king's 
 household, that there was no reason to apprehend a mur- 
 der on that account would have occasioned too many 
 others. You cannot, therefore, deny but that this Jesuit 
 might have been slain -with a good conscience, and that 
 the offended party might, in this instance, have availed 
 himself of the doctrine of Lessius : and perhaps, my 
 Fathers, he would have done so, had he been educated in 
 your school, and taught by Escobar, '» that a person who 
 has received a box on the ear is reputed to have lost his 
 honour till he has killed the person who gave it him." 
 But you have reason to believe, that his having received 
 quite opposite instructions from a curate, no mighty 
 favourite of yours, contributed not a little to save the life 
 of a Jesuit. 
 
 Pray say no more, then, of the inconveniences to be 
 avoided on so many occasions, without which, murder is 
 18* - 
 
210 PR0VHH3IAL LETTERS. 
 
 allowed in practice upon the authority of Lessius. This 
 your writers have fully acknowledged, as quoted by Esco- 
 bar in his Practice of Homicide according to your Society.- 
 « Is it allowed," says he, " to kill the person who gives 
 you a box on the ear ? Lessius states it is so in speculation, 
 but that it ought not to be advised in practice — non con~ 
 sulendum in praxi—on account of the danger which may 
 arise from hatred or from murders prejudicial to the state. 
 But the other authors have decided, that if these 
 inconveniences be avoided it is allowed and safe in 
 practice — in praxi probibikm et tulam judicarunt Hen~i 
 riquez, &c."- 
 
 Behold how opinions advance, by degrees, to the- high- 
 est probability ! To what a pitch have you carried the 
 opinion just mentioned, by admitting it without any dis- 
 tinction either in speculation or practice in these words :/ 
 '< It is lawful, upon receiving a box on the ear, instantly 
 to return it by a stroke with a sword, not out of revenge! ' 
 but for the preservation of one's honour." Your Fathers; 
 at Caen, taught the same doctrine in 1644, in their pub- 
 lic writings, which the university presented to parliament 
 jteifoejr .third request against your doctrine of Homicide, 
 in p, 339 of the volume then printed. 
 
 Observe then, Fathers, that your own authors them- 
 selves destroy this futile distinction between speculation 
 and practice, which the university has treated with ridi- 
 cule, and .the invention of which is one of your political 
 secrets it is well to disclose : for, besides that the know- 
 ledge of it is requisite to your fifteenth, sixteenth, seven- 
 teenth, and eighteenth impostures, it is always very pro- 
 per and necessary to discover by degrees the principles 
 of your mysterious policy. 
 
 Whenever you have undertaken to decide upon cases 
 of conscience in a favourable and accommodating man- 
 ner, you have found some of them in which religion alone 
 was concerned, as questions relating to contrition, peni- 
 tence, the love of God, and all others which refer to the 
 jnwarcLfeelings of conscience. But you have discovered 
 others,, in which the state was as much concerned as re.- 
 
MIOVINCIAL LETTERS. 21 1< 
 
 hgion; such as those which regard usury, bankruptcy; 
 homicide, and others of a similar nature. And it is very- 
 affecting to those who cherish a genuine love to the 
 church, to witness, in an incalculable variety of cases, in 
 which you have only had religion to oppose, how you 
 have, without hesitation, distinction, or fear, overthrown- 
 the laws ; as appears most evidently in your presumptu- 
 ous boldness, against penitence and the love of God; be- 
 cause you- were aware this was not the appropriate place 
 for the visible exercise of divine justice. Bat, where' 
 both religion and the state were interested; your appre- 
 hensions of human justice have induced you to divid<| 
 your decisions, and to form two questions upon these sub- 
 jects; the one you call speculation, in which, considering 
 crimes in themselves, and not in reference to the welfarje 
 of the state, but solely to the law of God by which they 
 are interdicted, you have allowed them without the slight- 
 est hesitation, thus subverting the law of God which con-, 
 demns them ; — the other you term practice, in which,' 
 considering the injury the state might suffer and the pre-' 
 sence of the magistrates -who maintain the- public safety, 
 you do not always approve of these murders and crimes 
 in practice which are allowed in speculation* so that you 
 contrive to shelter yourselves from the judge?* 
 
 Upon that question, for example, " whether it is law- 
 ful to kill for slander," your authors, Filiutius, tr. 29, cap. 
 3, Qr 52, Reginaldus, 1, K\, cap. 5, n. 63, and others, re- 
 ply, " it is allowable in speculation — ex probabili opinione 
 licet — but I do not admit oritin^pwcUce, on account of 
 the number of murdefs-itTnay sanction, an3 which would 
 prove detrimental ta.tbs statey if-afT slanderers were to 
 he slain; and besides, -such- mttrderers-wouiaT5e~punished 
 by justice." In this manner your opinions begin to exhi- 
 bit themselves under a distinction by which you subvert 
 the interests of religion alone, without sensibly affecting 
 the state. Hence you imagine yourselves to be in perfect 
 security, supposing the credit you have obtained in the 
 church will prevent her punishing your offences against 
 truth, and that the precautions youhave adopted, not too 
 
212 PROVINCIAL LETTEES. 
 
 easily to allow those permissions in practice, will screen 
 you on the part of the magistrates, who not being judges 
 in cases of conscience, have not properly to do with any 
 thing but the externa] act. Thus an opinion which would 
 be condemned under the name of practice, shows itself in 
 safety under-that ot speculation. 
 
 Having formed this basis, it is easy to construct the 
 rest ol your maxims. There is an infinite distance be- 
 tween the divine prohibition against murder, and the specu- 
 lative permission given by your authors. But the distance 
 is very trifling between this permission and the practice. 
 It now then only remains to show, that what is permitted 
 in speculation, is so in practice also . and for this we have 
 ample evidence You have produced it in cases of much 
 greater difficulty. Do you wish, good Fathers, to see 
 how this can be ? Follow the reasoning of Escobar, who 
 has clearly decided it in the first of the six volumes of 
 his great Moral Tlieology, of which I have before spoken, 
 where he seems to have quite a different light from what 
 he had in his collection from your four-and-twenty elders ; 
 for, at that time, he thought there might be probable 
 opinions in speculation, which might not be safe in con- 
 science ; but he has since thought the reverse, and has 
 strongly established it in his last work : so much has the 
 doctrine of probability gained by time, as well as each 
 probable opinion in particular! Attend to his language in 
 prolog, n. 15, " I do not see how it can possibly arise, 
 that what is allowed in speculation should not be so in 
 practice, since what can be accomplished in practice 
 depends upon what is permitted in speculation ; and 
 these things differ from each other only as cause and 
 effect. It is speculation which determines action. 
 Whence it follows that one may, with a safe constience, fol- 
 low in practice the opinions which are probable in specula- 
 lion; and even with more safety than those which have 
 \ not been so fully examined by speculation." 
 
 Escobar really reasons admirably sometimes ; and, in 
 fact, there is such a connexion between speculation and 
 practice, that when one has taken root, you make no diffi- 
 
WIOVINCIAL LETTERS. 213 
 
 culty in permitting the undisguised progress of the other. 
 This has been seen in the permission to kill for a box on 
 the ear, which, from simple speculation, has been boldly 
 carried forward by Lessius into practice that one ought not 
 easily to grant, and from thence by Escobar to an easy 
 practice; from which your Fathers at Caen have advanced 
 it to a full permission* without any distinction between 
 theory and practice. 
 
 Thus, by little and little, you make your opinions grow. 
 Were they all at once to appear so monstrously extrava- 
 gant, the utmost horror would be excited ; but this slow 
 and imperceptible progress gradually habituates the pub- 
 lic to them, and diminishes their offensiveness. By this 
 means, the permission to murder, so odious to the church 
 and state, first insinuates itself into the church, and. after- 
 wards, from the church into the state. 
 
 Similar success has attended the opinion respecting kill- 
 ing for slander ; for that has now obtained the same per- 
 rfljssion without any distinction. 1 should not have stopped 
 to report these passages of your Fathers, had it not been 
 necessary to abash the confidence with which you have 
 twice asserted, in your fifteenth imposture, p. 26 and 30, 
 '' There is not one Jesuit who admits murder for slander." 
 When you write in this manner, Fathers- yon should pre- 
 vent my seeing it- because it is so easily confuted : for not 
 only your Fathers Reginaldus, Filiutius, &c., have allowed 
 of it in speculation, as I have before stated ; and not only 
 does the principle of Escobar insensibly lead to the prac- 
 tice ; but, I will 9ay further, that many of your authors 
 have allowed it in so many words ;-^atnongst others, Fa- 
 ther Hereaui in his public lectures; in consequence of 
 which, the king ordered him into confinement- in your 
 house, having taught, amongst many other errors, "that 
 when he who defames us in the presence of people of ho- 
 nour, continues to do so, after being warned to desist, we 
 may kill him ; not, indeed, publicly, for fear of scandal, 
 but in secret — sed clam." 
 
 I have already spoken of Father Launy, and you are 
 oot ignorant that his doctrine upon this subject was cess-. 
 
214 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 sured in 1649, by the university of Louvain : neverthe- 
 less, two months have not yet elapsed since your Father, 
 Des Bois maintained, at Rouen, this very condemned 
 doctrine of Father Launy, teaching, " that it is lawful for 
 a monk to defend the honour he has acquired by his vir- 
 tue, even by killing the person who dares to attack his 
 reputation — etiam cum rnorte invasoris :" which has occa- 
 sioned such scandal in that city, that all the curates have 
 united to impose silence upon him, and oblige him, by ca- 
 nonical moans, to retract his doctrine. The affair is, at 
 present, before the ecclesiastical court. 
 
 What can you now say, Fathers ? Will you, aftar this, 
 undertake to maintain, that " no Jesuit is of opinion, that 
 one may kill another for scandal ?" Was any thing more 
 needed to convince you of this than the opinions even of 
 your own Fathers, since they do not forbid to kill in spe- 
 culation, liut only in practice, >' on account of the ill 
 consequences which may accrue to the state ?" 1 ask 
 then, Fathers, if our disputes relate to any thing else thtra 
 an examination whether you have overturned the law of 
 God which prohibits homicide ? The question is not whe- 
 ther you have injured the state, but religion ? To what 
 purpose is it then, in a dispute of this nature, to show 
 that you have spared the state, when you make it evident 
 at the same time, that you have subverted the interests 
 of religion, by saying as you dp p. 28. 1. 3. '' that the 
 sense of Reglnaldus, on the question relating to killing for 
 slander is, that a private person has a right to adopt this 
 mode of defence, considering it only in itself?" I wish 
 for nothing more than this admission to confound you. — 
 " A private person," say you, " has a right to adopt this 
 mode of defence,"-'— that is to say, he has a right to kill 
 for slander — •' considering the thing in itself" — conse- 
 quently, Fatheru, the law of God which expressly forbids 
 murder, is, by this decision, destroyed. 
 
 It is of no avail afterwards to say, " that it is unlawful 
 and criminal, even according to the law of God, on ac- 
 count of the murders and disorders which would occur in 
 the state, because we are obliged, by divine appointment, 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 215 
 
 to regard the welfare of the state." This is wandering 
 from the question ; for, my good Fathers, there are two 
 laws to be observed — the one prohibits murder, the other 
 forbids injuring the state. Reginaldus, perhaps, has not 
 broken the law which enjoins our doing nothing to injure 
 the state ; but he has certainly violated that which com- 
 mands us not to kill ; but the latter is the only one which 
 relates to the present subject. 
 
 Moreover, your other Fathers, who have allowed these 
 murders in practice, have nullified both commands. 
 
 But let us advance a little further. We are perfectly 
 aware, that you do sometimes forbid doing injury to the 
 state ; and you allege, that your design is to observe the 
 law of God, which requires us to give it our support. 
 This may be true, though it is by no means certain, since 
 you may do the same thing merely through fear of the 
 judges. Let us then examine from which of these prin- 
 ciples it proceeds. 
 
 Is it not obvious, Fathers, that if you were truly to love 
 God, and the observance of his law were the primary and 
 principal object in view, this regard would uniformly pre- 
 dominate in every important decision, and would influence 
 you on all occasions to take the deepest interest in reli- 
 gion ? But if, on the contrary, we see, that in so many 
 cases, you violate the mosf solemn commands which God 
 has enjoined upon man, when there is only his law to op- 
 pose ; and that even on the occasions now in question, 
 ""you annihilate the law of God, which prohibits these ac- 
 tions, as criminal in themselves, and seem to be deterred 
 from approving them in practice, solely by a fear of the 
 judges ; do not you give us reason to believe, that your 
 apprehension has no regard to God, and that if you up- 
 hold his law in appearance, in what respects the duty of 
 not doing injury to a state, it does not originate in any re- 
 verence for the law itself, but merely to gain your own 
 ends, as all other religious politicians of no piety have 
 done ? 
 
 And will you really tell us, Fathers, that the law of God 
 which forbids homicide, will sanction murder for slander ? 
 
216 rRovraciAL iettehs. 
 
 and after having thus violated the eternal law of heaven, 
 can you think of removing the scandal you have occasion- 
 ed, and persuade us that you pay a proper regard to it, by 
 adding that you forbid the practice of it from considera- 
 tions of state, and through fear of the judges ? Is not 
 this, in feet, raising a new scandal, not out of respect for 
 the judges, for this is not what I reproach you for, and you 
 are very ridiculous upon this point in page 29. I do not 
 blame you for being afraid of the judges, but for being 
 afraid of them only. This is the point — for this I censure 
 you, because it is making God less the enemy of crimes 
 than man. Were you to say that one may kill a slanderer 
 according to human judgment, though not according to 
 God, this would have been more tolerable : but, to assert 
 that what is too criminal to be endured by men, may be 
 innocent and just in the eyes of God who is justice itself, 
 what do you do but show to the whole world, by this mon- 
 strous and awful perversion, which is so opposite to the 
 true spirit of saints, that you are bold against God and 
 timid towards your fellow-men ? Had you sincerely in- 
 tended to condemn these homicides, surely you would 
 have allowed that command of God which forbids them ; 
 and had you ventured at^first to permit these homicides, 
 you would have openly permitted them in defiance of the 
 laws of God and man. But as* you have allowed them by 
 insensible degrees, and toot the magistrates by surprise, 
 whose business it is to watch over the public safety, you 
 have, acted a wily part by separating your maxims : and, on 
 the one side, proposing, " that it is allowable in speculation 
 to murder for slander," (for you are left to examine things 
 in speculation,) and, on the other side, producing this de- 
 tached maxim, " that what is allowed in speculation is also 
 in practice." What concern does the state appear to 
 have in this general and metaphysical proposition ? In 
 this manner these two principles being received separately 
 are little suspected, and the vigilance of the magistrates is 
 eluded ; for it is only necessary to unite these maxims to- 
 gether, to deduce from them the inference to which you 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 217 
 
 tend, " that one may murder in practice for simple slan- 
 der." 
 
 Here we behold one of the finest specimens of your subtle 
 policy, separating in your writings the maxims which you 
 associate in your opinions. By these means, you have in- 
 troduced your doctrine of probability, which I have so 
 frequently explained ; and this general principle being 
 established, you advance things separately, which, though 
 possibly innocent in themselves, become horrible when 
 conjoined with this pernicious principle. . As an example 
 of this, turn to page 1 1 of your impostures, where it is in- 
 cumbent upon me to answer this statement ; " that many 
 celebrated divines are of opinion that one man may kill 
 another for having given him a box on the ear." If, in- 
 deed, a person had said this who did not maintain the doc- 
 trine of probability, he could not be subject to any reproof", 
 since it would, in that case, be only a simple recital which 
 could be of no consequence ; but you, Fathers, and all 
 others who hold this dangerous doctrine, " that whatever 
 celebrated authors approve is safe in conscience," with 
 another to this purpose, " that many celebrated authors 
 are of opinion that one man may kill another for having 
 given him a box on the ear," what are you doing but put- 
 ting a dagger into the hands of "every "Christian to kill 
 those who have offended them, by giving them an assurance 
 thatTKey~may_do- it with a safe consgience t because in this 
 they will only follow the opinion of so many grave authors ? 
 
 What aSominable language, which, while stating that 
 some authors hold a damnable opinion, decides at the very 
 same time in favour of that damnable opinion, and makes 
 conscience sanction every thing it merely reports ? We 
 understand it, Fathers ! This is the peculiar language 
 of your school : and it is truly astonishing that you should 
 be so audacious as to talk in this high strain, since it dis- 
 plays your sentiments in so undisguised a manner, and con- 
 victs you of holding this opinion as safe in conscience, 
 " that one man may kill another for a box on the ear," as 
 soon as you have said that a multitude of celebrated au 
 thors maintain it. 
 
 19 
 
218 PROVINCIAL LETTJJBS. 
 
 You can no more defend yourselves in this, than you 
 can serve your purpose by those passages from Vasqnez 
 and Suarez which you oppose to me, in which they con- 
 demn those murders so much approved by their-fraternity. 
 These testimonies, separated from the rest of your doc- 
 trine, might dazzle people who know but little about it ; 
 but your principles and your maxims must be joined to- 
 gether. In this place you say that Vasquez does not allow 
 of- murders ; but what do you state elsewhere ? Why, 
 truly, " that the probability of one sentiment does not 
 prevent the probability of a contrary sentiment ;" and 
 again, *■' it is allowable to fallow the least probable and 
 the least sure, abandoning that which is most probable and 
 most sure." What follows from all this put together, but 
 that we ■ have perfect liberty of conscience to adopt any 
 one we please of those opposite opinions ? And what 
 becomes, Fathers, of that fruit which you expected from 
 all these citations ? It is all gone, since it is only neces- 
 sary for your condemnation, to collect those maxims which 
 you separate for your justification. Why, then, do you 
 produce those passages of your authors which I have not 
 quoted, to excuse those which I have cited, since they have 
 nothing in common ? What right does this give you to 
 call me an impostor ? Have I asserted that all your Fa- 
 thers are equally depraved ? Have I not said, on the con- 
 trary, that your principal interest consists in having alt 
 kinds of opinions to suit all sorts of occasions ? Doe3v 
 any one wish to kill ? Let him repair to LesSus. If thei 
 reverse, let him apply to Vasquez, that no one may be disif 
 contented at having no grave author on his side. Lessius 
 will discourse of homicide like a heathen, and of alms- 
 giving perhaps like a 'Christian. Vasquez will speak of 
 almsgiving like a heathen, and of homicide like a Chris- 
 tian. But by means of probability, which both Vasquefe 
 and Lessius maintain, and which unites all your opinions 
 in a kind of common coincidence, they will mutually blend 
 each other's sentiments, and will be under an obligation to 
 absolve those who have acted conformably to the opinions 
 which each of them has condemned. You are thus per- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 219 
 
 plexed by variety : whereas, uniformity would be far more 
 tolerable ; and nothing can be more pontrary to the express 
 orders of St. [gnatius and your first generals, than this 
 confused intermixture of all sorts of opinions. I shall, 
 perhaps, some time say a little more upon this subject ; 
 and people wili be surprised to find how much you have 
 degenerated from the^original spirit of your institution, 
 and how the generals of your own order foresaw that the 
 monstrous doctrines of your morality might become inju- 
 rious, not only to your society, but to the peace of the 
 whole church. 
 
 1 must, however, tell you that no advantage can be 
 gained to your cause from the opinion of Vasquez. It 
 would be extraordinary indeed, if among so many Jesuits 
 who have become authors, only one or two could be 
 found to coincide in the, principles common to all Chris- 
 tians. There is no honour in maintaining that one cannot 
 commit murder for a box on the ear according to the Gos- 
 pel, but denying it to be shameful and horrible ; so far 
 then is this from justifying you, that nothing can be more 
 to your disadvantage ; since, although some of your doc- 
 tors have told you the truth, you have not followed it, but 
 love darkness rather than light. Vasquez has taught you, 
 " that it is a heathenish and not a Christian sentiment, to 
 say one may return <t box on the ear with a blow of a stick, 
 that it is subversive both of the law and the Gospel, to 
 assert we may kill a man for it, and that the most aban- 
 doned of mankind acknowledge this to be the case." You,;, 
 however, in contradiction to this universal admission, suf- 
 fer Lessius, Escobar, and others, to decide that all the 
 prohibitions which God has issued against homicide, do 
 not render it improper to kill a person for giving a box on 
 the ear. To what purpose, then, is it to produce this 
 passage of Vasquez in opposition to the opinion of Les- 
 sius, unless it be to show that Lessius, according to Vas- 
 quez, is a heathen and a scoundrel ? But this I .should 
 not dare to affirm. What conclusion is to be drawn, but 
 that Lessius destroys the law and the Gospel — that at the 
 last day Vasquez will condemn Lessius on this point, as 
 
220 PROVITJCIAl, LETTEHS. 
 
 Lessius will condemn Vasquez on some other — and that 
 all your writers will rise up in judgment against each 
 other for mutual condemnation, on account of their dread- 
 ful, outrageous opposition to the law of Christ ? 
 
 Since, then, my Fathers, your doctrine of probability! 
 renders the good sentiments of some of your authors use-' 
 less to the church, and serviceable only to promote youf 
 own policy ; they show by their contradictions, your du- 
 plicity of heart, which, indeed, you have fully evinced, by. 
 declaring on the one hand, that Vasquez and Suarez ;ire 
 opposed to homicide, and on the other, that many cele- 
 brated authors are in favour of it for the purpose of offer- 
 ing two ways to mankind, by perverting the simplicity of 
 the Gospel of God, which pronounces a curse upon the \ 
 double minded, and providing two ways for themselves — \ 
 V(z dvplici corde, et ingredient! duabus viis ! 
 
LETTER XIV. 
 
 Jesuitical Maxims on the subject of Homicide refuted by 
 the holy Fathers. Reply, in passing, to some of their Ca- 
 lumnies, and a Comparison of their Doctrine with the 
 Form observed in pronouncing Judgment in Criminal 
 Cases. 
 
 Paris, Oct. 23, 1656. 
 Reverend Fathers, 
 
 If I had only to reply to the three remaining impos- 
 tures on the subject of homicide, it would be unnecessary 
 to detain your attention long — a few words would suffice, 
 as will be soon seen, for your refutation ; but as I feel 
 persuaded it is more important to impress the world with 
 a just horror of your opinions than to verify my own cita- 
 tions, I shall be obliged to employ the greatest part of this 
 letter in refuting your maxims, and representing how re- 
 mote you are from the sentiments of the church, and even 
 from nature. 
 
 The permission to kill, which you give on so many oc- 
 casions, evinces that in this affair you have so forgotten 
 the lawxrf God, and so extinguished the light of nature, 
 as-to need reminding of the simplest principles of religion 
 and of common sense. What can be more natural 
 than the following sentiment : " One private individual 
 has no right over the life of another. We so well know 
 this ourselves," says St. Chrysostom, " that when God 
 established the law against murder he did not add, it was 
 on account of its being an evil, because the law supposes 
 that men have already learned this truth from nature." 
 19* 
 
222 PEOVINCIAl 1ETTEBS. 
 
 This commandment has been in force in all ages. The 
 Gospel confirms the law, and the decalogue only renewed 
 that which mankind had received from God previous to 
 the law in the person of Noah, from whom the human 
 race were to spring. At the renewal of the world God 
 addressed that patriarch, " At the hand of a man, even at 
 the hand of a man's brother, will I require the life of a 
 man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
 blood be shed ; for in the image of God created he 
 man." 
 
 This general prohibition deprives men of all power 
 over the lives of others ; and God has so reserved it to 
 himself alone, that, according to the principles of Christi- 
 anity, which in this entirely oppose the false notions of 
 paganism, a man does not possess power over his own 
 life. But, as Providence has seen fit to preserve mankind 
 in society, and to punish the wicked who should disturb 
 them, he has himself ordained laws for the execution of 
 criminals ; so that those murders which, independently of 
 his appointment, would be punishable, become, in conse- 
 quence of such appintment, praiseworthy and just. St. 
 Augustin has stated this in an admirable manner in 1. 1. 
 ch. 21. of his City of God. " Some exceptions," says 
 he, " are made by God himself to this general prohibition 
 against murder, either by the laws he has prescribed for 
 the* capital punishment of the guilty, or by the particular 
 commands he has sometimes given for the execution of 
 certain individuals. In this case it i= not man that kills, 
 but God, of whom man is only the instrum<wt, as a sword 
 is in the hand of him who uses it. But, with the excep- 
 tion of these cases, whoever kills another is guilty of 
 murder. 
 
 It is certain then, Fathers, that God alone possesses a 
 right to take away life, nevertheless, having enacted laws 
 for the execution of criminals, he has made kings or em- 
 pires the depositories of this power. This is what St. 
 Paul teaches us when speaking of the authority of poten- 
 tates to put men to death, he represents it as descending 
 from heaven, " they bear not the sword in vain, they are 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 223 
 
 the ministers of God's revengers to execute wrath upon 
 him that doeth evil." 
 
 But as God intrusts them with this power, he requires 
 them to exercise it as he does himself, that is, with jus- 
 tice, as St. Paul expresses it in the same place : " For 
 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 restric- 
 tion, so far from diminishing their power, on the contrary 
 exalts and assimilates it to that of God, who is incapable 
 of evil, but almighty in doing good ; which distinguishes 
 it from that of devils, who are impotent to good, and 
 powerful only in doing evil. The sole difference between 
 God and earthly potentates is this : God being justice and 
 wisdom itself, can destroy upon the spot whom he pleases, 
 and in any manner he pleases ; for, besides that he is the 
 sovereign master of men's lives, it is certain that he can- 
 not take them away without cause or without considera- 
 tion, since he is equally incapable of injustice and error. 
 But princes cannot act in the same manner ; because, 
 though the ministers of God, they are nevertheless men 
 and not gods. They may be surprised by false impres- 
 sions, exasperated by surmises, or transported by passion ; 
 and this has led them to submit to plans of human ar- 
 rangement in the establishment of judges in their domi- 
 nions, to whom they have communicated this power, in 
 order that the authority with which God has invested them, 
 may be employed solely for the purpose for which it is 
 given. 
 
