utter blasphemous expressions. Be not troubled, your infallible guides speak very comfortably to your particular cases. Layman, treating of voluntary actions after he had premised certain conclusions, makes this inference: "It follows from what I have said, that he who from the impression of an inveterate custom is induced to do evil, as to utter words of blasphemy, &c. sins not at all, nor doth properly blaspheme; because sin cannot be committed without a deliberate act of the understanding. And he confirms this assertion by the testimony of their great schoolmen and casuists, Scotus, Suarez, Sanchez, &c. And the like they say of blasphemies uttered in passion; and Filliucius gives this reason, "Because passion, as well as an evil habit, takes away the actual use of reason, without which sin cannot be committed, according to their maxims. 9. God commands us not to render evil for evil, 1 Thess. v. 15. But their casuists teach, that a man may repay even the smallest injury with the greatest loss, that is, of life itself. In several cases (they say) it is lawful to murder our neighbour. I will mention but two, which very frequently occur. 1. In defence of our honour. The honour of a person may be invaded (saith Filliucius) several ways. 1. When one strikes him with a cudgel, or gives him a box on the ear. 2. When he is reproached by words or Q son or estate. gestures. 3. When he is accused of feigned crimes before persons in authority, or of true, if they be secret, whereby he may suffer in his per"When the honour of a person is impaired by another by any of these ways, it is lawful to kill him, saith Filliucius." P And to confirm this opinion, Lessius produceth Sot. Navar. Sylvester, Lopez, Gomez, and Julius Clarius." Escoba (who is spokesman for twenty-four learned and ancient divines) propounding this question, "Whether it be lawful for an honourable person to kill him, who hath given him evil language, or the lie? Answers, that according to Baidel, it is lawful, in case he cannot otherwise be repressed. If a nobleman be assaulted, and may save himself by flight, yet he is not obliged, but may kill the assailant, if otherwise his honour cannot be preserved, saith Cardinal Tolet. It is lawful, according to Bannes, saith Escobar, ") to kill that man who intends to accuse me of some capital crime, which is secret, whereupon I may suffer death, or a considerable loss in mine estate, if I can by no means divert him. Amicus P Tom. ii. tract. 29, c. 3, p. 188. q And Lessius mentions four or five ways. r De Just. lib. ii. p. 89, &c. Tract. 1. exam. 7, cap. 3, p. 123. t Instruct. Sacerd. lib. v. c. 6, p. 633. "Tract. 1. exam. 7, p. 118. w Cited by Auth. of Jes. Mor. W and Caramuel affirm, that a monk may kill a woman with whom he hath committed fornication, if he fear she will divulge it. These instances do plainly evidence the lawfulness of murder (according to the sentiments of their infallible doctors) in defence of a man's honour and reputation. But here this one rule must be observed, viz. "That we do not kill with a formal in tention to revenge ourselves, but to preserve our honour." 2. In defence of our goods. So much is affirmed by Layman, and he cites Anton. Major. Sylvester, Cajetan, Soto, Navar. Covar. Clarus, Medina, Moina, &c. And Lessius gives this reason for it," because temporal goods are necessary to preserve life, and by consequence it is lawful to preserve them in the same manner as life itself. Nay, he affirms, That it is lawful to kill a person that hath taken an apple from us, if it would be a disgrace unto us not to take it out of the thief's hands. But Molina (and Escobar seems to concur with him) thinks, that ordinarily it is not lawful to kill for less than a crown, or the value of it. And