 To be exempt from homicide, therefore, it is requisite 
 to be guided by the authority and justice of God ; other- 
 wise we commit sin if we kill another with his authority 
 but without his justice, or without his authority though in 
 concurrence with his justice. From the necessity of this 
 union it is, that, according to St. Augustin, " whoever 
 kills a criminal without authority becomes criminal him- 
 self; for this great reason, that he usurps an authority 
 
224 provincial . lettebs. 
 
 which God has not delegated to him:'' the judges, on 
 the contrary, who possess this authority, are nevertheless 
 guilty of murder, if they cause the innocent te be put to 
 death contrary to the laws, which they ought to follow. 
 
 Such, Fathers, are the principles which have obtained, 
 in all ages and places, to secure the peace and safety of 
 the community, and upon which all the legislators of the 
 world, both sacred and profane, have founded their laws. 
 Never did even pagan nations deviate from this rule, un- 
 less when no other way remained of preserving chastity 
 or life : for, as Cicero states, tbey believed " the laws 
 themselves seemed to offer weapons for the defence of 
 persons in such extremities." 
 
 But this case, with which I have at present nothing to 
 do, being excepted, there never was a law which allowed 
 private individuals to kill others, and permitted it. as you 
 do, to guard against an affront, or prevent the loss of 
 honour or of property, when life is in no kind of danger : 
 no, that is what I affirm was never done even by infidels. 
 Indeed, they have expressly forbid it, for the law of thi 
 twelve tables at Rome enacted, " that it was not allow-* 
 able to kill a robber in the day time who did not defend\ 
 himself with arms." This had been before prohibited in 
 Exodus, c. 22 : and the law Furem ad Legem Corneliam, ; 
 taken from Ulpian, " forbids the killing of robbers even/.' 
 in the night, who do not threaten or attempt our lives,'j 
 Cujas, in tit. dig. de Justit. et Jure ad Leg. 3. 
 
 Pray inform me, my good Fathers, by what authority 
 you permit Jthat. whichdivine and human laws cgngm;. in 
 prohibiting? AncT wnat right riasX'essius'fb'"assert, 1. 2. 
 c. 9," n. 66. and 72, " that the book of Exodus forbids 
 our killing thieves in the day time, who do, not defend 
 themselves with arms ; and they who do put thern to 
 death are punishable in justice : but, they would not be 
 guilty in conscience when there is no ^certainty*, or at least 
 a doubt, of being- able "to recover what has been stolen, 
 as Sotus observes, because there is no obligation to ftm 
 the hazard of losing any thing to save a thief? and'that 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 225 
 
 all this may be done by ecclesiastics themselves 1" What 
 prodigious effrontery^! The law of Moses, forsooth, 
 punishes those who kill thieves when they do not endanger 
 our lives, and the law of the Gospel absolves them ! ! 
 What then, is Jesus Christ come to destroy the law and 
 not to fulfil it ? — " The judges," says Lessius, " would 
 1 punish such as kill in such a case, but they would have no 
 t guilt lying upon their conscience." Is the morality of 
 ijesus Christ, then, more cruel and less inimical to murder 
 than that of heathens, whence the judges have taken 
 those civil laws which condemn it ? Do Christians place 
 a higher value upon the possessions of this world, or less 
 upon human life, than idolaters and infidels ? Pray, Fa- 
 thers, what foundation have you for this representation ? 
 You have neither the express law of God nor man, but 
 merely this strange mode of reasoning — •■ The laws allow, 
 of self-defence against thieves by repelling force with 
 force ; — but defence being permitted, murder is also al- 
 lowed, otherwise self-defence would be impossible." 
 
 But, my worthy Fathers, it is perfectly false to say — 
 self-defence is permitted, therefore murder is allowed. It 
 is the cruel mode of defence which is the source of all 
 these errors, and which is called by the faculty of Lou- 
 vain, a murdering defence — defensio occisiva, in their cen- 
 sure upon the doctrine of your Father Launy on homicide. 
 I maintain then, according to the laws, there is so great 
 a difference between murder and self-defence, that in 
 those very cases where defence is permitted, murder is 
 forbid when a man's life is not endangered. Listen to 
 Cujas in the same place : " It is lawful to repel the man 
 who is going to seize upon any of your property, but it is 
 not lawful to kill him ;*' and, again, " if any one come up 
 to strike, and not to kill you, it is indeed lawful to repulse 
 him, but it is not lawful to kill him." 
 
 Who, then, has authorized you to say, with Molina, Re- 
 ginaldus, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others, 'it is 
 lawful to kill the man who is going to strike you ?" and, 
 again, " it is lawful to kill the person who intends to offer 
 you an insult, according to the concurrent opinion of the 
 
22G PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 casuists, as Lessius affirms, n. 74 — ex sententid omnium." 
 By what authority do you, who are but private individu- 
 als yourselves, communicate this power of killing to other 
 private individuals, and even to ecclesiastics ? And how 
 dare you usurp the right of life and death, which exclu- 
 sively belongs to God, and is the most glorious attribute of 
 omnipotent sovereignty ? To this, your answer was re- 
 quired ; but you fancy you have given a satisfactory reply, 
 by merely saying, 10 the thirteenth imposture, '' The 
 price for which Molina allows of killing a thief, who runs 
 away without doing uny violence, is not so little as I said, 
 and it must be greater than six ducats." What weakness 
 is this ! And what consideration would you fix ? Fifteen 
 or sixteen ducats ? But you would not the less incur my 
 censure. You cannot, however, affirm, that it exceeds 
 the value of a horse ; for Lessius, 1. 2. c. 9. n. 74. posi- 
 tively states, " It is lawful to kill a thief who runs away 
 with your horse ;" but I tell you further, that this value 
 is, according to Molina, settled at six ducats, as I have 
 related ; and if you will not rely on my testimony, take 
 an umpire whom you cannot refuse. It is your Father 
 Reginaldus, who. in explaining this passage of Molina, 
 1. 21. n. 68, affirms, " that Molina there determines the 
 value for which it is not lawful to kill, at three, or four, 
 or five ducats." So, Fathers, I am not only supported by 
 Molina, but even by Reginaldus. 
 
 It will prove no less easy to refute your fourteenth im- 
 posture, with regard to the permission of Molina, " to kill 
 a thief who robs you of a crown piece." This is so evi- 
 dent, that Escobar introduces it, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 44. 
 where he states, that '' Molina regularly fixes the price 
 for which a man may be killed, -at a crown." All you 
 charge upon me is, that I have suppressed the concluding 
 words of this passage — " that in this case, the moderation 
 of a just defence ought to be regarded." But why do 
 you not complain of Escobar for a similar omission ? Me- 
 thinks you are rather deficient here. You suppose we do 
 not understand what you mean by self-defence. Are we 
 not aware, that it signifies a murdering defence ? You 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 227 
 
 would have us believe, that Molina merely intended, by 
 this expression, that when a person is in danger oflife by 
 defending a crown-piece, he may kill the robber in self- 
 defence. If so, Fathers, why Hoes Molina add in the 
 same passage, that he differs in this particular from Car- 
 rerus and Bald, who admit of killing another to save one's- 
 own life ? No, no. I assure you, Molina only means,; 
 that if one could save the crown-piece without killing the 
 thief, the murder ought not to be perpetrated ; but, if this 
 cannot be done without killing him- even though no risk 
 of life be incurred, as when the thief is unarmed, it is 
 lawful to kill him, in order to save the crown-piece ; in 
 doing which, he thinks a man does not exceed the mode- 
 ration of a just defence ! To prove this, he shall explain 
 himself, torn. 4. tr. 3. d. 11. n. 6: " A person does not 
 exceed the moderation of a just defence, even though he 
 take arms against such as have none, or take better wea- 
 pons. I know some are of a different opinion, but I can- 
 not coincide with their judgment, even in the external 
 tribunal." 
 
 Thus, Fathers, it is plain that your authors allow of 
 murder in defence of one's goods, or honour, even when 
 life is in no danger; and, upon this "principle, duels are 
 authorized, as I have already so often shown, without 
 your attempting any reply. In your writings, you attack 
 but a single passage of Father Layman, which allows 
 killing " when a man would otherwise be in danger of 
 losing his fortune or his honour ;" and you assert, that I 
 have suppressed the following words : " this is a very rare 
 case." I am really all admiration, Fathers ! What charm- 
 ing misrepresentations you impute to me ! As if the only 
 question were, whether this case occurred but seldom ? — 
 whereas it is, whether duelling is not permitted in that 
 passage ? These are two very distinct considerations. — 
 Layman, as a casuist, was to judge whether duelling is 
 lawful ; and he declares it is. We are able to judge with- 
 out his aid, whether it is of rare occurrence, and hesitate 
 not to affirm, it is extremely common. But if you would 
 rather take your good friend, Diana's word for it, he tells 
 
228 PROVINCIAL MITERS. 
 
 you expressly, it ie very common, part. 5. tract. 14. misc. 
 2. resol. 99. Common, or uncommon, however, or whe- 
 ther Layman, in this point, follows Navarre, as you wish 
 us to believe, is it not abominable that he should consent 
 to this opinion ? that, in order to preserve a false honour, 
 it should be made lawful in conscience to accept a chal- 
 lenge, in opposition to the edicts of all Christian states, 
 and in defiance of all the canons of the church, while you 
 have neither laws, canons, nor the authority of Scripture, 
 or of the Fathers, nor the example of a single saint, to 
 support these diabolical maxims — nothing, nothing what- 
 ever, but this impious mode of reasoning — " Honour is 
 dearer than life : but it is lawful to kill in defence of one's 
 Jife ; — therefore, it is lawful to kill in defence of one's ho- 
 nour V What, then, because the irregularities of man- 
 kind have led them to prefer this false honour to that life 
 which God has bestowed upon us to use in his service, it 
 is allowable to kill each other for its preservation ! ! It 
 is this love of honour above life, which is of so mischiev- 
 ous a tendency ; aDd yet this vicious feeling, which is 
 sufficient to contaminate the purest actions, if referred to 
 that end, is made to justify the most criminal ones, only 
 because they are so referred. 
 
 What strange perversion ! and to what extravagances 
 are you leading us ! It is abundantly evident, that the 
 same principle will justify our killing others for much less 
 things which may happen to be put in competition with 
 honour :" as for example, on account of an apple. 
 
 Nay, Fathers, do not exclaim against me, and say that 
 I am deducing pernicious consequences from your doc- 
 trine ; for I am supported by the authority of the grave 
 Lessius, who writes thus, n. 68 : " It is not lawful to kill 
 another for the preservation of a thing of trifling value, as 
 a crown or an apple, aut pro porno, if it were not for the 
 shame of losing it ; in that case a man may seize it again, 
 .and even kill the thief, if necessary, to regain it — el, si 
 opus est, occidere, because this is not so much to defend 
 one's property as one's honour." Now this, good Fathers, 
 seems very plain. But to crown all by a maxim which is 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 228 
 
 wonderfully comprehensive, attend to Father Hereau, 
 who copies from Lessius — " the right of defence extends to i 
 every thing which is necessary to guard us from any ! 
 
 KIND OP INJURY." 
 
 What monstrous consequences are included in this in- 
 human principle, and how ought the whole world to op- 
 pose it, especially public men ! It is notjnerely the gene- 
 ral interest, but their own, which is deeply concerned ; 
 since your casuists, quoted in my letters, extend their per- 
 mission to kill, even to them ; and thus the factious, who 
 apprehend punishment for their delinquences, which do 
 not seem wicked in their own view, easily persuading 
 themselves that they are oppressed by violence, will at 
 the same time imagine, " that the right of defence ex- 
 tends to every thing which is necessary to guard us from 
 any bind of injury." They will no longer have to strive 
 against that remorse of conscience which stifles so many 
 crimes in their birth, but will think only of surmounting 
 external obstacles. 
 
 But 1 will say no more, Fathers, upon this point, nor 
 of other murders which you have allowed, and which are 
 still more abominable, and at the same time of more 
 importance to the welfare of nations, than all those of 
 which Lessius and other of your authors treat in so undis 
 guised a manner ; the former particularly, in the fourth 
 and tenth doubts. O that these horrible maxims had ne- 
 ver escaped out of the bottomless pit, and that the devil, 
 who is the orignal author of them, had never found men 
 sufficiently devoted to his service to promulgate them 
 amongst Christians ! 
 
 It is obvious, from what I have been stating, that there 
 is a wide difference between the relaxness of your opin- 
 ions and the strictness of the law of civilized and even 
 pagan nations. How must they appear when compared 
 with ecclesiastical laws, which are incomparably more holy 
 since the church alone understands and possesses true 
 holiness ? This chaste spouse of the Son of God, who, 
 like her divine Lord, could shed her own blood for others. 
 but not theirs for her, cherishes a peculiar horror of" 
 20 
 
230 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 murder in proportion to the extraordinary illumination she 
 has received from God. She not only considers men as 
 men, but as the image of that God whom she supremely 
 adores, and entertains a holy and respectful regard toward 
 every individual, as purchased by an infinite price, to be 
 the temple of the living God. For this reason, she con- 
 siders the death, of a man who is executed without the 
 sanction of his authority, not only as murder but sacrilege, 
 depriving her of one of her members ; because, whether 
 he be or be not a believer, she always views him either as 
 being one of her children or capacitated to be so. 
 
 For these reasons, since God became man for the sal-1 
 vation of men, they are rendered so important to the! 
 church, that she has always punished murder which \ 
 destroys them, as one of the greatest crimes that can be j 
 committed against God. Allow me to adduce some ex- l 
 amples, not to intimate that all such severities ought to be 
 continued, for I know that the church has authority to 
 manage external discipline variously, but to elucidate her 
 immutable opinion upon this subject. For the penance 
 which she appoints for murder may differ according to the 
 change of times, but her horror for this atrocity can never 
 change under any conceivable vicissitude of circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The church would not, for a long period, be reconciled 
 to such as were guilty of wilful murder, but at death, 
 though you are. The celebrated council of Ancyra con-L 
 demned them to penance during the rest of their days;] 
 and the church has since considered it a very great indul/ 
 gence towards them, to reduce the time to an indefinite 
 number of years. But the more effectually to deter from 
 wilful murder, she punishes with much severity those 
 which have occurred by accident, as may be seen in St. 
 Basil, St. Gregory Nyssenus, and in the decretals of 
 Popes Zachary and Alexander II. The canons cited by 
 Isaac, bishop of Langres, t. 2, 13. ordain "seven years of 
 penance for a murder in self-defence ;" and we see St. 
 Hildebert, bishop of Mans, in his reply to Ives of Chartres, 
 states, " he had done right in degrading a bishop tor 
 
l'KOVINCIAL LETTERS. 231 
 
 life who had killed a thief with a stone in his own Se- 
 ence." 
 
 Dare you, after this, assert that your decisions are con- 
 formable to the spirit and canons of the church ? I defy 
 you to point out one that gives permission to murder for 
 the preservation of one's property merely ; for I do not 
 speak of those cases in which a man is forced to defend 
 his life, se suaque liberando. Your own authors admit 
 there are none ; as, amongst others, Father Launy, torn. 
 j 5, disp. 36, n. 136: " There is no law," says he, "' hu- 
 1 man or divine, which expressly allows of killing a thief 
 who does n6t stand upon his defence." But this you per- 
 mit in so many words. I defy you further, to point out a 
 single canon which sanctions murder for honour, for a box!, 
 on the ear, for an affront, and for a slander. I defy you' 
 to refer to any one that permits the killing of witnesses, 
 judges, and magistrates, whatever injustice we may have 
 reason to apprehend. The spirit of the church is far from 
 these seditious maxims, which open the doers to insurrec-/ 
 tion, to which the populace is so naturally addicted. She, 
 has always taught her children not to render evil for 
 evil, to give place to wrath, not to resist violence, to 
 render to every one his due, honour, tribute, submission, 
 to obey magistrates and superiors, even though unjust ; 
 because we ought always to respect the power of God who 
 has appointed them to rule. She prohibits, even more 
 strongly than the civil laws do, deciding in their own 
 cause ; and it is by her spirit that Christian kings avoid 
 the punishment even of capital crimes, referring them to 
 the judges to execute the law according to the proper 
 forms of justice ; which i3 so opposite to your conduct) 
 that the comparison ought to cover you with blushes.' 
 And since I am thus led to the subject, let me beseech 
 you to pay attention to the difference between your me- 
 thod of putting your enemies to death, and that of the 
 judges in executing criminals. 
 
 Every body, Fathers, knows that private individuals 
 have no power to seek the death of any one ; and that if 
 a person have ruined our fortune, crippled our bodies, 
 
232 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 burned our houses, murdered our father, and shown him- 
 self resolved to destroy our reputation or even to assassi- 
 nate us, justice would not listen to our requisition to have 
 him put to death. It has been necessary, therefore, to ap- 
 point public persons to demand this execution in the 
 name of the king, or rather on behalf of God. Is it, in 
 your opinion, Fathers, out of mere grimace and form, that 
 judges have adopted this regulation ? Have they not 
 done it in order to make the civil laws conformable to 
 those of the Gospel — that the external proceedings of 
 justice might not be contradictory to the internal senti- 
 ments which Christians ought to cherish ? It is obvious, 
 how much this first mode in which justice operates, sur- 
 prises you ; but the rest will utterly confound you. 
 
 Suppose, then, these public functionBries should re- 
 quire the death of the individual who has perpetrated all* 
 these crimes, what is to be done ? Will they instantly 
 plunge a dagger into bis bosom ? No, no. The life of 
 men is too important to proceed with such incaution ; the 
 laws do not dispense power to all sorts of people, but only 
 , to judges of tried probity and capacity. Do you imagine 
 ; that one is sufficient to condemn a man to death ? No, 
 Fathers, there must be at least seven : and of these seven 
 there must not be one who was ever offended by the cri- 
 minal, lest passion should bias or corrupt his judgment. 
 You know also, Fathers, that for the purpose of having 
 the mind clear and undistracted, the morning is the time 
 appointed for the discharge of these duties: such is the 
 care taken in a proceeding of so much importance, in 
 which they are the vicegerents and ministers of God, and 
 bound to condemn only those whom he himself condemns. 
 In order, therefore, to act as the faithful dispensers of 
 divine power in taking away human life, they are at liber- 
 ty to decide only according to the depositions of witness- 
 es and all other prescribed forms ; after this they cannot 
 in conscience pronounce sentence, but in conformity to^, 
 the laws, nor adjudge any to death but whom the laws ' 
 condemn. And then, my Fathers, if the command of God 
 requires them to deliver up these miserable men to pun- 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 233 
 
 ishment, the same command obliges them to take care of 
 their guilty souls ; and it is because they are guilty that 1 ; 
 the greater attention should be manifested, so that they, 
 may not be abandoned to execution till the proper means 
 have been used to impress their consciences. All this is ' 
 very correct and very innocent ; nevertheless, the church 
 entertains such an abhorrence of blood, that she consi- 
 ders those unworthy of ministering at her altars who have 
 assisted in criminal adjudications, though attended with 
 such religious observances ; from which it is easy to con- 
 ceive what the church thinks of murder. 
 
 Such is the proceeding of justice in disposing of the 
 lives of men : let us now examine your method. In the 
 new laws you have promulgated, there is but one judges 
 and he is the offended person in fact, he is party, judge* 
 and executioner. He demands of himself the death or 
 his enemy, appoints his punishment, and executes him on 
 the spot ; and, without any regard to the body or soul of 
 his brother, he kills and damns him for whom Christ died ; ] 
 and all this to avoid a box 'on the ear, a reproach, or an! 
 offensive word, or other minor delinquences, for condemn- 
 ing which to the punishment of death, a judge, invested 
 with legitimate authority, would be highly criminal ; be- 
 cause the laws are far from so condemning them. And, 
 finally, to crown these extravagances, you neither impute 
 sin nor irregularity to those who commit murder in this 
 manner without authority and contrary to the laws, even 
 though perpetrated by religious persons and the priests 
 themselves ! Where are we now ? Are these monks and 
 priests who talk in this manner ? Are they Christians 1 
 or, are they Turks ? Are they men ? or, are they de- 
 mons ? Are these the mysteries revealed to his Society by 
 the lamb, or are they abominations suggested by the dra- 
 gon to those who are of his party ? 
 
 What would you wish to be esteemed, Fathers ? Chil- 
 dren of the Gospel or enemies of the Gospel ? You must 
 belong to one class or the other — there is no middle con- 
 dition : " he that is not with Christ is against him :" 
 these two descriptions divide mankind. There are ac- 
 20* 
 
234 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 cording to St. Augustin, two people and two worlds dif- 
 fused over the earth — the world of the children of God, 
 constituting a body of which Christ is chief and king ; 
 and the world at enmity against God, of which the devil 
 is chief and king. For this reason, Jesus Christ is called 
 /the lung and God of the world ; because, in every part of 
 lit, he has his subjects and worshippers; and the devil is 
 i also denominated in Scripture, the prince of the power of 
 ithe air, and the God of this world, because he also has 
 Wvery where his supporters and slaves. Jesus Christ has 
 enacted such laws in his church, which is his kingdom, as 
 he has thought proper, according to his eternal wisdom : 
 and the devil has enacted such laws in the world, which is 
 his kingdom, as he wishes to be established. Jesus Christ 
 ' has made it honourable to suffer ; the devil not to suffer. 
 Jesus Christ has commanded those who receive a blow 
 on one cheek to turn the other also ; thedevil would have 
 them kill the persons who intend to inflict this injury. 
 Jesus Christ pronounces them to be happy who partake 
 of his ignominy ; the devil declares such as endure shame 
 to be miserable and accursed. Jesus Christ says, Woe 
 unto you when all men shall speak ■well of you ; the devil 
 says, " Woe to those of whom the world does not speak 
 with esteem." 
 
 Now, Fathers, to which of these kingdoms do you be- 
 long ? You have heard the language of the city of peace, 
 called the mystical Jerusalem, and you have heard the lan- 
 guage of the city of strife, in Scripture termed spiritual 
 Sodom; which of these languages do you understand? 
 Which of them do you speak ? Those who belong to 
 Christ are, as Paul expresses it, " of one mind with him ;'" 
 and those who are the children of the devil, ex patre dia- 
 )>olo, who was " a murderer from the beginning," follow 
 the maxims of the devil according to the testimony of 
 Christ. Let us hear the language of your school and in- 
 quire of your authors — if one is struck with a blow on the 
 ear, is it right to endure it, or to kill the person who gave 
 it ; or, is it lawful to kill a man in order to prevent such 
 an affront ? It is lawful, say Lessius, Molina, Escobar, 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 235 
 
 Reginaldus, Filiutius, Baldellus, and other Jesuits, to Mil 
 the person who intends^ to give you a box on the ear ! Is 
 this, the language of Jesus Christ ? — Again, is a man with- 
 out, honour who suffers a blow on the ear without killing 
 the man who struck it ? . « Is it not true," asks Escobar, 
 " that whilst the person who has given you a box on the 
 ear is suffered to live, he who has submitted to it is with- ■ 
 out honour 1" True. Fathers — he is without that honour/ 
 which the devil has transmitted from his own proud spirit 
 into that of his proud descendants. It is that honour 
 which has always been idolized by men possessed of the 
 spirit of the world. It is to preserve this kind of glory, 
 of which the devil is the real dispenser, that mankind sa- 
 crifice their lives to the madness of duels, their honour to 
 the disgrace of punishments to which they expose them- 
 selves, and their salvation to the danger of damnation, 
 while they are deprived of Christian burial by the ecclesi- 
 astical canons. We ought to praise God for bestowing 
 upon the mind of the king a purer light than that of your 
 theology. His edicts, which are so severe upon this sub- 
 ject, do not make duelling criminal ; they only punish the 
 crime inseparable from duels. Through the fear of his 
 rigorous justice, he has deterred those who could not be 
 influenced by the justice of God : and his piety has shown 
 him that the honour of Christians consists in observing the 
 commands of God, and the rules of Christianity ; not in 
 that phantom of honour which you represent, frivolous as 
 it is,- as a legitimate apology for murder. Thus your mur- 
 dering decisions are execrated by the whole world, and 
 you had better be admonished to change your sentiments, 
 if not from a religious principle, at least from a political 
 motive. Prevent, Fathers, by a voluntary condemnation^ 
 these barbarous maxims, the sad effects so likely to result,\ 
 and for which you must be responsible: and, to inspire? 
 you with the greater horror, remember that the first crime 
 of depraved nature was a murder, committed upon the 
 person of the first righteous man ; that the greatest crime 
 of mankind was the murder of him who was the head of 
 all the just, and that murder is the only crime which at 
 once destroys the state, the church, nature, and piety. 
 
236 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 I have just been reading the reply of your apologist to 
 my thirteenth letter. But if he can give no better answer 
 to this, which solves most of his difficulties, it will merit no 
 replyt I pity him, when I see how he flies off from the 
 subject every moment, and levels his calumnious reproaches 
 both against the living and the dead. But to gain credit 
 to the notes with which you furnished him, you should not 
 have made him disavow, in so public a manner, so notorious 
 a circumstance as that of the box on the ear at Com- 
 niegne. It is certain, Fathers, from the acknowledgment 
 of the offended party, that he received a blow on the 
 cheek from the hand of a Jesuit ; and all that could be 
 accomplished by your friends, was to render it doubtful, 
 whether it was given with the palm or with the-back of the 
 hand ; and then, whether a stroke upon the cheek with the 
 back of the hand ought to be called a box of the ear or 
 not? 
 
 I cannot tell whose office it may be to determine this 
 puzzling question, but I am of opinion it was at least a 
 probable box on the ear. My conscience therefore is at 
 ease. 
 
LETTER XV. 
 
 The Jesuists omit Calumny in their Catalogue of Crimes, 
 and make no scruple of using it against their Enemies. 
 
 Nov. 25, 1656. 
 Reverend Fathers, 
 
 As your impostures are daily increasing, and you make 
 use of them, to scandalize in so cruel a manner, all per- 
 sons of piety who oppose your errors, I feel myself 
 obliged, on their account and for the service of the 
 church, to expose, a part of your mysterious conduct, 
 which I promised to do some time since, that it may be 
 fully known from your own maxims, what reliance may be 
 placed upon your accusations and injurious conduct. 
 
 I am well aware, that persons who are not sufficiently ac- 
 quainted with you, feel it extremely difficult to come to 
 any decision upon this subject, because they are, necessi-e 
 tated either to believe those incredible crimes of whicm 
 you accuse your enemies, or to deem you impostors,; 
 which would seem equally incredible. If these things I 
 were untrue, say they, would a religious society publish 
 them — thus resisting the dictates of conscience, and 
 giving themselves up, by such atrocious calamities, to 
 damnation ? In this manner they reason ; so that obvious 
 and striking as are the proofs by which your falsities are 
 exposed, yet, being so diametrically opposed to the opi- 
 nion they cherish of your sincerity, they are held in sus- 
 pense between the evidence of the truth which they can- 
 not deny, and the duty of charity which they are appre- 
 hensive of violating. As, therefore, the only hinderance 
 
238 rno vinci al letters. 
 
 to their rejection of your scandal, is their respect for 
 your character, if they should find that you really do not 
 entertain that bad opinion of calumny for which they give 
 you credit, but think it to be no impediment to your salva- 
 tion, no doubt the force T^trnlKwnrmimeaTately deter- 
 mine them Ho disbelieve your impositions. You see, Fa- 
 thers, the subject of the present Tetter. 
 
 It is my purpose to advance a step further, than merely 
 to show that your writings are replete .with calumnious 
 representations. Falsehoods may be stated under an im- 
 pressiofl"that they are truths, but lying is characterized by 
 the iTitention to deceive. I shall show, that you design to 
 deceive and calumniate, and that you purposely impute 
 crimes to your enemies, of which you know they are per- 
 fectly innocent, because you believe it may be done with- 
 out falling from a state of grace. And though you may 
 be as well acquainted as myself with this point of your 
 morality, I shall beg permission to state rt, that no further 
 doubt may exist, by showing that I challenge you person- 
 ally and individually on the subject, without even your 
 being able to deny it with all your assurance, unless at the 
 same time you own that for which I reproach you. For 
 this is a doctrine so common in your schools, that you 
 have not only maintained it in your writings, but even in 
 your public theses, which is an act of the utmost pre- 
 sumption ; as, for example, in that of Louvain, in the 
 year 1645, in the following words : " It is only a venial 
 sin to caluminate and rum the credit of such as speak 
 ; evil of you, by accusing them of false crimes — quidni non 
 ■ nisi veniale sit, detrahentis autoritatem magnam tibi noxiam 
 falso crimine elidere ?" This doctrine is so current 
 amongst you, that whoever dares to attack it, you treat as 
 an ignoramus and a stupid fellow. 
 
 Not long ago, this took place in regard to Father 
 Quiroga, a German capuchin, who opposed this doctrine, 
 and was immediately attacked by Father Dicastillus, who 
 speaks of this dispute in these terms — de Just. 1. 2. tr. 2. 
 disp. 12. n. 404 : «• A certain grave friar, barefooted 
 and deep cowled — cucullatiis, gymnopoda — whose name 1 j 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 239 
 
 .shall conceal, had the temerity to decry this opinion 
 umongst some women and ignorant people, as pernicious 
 and scandalous, contrary to goffd manners, subversive of 
 the peace of states and societies, and opposed not only to 
 all the Catholic doctors, but to all who may become so. 
 But I have maintained against him, and still maintain, 
 that calumny, when made use of against a calumniator, 
 though it be a lie, yet is not a mortal sin, nor contrary to 
 justice or charity ; and, as a demonstration of this, I fur- 
 nished him with a crowd of our Fathers, and w|>»le 
 universities^ whom I consulted : among others, the rever- 
 end Father John Gans, confessor to the Emperor ; the 
 reverend Father Daniel Bastele, confessor to the arch- 
 duke Leopold ; Father Henry, who was the tutor of 
 these two princes ; all the public and ordinary professors 
 of the university of Vienna (consisting entirely of Jesuits ;) 
 all the professors of the university of Gratz (all Jesuists ;) 
 all the professors of the university of Prague (of which 
 the Jesuits are masters ;) from all of whom, I have in my 
 possession, a written, signed and sealed approbation of 
 my opinion ; in addition to which, I have Father Penna- 
 lossa, a Jesuit, preacher to the Emperor and the king of 
 Spain ; Father Pilliceroli, a Jesuit ; and many others, 
 who have all judged this opinion probable, previous to our 
 dispute." You see, Fathers, there are few opinions 
 which you have taken so much pains to establish ; and. 
 in fact, there are few which are so serviceable to you. 
 For this reason, you have impressed so much authority 
 upon it, that your casuists have made use of it as an in- 
 dubitable principle. " It is certain," says Caramuel, n. 
 1151., "it is a probable opinion, that it is no mortal sin 
 to bring a false accusation for the sake of preserving one's 
 honour : for it is maintained by upwards of twenty grave 
 doctors, Gaspar Hurtado, Dicastillus, &c. Hence, if this 
 doctrine be not probable, there is scarcely any one that is 
 so in the whole system of divinity." 
 
 O, what an execrable system is this, and how utterly 
 corrupt in all its main points and principles — that if this 
 doctrine be not probable and safe in conscience, " that a 
 
240 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 person may be accused falsely in order to preserve one's 
 honour," there is scarcely any one that is ! What can be 
 more probable, Fathers, than that those who hold this prin- 
 ciple, should sometimes put it in practice ? The depraved 
 passions of mankind hurry 'them on with such impetuosity, 
 that it is inconceivable, when all conscientious scruples 
 are done away, how violently they proceed. For in- 
 , stance, Caramuel writes, in the same place, " This maxim 
 \ of Father Dicastillus, the Jesuit, respecting calumny, was 
 ; tatlght by a German countess to the daughter of the Em- 
 , press, who, believing that calumnies were but venial sins, 
 J spread abroad so many scandals and false reports every 
 day, that the whole court was pat into a state of ferment 
 and alarm. It is easy to perceive the use they made of 
 it ; so that, to quiet this tumult, it was found necessary to 
 apply to a good Father, a capuchin, named Quiroga, of 
 exemplary conduct (which was the reason Father Dicas- 
 tillus had such a quarrel with him,) who told them plainly, 
 that this maxim was very pernicious, especially as held by 
 women, and then took such especial care, that the Em- 
 press totally abolished the practice of it." 
 
 It is by no means surprising that this doctrine should 
 have produced some bad effects : it would have been more 
 so had it been otherwise. Self-love is always ready to 
 persuade us that an attack made upon ourselves is unjust : 
 much more you, Fathers, who are so blinded by vanity, 
 that you would make all the world believe, from your 
 writings, that an injury attempted against your society, is 
 an injury done to the honour of the church ; and thus it 
 would be strange, if you were not to put this maxim in 
 practice. We must not say, as those who do not know 
 you do — how is it these good Fathers calumniate their 
 enemies, since it is endangering their own salvation ? but 
 we must say, on the contrary — how is it these good Fathers 
 would lose any opportunity of decrying their enemies, 
 when they can do it without risking their own safety ? Let 
 us then no longer be astonished at finding the Jesuits ca- 
 lumniators : they are so with a safe conscience, and can- 
 not be otherwise ; since, by the credit they have acquired 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 241 
 
 in the world, they may revile others without any apprehen- 
 sion from the justice of men, and by that which they have 
 acquired in cases of conscience, they have established 
 maxims, by which they are empowered to do as they 
 choose, without dreading the justice of God. 
 
 Such, Fathers, is the origin of so many base impos- 
 tures. From this source, your Father Brisacier drew, till 
 he brought upon himself the censure of the archbishop of 
 Paris. It was this which led your Father d'Anjou, openly 
 in the pulpit of the church of St. Benedict at Paris, on 
 the eighth of March, 1656, to decry those persons of 
 quality who received the subscriptions for the poor of Pi- 
 cardy and Champagne, to which they had so liberally con- 
 tributed themselves ; and to declare (which was a horrible 
 falsehood, and enough to have destroyed all charity, had 
 your impostures obtained any kind of credit,) " that he 
 knew for certain that these persons had misapplied this 
 money, to employ it against the church and state ; which 
 obliged the curate of the parish, a doctor of theSorbonne, 
 to preach next day, for the express purpose of confuting 
 these calumnious representations. Your Father Crasset, 
 upon the same principle, published from the pulpit so many 
 impostures in Orleans, which rendered it necessary for the 
 bishop to interdict him as a public impostor, by a mandate 
 of the ninth of September last, in which he declares, 
 - that he prohibits brother John Crasset, priest of the 
 society of Jesus, from preaching in his diocese ; and 
 all the people from hearing him, under pain of being 
 guilty of a mortal disobedience^ he having been ap- 
 prised that the said Crasset had delivered a discourse from 
 the pulpit, full of falsehoods and calumnies against the! 
 clergy of that city, falsely and maliciously charging them 
 with maintaining such heretical propositions as these— 
 that it is impossible to keep the commandments of God — '■ 
 that internal grace is irresistible — and that Christ did not, 
 die for all men, with others of a similar nature, condemned! 
 by Innocent X." This, Fathers, is your ordinary impos- ; 
 ture, and the first with which you attack those whom you 
 deem it important to decry. And though it be as impos- 
 21 
 
242 PROVINCIAL LETTBHS. 
 
 sible to prove your charges, as it is for Father Crasset to 
 substantiate his against the clergy of Orleans, your con- 
 science is quite easy, " because you believe that this mode 
 of detraction is so certainly allowable," that you are not 
 afraid to declare it openly in the face of a whole city. 
 
 A remarkable instance of this occurred in your disagree- 
 ment with M. Puys, a clergyman of St. Nisier, at Lyons ; 
 and, as this affair furnishes a complete illustration of your 
 spirit, I shall relate the principal circumstances. You 
 know, Fathers, that in 1649, Mr. Puys translated an ex- 
 cellent work, written by another capuchin, into French, 
 " On the duly of Christians to their own parishes, against 
 those who wished to entice them away," — without using 
 any invectives, and without either pointing at any religious 
 order or individual. Your Fathers, however, took it to 
 themselves, and paying no respect to an aged pastor, a 
 judge in the primacy of France, and much honoured by 
 the whole city, your Father Alby wrote a violent philippic 
 against him, which you yourselves sold in your own church 
 on Assumption-day ; in which, amongst other charges, he 
 was accused of " becoming scandalous by his gallantries, 
 of being suspected of impiety, of being a heretic, an ex- 
 communicated person, and deserving to be burned alive." 
 To this M. Puys replied ; but Father Alby, In a second 
 publication, persisted in his former criminations. Is it not 
 then evident, Fathers, either that you must be calumnia- 
 tors, or that you believed all the charges brought against 
 the good priest ; and therefore that it was needful that you 
 should have seen him fully^exculpated before you deemed 
 him worthy of your friendship ? Attend now to what 
 passed at the reconciliation, in presence of a great multi- 
 tude of the most distinguished persons of the city, whose 
 names are inserted below, in the order in which they were 
 placed in the paper drawn up on the 25th of September, 
 1650.* In the presence of this assembly, M. Puys made 
 
 i 
 
 * M. de Ville, vicar-general of the cardinal de Ljvn ; Mr. Sear- 
 
 ron, canon and minister of St. Paul's ; M. Margat, chanter ; Messrs. 
 
 Bouvaud, Seve, Aubert, and Dervien, canons of St. Nisier ; M. du 
 
 Out, president of the treasurers of France ; M. Groslier, provost of 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 243 
 
 no other declaration than the following ; " that what he 
 had written was not intended for the Jesuits — that he had 
 spoken in general against those who seduce the faithful 
 from their parishes, without at all meaning to attack their 
 society, for which, on the contrary, he cherished, a high 
 regard." This is in itself sufficient with regard to his 
 apostacy, his revilings, and his excommunication, without 
 any recantation or absolution. Father Alby afterwards 
 addressed him in these words : " Sir, my conviction thak 
 you attacked the society to which I have the honour th 
 belong, induced me to take up my pen to answer you, anfl 
 I thought my manner of doing it was allowable ; but havint 
 become better acquainted with your intention, 1 now de- 
 clare, that there exists nothing which can prevent 'my esV 
 teeming you as a person of a very enlightened understand^ 
 ing, of a profound and orthodox faith, of irreproachable 
 morals, and in one word, a worthy pastor of your church.! 
 This declaration I make with high satisfaction, and beg 
 these gentlemen to remember it." «_-* 
 
 In truth, Fathers, these gentlemen remember it perfect- 
 ly well, and were more offended at your reconciliation, 
 than at your quarrel. For who does not admire Father 
 Alby's speech 1 He does not say that he retracts on ac- 
 count of discovering M. Puys has changed his behaviour 
 and his doctrine, but merely " because he found that it 
 was not his intention to attack your society, so that there 
 is nothing to prevent him from being a good Catholic." — 
 He did not, therefore, believe him to be a heretic at all ; 
 nevertheless, after accusing him of it, contrary to his own 
 convictions, he does not acknowledge his error, but dares, 
 on the contrary, to affirm, '' that he believes the manner 
 in which he used him was allowable." 
 
 My good Fathers, what can you be thinking about, thus 
 publicly to show that you only measure the faith and vir- 
 
 the merchants ; M. de Flecbere, president and Lieutenant-general ; 
 Messrs. de Boissat, de St. Romain, and de Bartoly, gentlemen ; M. 
 Burgeois, king's chief advocate in the treasury-office of France; 
 Messrs. de Cotton, father and son ; M. Boniel ; who all signed the 
 original declaration with M, Puys and Father Alby. 
 
244 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 tue of mankind by their opinions of your society ? How 
 came it to pass, that you were not apprehensive of making 
 people believe, by your own confession, that you were 
 impostors and calumniators ? What ! shall the very same 
 individual, and, without any change in himself, but merely 
 as he honours or opposes your society, be " pious or impi- 
 ous, blameless, or deserving excommunication, a worthy 
 pastor of the church, or fit only to be burned ; in one 
 word, a Catholic or a heretic ?" To oppose your society, 
 and to be a heretic, are, then, in your language, the same 
 i thing ! A pretty kind of heresy, indeed ! So, then, when- 
 ever one sees in your writings, so many good Catholics 
 called heretics, the meaning is, that -'you believe them 
 to be inimical to you." It is desirable to be initiated into 
 this language ; conformably to which, 1 am, for my part, 
 a terrible heretic; and this is the sense in which you dig- 
 nify me with this appellation. You have no reason for 
 excommunicating me from the church, excepting that you 
 believe my letters are adverse to your interests ; and thus 
 the only method left of becoming a good Catholic, is, 
 either to approve of your extravagant system of morality, 
 which I can never do without renouncing every principle 
 of religion, or to persuade you that I have no other de- 
 sign than that of promoting your real interest ; and, if 
 you admit this, you will be wonderfully recovered from 
 your strange infatuation. But I find myself inevitably 
 involved in heresy ; for the purity of my faith being in- 
 capable of rescuing me from this error, I shall never be 
 free from it, without either betraying my conscience, or 
 reforming yours, till which time I shall always remain a 
 wicked monster and impostor ; for, however correctly I 
 have quoted your authors, you will continue to exclaim, 
 " that he must be an agent of the devil, to charge you 
 with things of which there does not exist the slightest 
 mark or intimation in all your writings ;" and yet there 
 would be nothing in this but what would perfectly accord 
 with your maxims and usual practices : so great and ex- 
 tended is the privilege you enjoy of lying. Allow me to 
 produce a specimen, chosen on purpose, because it will 
 
rKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 245 
 
 furnish an answer at the same time to your ninth impos- 
 ture, which only merits a transient notice and refutation. 
 
 About ten or twelve years ago, you were reproached 
 with this maxim of Father Bauny, ■' that it is allowable 
 to seek directly, primd et per se, the next opportunity of 
 committing simony for the spiritual or temporal advantage 
 of ourselves or our neighbour," tr. 4. q. 14. Of this, he 
 adduces the following exemplification : — " It is lawful for 
 any one to go mto public places of ill-fame, in order to 
 convert prostitutes, though it be not improbable, the in- j 
 dividual may fall into sin from various experiments which 
 he has already made, having been seduced by their ca- 
 resses." What reply did Father Caussin offer to this, in 
 1644, in his Apology for the Society of Jesuits, p. 128 ? — 
 Look at the passage in Father Bauny, read the page, the 
 marginal references, what precedes and what follows ; 
 study, indeed, the whole work, and you will not discover 
 the least trace of such a sentence ; and it could never 
 enter into the mind of any man, whose conscience was 
 not totally depraved ; nor could any one have imagined it, 
 who was not, in fact, an agent of the devil." Your Fa- 
 ther, Pintereau, speaks in the same style, part 1. p. 24 : 
 " A man must be lost indeed to all conscience, to teach 
 such a detestable doctrine ; but, whoever attributes it to 
 Father Bauny, must be worse than a devil. Reader; be 
 assured, there is not the least mark or indication of it in 
 his whole book." Who would not believe, but that peo- 
 ple who talk at this rate, had a just ground of complaint, 
 and that Father Bauny had been misrepresented ? Was 
 ever any thing expressed in stronger terms 7 How can 
 any person dare to imagine, that a passage can be found 
 in the very place, and in the very words referred to, when 
 it is affirmed, that " there is not the least mark or indica- 
 tion of it in the whole book ?" 
 
 Unquestionably, Fathers, this is the true way of gaining! 
 credit, till an answer appears ; but it is also the way ne-f 
 ver to be believed again, as soon as the answer is pub-l 
 lished. For it is so evident that you told falsehoods at 
 that time, that in your answers, you now Confess, without 
 21* 
 
246 PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 
 
 any hesitation, that this said maxim is not only to be found 
 in Father Bauny, in the very place whence it was cited, 
 but what seems most worthy of admiration, what was de- 
 testable twelve years ago, is now so innocent, that in your 
 ninth imposture, p. 10, you absolutely accuse me of » ig- 
 norance and malice, for quarrelling with Father Bauny, 
 respecting an opinion which was never rejected in the 
 schools." What an advantage it is to have to do with 
 people who talk pro and con ! I have no need of any 
 other auxiliaries, for you confute yourselves ! It is only 
 necessary to show two things — that this maxim is a bad 
 one — then, that it is the maxim of Father Bauny ; both 
 of which I shall prove from your own confession. In the 
 year 1644, you allowed it to be detestable, and in 1656, 
 you admit it is Father Bauny's. This double acknow- 
 ledgment is quite sufficient for my justification ; but it 
 goes further — it discovers the spirit of your politics. Let 
 me ask what end you propose in your writings ? Is it to 
 state your sentiments with sincerity ? No, certainly ; be- 
 cause your answers are self-contradictory. Is it to esta- 
 blish the true faith 1 But this is so little the case, that 
 you authorize a maxim, which, according to your own ad- 
 mission, is detestable. But remark, that when you said 
 this maxim was detestable, you, at the same time, denied 
 that it was Father Bauny's, and so he was innocent ; and, 
 when, afterwards, you allow it to be his, you maintain it is 
 a good one — so he is innocent still ! This Father's inno- 
 cence, then, beiog the only thing in common to both your 
 replies, it is obviously your sole aim ; the object being to 
 defend - your authors, by saying of the same identical 
 maxim, it is, or, it is not, in your books ; it is good, or it 
 is bad ; not according to its conformity to truth, which is 
 immutable, but U> your interest, which changes every mo- 
 ment. What can I say after this, which is absolutely de- 
 monstrative ? and yet this is your common method of pro- 
 ceeding every day, and, omitting an infinity of other ex- 
 amples, you will, I dare say, deem it enough to produce 
 one more. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 247 
 
 You have been censured on various occasions for an- 
 other proposition of Father Bauny, tr. 4, quest. 22, p. 
 100: " Absolution ought not to be denied or deferred to 
 those who live in the habit of transgressing the laws of God, 
 of nature, and of the church, though there should be no 
 hopes of amendment — etsi emendationis futurce spes nulla 
 appareat.''' I beg to know who has furnished, in your 
 view, the best answer to this ; your Father Pintereau, or 
 your Father Brisacier, who justify Father Bauny in both 
 your peculiar methods of defence : the one condemning 
 this proposition, but denying it to be Father Bauny's ; 
 the other admitting it to be his, but at the same time vin- 
 dicating it ? Pray, listen — Father Pintereau asks, p. 18, 
 '' What is it to break all the bounds of modesty and to 
 outface impudence itself, if it be not to impute to Father 
 Bauny this damnable doctrine, as universally admitted to 
 be his ? Judge then, reader, of the vileness of this ca- 
 lumny, and see with what kind of people the Jesuits have 
 to do ; then say, whether the author of such an atrocious 
 falsehood ought not henceforward to be deemed the in- 
 terpreter of the father of lies ? Now attend to Father 
 Brisacier, part 6, p. 21. " It is true Father Bauny says 
 what you have related" — (this, by the way, is giving Fa- 
 ther Pintereau the lie direct) — " but if you, who condemn 
 this, wait, when a penitent is at your feet, till his guardian 
 angel pawns all his title to heaven for the individual's 
 goodness, or till the eternal God swears by himself that 
 David lied, when he said by the Holy Spirit, that ' All 
 men are' liars,' deceitful and frail ; and that this penitent 
 is not a greater liar, more frail, or fickle, or sinful than 
 others— you could never apply the blood of Jesus Christ, 
 to any one." 
 
 What think you, Fathers, of these extravagant and im- 
 pious expressions, importing, that to wait till there is some 
 hope of amendment previous to giving absolution, is the 
 same as waiting till the eternal God swears by himself, 
 that a sinner shall fall no more ? What, is there no 
 difference between hope and certainty ? How reproachful 
 is it to the grace of Jesus Christ to say, there is so little 
 
248 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 possibility that Christians should abandon their sins 
 against the law of God, against nature, and against the 
 church, as to render it quite hopeless, unless the Holy 
 Spirit be a liar: so that, in your view, if absolntion be 
 not given to those whose amendment is to be expected, 
 the blood of Jesus Christ would be useless, arid could 
 never be applied to any one. To what condition, Fathers, 
 has your immoderate desire of maintaining the glory of 
 your authors, reduced you ! for you can discover only 
 two methods of justifying them, imposture or impiety J 
 and the most innocent of the two seems to be boldly to?i 
 disavow the most evident facts, which is the reason you\ 
 so frequently adopt this plan. 
 
 /This is not all: you forge writings expressly to render 
 your enemies odious ; as, for instance, the '' Letter from 
 jx Minister to Mr. Arnauld," which you dispersed in eve- 
 /ry direction throughout Paris, to impress the idea that 
 (the book of •* Frequent Communion," approved by so 
 many bishops and divines, (which was, in fact, however 
 a little contrary to your opinions,) was written by some 
 secret understanding with the ministers of Charenton. 
 At other times, you attribute to your adversaries writings 
 full of impiety, as the " Circular Letter of the Jansenists," 
 whose impertinent style evinces the grossness of the de- 
 ception, and shows but too clearly the ridiculous malice of 
 your Father Meinier, who had the audacity to make use 
 of it, p. 28, to support the blackest of his misrepresenta- 
 tions. Sometimes you cite books which never existed, 
 '. as " The Constitutions of the Holy Sacrament," whence 
 you produce passages which you have chosen to fabricate, 
 and such as would make any man's hair stand on end. 
 who was ignorant of your effrontery in inventing and circu- 
 lating falsehoods. In truth, there is not a single species 
 of calumny which you have not adopted, and certainly 
 the maxim which excuses it, could never have been in 
 better hands. . 
 
 These representations, however, are too easily refuted, 
 on which account you avail yourselves of others, of a< 
 more subtle nature, in which you take care to avoid j>ar-\ 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 249 
 
 ticularizing, in order to remove all possibility of being 
 detected and answered; as, when Father Brisacier says, 
 " that his enemies perpetrate horrible crimes, but they 
 will not do to be named." Does it not seem impossible to 
 convict such an indefinite accusation as this ? A certain 
 clever fellow, however, has found out this secret ; and 
 who do you think it is ? — A capuchin. You arc really, 
 my good Fathers, you are really unfortunate in your ca- 
 puchins, and I foresee, you will, some time or other, be 
 as unlucky in Benedictins. This capuchin is called Fa- 
 ther Valerian, of the house of the Counts de Magnis. 
 You shall see, by this little history, in what manner he 
 answered your calumnies. He had happily succeeded in 
 converting prince Ernest, landgrave ol Hesse-Rheinsfelt ; 
 but your Fathers, as if sorry for the conversion of a sove- • 
 reign prince, without their assistance, instantly wrote a 
 book against him (for you uniformly persecute good peo-> 
 pie every where), and, falsifying one of the capuchin's 
 passages, accused him of heretical doctrine ; publishing 
 moreover a letter against him, in which they said, " O, 
 how many things could we discover against you (without 
 a syllable of what things,) and how would they torment 
 you ! For if you do not behave better, we shall be under 
 the necessity of reporting you to the Pope and Cardinals." 
 This is no bad device, and 1 doubt not. Fathers, but you 
 tell them the same things of me. Now, observe his an- 
 swer in his book printed at Prague last year, p. 112 et 
 seq. ' What shall 1 do against those vague and indefi- 
 nite slanders ? How shall I refute what is not explained ? 
 There is one method, and I declare loudly and publicly 
 to those who threaten me, that they are the most notori- 
 ous impcte'tors, the most artful and most impudent liars, if 
 they do, not publish these crimes to the whole world. 
 Come forward, then, all ye mine accusers, and proclaim 
 those things upon the house-tops which hitherto you have 
 only whispered, and by this secrecy you have told false- 
 hoods with the greater boldness. Some people regard 
 these disputes as scandalous ; and truly it is an infamous 
 scandal to impute to me such a crime as heresy, and thus 
 
"250 PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 make mc suspected of many other. But the only 
 remedy I propose for this scandal is to maintain my 
 innocence." 
 
 Really, Fathers, you seem to be sadly off, for surely 
 never was a man more completely justified. You cannot 
 possibly produce the least shadow of a crime against him, 
 since you have not answered such a challenge. Really 
 you have some troublesome affairs to manage, but you do 
 not seem to become any wiser ; for some time afterwards 
 you attacked him again in a similar manner upon another 
 subject ; and he makes the same kind of defence, p. 151, 
 in the following words : •' These people, who are insup- 
 portable to all Christendom, aspire, under pretence of 
 good works, to greatness and domination, by perverting 
 almost all laws, divine, human, positive and natural, to 
 answer their own designs. They engage on their side, 
 either by their doctrine or by fear or hope, all the great 
 of the earth, and ihen abuse their authority to promote 
 their own detestable intrigues. But their schemes, how- 
 ever criminal they may be, are neither punished nor 
 checked : on the contrary, they are rewarded, and they 
 proceed with the same confidence as if they were serving 
 God. This is known to all the world, and all the world 
 speaks of it in terms of execration ; but few are able to 
 oppose this powerful tyranny. I have, notwithstanding, 
 ventured to do so. Already I have succeeded in putting 
 . a stop to their insolence, and I shall do it again in the 
 same manner. I affirm then, most unhesitatingly, that 
 they are most impudent liars — mentiris impudentissime. If 
 their accusations against me be true, let them be proved, 
 or let these accusers stand convicted of impudent false- 
 hood After this, it will be seen who is in the fight. I 
 beg of every body to mark their proceedings, and to ob- 
 serve how these people, who cannot endure the least af- 
 front without resenting it to the utmost of their power, 
 will, in appearance, suffer very patiently those which they 
 have it not in their power to revenge, and cover their real 
 impotence under the veil of pretended virtue. It is for 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 251 
 
 this reason I have used the more vigorous endeavours to 
 provoke their modesty, that the most illiterate may ac- 
 knowledge, if they should remain silent, their patience 
 will not result from meekness, but from a troubled and 
 guilty conscience." 
 
 So says the capuchin, and concludes thus : — " These ] 
 men, whose history is so well known to the whole world, 
 are notoriously wicked, and so insolent, in consequence 
 of the impunity they enjoy, that I must have renounced 
 Jesus Christ and his church, if I had not, thus publicly 
 too, expressed my detestation of their conduct, both for 
 my own vindication, and to prevent the seduction of the 
 simple-hearted." 
 
 My reverend Fathers, you have no way of retreat left : 
 you must be set down as convicted slanderers, and have 
 only to recur to your maxim, that this species of calumny 
 is not criminal. This capuchin has discovered the secret 
 of shutting your mouths ; and this is the only method 
 whenever you bring forward accusations unsustained by 
 evidence. The best answer we can give you is that of 
 the capuchin Father — mentiris impudentissime. What 
 other reply can be given, for instance, to Father Brisa- 
 cier, when he says of his opponents, " They are the 
 gates of hell, the high-priests of the devil, people destitute 
 of faith, hope, and charity, who build up the treasury of/ 
 antichrist; which," he adds, "I do not say to injure 
 them, but as compelled to it by the force of truth." Itt 
 would be a curious kind of employment for any person tof 
 set about proving, " that he is not the gates of hell, and 
 does not build up the treasury of antichrist !" 
 
 What other answer, again, could be given to all the 
 idle nonsense of the same kind to be found in your writ- 
 ings and advertisements about my letters ? For instance 
 —"that some appropriate to themselves the produce of 
 restitutions, and thus reduce creditors to beggary — that 
 bags of money have been offered to certain learned 
 monks who have refused them — that benefices have been 
 bestowed in order to sow heresies in opposition to the 
 
852 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 faith — that some pensioners are among the most dignified 
 ecclesiastics and in sovereign courts ; and that I myself 
 am a pensioner of Port-Royal, and wrote romances be- 
 Ifore I composed my letters." — I write romances ! — I who 
 i never read one in my life — and do not even know the 
 : names of those writtkn by your apologist ! ! — What is to be 
 said to all this, Fathers, but — mentiris impudentissime ; — 
 Unless you will point out the individuals — their words — 
 fime and place. Either be silent, or relate and prove all 
 the circumstances, as I have done in my stories of Father 
 Alby and John d'Alba ; otherwise you can hurt nobody 
 but yourselves. Your fables, perhaps, might have ob- 
 tained some credit before the world knew your princi- 
 ples ; but these being now disclosed, when you endeavour 
 to whisper about — ,; a person of honour, who would not 
 have his name mentioned, told you most terrible things of 
 such and such people," — you will be instantly reminded 
 of the mentiris impudentissime of the good Father capu- 
 chin. You have already imposed upon mankind too 
 long, and abused the credit which has been given to your 
 mis-statements. It is time to restore the reputation of so 
 many slandered individuals. For what innocence can be 
 so universally known as not to suffer some stain from the 
 bold calumnies of a society, which has extended itself 
 through the whole world, and which, under the garb of 
 religion, conceals souls so totally destitute of it, as to per- 
 petrate a crime like slander, not only without opposing, 
 but in direct conformity and subservience to their own 
 avowed doctrines. I shall not, surely, be blamed for de- 
 stroying the confidence which has been reposed in you. 
 since it is far more just to preserve for so many persons 
 whom you have decried, that reputation for piety, which 
 they ought indeed never to have forfeited, than to leave 
 you a reputation for sincerity which you never deserved 
 to possess. And, as one cannot be done without the 
 other, how important is it to exhibit to the world your 
 real character ! I have made a beginning, but it will re- 
 quire some further time and labour to complete the 
 design. It shall, however, be done ; nor will all your 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 253 
 
 policy, Fathers, screen you from it : since, all the efforts 
 you make to hinder it, will only serve to prove, even to 
 persons of the smallest discernment, that you are in a 
 state of alarm ; and that your own consciences reproach- 
 ing you with what I have yet to state, you have used 
 every possible means to prevent the full disclosure. 
 
 lg» 
 
LETTER XVI. 
 
 The Iwrrible Calumnies of the Jesuits against pious Eccle- 
 siastics and holy Monks. 
 
 Dec. 4, 1656. 
 Reverend Fathers, 
 
 I now propose to proceed to the rest of your calum- 
 nies, aud shall, in the first place, answer what relates to 
 your advertisements. But, as all your other publications 
 are equally full of them, I shall have an ample supply of 
 matter to entertain you as long as I think proper. 
 
 As to what relates to the fiction to the prejudice of the 
 bishop of Ypres, which is repeated in all your writings, I 
 will affirm, in a word, that you maliciously abuse some 
 ambiguous expressions in one of his letters, which, being 
 capable of a good sense, ought to be so understood, ac- 
 cording to the charitable spirit of the church, and cannot 
 be taken otherwise, but in conformity to the spirit of your 
 Society. Why, when addressing a friend — " Do not trou- 
 ble yourself so much about your nephew, I will undertake 
 to supply him with whatever money is necessary, from 
 what I have in hand ;" — why should you interpret this 
 language as if he meant to take that money without any 
 intention of returning it, and not that he simply designed 
 to advance a sum which was afterwards to be replaced ? 
 It was not necessary, however, to be guilty of such an 
 imprudence as to convict yourselves of falsehood by other 
 letters of the bishop of Ypres, which you have published, 
 clearly proving, that what he expended, was, in fact, only 
 money in advance, to be afterwards reimbursed. This 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 253 
 
 appears from the letter dated July 30th, 1619, which con- 
 1 tains these words : " Do not trouble yourself about the 
 money in advance ; he shall want for nothing during his 
 continuance here :" and from that of January 6th, 1626, 
 in which he says, >' You are too urgent ; and whenever! 
 the account is required, the little credit I have in this, 
 place will, I dare say, be sufficient to find the moneys 
 when necessary." 
 
 You are as great impostors, then, on this subject, as 
 respecting your ridiculous story about the poor's box of 
 St. Merri : for, pray, what advantage have you derived ' 
 from the accusation preferred against the clergyman whom 
 you wished to ruin, by one of your beloved friends ? Are 
 we to infer, that a man is guilty because he is accused ? 
 Surely not. Persons of his exemplary piety, may be al- 
 ways accused, while the world contains such calumniators 
 as you. He is not to be judged of from his accusation, 
 but from his verdict; and, the sentence pronounced on 
 the twenty-third of February, 1656, was a complete justi- 
 fication : and, moreover, the very person who rashly en- 
 gaged in this iniquitous suit, was disowned by his col- 
 leagues, and absolutely obliged to retract his charge. As 
 to your statement, in the same place, respecting a " fa- 
 mous director, who enriched himself in a moment, to the 
 amount of 900,000 livres," it is sufficient to refer you to 
 the clergymen of St. Roch and St. Paul, who can testify 
 to all Paris, his perfect disinterestedness in this affair, and 
 your inexcusable malice. 
 
 But these falsities are comparatively trifling — only, in 
 fact, the attempts of your novices, and nothing to the 
 grand performances of your professors. I come, then, to 
 one of the blackest calumnies that ever entered into the 
 human mind ; I refer to the insufferable audacity of im- [ 
 puting to holy nuns, and their directors, a disbelief of the S 
 mystery of Transubstantiation, and the real presence of \ 
 Christ in the Eucharist. This is worthy of you, Fathers. \ 
 This is a crime which God only can punish, and you only \ 
 could commit. One need be as humble as those humble 
 and aspersed women themselves, to endure this with pa- 
 
l'56 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 tience ; and as wicked as their wicked calumniators, i& 
 believe it. I do not, therefore, undertake to vindicate 
 them, for they are not even suspected. If they had any 
 need of advocates, they would soon find better thaB I 
 pretend to be. What I have to say, will not be for the 
 purpose of showing their innocence, but displaying your 
 malice. I wish to make you abhor yourselves, and to 
 convince the world that you are capable of any thing. 
 / You will not fail to assert, notwithstanding all this, that 
 /I belong to Port-Royal, which is the first thing you have 
 to say against your opponents, as if nobody could be found, 
 but at Port-Royal, with sufficient zeal to defend the purity 
 of the Christian system against your mis-statements. 1 
 know the merit of those pious recluses who have retired 
 into solitude, and how much the church is indebted to 
 their edifying and valuable works. I know their piety 
 and wisdom ; for though I was never settled amongst 
 them, as you represent, without any sort of idea who I 
 really am, I am acquainted with some of their community, 
 and admire the virtue of all of them. But God has not 
 included in their number all whom he will employ in oppo- 
 sition to your irregularities : I hope, by his aid, to con- 
 vince you of this ; and if he bestow his grace, to enable 
 me to accomplish my design of employing all the talents 
 I he has given- me, in bis service, I shall speak in such a 
 manner as will, perhaps, excite in you some regret that 
 you have not to encounter a Port-Royal man. And, fa- 
 thers, to prove my meaning, while those whom you have 
 so much and so calumniously misrepresented, are content- 
 ing themselves with offering up to God their ardent inter- 
 cessions for your forgiveness, I, who am not personally 
 implicated in your calumny, feel myself under the neces- 
 sity of making you ashamed of it before the whole church, 
 in order to produce that salutary confusion mentioned in 
 Scripture, which is almost the only remedy for such insen- 
 sibility as yours : " Fill their faces with shame, that they 
 may seek thy uame, O Lord — Imple fades eorum ignomi- 
 nid, ut qwzrant nomen luum, Domine." 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 257 
 
 It is necessary, however, to silence this insolence,- 
 which violates the most sacred places : for who can be 
 safe after such atrocious calumnies ? What ! to proclaim 
 publicly in Paris there is a book so scandalous, with the 
 name of your Father Meinier prefixed to it, and with this 
 infamous title, " Port Royal and Geneva in concert against 
 the most holy Sacrament of the Altar :" in which you| 
 accuse of this apostacy, not only M. de St. Cyran and M.- 
 Arnauld, but, also, Mother Agnes, his sister, and all the 
 nuns of that monastery ; of whom you say, p. 96, " that , 
 their faith is as suspicious with regard to the Eucharist, as, 
 that of M. Arnauld," whom, in page 4, you maintain to' 
 be an " absolute Calvinist !" I appeal to all the world, ) 
 if, in the whole church, there be any persons, against . 
 whom you could bring so serious a charge with so little 
 propriety : for, if these nuns, and their directors, act in 
 concert with Geneva, against the most holy sacrament of 
 the altar, which is horrible to think of, tell me how they 
 came to take for the principal object of their devotions, 
 the very sacrament which they so abominate ? Why add 
 to their rule the institution of the holy sacrament ? Why 
 take the habit of the holy sacrament ? Why take the 
 name of the nuns of the holy sacrament ? Why call their 
 church the church of the holy sacrament ? Why solicit 
 and obtain from Rome the confirmation of this institution, 
 and the privilege of repeating every Thursday, the office 
 of the holy sacrament, in which the faith of the church is 
 so fully expressed, if they had conspired with Geneva to 
 abolish that faith 1 Why should they have obliged them- 
 selves by a particular devotion, approved also by the 
 pope, constantly, night and day, to have nuns standing 
 before the sacred host, to' atone, by their incessant ado- 
 rations of this perpetual sacrifice, for the wickedness of 
 that heresy which aims to annihilate it ? Tell me, Fa- 
 thers, if you can, why, of all the mysteries of our reli- 
 gion, they should renounce those which they believe, to 
 choose those which they do not believe ? and why should 
 they devote themselves so entirely to that mystery of our 
 faith, if they consider it, as heretics do, as the mystery of 
 22* 
 
258 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 iniquity ? What answer can you give, Fathers, to these 
 evidences, which consist not of words only, but actions; 
 and not of some occasional actions only, but of a whole 
 course of life, entirely consecrated to the adoration of 
 Jesus Christ, residing upon our altars ? What reply can 
 you give to those books which you impute to Port-Royal, 
 and which abound with the most precise terms made use 
 of by the Fathers and councils to express the essence of 
 this mystery ? It is at once ridiculous and shocking, to 
 see how you answer this in your libel : " M. Arnauld," 
 you say, ■' speaks well upon the subject of transubstan- 
 tiation ; but, perhaps, he means a figurative transubstan- 
 tiation." He protends, indeed, to believe in the real pre- 
 sence, but who has informed us, that he understands it of 
 a true and real figure ? Where are we arrived now, good 
 Fathers, and who is there you could not exhibit to the 
 world as a Calvinist, whenever you chose, if it be allowa- 
 ble to pervert the most canonical and pious expressions, 
 by the malignant subtleties of your new equivocals ? — 
 Who ever used any other terms than these, especially in 
 plain discourses upon religion, where controversy is out 
 of the question ? And yet the affection and respect they 
 cherish for this sacred mystery, has so pervaded their 
 writings, that I defy you, with all your artifice, to disco- 
 ver the least trace of ambiguity, or the least coincidence 
 with the Genevan creed 
 
 i Every body knows perfectly well, that the heresy of 
 i Geneva essentially consists, as you yourselves state, in be- 
 , lieving that Jesus Christ is not contained in this sacrament 
 < — that it is impossible he should be in a variety of places 
 at the same moment — that he is really nowhere but in 
 heaven, and there only he ought to be adored, not upon 
 the altar — that the substance of the bread remains — that 
 the body of Christ neither enters into the mouth nor into 
 the stomach — that he is only eaten by faith, and conse- 
 quently the wicked do not eat him at all — and that the 
 mass is not a sacrifice, but an abomination. Let us see, 
 then, how far the writings of Port-Royal and Geneva 
 agree ; and you will find to your confusion, " that the flesh 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 259 
 
 find blood of Jesus Christ are contained in the species of 
 bread and wine," Mr. Arnauld's second letter, p. 259 — 
 " that the Holy of holies is present in the sanctuary, and 
 ought to be adored there," ibid. p. 243 — " that Jesus j 
 Christ dwells in sinners, who communicate by the true and I 
 real presence of his body in their stomach, though he be / 
 not by the presence of his spirit in their heart," Freq. 
 Com. part iii. ch. 16 — "that the dead and mouldered bo- 
 dies of the saints derive their chief dignity from that seed 
 of life which remains in them from touching the immor- 
 tal and life-giving flesh of Jesus Christ," part i. ch. 40 — 
 " that it does not arise from any natural power, but from 
 the omnipotence of God, to which nothing is impossible; 
 that the body of Jesus Christ is contained in the host, anct 
 in the least particle of every host," Theolog. Fam. lee. 15' 
 — " that the divine virtue is present to produce the effect 
 which the words of consecration signify," ibid. — " that 
 Jesus Christ, who is abased and laid upon the altar, is at 
 the same time elevated in his glory — that he is by himself 
 and by his usual power in a variety of places at the same 
 time, in the midst of the church 'triumphant, and in the 
 midst of the church militant, and sojourning,'" On Suspen- 
 sion, reason 21 — <i that the sacramental species remain 
 suspended and subsist in an extraordinary manner, with- 
 out being sustained by any subject, and that the body of 
 Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, but does 
 not depend upon them as substances depend upon acci- 
 dents," ibid 23 — " that the substance of the bread is 
 changed, the accidents remaining immutable" — In the re- 
 pose hours of the blessed sacrament, " that Jesus Christ 
 reposes in the Eucharist with the same glory which he has 
 in heaven :" Letters of Mr. de St. Cyran, t. i. let. 93 — 
 " that his glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of 
 the church, under the species of bread, which visibly co- 
 ver it ; and knowing our gross conceptions, he thus leads 
 us to, the adoration of his divinity, present in all places, 
 by that of his humanity, which is only present in one par- 
 ticular place," ibid. — " that we receive the body of Jesus 
 Christ upon the tongue, which he sanctifies" by his divine 
 
260 PROVINCIAL LETTEBS..* 
 
 touch, 1 " Iiet. 32 — " that he enters into the mouth of the 
 priest," Let. 72—" that though Jesus Christ, through his 
 amazing love and mercy, becomes accessible in the holy 
 sacrament, still he retains his inaccessible nature therein, 
 as an inseparable condition of his divinity ; because, 
 though there be only the body, and blood, by virtue of 
 the words — vi verborum, as the schools say — yet tbts does 
 not prevent his whole divinity, as well as his whole hu- 
 manity, being unitedly present," Defence of the Chaplet of 
 the Holy Sacrament, p. 217 — «« that the Eucharist is both 
 a sacrament and a sacrifice, Theol. Fam. lect. 15—" and 
 though this sacrifice be commemorative of that of the 
 cross, there exists this difference, that the mass is offered 
 only for the church, and for believers in her communion ; 
 but the sacrifice of the cross was offered, as Scripture 
 states it, for the whole world," ibid, p. 153. This, Fa- 
 thers, is surely sufficient to show, most convincingly, that 
 there sever was a piece of more flagrant impudence than 
 yours upon this topic ; but I shall still make you pronounce 
 sentence against yourselves. What do you require of any 
 man to clear him from' the imputation of secret concert 
 with Geneva ? " If M. Arnauld" (to quote your Father 
 Meinier, p. 83) " had said, that in this adorable mystery, 
 there was no substance of bread under the species, but 
 only the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, I should have 
 allowed, that he had been in direct opposition to Geneva." 
 O shameless impostors, confess it then at once, and make 
 a public reparation for the public injury you have done 
 him. How often has. this been repeated in the preceding 
 passages : and, besides, the Familiar Theology of M. de 
 St. Cyran, as approved by M. Arnauld, contains the senti- 
 ments of both. Read the whole of the fifteenth lecture, 
 particularly the second article, and you will there find the 
 words you demand, even more formally expressed than 
 by yourselves : " Is there any bread in the host, or wine 
 in the cup 1 No — for the whole substance of the bread 
 and of the wine is taken away to make room for the body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ, which alone remains there, co- 
 vered with the qualities and species of bread and wine." 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 201 
 
 Will you now, Fathers, affirm, that Port-Royal teaches 
 nothing hut what Geneva admits, or that M. Arnault! says 
 nothing in his second letter, but what might have been said 
 by a minister of Charenton ? See if you can make Mestre- 
 zat speak as M. Arnauld does in his letters, p. 237, "that 
 it is an infamous falsehood to accuse him of denying tran- 
 substantiation ; that he takes for the basis of his writings 
 the truth of the real presence of the Son of God, in op- 
 position to the heresy of the Calvinists ; that he deems 
 himself happy to be in a place where the Holy of holies 
 is continually adored as present in the sanctuary." This 
 is much more opposite to the Calvinistic creed than the 
 real presence itself; because, as Cardinal de 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 sacrament, have there- 
 by declared, that they do not separate from the church as 
 to this mystery, but in reference to the idoration which 
 the Catholics render to the Eucharist." Obtain the sig- 
 nature of Geneva to all the passages I have cited from 
 the books of Port-Royal , and not only to these, but to 
 entire treatises respecting this mystery, as the book on 
 frequent communion — the Explication of the Ceremonies 
 of the Mass — the Exercise during Mass — the Reasons of 
 the Suspension of the Holy Sacraments — the Translation 
 of the Hymns of the Hours at Port-Royal, &c. — in a word, 
 establish at Charenton this holy institution of constantly 
 adoring Jesus Christ, contained in the Eucharist, as it is 
 \ at Port-Royal, and you will be doing the greatest service 
 that can possibly be rendered to the church : for then 
 Port-Royal will no longer act in concert with Geneva, but 
 Geneva with Port-Royal, and the whole church. 
 
 Really, Fathers,you could never have hit upon a worse, 
 expedient than to accuse Port-Royal of disbelieving the 
 Eucharist— but I will explain what induced you to adopt 
 this proceeding : I understand, you know, a little of your 
 policy, which on this occasion has been of some service. 
 If M. de St. Cyran and M. Arnauld had only been good 
 enough to inform us what our faith in this mystery ough'. 
 
562 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 to have been, and not what ought to be done as prepara 
 tory to it, they would have been the best catholics in the 
 world, and no kind of ambiguity would have been found 
 in the terms real presence and transubstantiation. But as 
 
 • it is necessary to look upon all who oppose your laxity as 
 
 | heretics, and must be so in every particular which they 
 venture to question, how could M. Arnauld . be otherwise 
 upon the Eucharist, after having written a book expressly 
 against your profanations of this sacrament? Could he 
 possibly say, with impunity, " that we ought not to give the 
 /body and blood of Christ to such as frequently relapse 
 
 ■ into the same sins", and discover no signs of amendment ? 
 and that they ought to be separated some time from the 
 altar, in order to purify themselves by a sincere repent- 
 
 / ance. that they may afterwards approach it with profit V 
 Pray, Fathers, do not suffer people to talk at this rate, 
 otherwise I am apprehensive your confessionals will not 
 be very crowded ; for your Father Brisacier says, " if you 
 pursue this method, you can apply the blood of Jesus 
 Christ to nobody." You had better follow the practice of 
 your Society, which Father Mascarennhas mentions in a 
 book approved by your doctors, and by the reverend Father 
 General himself, namely, '' Persons of every class, and 
 even the priests, may receive the body of Jesus Christ 
 the very day they are polluted with abominable crimes. So 
 far from such communions manifesting any irreverence, 
 on the contrary they are praiseworthy. Confessors ought 
 not to put them off, but should advise those who come 
 from the commission of such iniquities, to communicate 
 immediately : for though the church has forbid it, this 
 prohibition is abolished by the universal practice of the 
 whole world." Mascar tr. 4. disp. 5. n. 284. 
 
 See, Fathers, see what it is to have Jesuits dispersed 
 over the whole surface of the earth ! see the universal- 
 practice you have introduced, and constantly uphold ! It 
 signifies nothing what abominations you bring to the table 
 of Jesus Christ, provided your churches be full. Be sure 
 and prove that every opponent to this principle is a here- 
 tic against the sacrament. It must be done, at any rate. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 263 
 
 The difficulty is how this can be shown, after so many in- 
 contestible evidences of their faith. And now are you 
 not alarmed, lest I should produce the four grand proofs 
 you have adduced of their heresy ? You ought to be so ; 
 and I think I ought not to spare you the shame of them. 
 
 With regard to the first: " M. St. Cyran states, that 
 Father Meinier, to console one of his friends on the death 
 of his mother, torn. i. let. 14, says 'the most acceptable 
 sacrifice that can be offered to God on such occasions, is 
 patience :' then he is a Calvinist !" Very fine, Fathers ; 
 very clever, indeed — though I question whether any one 
 can see the reason why. But this we have from himself : 
 •' because," adds this great polemic, " he does not believe 
 the sacrifice of the mass, for that is the most acceptable 
 of any." 
 
 Will any person now pretend that the Jesuits are not 
 famous reasoners ? They are, in truth, such adepts, that 
 they can make any thing they please heretical— ^nay, 
 Scripture itself; for, pray, would it not be a heresy to 
 say, as in Ecclesiastes, " Nothing is worse than the love 
 of money — nihil est iniquius quam amare jiecuniam ?" as 
 if adultery, murder, and idolatry were not greater crimes ! 
 In fact, who does not say something of a similar nature 
 every day ; as, for instance — the sacrifice of a contrite 
 and broken heart is the most acceptable with God— be- 
 cause, in such propositions, the intention is only to com- 
 pare together certain internal virtues, and not these with 
 the great sacrifice of the mass, which is quite of a differ- 
 ent order, and infinitely superior. Are you not, then, 
 extremely ridiculous ? or is it necessary to complete 
 your confusion by introducing a quotation from the same 
 letter, in which M. St. Cyran speaks of the sacrifice oi 
 .the mass as the most excellent of all : " We offer to God 
 |every day, and in all places, the sacrifice of the body of 
 |his Son, who could not find a more excellent method than 
 ithis of honouring his Father." He adds, " Jesus Christ 
 has required us,; when dying, to partake of his sacrificed 
 body, to make the sacrifice of our own more acceptable 
 
 o.God ? and that, by thus uniting himself to us in death, 
 
264 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 he may strengthen us, through sanctifying by his presence 
 the last sacrifice we make to God of our life and body." 
 But, Fathers, dissemble all this — persevere in stating as 
 you have done, p. 33, that he diverted men from the sa- 
 crament at the hoar of death, that he disbelieved the sa- 
 crifice of the mass ; for nothing is too bold for slanderers 
 jby profession to assert. 
 
 Your second proof furnishes new evidence on this point. 
 To make out M. St. Cyran (to whom you attribute the 
 book of Petrus Aurelius) a Calvinist, you introduce a 
 passage where Aurelius, p. 89, explains the conduct of 
 the church towards priests and bishops whom she wishes 
 to depose or degrade. " The church," he says, ' not being 
 able to take away the power of the order, because the 
 character cannot be effaced, she proceeds thus — she blots 
 that character from her memory which it is impossible to 
 exterminate from the souls of those who have received it : 
 she considers them as no longer her priests or bishops ; 
 so that, according to the common consent of the church, 
 we may say they are no longer such, though they still re- 
 main such as to the character — ob indelebilitatem charac- 
 teris." You see, Fathers, that this author, approved by 
 three general assemblierof the clergy of France, express- 
 ly affirms the character of the priesthood is indelible ; 
 and yet you make him say precisely the contrary in the 
 very same place, " that the character of the priesthood is 
 'not indelible." Now this is a most monstrous ealumny — 
 that is to say, as you would term ii, a venial, trifling of- 
 fence. This book has affected you deeply, by refuting 
 the heresies of your English brethren respecting episco- 
 pal authority. But how prodigious is your extravagance ! 
 for having falsely imagined that M. St. Cyran holds this 
 character capable of being effaced, you hurry on to the 
 conclusion that he does not believe in the real presence of 
 Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. 
 
 You do not, I suppose, expect me to reply to this ab- 
 surdity; for if you have not common sense, really I can- 
 not give it you. All who have, however, will be abundant- 
 ly amused both with you and your third proof, which is 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 265 
 
 founded on the following words in the Frequent Commu- 
 nion, part iii. ch. 11 : " God gives us in the Eucharist the 
 same food with which he supplies the saints in heaven, 
 without the least difference, excepting it be this, that here 
 betakes away the sight and sensible taste, reserving both/ 
 for the heavenly world." Surely, my good Fathers/5 
 the.se words so naturally express the sense of the church,' 
 that I cannot imagine at this moment how you can per- 
 vert them. I can see nothing in them but what the 
 Council of Trent teaches, Sess. 13. p. 8, that there is no 
 other difference between Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and 
 Jesus Christ in heaven, but here he is veiled, there he is 
 not. M. Arnauld does not say there is no other differ- 
 ence in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ ; but, simply, 
 there is no other difference in Jesus Christ who is re- 
 ceived. But in contradiction to all reason, you would 
 make him assert in this passage, that Jesus Christ is no 
 more eaten with the mouth here than he is in heaven : er- 
 go, he is a heretic ! 
 
 I really cannot help pitying you, Fathers. Shall I ex- 
 plain again ? How is it you confound this divine food 
 with the manner of receiving it ? The only difference, as 
 I have just stated, between this food on earth and in 
 heaven is, here it is hidden under veils which conceal it 
 from our sensible taste and sight : but there are many dif- 
 ferences in the manner of receiving it, both on earth and 
 in heaven ; of which the principal, according to Mr. Ar- 
 nauld, part iii. ch. 16, is " Here Christ enters into thej 
 mouth and stomach both of the righteous and the wick-\ 
 ed," — but it is not so in heaven. 
 
 If, Fathers, you continue ignorant of the occasion of 
 this diversity, allow me to inform you that the reason why 
 God appointed the different modes of receiving the same 
 food, is the difference which subsists between the condi- 
 tion of Christians in the present life and that of the blessed 
 in heaven. " The state of Christians," observes cardinal 
 du Perron after the Fathers, " is a medium between the 
 blessed and the condition of the Jews. The blessed pos- 
 sess Jesus Christ really, without a figure and without a 
 
 23 
 
266 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 veil. The Jews never possessed Christ but under figures 
 and veils, as in the manna and the paschal lamb ; and 
 Christians possess Jesus Christ in the Eucharist truly and 
 really, but still under veils." " God, says St. Eucharius, 
 " made himself three tabernacles — the synagogue, which 
 had nothing but shadows, without truth — the church, 
 which has both shadows and truth — heaven, where there 
 are no shadows, but truth alone." We should depart 
 from the state in which we are, that state of faith which 
 St. Paul places in opposition to the law as well as to per- 
 fect vision, were we only to possess figures without Jesus 
 Christ, because it is the property of the law to have the sha- 
 dow of things only and not the substance ; and we should 
 err again if we possessed him visibly, because " faith," as 
 the apostle affirms, " is the evidence of things not seen." 
 The Eucharist, therefore, is precisely adapted to our state 
 of faith, because it contains Jesus Christ truly, though 
 ', veiled. Hence, this state of faith would be destroyed, if 
 ! Jesus Christ were not really under the species of bread 
 and wine, as heretics pretend : it would also be destroy- 
 ed, if he were received unveiled as in heaven, because 
 this would be to confound our present condition either 
 ! with the state of Judaism or that of glory. 
 
 This, Fathers, is the mysterious and divine reason of 
 this mystery, which is itself altogether divine ; this is the 
 reason why we hold the Calvinists in abhorrence, because 
 they would reduce us to the state of Judaism ; and this 
 ma^es us aspire to the glory of the blessed, where we 
 shall enjoy the full and eternal presence of Jesus Christ. 
 By this you perceive^ there exists a variety of methods in 
 which he communicates himself to Christians on earth, 
 and to those in heaven ; and, amongst others here below, 
 he is received into the mouth — not so in heaven; but 
 they all depend upon the difference which subsists be- 
 tween the state of faith in which we are, and the state 
 of perfect vision in which they are placed. This, Fa- 
 thers, led M. Arnauld to speak so explicitly in these 
 terms : " There ought to be no other difference between 
 the purity of those who receive Christ in the Eucharist 
 
PKOVINCIAI. LETTERS. 267 
 
 and that of the blessed, but what there is between faith 
 and the full vision of God, on which alone depends the 
 different manner in which he is eat on earth and in hea- 
 ven." You ought to have reverenced the truths con- 
 tained in these words, instead of perverting them to 
 detect a heresy which never was there and never can be ; 
 namely, " that Jesus Christ is eaten only by faith, not by 
 the mouth," as your Fathers Annat and Meinier maliciously 
 affirm, making it the chief point of their accusation. 
 
 Your proofs, then, my good Fathers, seem very defec- 
 tive ; which occasions your having recourse to a new arti- 
 fice, that of falsifying the Council of Trent, in order to 
 show M. Arnauld's disconformity to it ; such are your 
 methods of making the world heretical. This is done by 
 Father Meinier in fifty places of his book, and eight or 
 ten times in the single page 54, where he pretends that it 
 is not enough, as a true Catholic, to say, "I believe that 
 Jesus Chtist is really present in the sacrament ;" but, " I 
 believe, with the Council, that he is present there by a 
 " true local presence, or locally." He then cites the Coun- 
 cil, Sess. IS. can. 3. can. 4. can. 6. Who would notsup- 
 pose, as soon as he saw the phrase local presence quoted 
 from three canons of a general council, it was really there ? 
 — This might have passed very well previous to the publi- 
 cation of my fifteenth letter ; but now, Fathers, people 
 are not to be caught ; they look at the Acts of the Count 
 cil, and find you out to "be impostors : for, positively, the 
 words local presence, locally, locality, were never there ! 
 And I further declare that they are in no other part of 
 that council, nor indeed of any other council, nor in any 
 Father of the church. After this, I should be glad to be 
 informed whether you will pretend to throw a suspicion of 
 being Calvinistic upon all those who have not adopted this 
 phraseology ? If so, tlie Council of Trent is itself suspi- 
 cious, and all the holy Fathers, without exception. Can 
 you devise no other method of making M. Arnauld here- 
 tical, but that of offending so many other people who 
 never did you the slightest injury ; as St. Thomas, who is 
 one of the most strenuous advocates of the Eucharist 
 
268 PEOVINCIAl LETTERS. 
 
 and who, so far from adopting, absolutely rejects this 
 phraseology, p. 3. 9. 76. a. 5. " NuUo modo corpus Christi 
 est in hoc sacramento localiter." Who then are you, 
 Fathers, to impose, by your single authority, new terms, 
 which you pronounce to be better adapted to express the 
 faith of mankind ; as if the profession of faith drawn up 
 by the popes according to the decree of the Council, 
 where this term is not to be found, were defective, and 
 left an ambiguity upon the faith of Christians which you 
 only have discovered ! What temerity, to prescribe^erms 
 to the divines themselves ! What falsehood, to impute 
 them to general councils! What ignorance, to know 
 nothing of the objections of the most enlightened saints ! 
 Blush — blush for your ignorant impostures, and remark 
 what Scripture says to such characters : " De mendacio 
 inerudtiioiwt tuas confundere. 
 
 Relinquish, then, I beseech you, all further attempts at 
 dictation : you have neither character nor credit for the 
 purpose. If you would introduce your propositions with 
 more modesty, one might pay them some attention^ for 
 though the terra local presence was rejected, as you have 
 seen, by St. Thomas, because the body of Jesus Christ is 
 not in the Eucharist, in the ordinary sense in which other 
 bodies occupy certain spaces ; nevertheless, the term has 
 been received by some modern controversialists, under- 
 standing by it merely, that the body of Jesus Christ is 
 truly under the external species, which being in a particu- 
 lar place, the body of Christ must be so likewise. In 
 this sense, M. Arnauld will feel no difficulty in admitting 
 it, since M. de Cyran and he have frequently declared 
 that Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist, is really in a particu- 
 lar place, and miraculously in many different places at the 
 same moment. So that all your refinements fall to the 
 ground, and you have not the slightest pretence for an ac- 
 cusation, which ought never to have been brought for- 
 ward without irrefragable proofs. 
 
 But of what avail is it, Fathers, to oppose their inno- 
 cence to your calumnies ? You do not charge them with 
 these errors from any conviction that they maintain them. 
 but from a belief that they are calculated to injure you : 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 260 
 
 and, according to your theology, that is quite sufficient in- 
 nocently to calumniate them : and you may, without con- 
 fession or penitence, say mass, at the very time you repre- 
 sent the priests, who perform it every day, as believing it 
 to be a piece of pure idolatry ; which is such a shocking 
 sacrilege, that you yourselves ordered your own Father 
 Sarrigus to be hung in effigy, because he had celebrated 
 mass at the time he maintained an understanding with 
 Geneva. 
 
 I am really astonished, Fathers, not indeed at your 
 charging such crimes upon people with so little scruple, 
 but at your imputing such improbable crimes with so little 
 prudence : for though you dispose of the sins of mankind 
 as you please, do you suppose you can also dispose of 
 their faith ? If the suspicion of Calvinism must fall either 
 upon them, or upon you, 1 really think you would be in a 
 bad plight. Their statements are as catholic as yours ; 
 but their conduct confirms their profession, yours belies 
 it. If you truly believed, as they do, that the bread is 
 changed into the body of Jesus Christ, why not demand, 
 as they do, that the stony and icy hearts of those whom 
 you advise to participate it should be sincerely changed 
 into hearts of flesh and love ? If you believe that Jesus 
 Christ is under a state of death in the sacrament, to teach 
 those who partake of it to die to the world, to sin, and to 
 themselves, why do you invite those whose vices and 
 criminal passions are still alive and prevalent ? And how 
 can you esteem those to be worthy of eating the bread of 
 heaven, who do not deserve to eat that of earth ? 
 
 Noble worshippers of this holy mystery, whose zeal is 
 employed in persecuting those who honour it by so many 
 holy communions, and flatter such as dishonour it by so 
 many sacrilegious ones ! ! — How worthily do these advo- 
 cates of this pure and adorable sacrifice fill the table of 
 Jesus Christ with abandoned and inveterate sinners, just 
 come from their infamous abominations ; and among them 
 placing a priest whose confessor has sent him from his 
 impurities to the altar, to offer there, in the place of Jesus 
 Christ, that holv victim to the God of holiness, and with 
 23* 
 
270 PBOVIKCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 his polluted hands put it into mouths no less defiled ! 
 .Does it not well become those who, according to the ap- 
 proved maxims of their own General, practise in this 
 manner all over the world to charge the author of Fre- 
 quent Communion, and the nuns of the Holy Sacra- 
 ment, with not believing in the holy sacrament ?— But this 
 is not sufficient; for, in order to satisfy their passions, it 
 is found necessary to accuse these nuns of having renoun- 
 ced Jesus Christ and their baptism. These are not 
 (inventions, Fathers ; they are the sad, the awful extrava- 
 jgances by which you have filled up the measure of your 
 1 calumnies. Such a prodigious forgery was not in proper 
 hands to support it while remaining with your good friend 
 Filleau, to whom, however, you were indebted for it : but 
 your whole Society has openly appropriated it ; and your 
 Father Meinier has maintained, as an indisputable truth 
 that Port Royal has been engaged, for this five and thirty 
 years, with M. St. Cyran and M. Ypres, as the principal 
 partizans, in forming a secret cabal "to destroy the mystery 
 of the Incarnation, to make the Gospel pass for an apo- 
 cryphal history, to exterminate the Christian religion, and 
 to elevate deism upon its ruins." And is this all, Fathers? 
 And shall you be satisfied, if all this should be believed of 
 them which your hatred suggests 1 Will your animosity 
 be satiated, if you could make them abhorred, not only by 
 all who belong to the church, by a secret coalition with 
 Geneva of which you accuse them, but also by all believers 
 without the pale of the church, by the deism you charge- 
 upon them ? 
 
 But who do you imagine will be convinced upon your 
 mere word, without the shadow of a proof, and amidst all 
 possible contradictions, that priests who preach nothing 
 but the grace of Jesus Christ, the purity of the Gospel, 
 and the obligations resulting from baptism, have really re- 
 nounced baptism,. the Gospel, and Jesus Christ ? Who 
 I say, will give credit to such a statement ? Do you really 
 believe it yourselves, base as you are ? To what an 
 extremity are you reduced ? for you must of necessity 
 either prove that they are not believers in Christ, or be 
 
PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 271 
 
 deemed the most infamous of calumniators. Prove it then 
 Fathers. Adduce your evidence. Name the worthy ec- 
 clesiastic who you say, assisted at the assembly of Bourg- 
 Fontain in 1621, and disclosed to your Filleauthe project 
 of destroying the Christian religion. Name the six indi- 
 viduals who as you affirm conspired for this purpose. Name 
 the person intended by the letters A. A. who, you assert, 
 p. 15, is not Anthony Arnauld, because he has convinced 
 you he was not at that time more than nine years of age, 
 " but another, who," you declare, " is still alive, and too 
 good a friend of Mr. Arnauld to be unknown to him." 
 You know him then, of course ? and, consequently, if you 
 have a spark of religion left, you are under an obligation 
 to bring this impious individual before the king and par- 
 liament, that he may- be punished according to his 
 demerits. You must speak out, Fathers ; you must name 
 him, or endure the shame of being regarded as liars who 
 will never more deserve a moment's credit. 
 
 This is the method taught us by good Father Valerian, 
 of putting such impostors as you to the rack, and driving 
 them to th€ utmost extremity. Your silence will be a full 
 and perfect evidence of this diabolical calumny. The 
 very blindest of your adherents will be compelled to 
 acknowledge that this silence " is no proof of your virtue, 
 •, but of your weakness ;" and will be astonished that you 
 could be so wicked as to launch out even against the nuns 
 of Port-Royal, and to say, as you have done, p. 14, that 
 4 the secret chaplet of the holy sacrament, composed by 
 qne of them, was the first fruit of that conspiracy against 
 Jesus Christ;" and in p. 95, "that they are inspired 
 with all the detestable maxims of that book, which is," ac- 
 cording to you, " instruction in Deism." Your repre- 
 sentations, with regard to that performance, have been 
 already completely refuted in " the defence of the cen- 
 sure by the late archbishop of Paris against your Father 
 Brisacier," to which you have not replied ; yet you con- 
 tinue to abuse still more scandalously than ever those 
 pious females, well known as such to all the world, as 
 impious in the extreme. Cruel and merciless persecu- 
 
£72 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 t or5 ! — cannot the most retired cloisters be an asylum 
 against your calumnies ? Whilst those holy virgins adore 
 Jesus Christ in the holy sacrament, day and night, ac- 
 cording to their institution, you cease not, night and day, 
 to proclaim publicly that they do not believe either that 
 he is in the sacrament, or at the right hand of the Fa- 
 ther ; and while they are praying in secret for you and 
 the whole church, you are as publicly engaged in cutting 
 them off from membership. You revile those who have 
 neither ears to hear, nor tongue to answer. But Jesus 
 Christ, in whom they are hidden till they appear with him 
 in glory, hears you, and answers for them. Even now we 
 hear that holy and tremendous voice which startles nature 
 and consoles the church ; and I am apprehensive, Fa- 
 thers, that such as harden their hearts, and proudly refuse 
 to attend when he speaks as a God, will be forced to 
 listen with horror when he speaks to them as a Judge. 
 
 Oh, Fathers, what account will you be able to render 
 of your numerous calumnies, which he will examine, not 
 according to the fantastic notions of your Fathers Dicas- 
 tillus, Gaius, and Pennalossa, who excuse them, but upon 
 the principles of eternal truth, and the holy ordinances of 
 his church, by which they are so far from being excused, 
 that they are condemned and punished as wilful murder- 
 , ers. For the church has suspended calumniators as well 
 as murderers from communion, till the hour of death, by 
 the first and second council of Aries. The council of 
 Lateran adjudged those who were convicted of this 
 crime, although reformed, to be unworthy of holy orders. 
 The popes threatened such as had slandered bishops, 
 priests, or deacons, with a refusal of the communion un- 
 til death ; and the authors of any defamatory publication, 
 who are unable to bring proof of what they assert, arc 
 condemned by pope Adrian to be whipped — yes, reverend 
 : Fathers— -JlageUenlur ! — So offensive have the errors of 
 your corrupt Society always been to the church — a so- 
 ciety which excuses in others such prodigious crimes as 
 calumny, in order to commit them herself with the greater 
 freedom ! 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 27CS 
 
 Assuredly, Fathers, you would be able to do much 
 mischief, if God had not so ordered it, that you should 
 yourselves furnish the means of prevention, and render 
 all your impostures inefficient. For it is only necessary 
 to publish that extravagant maxim which exempts them 
 from guilt, to annihilate all your reputation. Calumny is 
 useless, unless its propagators be in great esteem for sin- 
 cerity. A backbiter could by no means succeed, unless 
 he could induce mankind to believe that he abhorred 
 backbiting, and was utterly incapable of it. And thus, 
 Fathers, your own principle betrays you : for you wished 
 to backbite without being damned, and to be esteemed 
 those " holy' and pious calumniators," of whom St. 
 Athanasius speaks. For the purpose, therefore, of sav- 
 ing yourselves from perdition, you have embraced that 
 maxim which will certainly save you, according to your 
 doctors ; but yet, this very maxim which guarantees you 
 from the miseries you have reason to apprehend in a 
 future world, takes away from you, in this life, all the ad- 
 vantage you might expect from it : so that while you 
 think of avoiding the vice of slander, you lose the benefit 
 of it, so contrary is wickedness to itself, confounding and 
 destroying itself by its own malignity. 
 
 You might slander others with more advantage, by pro- 
 fessing to agree with St. Paul, that mere evil speakers — 
 maledici — are unworthy of seeing God ; for your calum- 
 nies would at least be better credited, though, in fact, you : 
 must condemn yourselves. But, by saying as you do, 
 that it is no crime to slander your enemies, your misrepre- 
 sentations will be disbelieved, and your souls exposed to; 
 perdition. Certain it is, Fathers, that as your grave; 
 authors can never annihilate the justice of God, so you 
 cannot furnish a more decisive proof of your having aban- 
 doned the truth, than by having recourse to falsehood. 
 If truth were on your side, she would fight and she 
 would conquer for you ; and whatever enemies you might 
 have, she would, according to her promise, ■' deliver you 
 from them all." You recur to falsehood only to flatter 
 sinners, and to support the calumnies with which you 
 
Hi PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 load those pious persons who oppose you. Truth being 
 contrary to your views, you must put your trust in lies, as 
 the prophet expresses it — " We have made lies our refuge, 
 [and under falsehood have we hid ourselves :" and what is 
 \the prophet's reply, '' Because you have trusted in ca- 
 lumny and oppression — sperastis in calumnid et in tumuUu 
 — therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready 
 to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh 
 suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the 
 breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces — 
 he shall not spare : so that there shall not be found in the 
 bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to 
 take water out of the pit ;" " because," as another pro- 
 phet represents it, " because with lies ye have made the 
 heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad ; 
 and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should 
 hot return from his wicked way, by promising him life : I 
 will deliver my people out of your hand, and ye shall 
 know that I am the Lord." 
 
 It may be hoped, therefore, if you do not change your 
 behaviour and spirit, God will take out of your hands, 
 those whom you have so long deceived, either by leaving 
 them to their misconduct through your wickedness, or by 
 poisoning them with your slanders. He will lead some to 
 perceive that the erroneous rules of your casuists will not 
 screen them from his displeasure, and will impress on 
 others a just fear of their own perdition, if they listen and 
 believe your impostures, while you will destroy yourselves 
 by inventing and circulating them in the world. Be not 
 deceived, God is not mocked. No man can break his 
 commandments with impunity, which enjoin us not to con- 
 demn our neighbour till we are assured of his guilt : con- 
 sequently, whatever profession of piety may be made by 
 those who receive your falsehoods with an unexamining 
 carelessness, and whatever pretence of devotion they 
 have for it, may justly apprehend an exclusion from the 
 kingdom of heaven, for accusing Catholic priests and holy 
 nuns of such enormous sins as heresy and schism, without 
 any other evidence than your gross impositions. " The 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 227 
 
 devil," says the bishop of Geneva, " is upon the tongue 
 of the slanderer, and in the ear of the person who listens to 
 him ;" and " slander," observes St. Bernard, Serm. 24, 
 in Cant, is a poison which extinguishes charity in both : 
 so that one single calumny may prove fatal to an incalcu- 
 lable number of souls, because it destroys not only those 
 who publish it, but those also who do not reject it." 
 
 Reverend" Fathers, my letters have not usually followed 
 each other in such rapid succession, nor have they been 
 in general so Jong ; the Httle time I have had is the rea- 
 son of both. I should not have extended this so much, 
 but that I cannot command leisure to shorten it. What 
 occasioned my haste is, in fact, better known to you than 
 to myself. Your replies succeed miserably, and you have 
 done quite right to alter your method of proceeding ; 
 but I doubt whether you have now adopted a proper one, 
 and whether the world will not be ready to say you 
 have been afraid of the Benedictins. 
 
 I learn that the person whom the world calls the au- 
 thor of your apologies disavows them, and is vexed, that 
 they are attributed to him. He has, indeed, reason 
 enough to be so, and I was wrong to suspect him ; for, 
 from whatever quarter it proceeded, I ought certainly to 
 have given him credit for too much sense to believe your 
 impostures, and too much honour to publish them with- 
 out such belief. Few people are capable of such extra- 
 vagances as yours — they are so completely your own, so 
 truly characteristic — that I am inexcusable for not per- 
 ceiving their source. Common report misled me. But 
 I am aware that this apology, too good for you, does not 
 ^rvffice for me, who profess to affirm nothing without sub- 
 stantial evidence, and who have not done so, this instance 
 excepted. I therefore regret it — I renounce it — and I 
 sincerely wish you may profit by my example. 
 
LETTER XVII. 
 
 TO THE REV. FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT. 
 
 By the unanimous Consent of all the Divines, and particu- 
 larly of the Jesuits, the Authority of the Popes and of 
 (Ecumenical Councils is not infallible in Questions of 
 Fad. 
 
 January 23, 1657. 
 Ieverend Father, 
 
 Your mode of proceeding induced me to suppose that 
 you were desirous of a cessation of hostilities on both 
 sides, to which I was quite disposed ; but you have since 
 produced so many pieces in so short a time, that it seems 
 ;is if it were not very easy to establish peace when it de- 
 pends on the silence of Jesuits. I cannot tell whether 
 this rupture will be serviceable to you ; but for my part, 
 I am by no means sorry that it affords me an opportunity 
 of refuting that common-place charge of heresy which 
 abounds in your writings. 
 
 It is time, once for all, to put a stop to that audacity 
 With which you treat me as a heretic, and which increases 
 every day. You have ventured to do so in the book 
 you have just published with such insufferable and unce- 
 remonious boldness, as would really render me suspected, 
 were I not to reply to this reproach in the manner it de- 
 serves. I had passed over this injury with the same 
 contempt with which I treated a multitude of others, in- 
 discriminately thrown together in the writings of your 
 fraternity. My fifteenth 1 letter contained a sufficient 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 277 
 
 answer ; but now you assume another tone— you make it 
 the very chief point of your defence, and almost the only 
 one of which you avail yourselves : " for," say you, " to 
 answer all my fifteen letters, it is sufficient to say fifteen 
 times over, that 1 am a heretic, and, being declared such, 
 deserve no credit." My apostacy, then, is not to be 
 doubted, which, being laid down as a fundamental princi- 
 ple, you proceed boldly with your superstructure. Very 
 good, Fathers ; and since you treat me as a heretic, I 
 must in earnest sit down to answer you. 
 
 A charge, of this nature, my good Fathers you know 
 very well, is so important, that to advance it without proof 
 would be an intolerable piece of rashness. I ask, then, 
 where are your proofs ? When was I seen at Charenton?. 
 When did I neglect to attend mass, or to perform the du- 
 ties to which all Christians are bound in their respective^ 
 parishes 1 When have I done any thiDg to unite witty 
 heretics or to promote schism in the church ? What 
 council have I contradicted ? What papal constitution 
 have I violated ? — You must answer these questions, 
 
 Father, or you know my meaning. But you do 
 
 reply. Well — I beg every body to pay particular atten- 
 tion to your answer. In the first place, you suppose that 
 »'■ the writer of the letters belongs to Port Royal:" then 
 jou add, " Port Royal is avowedly heretical ;" hence 
 lyou infer, " the writer of the letters is a declared heretic;" 
 {this accusation does not fall upon my poor head, but upon 
 Port Royal ; and you only charge me with it because you 
 imagine me to be one of that community. However, I 
 can very easily parry this thrust, by simply saying, I doj 
 not belong to them ; and, as a proof, referring you to my 
 letters, in which I have stated, " I am alone," and in ex- 1 
 press terms, " I am not of Port-Royal." Pray, turn to! 
 my sixteenth letter, which appeared previously to the! 
 publication of your book. 
 
 You must devise, then, another method of proving me 
 to be a heretic, or every body will see your inability to do 
 it. Prove, by my writings, that I reject the, constitution : 
 they are not so very numerous, you have only sixteen lel- 
 
 24 
 
278 PROVINCIAL 1ETTER8. 
 
 ters to examine, in which I defy you — yes — I defy you and 
 the whole world, to produce a syllable of the kind ; but you 
 shall there see quite the reverse. When, for instance, I 
 said in the fourteenth letter " that whoever, according to 
 
 | your maxims, kills any of his brethren in a mortal sin, 
 damns them for whom Christ died," did 1 not plainly ac- 
 
 ; knowledge that Jesus Christ died for those lost "souls ? It is 
 therefore false to say, " that he died only for the predesti- 
 nated," which doctrine is condemned in the fifth proposi- 
 tion. It is certain, therefore, my good Father, that I 
 have not advanced aDy thing in support of such impious 
 propositions, which I abhor from my very heart : and if 
 
 f'ort-Royal hold them, I aver that you can furnish no 
 roof against me, because, thanks be to God, I have no 
 iittachment to any society whatever but to the Catholic, 
 .Apostolic, and Roman church, in which I wish to live and 
 to die, in communion with the pope, its supreme head, and 
 out of which I am persuaded there is no salvation. 
 
 What can you do with a person of this stamp ? Where 
 can you attack him ? since neither my conversations nor 
 writings furnish the least pretext for your accusations of 
 heresy, and I am secure from your menaces by the ob- 
 scurity which conceals me. You are struck by an invisi- 
 ble hand, which exposes your extravagances to the whole 
 world, and you endeavour, but in vain, to attack me in 
 the person of those with whom you imagine I am con- 
 nected. But I am neither afraid of you for myself or 
 any one else, not being attached either to any particular 
 fraternity or individual. All your power is unavailable. 
 I neither hope, nor fear, nor wish any thing in this world : 
 thanks be to God, I neither want any person's property or 
 influence. So, my good Father, I am out of your reach i 
 you cannot take hold of me in any way. You may touclA 
 Port-Royal, but not me. You may expel as many as you? 
 please from the Sorbonne, but you cannot expel me. You \ 
 may act with the utmost violence against priests and doc- 
 tors, but you cannot affect me, who possess neither of 
 these characters. And thus, perhaps, you never before 
 had to deal with a person so completely out of reach, and 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 279 
 
 so qualified to combat your errors, being free, without, 
 engagement, without attachment, without connexion, with- 
 out relation, without business, well acquainted with your 
 maxims, and fully resolved to pursue them as far as I think 
 Providence calls on me to do so, independently of all thosO| 
 human considerations which might tend to retard my| 
 progress. 
 
 What use is it then, Father, as you can do nothing 
 against me, to publish such calumnies against persons 
 who have no concern in our differences. This proceed- 
 ing, however, shall not -avail you. You shall feel the force, 
 of that truth which I produce against you. I maintain 
 that you annihilate Christian morality by separating it 
 from the love of God, from which you dispense mankind ; 
 and you, by way of reply, tell me that Father Mester z$. 
 dead, whom I never saw in my whole life ! I state that 
 your authors permit " murder in revenge for an apple, 
 when it is disgraceful to lose it" — and you reply, that " a 
 poor's box was broke open at St. Merry." Tell me, I 
 beseech you, what you mean by every day fastening upon 
 me the book of The Holy Virginity,* composed by a 
 Father of the oratory, whose face and book are equally 
 unknown to me. I am all astonishment, Father, for you 
 seem to regard all your opponents as one person. Your 
 hatred seizes them all together, forming them into one 
 compact body of reprobates, and thus obliging every in- 
 dividual to answer for all the rest. 
 
 There is a prodigious difference between the Jesuits and 
 their opponents. You compose one body united together 
 under one head, and your regulations, as I have shown, 
 prohibit the publication of any thing without the appro- 
 bation of your superiors, who make themselves responsi- 
 ble for the errors of each member of the society ; so that 
 
 * This book is a translation from St. Augustin, by Father Segue- 
 not, priest of the oratory. There was, in reality, nothing repre- 
 hensible in the book itself, but this Father added some strange 
 notes to it, well deserving of censure ; and, as it proceeded from 
 the oratory, which society was always attached to the doctrine of 
 St. Augustin, an attempt was made to make the blame of it fall 
 upon the Jansenists. 
 
280 PROVINCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 it cannot be any excuse to say that " they did not observe 
 the errors taught in the said book," because it was their 
 duty to observe them, according to your ordinances and 
 the letters of your generals Agaviva, Vitelleschi, &c. It 
 is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to reproach you as re- 
 sponsible for the extravagant sentiments of your fraternity, 
 whose works are approved by your superiors and divines. 
 But it is quite otherwise with me. I never subscribed to 
 the book of The Holy Virginity. I should not be less a 
 Catholic, were all the poor's boxes in Paris broke open ; 
 and, in one word, I declare loudly and plainly, that no 
 one is responsible for my letters but myself, and for noth- 
 ing else do I hold myself accountable. 
 
 Here I might finish, without alluding to those other in- 
 dividuals whom you treat as heretics, merely for the pur- 
 pose of involving me in the accusation ; but since I am 
 the occasion of this charge, I feel myself under some ob- 
 ligation to avail myself of the present occasion to deduce 
 three advantages from it. A very considerable one, is to .; 
 clear up the innocency of so many aspersed characters ; ; 
 another, quite to my present subject, is to expose the 
 artifices of your policy in this accusation ; but the most 
 important of all is, that I shall convince the whole world 
 of the falsehood of that scandalous report, which you are ! 
 circulating in every direction, " that the church is di- 
 vided by a new heresy." And, as you involve a number ■ 
 of people, by inducing them to believe that the points 
 about which you raise such a dreadful disturbance are 
 essential to faith, I deem it of the utmost consequence to 
 destroy those false impressions, by distinctly explaining in 
 what they consist, to show that there are, in reality, no 
 heretics in the church. 
 
 Is it not a fact, that were the question proposed, in; 
 what the heresy of those whom you term Jansenists con-\ 
 sists, the immediate answer would be in their saying, ' 
 " that the commandments of God are impossible, that 
 grace cannot be resisted, that no man is a free agent in 
 doing good or evil, that Jesus Christ did not die for all 
 men, but for the elect only ; and, lastly, that they main- 
 
rnOVINCIAL LETTEBS. 28 1 
 
 tain the five propositions condemned by the pope ?" And 
 pray, do you not assure every body that this is the very 
 reason why you persecute your opponents ? Is not this 
 avowed in your writings, in your conversations, in your 
 catechisms, as at St. Louis at Christmas, by asking one 
 of your little girls, " For whom did Jesus Christ come 
 into the world, my child ?" — " For all men, father.'' — 
 " You are not then, my child, one of those modern 
 heretics who say, he came only for the elect ?" — The 
 children, of course, give you implicit credit, and so do 
 many others whom you entertain with stories in your ser- 
 mons similar to those of your Father Crasset at Orleans, 
 who was accordingly suspended. I must here confess, 
 that I was one of your credulous hearers formerly, when 
 you instilled the same ideas respecting these people : so 
 that when you urged them upon these propositions, I 
 carefully noticed their reply, determining to pay no fur- 
 ther regard to them if they did not protest their solemn 
 renunciation of such obvious impieties : but they did so, 
 and most openly ; for M. de St. Beuve, professor to the 
 king in the Sorbonne, in his writings, censured these five 
 propositions long before the pope and the doctors issued 
 many other publications (among others, that on victorious 
 grace,) in which they reject these propositions as heretical 
 and strange. They say, in the preface, " These proposi- 
 tions are heretical and Lutheran, fabricated and forged at 
 pleasure, and nowhere to be found in Jansenius or any of 
 his supporters." This is an exact quotation of their 
 words, and they complain of having such doctrines attri- 
 buted to them, addressing you in the language of Pros- 
 pero, the first disciple of their master St. Augustin, to 
 the semi-Pelagians of France, who accused him in the 
 same manner to make him odious — "There are people," 
 says this saint, " who are influenced by so blind a rage to 
 decry us, as to have adopted a method well calculated to 
 ruin their own reputation ; for they have purposely in- 
 vented certain propositions, full of impiety and blasphemy, 
 which they circulate in all directions, to make people be- 
 lieve that we maintain them in the same sense they have 
 
282 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 chosen to express in their writings ; but our innocence 
 and their malignity in charging us with impieties which 
 are solely of their own invention, will be seen by this 
 reply." 
 
 When, Father, I heard them speak in this manner be- 
 fore the constitution, when I saw that they afterwards 
 embraced it with all possible respect, tnafcthey offered to 
 subscribe it, and that M. Arnauld, in his second letter, 
 had declared all this more strongly than t can represent, I 
 should have considered it a sin to disbelieve their faith ; 
 and, in fact, they who had refused to give absolution to 
 their friends, previous to the publication of M. Arnauld' s 
 second letter, have since declared, that after he had so 
 plainly condemned the very errors which were imputed 
 to him, there existed no sufficient reason for either his or 
 his adherents' excommunication from the church. But 
 you did not concur in this, for which reason I began to 
 suspect you were under the misguidance of passion. You 
 threatened to make them sign the constitution, when you 
 thought they would refuse it ; but when you saw they 
 were inclined to it of themselves, you then said nothing 
 more upon the subject. And though you ought after that 
 to be satisfied with their conduct, you must still, to be 
 sure, treat them as heretics, " because," as you allege, 
 " their hearts belied their hands — they were outwardly 
 Catholics and inwardly heretics." This is your language 
 in your answers to certain questions, p. 27 and 47. 
 
 How strange a mode of proceeding, Father, does this 
 appear ! Of whom may not the very same thing be said 1 
 And what disturbance might not be excited by such pre- 
 tences? "If," says Pope Gregory, "we refuse to be- 
 lieve those who confess their faith, conformably to the 
 sentiments of the church, we should reader the faith of 
 every Catholic questionable." Regist. j&S. ep. 16. I be- 
 gan, Father, to think, " that it was your design to make 
 them heretics though they were not so," as the same 
 pope sjays of a dispute of a similar kind in his days, " be- 
 cause," he adds, " to refuse believing those who by their 
 confession witness they are in the true faith, is not op • 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 283 
 
 posing, but making heresies — hoc non est lusresim purgare, 
 sed facere, Ep. 16." But I knew, in fact, that there 
 were no heretics in the church when I saw they were so 
 well vindicated from all these heresies, that you could not 
 accuse them of any error in faith, and that you were re- 
 duced to the necessity of contending with them only upon 
 questions of fact relating to Jansenius, which could never 
 be a heresy ; for you would oblige them to acknowledge, 
 " that these propositions were in Jansenius, word for 
 word, all of them, and in express terms," as you stated 
 in your own hand-writing — singulares, individueB, totidem 
 verbis apud Jansenium contenttB, in your Cavilli, p. 39. 
 
 From this moment your dispute began to be quite an 
 indifferent matter with me. So long as I believed you 
 were contending about the truth or falsehood of the pro- 
 positions, I heard you with attention, for it regarded the 
 faith ; but when I perceived the object was merely to 
 know whether they were word for word in Jansenius or 
 not, as religion was not at all concerned in it, neither was 
 I. Apparently you said what was true, for to state that a 
 sentence is word for word in an author is what cannot be 
 mistaken ; for which reason I am not astonished that so 
 jmany persons, both in France and Rome, should have be- 
 rlieved, from a statement so little suspicious, that Jan- 
 benius had really taught such doctrines. I was therefore 
 not a little surprised to find, that this matter of fact, which 
 jou exhibited as so important, was false ; and you were 
 then challenged to quote the pages of Jansenius, where 
 you discovered those propositions word for word, which 
 you have never been able to do. 
 
 I beg to state the whole, because it appears to me it 
 will sufficiently explain the spirit of your Society in this 
 affair, and exc^ie great surprise to see that, notwithstand- 
 ing all I have said, you do not desist from publishing that 
 they are heretics still ; but you have only changed their 
 heresy with the times. For, in proportion as they vindi- 
 cated themselves from one heresy, you substituted another, 
 to prevent their ever being innocent. Thus, in 1653, 
 their heresy respected the quality of the propositions ; 
 
284 PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 afterwards, the word for word — then you placed it in the 
 heart; but now, nothing is said of all this, and they must 
 be heretics if they will not sign and seal, that " the sense 
 of the doctrine of Jansenius is found in the sense of these 
 five propositions." 
 
 Such is the subject of the present dispute. You are 
 not satisfied that they condemn the five propositions, and 
 every thing in Jansenius conformable to them and con- 
 trary to St. Augustin, for all that they do ; so that the 
 question is not to know, for example, " if Jesus Christ 
 died only for the elect" — they condemn that as. well as 
 yourselves — but whether Jansenius be of that opinion or 
 no ; on which account I now declare more firmly than 
 ever, that your dispute concerns me as little as it does the 
 church. For though I am no more a doctor than your- 
 self, I can see, however that faith has nothing to do with 
 the question, since the only point is to know the sense of 
 Jansenius. If they believed that his doctrine were con- 
 formable tg/Jhe proper and literal sense of these proposi- 
 tions, they would condemn it, and refuse to do it, only 
 because they are convinced that it differs exceedingly 
 from that sense ; consequently though they should mis- 
 understand it, they would not be heretics, since they 
 understood it only in a Catholic sense. 
 
 To explain this by an example, I will take the diversity 
 of opinion between St. Basil and St. Athanasius, respect- 
 ing the writings of St. Denis, of Alexandria, in which 
 St. Basil thinking they were of the Arian principle, op- 
 posing the equality of the Father and the Son, condemned 
 them as heretical ; but St. Athanasius, on the contrary, 
 believing them to contain the true sentiment of the 
 church, upheld them as Catholic. Do you suppose, Fa- 
 ther, that St. Basil, who held these writing to be Arian, 
 had any right to treat St. Athanasius as a heretic, because 
 he defended them ? And what good .reason could he 
 have, since it was not A nanism that Athanasius defended, 
 but the true faith which he believed them to contain ? If 
 these two saints had been agreed about the true sense of 
 those writings, and had both acknowledged that heresy 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 285 
 
 contained in them, doubtless St. Athanasius could not ap- 
 prove them without being heretical ; but, as they differed 
 merely with regard to the meaning, St. Athanasius was a 
 Catholic in maintaining them, though he had even mis- 
 understood them, for it could only be an error of fact, and 
 he merely defended the Catholic faith which he believed 
 to be contained in that doctrine. 
 
 I say the same thing of you, Father. If you agree 
 about the meaning of Jansenius, and your adversaries 
 agree with you that he holds, for instance, that grace can- 
 • not be resisted, those who should refuse to condemn him, 
 would be heretics ; but while you dispute about this 
 ! meaning, and they believe that, according to his doctrine, 
 Vgrace may be resisted, you have no reason to treat them 
 ;.as heretics, whatever heresy you attribute to him your- 
 j selves, since they condemn the sense which you impute 
 } to him, and you dare not condemn that which they im- 
 pute. If, therefore, you would completely refute them, 
 show that the sense they attribute to Jansenius is hereti- 
 cal, then they will be so themselves. But how could this 
 be effected, since it is certain, from your own admission, 
 that the meaning they gave him was never condemned ? 
 
 To set this in the most obvious point of view, I will 
 take as a principle, what you receive as such yourselves ; 
 " that the doctrine of efficacious grace was not condemned, 
 and the pope did not touch upon it in his constitution." 
 When, indeed, he wished to examine the five propositions, 
 the article of efficacious grace was screened from all 
 censure. This is apparent, from the opinions of (the 
 counsellors to whom the pope committed them for ex- 
 amination. I have these in my hands, and so have many 
 persons in Paris ; amongst others, the bishop of Montpel- 
 lier, who brought them from Rome. It is plain their 
 opinions were divided, and the principal persons among 
 them, as the master of the sacred palace, the commissary 
 of the Holy Office, the general of the Augustines, with 
 others, thinking that these propositions might be taken in 
 a sense conformable with efficacious grace, were of 
 opinion-- that they ought not to be censured ; while the 
 
28G PROVINCIAL LETTEBS. 
 
 others, agreeing that they ought not to he censured if 
 this were their real sense, deemed it right, however, that 
 they should be condemned ; because, by their own decla- 
 ration, it is very far from their proper and natural sense. 
 For this reason, the pope condemned them, and all ac- 
 quiesced in his judgment. 
 
 (' It is certain then, Father, that efficacious grace was 
 never condemned. Tt is moreover so powerfully maintained 
 by St. Augustin, St. Thomas, and all his school, by so many 
 popes, by so many councils, and by an universal tradition, 
 that it would be impious to tax it with heresy. But all whom 
 ^you treat as heretics, aver that they find nothing in 
 (Jansenius but this doctrine of efficacious grace ; and this 
 iwas the only point they maintained at^Rome. You have 
 yourself admitted the same, Cavill. p. 35, where you 
 have declared, " that while speaking in the presence of 
 the pope, they did not mention a single syllable respect- 
 ing the propositions — tie verbum quidem — but employed 
 the whole time upon the subject of efficacious grace." 
 Mistaken, therefore, or not, it is at least certain that the 
 sense they suppose Jansenius to have is not heretical, con- 
 sequently they are not so. To say the truth in one word, 
 flfeither Jansenius taught only the doctrine of efficacious 
 grace, in which case he cannot be charged with error, or, 
 he taught something else ; and in this case he has no sup- 
 porters. The whole question, then, comes to this, did 
 Jansenius really- tear.h any other doctrine than efficacious 
 grace ? If it can be discovered that he did, you will have* 
 the glory of understanding him best, but they will not 
 have the misfortune of erring in the faith. 
 
 Let us bless God, Father, that there is in reality no 
 heresy in the church, for, in this case, the question refers 
 to a point of fact, out of which it cannot arise. The 
 church decides all articles of faith by divine authority, 
 and excommunicates such as refuse to receive them ; but 
 she proceeds differently in matters of fact ; and the 
 reason is, that our salvation is attached to the faith which 
 has been revealed to us and preserved in the church by 
 tradition, but it does not depend on any other particular 
 
rEOVINCIAIi LETTERS. 287 
 
 facts which God has not revealed. Thus, we are obliged 
 to believe that the commandments of God are not im- 
 possible, but we are not under the same obligation to 
 know what Jansenius has taught upon the subject. God, 
 therefore, conducts his church in determining points of 
 faith by the aid of his Holy Spirit, which cannot err ; but* 
 in matters of fact, he leaves her to act according to tha 
 dictates of reason and sense, which are the natural 
 judges upon such occasions. None but God can com-^ 
 municate instruction in matters of faith ; but it is only 
 necessary to read Jansenius, to know whether the dis- 
 puted propositions be or not in his book. Hence, it is 
 heretical to resist the decisions of faith, because it is to 
 set up our mind in opposition to the Spirit of God. But 
 to disbelieve particular facts is no heresy, though it may 
 be a piece of rashness, because that is merely opposing 
 reason, which may be clear, against an authority which, 
 however considerable, is not infallible. 
 
 In this all the divines concur, as appears from the fol- 
 lowing maxim of cardinal Bellarmin, of your Society. 
 v< General councils legally assembled, cannot err in de r 
 i fining doctrines of faith, but they- may upon questions of 
 >fact." Again — " The pope, as pope and even as the 
 head of a general council, may err in particular contio- i 
 versies respecting facts, which chiefly depend on the in- 
 formation and evidence of the witnesses." Cardinal Ba- 
 ronius says the same — >' The decisions of general councils 
 must be entirely submitted to in points of faith ; but, as 
 to what concerns individuals and their writings, censures 
 inflicted upon them have not been observed with so much 
 severity, because no one can be sure of never being de- 
 ceived." For this reason, the archbishop of Toulouse 
 deduced this rule from the letters of two eminent popes, 
 St. Leo and Pelagius II., " that the proper object of 
 councils is faith, and every thing which is determined 
 there, independently of faith, may be reviewed and re-ex- 
 amined ; but we ought not to enter into any further in- 
 vestigation of what has been determined as a matter of 
 faith, because, as Tertullian says, the rule of faith is 
 alone unalterable and irretractable." 
 
208 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 Hence, we have never seen general councils! legally 
 collected, contradict each other in points of faith, " be- 
 cause," as the archbishop of Toulouse says, " it is not 
 lawful to examine afresh what has been already decided 
 as a matter of faith." We have sometimes seen the same 
 councils oppose each other on articles of fact, when the 
 dispute referred to the sense of an author, "because," 
 says the archbishop, quoting from the popes, " every 
 thing which has been decided in councils, excepting faith, 
 may be reviewed and re-examined." Thus, the fourth 
 and fifth councils appear contradictory in the interpreta- 
 tion of the same authors ; and the same circumstance 
 happened to two popes, about a proposition of some 
 monks in Scythia : for, after Pope Hormisdas had con- 
 demned it, in consequence of understanding it in a bad 
 sense, Pope John II. his successor, upon examining it 
 anew, and understanding it in a good sense, approved and 
 declared it catholic. Will you assert, that one of these 
 popes was heretical ? Must it not be confessed, then, 
 that, provided the heretical sense is condemned, which a 
 pope supposed to be in a certain publication, a person is 
 not heretical for not condemning that publication in a 
 sense in which it is certain the Pope never condemned it ; 
 otherwise, one of these popes must be in an error ? 
 
 I felt desirous, my good Father, of familiarizing you 
 with the contradictions which occur between Catholics, 
 upon questions of fact, with regard to the real sense of 
 an author, by showing you one father of the church in 
 opposition to another ; one pope against another pope ; 
 one council against another council, in order to conduct 
 you to other examples of a similar opposition, though 
 less equalized ; for you will see councils and popes on 
 one side, and Jesuits on the other, opposing their deci- 
 sions upon the sense of an author ; notwithstanding which, 
 you refrain from accusing your fraternity of heresy, or 
 even of rashness. 
 
 You very well know, Father, that the writings of Ort- 
 geu were condemned by several councils and popes, es- 
 pecially by the fifth general council, as containing here- 
 
l'HOVINCIAL BETTERS. 289 
 
 sies ; among others, that of "the reconciliation of the 
 devils at the day of judgment." Pray, do you believe it 
 absolutely necessary, in order to be a true Catholic, to 
 confess that Origen really held these errors, and that it is 
 not sufficient to condemn them, without attributing them 
 to him ? If so, what will become of your Father Halloix, 
 who has maintained the purity of Origen's faith, as well 
 as many other Catholic writers, who have engaged in the 
 same undertaking, as Pico de Mirandola, and Genebrard, 
 doctor of the Sorbonne ? And is it not, also, certain, that 
 this very same fifth general council condemned the wri- 
 tings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, as " impious, con- 
 trary to the true faith, and containing the Nestorian here- 
 sy 1" Father Simond, a Jesuit, has, nevertheless, de- 
 fended him, declaring in the life of that Father, " that 
 those writings were perfectly free from the Nestorian 
 heresy." 
 
 You perceive, then, Father, when the church condemns 
 any writings, she supposes an error in them, which is the 
 object of condemnation, and then it is to be taken For 
 granted, that error is condemned ; but it is not necessary 
 to believe, that the writings in question actually contain 
 the error which the church supposes. This, I think, is 
 sufficiently proved ; and, I shall finish these examples 
 with that of Pope Honorius, who is so generally known. 
 At the commencement of the seventh century, when the 
 church was troubled with the heresy of the Monothelites, 
 this pope, to settle the difference, issued a decree, which 
 seemed to favour those heretics, which was very offensive 
 to many. It passed, however, during his pontificate, with 
 little clamour; but, fifty years afterwards, when the church 
 assembled in the sixth general council, and Pope Agatho 
 presided by his legates, this decree was brought forward, 
 ;ind, after being read and examined, was condemned, for 
 containing the heresy of the Monothelites ; and, as such, 
 burned in full assembly, with the other writings of those 
 heretics. This decision was received with so much re- 
 spect and unanimity throughout the whole church, that it 
 was afterwards confirmed by two other general councils, 
 25 
 
290 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 and even by Popes Leo II. and Adrian ft. who lived twa 
 hundred years afterwards',' without an individual venturing 
 to disturb that universal and peaceable agreement during 
 seven or eight centuries. - But some more modern authors, 
 and, among others, cardinal Bellarmin, have maintained, 
 without any apprehension of being termed heretics,' in 
 contradiction to so many popes and councils, that the 
 writings of Honorious are free from the error of which 
 they have been accused ; " because," says he, " general 
 councils being capable of erring in questions of fact, it 
 may be said, with the utmost confidence, that the sixth 
 general council was mistaken in that particular case ; and 
 that, not having clearly understood the meaning of Hono- 
 rius's letters, wrongly placed that pope among the num- 
 ber of heretics." 
 
 , Observe, then, Father, that no one can be a heretic 
 for saying, that Pope Honorius was not one, though many 
 popes and councils have pronounced him one, and that too 
 after an examination of the subject. Now, then, I come 
 to' our present question,- and I will allow you to make 
 your own cause as good as you possibly can. "What will 
 you say to render your adversaries heretical ? "That Pope 
 Innocent X. has declared the error of the five proposi- 
 tions is ip Jansenius ?" Very well — and what do you infer ? 
 "That it is heretical not to admit that the error of the 
 five propositions is in Jansenius ?" What think you of 
 this, Father ? Does not our question, then, relate to a 
 fact of the same nature with the preceding 1 The pope 
 has declared, that the error of the five propositions is in 
 Jansenius, in the same manner as his predecessors had de- 
 clared, that the error of the Nestorians and Monothelites 
 was in the writings of Theodoret and Honorius. Upon 
 which, your Fathers have published, that they readily 
 condemn these heresies, but that they do not admit these 
 authors ever maintained them ; as your present adversa- 
 ries say, they readily condemn those five propositions, but 
 do not allow that Jansenius taught them. Really, Father, 
 these coses are amazingly similar ; and, if any difference 
 exist, it is easy to see the advantage on the side of the 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 291 
 
 present question, by a comparison of many particular cir- 
 cumstances, very obvious of themselves, and which I shall 
 not, therefore, detain you to explain. Pray, whence does 
 it arise, that in the very same case your fathers are Ca- 
 tholics, and your adversaries heretics ? By what strange 
 exception do you deprive them of a liberty, which you 
 concede to all other Christians ? Will you say, " that 
 the Pope has confirmed his constitution by a brief?" To 
 this, I should answer, that two general councils, and two 
 popes, have confirmed the condemnation of the letters of 
 Honorius. What stress do you lay on the words of this 
 brief, by which the Pope declares, "■ that he has con- 
 demned the doctrine of Jansenius in those five proposi- 
 tions ?" But what is this to the constitution, and what 
 follows from it ? but that, as the sixth council condemned 
 the doctrine of Honorius, believing it to be the same with 
 that of the Monothelites ; in the same manner, the pope 
 says he condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in the five 
 propositions, because he supposed it to agree with those 
 five propositions. And how could he believe otherwise ? 
 Your Society avowed nothing else ; and you, Father, 
 yourself said, they were there word for word, and were 
 at Rome at the very time of the censure : — you see I meet 
 you every where ! Could the pope distrust the sincerity 
 or capacity of so many grave religious men ? How could 
 he resist the conviction, that the doctrine of Jansenius 
 was the same with that of the five propositions, assured 
 that they were word for word in that author ? It is ob- 
 vious, therefore, if it be found that Jansenius never held 
 these doctrines. It need not be said, as your Fathers 
 have intimated in their examples, that the pope mistook 
 this point of fact, which is always mischievous to publish, 
 but only that you misled the pope, which will bring no 
 scandal upon you, because you are so well known already. 
 Thus it appears, this affair is far enough from consti- 
 tuting a heresy : but being determined to make one at 
 any rate, you have endeavoured to divert the question 
 from the point of fact to that of faith, in the following 
 manner. "The pope," say you, " declares, he has con- 
 
292 rROVIXCTAL LETTEB.S. 
 
 demncd the doctrine of Jansenius in the five propositions 
 the doctrine of Jansenius, therefore, respecting them, is 
 to be deemed heretical, whatever it may be." A strange 
 article of faith, truly, that a doctrine is to be considered 
 as heretical, be it what it may. What ! if, according to 
 Jansenius, we may resist internal grate, and if, too, it be 
 false that Jesus Christ died for the elect only, must that be 
 condemned also because it is his doctrine ? Shall it be 
 true in the constitution of the pope, that we axe free to do 
 good or evil, arid yet false in Jansenius ? By what fatality 
 is it, that, in his book, truth becomes heresy ? Must it not 
 be admitted, that he is only heretical incase of conformity 
 to those errors which are condemned, since the constitu- 
 tion of the pope is the rule to which Jansenius must be 
 applied, to form a judgment of what he is by his conform- 
 ity to it. In this way the question, -whether his doctrine be 
 heretical, may be resolved by another, whether it be con- 
 formable to the natural meaning of these propositions ; it 
 being impossible to make it heretical if this conformity be 
 discoverable, or to make it catholic if the reverse. For 
 as, according to the pope, and the bishops, these proposi- 
 tions are condemned in their proper and natural sense, they 
 cannot be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, unless 
 the sense of Jansenius be the same with the proper and 
 natural sense of these propositions, which is a point of 
 fact. 
 
 Here, then, the question still rests ; and it is impossible 
 to make it a matter of right, consequently not of heresy. 
 It may, indeed, become a pretext for persecution, if any 
 expectation could exist of persons being found to enter 
 sufficiently into your interests to sanction such injustice, 
 and comply with your wishes by signing to the statement, 
 that they condemn these propositions in the sense of Janse- 
 nius, without giving any explanation of that sense. Few 
 people, however, are disposed to sign a blank confession 
 of faith, to be filled up afterwards as you might think 
 proper, because you would be left at liberty to put what- 
 ever interpretation you pleased upon Jansenius. Explain 
 it, then, previously, or we shall have a second edition of 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 293 
 
 the next power — abstrahendo ab omni sensu. But this, 
 you are well aware, will never succeed. Mankind abhor 
 ambiguity, especially in matters of faith, where it is per- 
 fectly just that people should at least understand what 
 they condemn. And how can it be, that those doctors 
 who are convinced that Jansenius has no other sense but 
 that of efficacious grace, should consent to declare, that 
 they condemn his doctrine without any explanation of it ; 
 since, according to their present and confirmed belief, they 
 must condemn efficacious grace, which would be criminal? 
 Would it not be a strange tyranny to reduce them to this 
 unhappy necessity, either to render themselves guilty in 
 the sight of God, by signing this condemnation against 
 their -conscience, or to be treated as heretics, by refusing 
 to do so ? 
 
 But all this is- very mysterious. Your proceedings are 
 all political. I must, therefore, give a reason why you 
 have not explained the meaning of Jansenius. I write 
 merely for the purpose of exposing your designs, and, by 
 this means, rendering them useless. I ought, then, to 
 state, to such as are uninformed of it, that your principal] 
 interest in this dispute being to promote the sufficient grace] 
 of your Molina, you cannot accomplish this without de- 
 stroying the efficacious grace opposed to it. But, as you 
 see that the latter is, at this day, authorized at Rome, and 
 'iy all the most learned men in the church, being unable 
 to combat it in itself, you havcbeen thinking of an attack 
 which should not be perceived, by giving it the name of 
 the doctrine of Jansenius : and thus you have invented a 
 mode of procuring the condemnation of Jansenius, with- 
 out examination ; and, to succeed the better, you affirm 
 that his doctrine is not that of efficacious grace, to make 
 it believed, that one may be condemned independently of 
 the other. Of this, you have constantly endeavoured to 
 persuade those who are unacquainted with this author. 
 You, Father, have done precisely the same in your Cavill. 
 p. 23, by this subtle representation — " the pope has con- 
 demned the doctrine of Jansenius, but the pope has not 
 condemned the doctrine of efficacious grace ; consequently, 
 
 25* 
 
^94 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the doctrine of efficacious grace is different from that 
 of Jansenius." If this argument were conclusive, it might 
 be shown in the same manner, that Honorius, and all his 
 adherents are heretics : " The sixth council has con- 
 demned the doctrine of Honorius, but the council has not 
 condemned the doctrine of the church ; therefore, the 
 doctrine of Honorius is different from that of the church ; 
 consequently, all who defend, him, are heretics." It is 
 plain, no conclusion can be deduced from this statement, 
 since the pope has only condemned the doctrine of the 
 five propositions, which he was led to believe was that of 
 Jansenius. 
 
 But this is of no consequence, for you do not intend 
 long to pursue such a mode of reasoning : still it will last 
 long enough, weak as it is, to answer your purpose. It is 
 merely intended to induce such as would -not condemn ef- 
 ficacious grace, to condemn Jansenius without scruple. 
 When this is dond the argument will soon be forgot, but 
 the signatures will remain as an eternal testimony to the 
 condemnation of Jansenius. You will take occasion di- 
 rectly to attack efficacious grace by a superior mode of 
 reasoning, which you will adopt in good time. " The doc- 
 trine of Jansenius," you will say, *' has been condemned 
 by the universal subscriptions of the whole church ; but 
 this doctrine is manifestly that of efficacious grace :" and 
 this you will easily prove ; " whence the doctrine of effi- 
 cacious grace is condemned, even by the admission of its 
 own advocates." 
 
 We see, then, the reason of your proposing to sign this 
 condemnation of- a doctrine, without explaining it, and 
 also the advantage you profess to gain by this proceeding. 
 But if your adversaries refuse to do the same, you lay 
 another snare for them, on account of such refusal : for, 
 having dexterously blended the question of faith with that 
 of fact, without allowing any separation! or any signing of 
 one without the other, as they cannot sign both, you will 
 publish it evbry where, that they have refused both to- 
 gether : and thus, though, in fact, they merely decline ac- 
 knowledging that Jansenius held the propositions they 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 295 
 
 condemn, which, after all, could constitute no heresy, you 
 will boldly assert, they have refused to condemn the pro- 
 positions in themselves, and that they are on that account 
 heretical. 
 
 Behold the advantage you would gain by their refusal, 
 which certainly is not inferior to what you could draw from 
 their consent ! So that, if their signatures be required, 
 they will equally fall into your snares, whether they do or 
 do not sign, and you will reap the benefit in either case : 
 yes, such is your exquisite management, that whatever 
 turns up, you will always be the gainers. 
 
 How completely I know you, Father ! and how grieved 
 I am to see that God has so forsaken you, as to permit your 
 success in such a wretched affair ! Your prosperity de- 
 mands compassion, and can never be envied by any, but 
 such as are ignorant of real happiness. It is really chari- 
 table to thwart a success procured by such means, because 
 it is founded on falsehoods, of which you would have us 
 believe one of the two following : — either that the church . 
 has condemned efficacious grace, or that its advocates 
 maintained the five condemned errors. j 
 
 Let all the world, therefore, understand, that efficacious 
 grace is not condemned, by your own acknowledgment,' 
 and that no man maintains those errors : and let all be) 
 aware, that they who refuse to sign what you require, onlyj 
 refuse it with regard to the matter of fact ; and being 
 willing to sign that of faith, their refusal cannot stamp 
 them as heretics : because, though these propositions be 
 indeed deemed heretical, there is no necessity to believe 
 them to be the propositions of Jansenius. His adherents 
 are in no error : that suffices. They may possibly inter-i 
 pret Jansenius too favourably, but perhaps you do not in-! 
 terpret him enough so. Passing this, I am sure that, ac- 
 cording to your maxims, you think it no crime to publish 
 that he is a heretic, contrary to your own knowledge ; 
 while, according to theirs, they could not innocently affirm j 
 he was a Catholic, unless they were fully convinced of it. ■>, 
 They are, consequently, more sincere than you, Father ; I 
 they have examined Jansenius as much as you have : they | 
 
■39C PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 are no less intelligent than you ; they are, therefore, no 
 less worthy of credit But let this point of fact be as it 
 may, they are undoubted Catholics ; for it surely is not 
 necessary, in order to establish this claim, to say that 
 another is not so, or to fix a charge of error upon them. 
 It is quite sufficient to clear one's self. 
 
LETTER XVIII. 
 
 TO THE REVEREND FATHER ANN AT, JESUIT. 
 
 Evidence still more incontestable adduced even from Father 
 Annat's Reply, that no Heresy exists in the Church. 
 Every body condemns the Doctrine which the Jesuits im- 
 pute to Jansenius ; and thus all Christians agree on the 
 Subject of the Five Propositions. Difference respecting 
 the questions of Right and Fact pointed out. With re- 
 gard to the latter, one ought to rely more upon our own 
 Senses than upon any human Authority. 
 
 March J4, 1657. 
 Reverend Father, 
 
 Long, long have you used every effort to discover some 
 error in your adversaries ; but, I am persuaded, you will 
 at last confess that nothing can be so difficult as to make 
 out those persons to be heretics who are really not so, and 
 who are solicitous of nothing so much as to avoid it. 
 
 I have pointed out, in the preceding letter, how many 
 heresies you have imputed to them in succession, being 
 unable to support a single charge for any length of time ; 
 so that nothing remained but to accuse them for refusing 
 to condemn the sense of Jansenius, which you were anx- 
 ious should be done, without giving any explanation. To 
 be reduced to this measure is, indeed, a proof how much 
 you are at a loss for subjects of accusation : for who ever 
 heard of a heresy incapable of being explained ? The re- 
 ply, therefore, was easy — by only representing to you, 
 that, if Jansenius be not in any /error, it is unjust to con- 
 
298 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 demn him ; and if he be, it becomes you to declare it, 
 that at least the reason of his condemnation might be un- 
 derstood. This, however, you were by no means disposed 
 to do ; but have attempted to corroborate your charge by 
 appealing to decrees, which made nothing in your favour, 
 because they afford no explanation of the sense of Janse- 
 nius said to be condemned in these five propositions. 
 This was not the way to bring your disputes to a termina- 
 tion. Could any agreement be concluded respecting the 
 true sense of Jansenius, and were the only point of differ- 
 ence whether this sense ought to be deemed heretical or 
 not, then the opinions which should pronounce this sense / 
 to be heretical would bring the question at once to issue. | 
 But, as the grand subject of dispute respects the real* 
 sense of Jansenius, one party alleging that they can see/ 
 nothing in it but the sense of St. Augustin and St. Tho- 
 mas ; the other, that they discover an heretical sensed 
 which, however, they do not explain ; it is clear, that ay 
 constitution which does not say one syllable about thisdif-/' 
 ference, and only condemns in general the sense of Janse4 ' 
 nius, without explaining it, determines nothing of the point - 
 in dispute. I 
 
 On this account, you have been repeatedly told, that 
 the subject of your difference relating only to this fact, it 
 will never be brought to a close but by declaring what 
 you understand to be the sense of Jansenius. But as you 
 have always refused to do so in the most obstinate manner, 
 I was obliged to urge you in my last letter ; in which I in- 
 timated, that it was not without some secret purpose that 
 you undertook to procure the condemnation of this sense 
 without explaining it, and that design was some time or 
 other to make this indeterminate kind of condemnation 
 fall upon the doctrine of efficacious grace, by showing it 
 to be no other than that of Jansenius, which would be no 
 difficult undertaking. This has rendered it necessary to 
 reply ; for if you had still remained obstinately deter- 
 mined not to explain this sense, the simplest person must 
 have perceived that you really intended to demolish the 
 doctrine of efficacious grace, which would have been to 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 299 
 
 your Utter confusion, on account of the profound respect 
 which the church entertains for this holy doctrine. 
 
 You have now been under the necessity of declaring 
 yourself, in your reply to my letter, in which I had re- 
 presented Xo you, that '' if Jansenius, in these five pro- 
 positions, had any other meaning than that of efficacious 
 grace, he would find no supporters ; but that if he really 
 had no other meaning, he was chargeable with no errors." 
 It is impossible for you to deny this statement ; but you 
 make a distinction of this kind, p. 21 : "it is not suf- 
 ficient, in vindication of Jansenius, to allege that he holds 
 nothing but efficacious grace, because that may be re- 
 ceived in two senses — the one heretical, with Calvin, con- 
 sisting in saying that the will, influenced by this grace, 
 possesses no power of resistance ; the other orthodox, 
 with the Thomists and the Sorbonne, which is founded on 
 the principles established by councils ; namely, that effica- 
 cious grace governs the will, of itself, in such a manner 
 as to admit of resistance. 
 
 ; All this is admitted : but you conclude by saying, 
 '/ Jansenius would have been a good Catholic if he had 
 defended efficacious grace as the Thomists maintain it ; 
 but he is heretical, because he is opposed to the Thomists, 
 ftnd agrees with Calvin, who denies the power of resisting 
 this grace." At present, I shall not examine this ques- 
 tion, whether Jansenius really coincides with Calvin : it 
 ii enough that you assert it, and now inform us, that by 
 qie sentiment of Jansenius you understood nothing else 
 than the doctrine of Calvin. Was this, my good Father, 
 all you intended to say ? Was it nothing but the error of 
 Calvin that you wished to condemn under the name of 
 the opinion of Jansenius ? Why not, then, distinctly 
 avow this at first ? You would, by such a piece of can- 
 dour, have spared yourself an immense deal of trouble. 
 All the world would have agreed with you in condemning 
 this error, without any bulls or briefs. Well, how neces- 
 sary was this eclaircissement, and what difficulties it re- 
 moves ! We really did not know what error it was that 
 the popes and bishops were aiming at under the name of 
 
300 rKOVTNCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 the sense of Jansenius. The whole church was in the 
 greatest agitation, and nobody would explain it. But you 
 have now done it, my good Father ; you, who are con- 
 sidered by your own party as their head and the prime 
 mover in all their councils, and who know the secret of 
 all this proceeding, have stated that the sense of Jan- 
 senius is no other than the sense of Calvin condemned by 
 the council. Behold, then, the resolution of our doubts ! 
 We are now assured that the error which they intended 
 to condemn by the phrase, the sense of Jansenius, is no 
 other than the sense of Calvin ; and thus we continue in 
 subjection to their decrees, by uniting with them to con- 
 demn that sense of Calvin which they were so desirous of 
 condemning. We are no longer surprised to find that the 
 popes, and some of the bishops, have manifested so much 
 zeal, against the sense of Jansenius. How could they 
 have done otherwise, as they cherished the utmost confi- 
 dence in those who publicly declare that this sense is the 
 same with that of Calvin ? 
 
 I must insist, therefore, Father, that you have nothing 
 Ifurther to censure in your adversaries, for they, most 
 assuredly, detest the very sentiment which you detest. I 
 only feel surprised at your ignorance of it, and of their 
 general opinions on this subject, which are so repeatedly 
 avowed in their writings. I am persuaded that, if you 
 were better informed, you would deeply regret not having 
 been so far disposed to a spirit of peace, as to acquaint 
 yourself with a doctrine so pure and so truly Christian, 
 and which passion has impelled you to oppose without 
 understanding it. You would otherwise have seen that 
 they not only maintain, that these feeble graces, called 
 exciting or inefficacious, from their not achieving the good 
 they suggest, are effectually resisted ; but that they arc 
 also as strenuous in asserting, in contradiction to Calvin, 
 the power of the human will to resist efficacious and vic- 
 torious grace, as in affirming, contrary to Molina, the 
 power of that grace over the will, being equally jealous 
 of both these truths. Too well do they know, by ex- 
 perience, that man in his own nature has always the 
 
TROVINCIAI, LETTERS. 301 
 
 power of sinning and of resisting grace, and that, since 
 his fall he carries about with him a dreadful fund of 
 evil propensities, which inconceivably increases this 
 power ; but, nevertheless, when it pleases God- in infinite 
 mercy, to touch his heart, he makes him do whatever he 
 chooses, and in whatever manner, without this infallible 
 operation of God in any measure destroying the natural 
 liberty of man ; and which is accomplished by the secret 
 and admirable methods by which the Divine Being pro- 
 duces this change, so excellently described by St. Augus- 
 tin, and which remove all the apparent contradictions 
 which the enemies of efficacious grace imagine to exist 
 between the sovereign power of grace over free-will, and 
 the power of free-will to resist grace. According to that 
 eminent saint, to whom the popes and the church have 
 referred as a guide in this matter, God changes the human 
 heart by a heavenly sweetness of disposition imparted to 
 it, which, overcoming the sensuality of the flesh, causes 
 man, on^the one hand, to perceive his mortality and 
 nothingness, and, on the other, to discover the greatness 
 and eternity of God, and produces a distaste for the 
 pleasures of sin, which separate him from incorruptible 
 blessedness. Finding his supreme enjoyment in the God 
 who attracts him, he inclines infallibly, and of himself, to 
 this good, by a bias entirely free, voluntary, and affection- 
 ate, so that to be separated from it would be a grief and 
 a punishment. Not that he becomes incapable of depart- 
 ing from it, or of departing effectually if he chose : but 
 could he be so disposed, when the will never propels him 
 to do any thing but what is most pleasing to him ; and 
 nothing pleases him so much, then, as that single good, 
 which comprehends in itself all others ? " Quod enim 
 amplius nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est" 
 as St. Augustin observes. 
 
 In this manner, God disposes of man's free-will, without 
 imposing necessity on him ; and that free-willwhich can 
 always resist grace, but is not always desirous of doing 
 so, leads as freely as it does infallibly when he draws 
 
 26 
 
302 PROVINCIAL .LETTERS. 
 
 him by the sweet influence of his efficacious inspira- 
 tions. 
 
 Father, these are the divine principles of St. Augustine 
 and St. Thomas, who concur in affirming, that '' we are 
 able to resist grace," in opposition to the opinion of Cal* 
 vin ; but, nevertheless, as Pope Clement VIII. says in his) 
 epistle to the congregation, de auxUiia, " God forms in us 
 the suggestions of our will, and effectually disposes of our 
 heart, by the dominion which his supreme majesty possess- 
 es over the will of man, as well as over all the rest 
 of his creatures under heaven, according to St. Augus- 
 tin." 
 
 By these principles, besides, we can act for ourselves, 
 and thus possess a merit truly our own, contrary to the 
 error of Calvin : nevertheless. God being the first princi- 
 ple of our actions, and " working in us what is well-pleas- 
 ing in his sight," as St. Paul expresses it, " our good works 
 are the gifts of God," according to the- language of the 
 Council of Trent. 
 
 Hence the impiety of Luther, which is condemned by 
 the same council, is destroyed — " that we do not in any 
 way co-operate in our own salvation more than inanimate 
 things;" and by the same means, the impiety of the 
 Molinist school is destroyed, which refuses to admit that 
 it is the energy of that grace which causes us to co-operate 
 with it in the work of our salvation ; by wjiich the princi- 
 ple of faith established by St. Paul is overturned—" it is 
 God that worketh in us both to will and to do, oHiis good 
 pleasure." In a word, it is by this means all those passa- 
 ges of Scripture which appear most contradictory are made 
 to agree ; as, " Turn ye to the Lord — Turn us unto thee, 
 O Lord — Break off thine iniquities — God will subdue our 
 iniquities — Do works meet for repentance — Lord, thou 
 hast wrought all our works in us — Make you a new heart 
 and a new spirit — I will give unto you a new heart and a 
 right spirit." 
 
 There is but one mode of reconciling these seeming con- 
 tradictions, which, at one time, attribute our good works to 
 God, at another, to ourselves ; which is to admit, with St. 
 
PROVINCIAL M3TTEKS. 303 
 
 Augustin, that " our works are our own, because it is our 
 free-will which produces them ; and they are also of God, 
 because it is his grace which causes our free-will to pro- 
 duce them ;" and, as he observes in another place, " God 
 makes us do whatever he pleases, by making us willing to 
 do that to which we should otherwise be unwilling — a 
 Deo factum est ut vellent quod nolle potuissent. 
 
 Thus, Father, your adversaries are perfectly agreed 
 with the new Thomists themselves, since the Thomists 
 maintain,, as well as they, both the power of resisting grace 
 and the infallibility of the effect of grace, which they pro- 
 fess to hold so strongly, according to that capital maxim 
 of theirs, which Alvarez, one of the most distinguished 
 among them, so frequently repeats in his book, and express- 
 es, disp. 72. n. 4. in the following words : " When effica- 
 cious grace impels free-will, it infallibly consents, because 
 the effect of grace is to cause, that though it has power 
 not to consent, it does however in fact consent ;" the 
 reason of which he adds, from his master, St. Thomas, 
 " that the will of God cannot fail of being accomplished : 
 so that, when he wills that a man should consent to grace 
 he infallibly does consent, and necessarily, not from an 
 absolute necessity, but a necessity of infallibility ;" by 
 which grace does not impair " the power of resistance, if 
 the inclination to do so exist," . because it only makes 
 one not will to resist, the Father Petau admits in these 
 words, torn. 1 . p. 602 : " The grace of Jesus Christ 
 causes one infallibly to persevere in piety, though not from 
 necessity ; for we have the power not to consent if we 
 will, as the council says ; but this same grace impels us 
 not to will it." 
 
 Here then. Father, we have the uniform doctrine of 
 St. Augustine, St. Prosper, the Fathers who followed 
 them, the councils, St. Thomas, and all the Thomists in 
 general. It is also that of your adversaries, though you 
 have not supposed so ; and it is the same with that which 
 you have yourselves approved in these words, " The ,' 
 doctrine of efficacious grace, which admits the power of 
 resistance, is orthodox, supported by the councils, and. 
 
304 
 
 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 maintained by the Thomists and the Sorbonne." Now. 
 Father, speak the truth : if you had really known that 
 your adversaries held this doctrine, probably the interest 
 of your Society would have prevented your giving it this 
 public approbation : but, in consequence of supposing 
 they were opposed to it, the same cause, the interest of 
 your Society, induced you to authorize the sentiments 
 which you believed to be the reverse of theirs ; and by 
 this mistake, while anxious to destroy, you have really, and 
 most completely established their principles. So that, by 
 a kind of miracle, the advocates of efficacious grace are 
 vindicated by the disciples of Molina : such are the ad- 
 mirable methods of Divine Providence in making all 
 things concur to promote the glory of his truth ! 
 : All the world may now learn, by your own declaration, 
 that this truth respecting efficacious grace, essential to 
 : every pious action, so dear to the church, and the price 
 of her Saviour's blood, is so truly Catholic, that there is 
 not an individual of this community, not even of the Je- 
 suits themselves, who does not acknowledge it to be or- 
 thodox. It will be seen at the same time, by your own 
 confession, that those whom you have so violently accu- 
 sed ought not to be in the slightest degree suspected of 
 error ; for when you charged them with concealing sen- 
 timents they were unwilling to avow, it was as difficult to 
 defend themselves as it was easy to produce an accusation 
 of this nature : but having now avowed, that the error for 
 which. you are obliged to oppose them is no other than 
 that of Calvin, which you suppose they maintain, no per- 
 son can fail of perceiving they are in reality free from 
 every error, since they are quite opposed to the only one 
 which you impute to them, and protest, both in their dis- 
 courses, in their writings, and, in short, in every thing 
 they can possibly produce in evidence of their opinions 
 — that they condemn this heresy from the very bottom of 
 their hearts, and in the same manner with the Thomists, 
 whom you allow, without hesitation, to be Catholics, and 
 who have never been suspected of being otherwise. 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 306 
 
 What have you now to allege against them, my worthy 
 Father ? That though they do not concur in the sense of 
 Calvin, they are, nevertheless, heretical, because they are 
 unwilling to admit that the sentiment of Jansenius is the 
 same with that of Calvin ? Will you absolutely venture 
 to affirm, that this is a matter of heresy ? Is it not a 
 mere question of fact, which really cannot be in any way 
 moulded into a heresy ? It would certainly be so, to say 
 that man has no power to resist efficacious grace ; but 
 can it be such to question whether Jansenius maintains 
 this doctrine ? Is it a revealed truth ? Is it an article of 
 faith which must be believed upon pain of damnation ? 
 Is it not, after all, notwithstanding all you say, a point of 
 fact, on account of which, it would be ridiculous to pre- 
 tend there were heretics in the church ? 
 
 No longer then, I beseech you, my good Father, apply 
 this name to them ; but devise some other, which may 
 be more adapted to the nature of your difference. Say 
 they are ignorant and stupid, and do not understand Jan- 
 senius — such reproaches would accord with your dispute ; 
 but, to call them heretics, has really no relation to the 
 question. And, as this is the only reproach from which I 
 propose to defend them, I need not take much trouble to 
 show, that they do understand Jansenius well. All I have 
 to say, is, that it appears to me, in judging of him by your 
 own rules, it is difficult to make him any thing else than 
 a Catholic ; for your mode of examination is indicated by 
 the following statement : — 
 
 ; "To know," say you, " whether Jansenius is innocent, 
 • it is necessary to ascertain whether he defends efficacious 
 'grace after the manner of Calvin, who-denies the power 
 of resisting it — in that case, he would be a heretic ; or, in 
 the manner of the Thpmists, who admit of such a power — 
 then he would be a good Catholic." Consider, then, Fa- 
 ther, if he maintains this power of resistance, when he 
 asserts throughout whole treatises, and, among others, in 
 vol. 3. b. 8. c. 20. " that the power of resisting grace al- 
 ways exists, according to the Council ; that the free-will 
 ran always act, or not act, will or not will, consent or not 
 26* 
 
306 PROVINCIAL LETtEfiS. 
 
 consent, do good or do evil ; and that man has always, 
 during life, these two kinds of liberty, which you call the 
 liberty of contrariety and contradiction." Notice further, 
 if he be not opposed to the error of Calvin, such as you 
 represent it, when he shows, in chap. 21. " that the Church 
 has condemned this heretic, who maintains that efficacious 
 grace does not act on the freedom of the will in the latter, 
 so long believed in the church, so that it is afterwards in 
 the power of the free-will to consent, or not consent ; in- 
 stead of concurring with St. Augustin, and the Council, 
 that one has always the power of not consenting, if we 
 choose ; and that, according to Prosper, God bestows, 
 even on his elect, the will of persevering, in such a man- 
 ner, as not to take away the power of willing the contra- 
 ry." Finally, judge if he do not agree with the Tho- 
 mists, when he declares, c. 4. " that every thing which the 
 Thomists have written to reconcile the efficacy of grace, 
 with the power of resisting it, is so conformable to his 
 opinion, that it is only necessary to read their books to 
 ascertain his sentiments — quod ipsi dixerunt, dictum puta." 
 
 Such is his mode of speaking on all these topics ; and, 
 on this account, I suppose that he believes in the power of 
 resisting grace, that his views are opposite to Calvin and 
 coincident with the Thomists, because he expressly says 
 so, and therefore, according to your rules, he must be a 
 Catholic. If you have any way of ascertaining the sense 
 of an author besides his own expressions, and, if without 
 quoting any of his words, you will aver in contradiction to 
 them, that he derides the power of resisting, and is on the 
 side of Calvin and against the Thomists, nevertheless, you 
 need be under no apprehension of my accusing you of 
 heresy ; I shall only say, it seems to me that you do not 
 well understand Jansenius, but we shall not, on this ac- 
 count, be less the children of the" same church. 
 
 How is it, my good Father, that you conduct yourself in 
 this dispute in so violent a manner, and treat as your cru- 
 ellest enemies, and the most dangerous of heretics, . those 
 whom you cannot accuse of any error, or indeed of any 
 thing excepting their not understanding Jansenius as you 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 307 
 
 do ? For what is the subject of dispute, but the meaning 
 of this author ? You wish then to condemn him, but they 
 demand what you mean ? You say that you understand 
 the error of Calvin : to which they reply that they con- 
 demn it ; and therefore, if you do not contend about words 
 but things, you surely ought to be satisfied. If they re- 
 fuse to say they condemn the sense of Jansenius, it is 
 simply because they believe it to be that of St. Thomas : 
 so that this word is very ambiguous it seems : in your 
 mouth it signifies the sense of Calvin — in theirs, of St. 
 Thomas ; and hence, as the different ideas which you 
 have of the same term, occasions all these divisions, if I 
 were arbitrator of your controversy, I should interdict the 
 word Jansenius on both sides. By which means, as you 
 would be compelled to express nothing but what you un- 
 derstand by it, it would be seen that you require nothing 
 but the condemnation of Jhe sentiment of Calvin, fn which 
 they concur ; and that they wish for nothing but the de- 
 fence of the sense of St. Augustin and St. Thomas, in 
 which you are both agreed. 
 
 For myself, then, I declare, Father, I shall always re- 
 gard them as good Catholics, whether they condemn Jan- 
 senius, if they should find him erroneous, or do not con- 
 demn him if they find nothing but what you affirm to be 
 Catholic ; and I shall address them as St. Jerome did 
 John, bishop of Jerusalem, who was accused of holding 
 eight propositions of Origen. "Either," said this saint, 
 " condemn Origen, if you admit that he has maintained 
 these errors, or at once deny that he held them — aut nega 
 hoc dixisse eum qui arguitur, aut si locutus est talia, eum 
 damna qui dixerit." 
 
 In this manner they act who aim at the errors of men 
 only, not their persons : while you, attacking their persons 
 instead of their errors, think it useless to resist error, un- 
 less the persons to whom it is imputed, be also condemned. 
 
 My good Father, what a violent mode of proceeding i? 
 this, and how ilL adapted to become successful ! I have 
 said elsewhere, and now repeat it, violence and truth can 
 never affect each other. Never were your accusations 
 
308 PKOVIKCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 more outrageous, and never was the innocence of your 
 adversaries more notorious : never was efficacious grace 
 more artfully attacked, never was it more firmly establish- 
 ed. You use your utmost efforts to induce people to be- 
 lieve, that your controversies respect points of faith, and 
 never was it more completely apparent, that the whole dis- 
 pute turns upon a question of fact. You leave no method 
 unattempted to circulate the impression, that this point of 
 fact is true, and never were people more inclined to doubt 
 it. The reason is obvious — you avail yourself of none of 
 the natural modes of obtaining credit to a point of fact, 
 which are to convince the senses, and to show, in the book 
 itself, the words it is said to contain. But you go in 
 search of devices so remote from this simplicity of pro- 
 ceeding, that the greatest ignoramus must be necessarily 
 struck with it. Why not pursue the same method to which 
 I have uniformly adhered in my letters, in detecting so 
 many of the bad doctrines of your authors, that of giving 
 a correct reference to the places where each quotation is 
 to be found ? The curates of Paris did the same, and it 
 will never fail to convince mankind. What would you 
 have said, or what would have been thought, when you 
 were reproached, for instance, with this proposition of Fa- 
 ther Launy, " that a monk may kill the individual who 
 threatens to publish calumnies against him, or his society," 
 if he can defend himself by no other means, if your accu- 
 sers had not quoted the places where these words are 
 written ? And if, however urgently you requested their 
 authority, they had always obstinately persisted in refusing 
 to inform you, and, instead of it, had gone to Rome to 
 procure a bull to enjoin all the world to admit it ? Would 
 it not have been considered certain, that they had surpri- 
 sed the pope into such a measure, and only had recourse 
 to it, because they failed in all those natural modes of 
 proof, with which the truth of a fact supplies those who 
 possess it ? Hence, they have only stated, that Father 
 Launy teaches this doctrine in vol. 5. disp. 36, n. 118. p. 
 544, of the Douay edition ; so that those who wish to see 
 this passage, have found it, and nobody is in any doubt 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 309 
 
 upon the subject. This is a very easy and ready method! 
 of deciding questions of fact, when one is in the right. — 
 How is it, therefore, my good Father, that you have not 
 adopted it ? You say, in your Cavilli, " that the fiye pro- 
 positions are in Jansenius, word for word, in the express 
 terms — iisdem verbis." But you have directly assumed, 
 they are not ! What remained, therefore, but a reference 
 or quotation from the very page, if you had really seen 
 them, otherwise to have confessed your mistake ? Neither 
 of these, however, has been done : on the contrary, per- 
 fectly conscious that all these passages from Jansenius, 
 which you sometimes allege, in order to dazzle the eyes of 
 mankind, are not " the individual and particular proposi- 
 tions condemned," which you engaged to produce from 
 the book, you present us with certain constitutions which 
 declare they are extracted thence, but without pointing out 
 the place. ! 
 
 I am aware of the reverence which Christians owe to 
 the Holy See, and your adversaries sufficiently evince 
 their resolution never to depart from it ; but you are not 
 to imagine it was any deficiency of respect which led 
 them to represent to the pope, with all the submission 
 due from children to a Father, and from members to their 
 head, that he might have been surprised in reference to 
 this fact ; that he had not investigated it since his being 
 elevated to the pontificate : and that his predecessor, 
 Innocent X., had merely examined whether these propo- 
 sitions were heretical, but not whether they were attri- 
 butable to Jansenius. This induced a commissary of the 
 Holy Office, one of the principle examiners, to say, that 
 " they could not be censured as the idea of any author — 
 non sunt qualificabiles in sensu prqferenlis — because they 
 had been presented for examination without any reference 
 to any person as the <§ithor — in abstracto, et ut prmscin- 
 dunt ab omni proferente" — -as appears from their opinions 
 recently published ; that upwards of sixty doctors, and a 
 great number of other intelligent and pious persons, have 
 carefully read this book, without being able to discover 
 these propositions in it ; but they found the very reverse, 
 
310 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 that those who succeeded in giving the pope this impres- 
 sion, might well be supposed to abuse his confidence, in- 
 terested as they are to decry that author, who has con- 
 victed Molina of more than fifty errors. And what ren- 
 ders this the more credible, is their holding the following 
 maxim as one of the most established in their system — 
 " that it is not criminal to calumniate those persons by 
 whom they deem themselves unjustly attacked." As 
 their testimony is so suspicious, and that of others so 
 considerable, there is some reason to supplicate bis Ho- 
 liness with all possible humility, to have this fact ex- 
 amined in the presence of the doctors of each party, in 
 order to come to a solemn and regular decision. " Let 
 able judges be assembled." said St. Basil, on a similar 
 occasion, ep. 75, '• and every one be free to examine my 
 writings — let them see if there be any errors in the faith 
 — let them read the objections and the answers to them 
 that they may pass a judgment from knowing the cause, 
 and with proper formality, and not deal in defamatory 
 representations without examination." 
 
 Pray then. Father, do not aim to make those who 
 should act in this manner looked upon as deficient in 
 submission to the Holy See. The popes are far from 
 treating Christians so tyrannically as some who act in 
 their name. " The church," observes St. Gregory, in 
 Job, lib. 8. c. 1. "which was formed in the school of 
 humility, does not command in an authoritative manner, 
 but persuades by reason, whatever she teaches her chil- 
 dren, whom she supposes addicted to any error — recta 
 qua errantibus dicit, non quasi ex auctoritate prtecipit, sed 
 ex ratione persuadet :" and so far from deeming it a dis- 
 honour, to retract a decision into which they have been 
 surprised, they, on the contrary, glory in it, as St. Ber- 
 nard testifies, ep. 180 : *' The Apostolical See possesses 
 this excellence, that it does not pique itself upon a point 
 of honour, but is willing to revoke a judgment into which 
 it has been led by surprise, and it is right that no one 
 should profit by such an injustice, especially before the 
 Holy See." 
 
PKOVINCIAt LETTEBS. 3 1 I 
 
 These are the proper sentiments to inculcate upon the 
 minds of popes, since all divines are agreed, that they 
 are liable to surprise ; and their supremacy is so far from 
 being an effectual safeguard, that it really exposes them 
 the more to such deceptions, on account of the variety of 
 concerns that devolves upon them. This is what the 
 same St. Gregory intimated to certain persons, who were 
 astonished that another pope should have permitted him- 
 self to be misled. "Why," says he, I. 1. c. 4. Dial. 
 " why are you so struck with wonder at our being de- 
 ceived — we, who are but men ? Have you never read of 
 David, who had the spirit of prophecy, confiding in the 
 impositions of Ziba, and giving an unjust judgment against 
 the son of Jonathan ? Who, then, will consider it strange, 
 that we should sometimes be surprised by misrepresenta- 
 tions — we, who are not prophets ? The multiplicity of 
 our affairs overwhelms us, and our mind, being distracted 
 by so many different concerns, pays the less attention to 
 each one in particular, and is, therefore, the more easily 
 deceived in any of them." I do believe, my good father, 
 the popes know much better than you, whether they are 
 liable to be surprised or not. They tell us, themselves, 
 that the popes and the greatest monarchs are more expo- 
 sed to deception than persons who are occupied with less 
 important engagements ; and I really think we ought to 
 believe them. There is no difficulty in imagining in what 
 manner they may be surprised. St. Bernard has given, a 
 description of it in a letter to Innocent II. " It is nothing 
 either so remarkable, or so novel, that the mind of man 
 should be capable of deceiving and being deceived. Some 
 monks are come to you with the spirit of falsehood and 
 illusion. They talked against a bishop whom they detest, 
 but whose life has been exemplary. These people bite 
 like dogs, and would make what is good pass for evil; 
 while you, holy father, are displeased with your son; but 
 why have you given his adversaries an occasion of triumph ? 
 Believe not in every spirit, but prove them whether they 
 are of God. I trust, when you come to know the truth, 
 whatever has been founded on false information, will he 
 
312 PROVINCIAL LETTER?. 
 
 dismissed ; and I entreat the Spirit of truth, to give you 
 grace to separate the light from darkness, and to reject 
 the evil, that ycu may favour the good." Thus you see, 
 Father, that the elevated station which the popes occupy, 
 does not exempt them from surprise ; but, in fact, it ren- 
 ders the mistakes into which they are hurried, more dan- 
 gerous and important. This is what St. Bernard repre- 
 sents to pope Eugenius, de Consid. lib. 2. c. ult. " There 
 is another fault so general, that I have never yet found 
 an individual amongst the great who escaped it. It is, 
 holy Father, a too great credulity from which so many 
 disorders proceed. To this, may be traced violent perse- 
 cutions against the innocent, unjust prejudices against 
 those who are absent, and terrible passions in affairs of 
 no consequence — pro nihilo. This, holy Father, is an 
 universal evil, and, if you are exempt from it, I must say 
 you are the only one that possesses this advantage over 
 your brethren." 
 
 I fancy, my good Father, you are dow beginning to be 
 convinced that the popes are liable to surprise ; but to 
 show this still better, I only beg to remind you of some 
 examples, which you have yourself related in your book 
 of popes and emperors, who have been completely sur- 
 prised by some of the heretics. You state, that Apolli- 
 narius surprised pope DamasUs as Celestius did Zozimus. 
 You say, also, that a person named Athanasius, deceived 
 the emperor Heraclius, and occasioned his persecuting 
 the Catholics; and that Sergius obtained from Honorius 
 that decree which was burnt at the sixth council, through 
 his being, as you say, the parasite of that pope. 
 -, It is evident then, by your own statement, that those 
 who attend upon kings and popes, sometimes artfully en- 
 gage them to persecute the true faith, while they imagine 
 they are exterminating heretics. Hence the popes, who 
 are exceedingly fearful of such surprises, have adopted a 
 letter of Alexander III. as an ecclesiastical enactment, 
 inserted in the canon law, to allow a suspension in the 
 execution of their bulls and decrees, when it is supposed 
 they have been deceived. " If," observes this pope to 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 313 
 
 the archbishop of Ravenna, " we should sometimes send 
 to your fraternity decrees which oppose your own views, 
 do not be uneasy ; for either you must execute them with 
 obedient reverence, or send us the reason why you do not 
 think you should, because we shall not be dissatisfied that 
 you do not execute a decree which may have been drawn 
 from us by artifice and surprise." Such is the conduct 
 of the popes, who are solicitous of clearing up the diffe- 
 rences of Christians, and not of gratifying the passions of 
 those who would fill Christendom withconfusion. They 
 do not claim an authority like that of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul, after Christ, but their conduct evinces a spirit of 
 peace and truth. Hence, they generally insert this clause 
 in their letters, which is understood to be in all — " si ita 
 est — si preces veritate nitanlur — if the thing be as We u»» 
 derstood it ; if the facts alleged be true." It is apparent 
 from this statement, that since the popes give no autho- 
 rity to their bulls, only in proportion as they are founded 
 on established facts, the bulls alone cannot prove the truth 
 of facts ; on the contrary, according to the canonists 
 themselves, it is the truth of the facts which gives weight 
 and effect to the bulls. 
 
 ; But how shall we ascertain the truth of the facts ? By 
 'our eyes, my good Father, which are the lawful judges, 
 as reason is of natural and intelligible things, and faith of 
 those which are supernatural and revealed. For, since 
 you compel me to it, I must tell you, that, conformably to 
 the sentiments of two of the greatest doctors of the 
 church, St. Augustin and St. Thomas, these three prin- 
 ciples of knowledge, the senses, reason, and faith, have 
 each their distinct objects, and their certainty Within their 
 own sphere. And, as God has seen fit to make use of 
 the senses as the medium of faith— -fides ex auditu — so 
 far is faith from destroying the certainty of the senses, 
 that it would be "destructive to faith to call in question 
 the fidelity of the senses. St. Thomas, therefore, ex- 
 pressly says, that God has appointed sensible accidents 
 to subsist in the Eucharist, that the senses, which judge 
 
314 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 only from these accidents, might not be deceived — tit 
 sensus <i deceplione reddantur immunes."' 
 
 We may hence infer, that whatever proposition is pre- 
 sented for our examination, it is necessary, in the first 
 place, to ascertain the nature of it, to know to which of 
 these three principles we must have recourse. If the 
 question refer to any thing supernatural, we must neither 
 judge of it by the senses nor by reason, but by Scripture 
 and the decisions of the church : if it be an unrevealed 
 proposition, and within the sphere of our natural sense, 
 that must be the judge ; but if" it relate to a point of fact, 
 we must believe our senses, to whose cognisance it natu- 
 rally belongs. 
 
 This rule is so general, that, according to St. Augustirt 
 and St. Thomas, when Scripture itself presents a pas- 
 sage, of which the first literal meaning is contrary to that 
 which the senses and reason know with certainty, we must 
 not endeavour to disavow them, to -subject them to the 
 authority of this apparent meaning of Scripture, but 
 must interpret Scripture, by searching out another signifi- 
 cation, which agrees with the truth obvious to our senses ; 
 because, the word of God being infallible in the facts 
 themselves, and the report of the senses and reason acting 
 within their appropriate spheres being also certain, these 
 two truths must agrees and, as Scripture maybe various- 
 ly interpreted, and the testimony of the senses but in one 
 way, we ought, in such cases, to receive that as the true 
 interpretation of Scripture, which is conformable to the 
 faithful evidence of the senses. " Two things," remarks 
 St. Thomas, p. 1. q. 68. a. 1. " must be observed, accord- 
 ing to St. Augustin , the one, that Scripture always has a 
 true meaning, the other, that it may be received in more 
 senses than one, when we find one which reason con- 
 vinces us is unquestionably false ; it must not then be ob- 
 stinately affirmed,' this is the natural meaning,' but another 
 coincident with sense and reason must be sought." 
 
 This he explains by an example from the book of 
 Genesis, where it is written, " God made two great lights ; 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS.* 315 
 
 the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to 
 rule the night ; he made the stars also ;" by which the 
 Scripture seems to state that the moon is greater than 
 all the stars ; but since it is certain, from incontestable 
 demonstratious, that this is not the case, we ought not, 
 says this Father, pertinaciously to adhere to the literal 
 sense, but seek for another more conformable to fact, as 
 by observing, " that the word only indicates the greatness 
 of the moon's light, with respect to us, and not the great- 
 ness of that body in itself." 
 
 Were we to do otherwise, we should not render the 
 Scripture venerable, but expose it to the contempt of in- 
 fidels ; " because," as St. Augustin remarks, >' should it. 
 be said that we believe in things contained in Scripture, 
 which they know to be false, they would ridicule our cre- 
 dulity in other things more concealed from human discern- 
 ment, such as the resurrection of the dead, and eternal 
 life :" " and thus," adds St. Thomas, " our religion 
 would be rendered contemptible, and their conversion to 
 it utterly prevented." 
 
 This would, moreover, operate as an entire prevention 
 to the change of heretics, and render the pope's authority 
 despicable, if we refuse to consider them as Catholics 
 who will not believe certain words to be in a book where 
 they cannot find them, upon the assurance of a pope, 
 taken by surprise, that they were there. For nothing but 
 the examination of a book can ascertain whether it con- 
 tains certain words or not. Matters of fact can only be 
 proved by the senses. If what you maintain be true, 
 show it ; if not, pray desist from soliciting any one to be- 
 lieve it, for this is perfectly useless. All the powers of 
 the world cannot, by their utmost authority, persuade a 
 person of a point of fact, any more than they can alter it ; 
 for nothing can make that which is, not to be. 
 
 It was all in vain, for example, that certain monks of 
 Ratisbon, obtained from Pope Leo IX. a solemn decree, 
 by which it was declared, that the body of St. Denys, 
 first bishop of Paris, and commonly held to be the areo- 
 
316 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 pagite, had been carried away from France, and convey- 
 ed to the church of their monastery. That decree does 
 not prevent the body of the saint in question from having 
 always been, and still remaining, in the celebrated abbey 
 which bears his name ; and you would find it difficult 
 enough to procure this bull a reception, though the pope 
 avers he had examined the matter " with all possible di- 
 ligence, diligentissime. and. with the council of many bi- 
 shops and prelates :" so that he strictly rnjoins all French- 
 men, " districte pracipientes, to acknowledge and confess 
 that they no lunger have these sacred relics." Notwith- 
 standing which, the French, who knew this was not the 
 fact, from the evidence of their own eyes, ^for, having 
 opened the shrine, they found in it all the relics entire, as 
 the historians of that time declare,) believed then, and 
 alwavs have continued to do so the contrary to what this 
 holy popn enjoined them to believe ; convinced, that even 
 saints and propheN are liable to surprise and deception. 
 
 In vain did you obt:nn a decree from Rome against Ga- 
 lileo, which condemned hi* opinion respecting the motion 
 of the earth. This will never prove that it stands still ; 
 and, if it have been ascertained, from careful observa- 
 tions, that it turns, all mankind together, cannot prevent 
 it? turning, nor prevent their being carried round with it. 
 Do not imagine, that the letters of Pope Zachary for the 
 excommunication of t?t Virgil, for asserting we had anti- 
 podes have annihilated that new world, though he de- 
 cla»:d this opinion to be a dangerous error ; or, that the 
 king of Spain has derived no considerable benefit from 
 believing Christopher Columbus, who came from those 
 regions, instead of the pope who had never been there; 
 or that the church has not received great advantage,' for 
 this discovery has sent the knowledge of the gospel to 
 great multitudes of people perishing in unbelief. 
 
 Hence, my good Father, you see the nature of matters 
 of tact, and by what principles we ought to regulate our 
 judgment ; and, from this statement it is easy to conclude, 
 with regard to our subject, that if these five propositions 
 do not belong to Jansenius, it is impossible they should be 
 
PROVINCIAL BETTERS, 317 
 
 extracted from his book ; and, the only means of coming 
 to a conclusion, and convincing the world, is to examine 
 his work in a regular conference, which you were request- 
 ed to do long, long ago. Till this is done, you have no 
 right to stigmatize your adversaries as obstinate ; for they 
 are certainly blameless as to this point of fact, as they 
 are free from error on points of faith — Catholics in refe- 
 rences toright, reasonable with regard to fact, and innocent 
 in both cases. 
 
 Who can help feeling surprised, Father, to see on the 
 one side a justification so complete, and on the other ac- 
 cusations so violent ? Who would suppose that the 
 question between you related to a fact of no importance, 
 which you wished to be believed without evidence ? And 
 who would dare to think so much clamour was excited in 
 the church for nothing, absolutely nothing — pro nihilo, a3 
 St. Bernard says ? But this is a part of your grand 
 policy, to make people imagine every thing is at stake, in 
 an affair really about nothing ; and to give it out to the 
 great people who attend to your representations, that your 
 disputes refer to Calvin's most pernicious errors, and the 
 most important principles of faith, for the purpose of in- 
 ducing them to exert their zeal and authority against your 
 adversaries, as if the safety of the Catholics depended 
 upon it ! Whereas, if they come to know that the question 
 relates merely to this insignificant point of fact, they 
 would not proceed another step ; but, on the contrary, 
 regret extremely having made so many efforts to gratify 
 your private passions, in an affair of no consequence to 
 the church. 
 
 ; Lastly, to take it in the worst point of view, if it should 
 prove true that Jansenius held these propositions, what 
 Iwould it matter if some persons doubted it, provided they 
 detest them, as they do publicly ? Is it not sufficient they 
 ;are universally and without exception condemned, even 
 ! in the very sense in which you have explained that you 
 were desirous of their condemnation ? Would the cen- 
 sure be more complete if it were really admitted that 
 
318 FBOVISCIAL LETTEES. 
 
 Jansenius maintained them ? What is the use of exact- 
 ing this acknowledgment, unless it be to decry a doctor 
 and a bishop, who died in the communion of the church ? 
 I cannot see that, in this case, the good would be so con- 
 siderable as to repay the trouble. What advantage would 
 it be to the state, the pope, the bishops, the doctors, or . 
 the church at large ? It does not in any way affect them ; 
 and it is, in fact, merely your Society, Father, that would 
 receive any pleasure from defaming an author who has 
 done you a trifling injury. But every agent is set in mo- 
 tion, because you declare every thing is at stake ; and this 
 is the secret cause of all these mighty movements, which, 
 so soon as the true state of the case was known, would 
 instantly cease to operate. As, therefore, the peace of 
 the church depends upon this exposition of .the business, 
 it was extremely important to attempt it, that, all your 
 disguises being detected, the whole world might see, that 
 your accusations are groundless, your adversaries without 
 error, and the church without heresy. 
 
 The object I had in view is thus apparent : and it seems 
 to be so important to the general interests of religion, 
 that I can scarcely comprehend how those whom you 
 have so provoked to speak can remain silent. Though 
 your injurious conduct should not affect them, its influence 
 upon the church itself ought, I think, to induce them to 
 'complain : besides. I cannot think ecclesiastics ought to 
 [abandon their reputation to calumny, especially in matters 
 lof faith. They allow you, however, to say whatever you 
 'please ; so that, independently of the occasion which you 
 have happened to give me, perhaps there might have been 
 ho opposition to the scandals you were disseminating on 
 every hand. I am, therefore, astonished at their patience, 
 especially as it cannot be attributed to timidity or weak- 
 ness: for I well know they neither want arguments for 
 their vindication, nor zeal for the truth. Still they main- 
 tain such a religious silence, that I fear it is carried to an 
 excess. For my part, Father, I doubt whether I can. 
 imitate them in this Darticular. T.psvp ♦>"» -*•«■»» -"-^ 
 
PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 
 
 peace, and I will readily and heartily consent to let you 
 alone : but while you are aiming to stir up trouble, de- 
 pend upon it there will be found children of peace who 
 will think themselves obliged to use the utmost exertion to 
 preserve its tranquillity. 
 
 THE END.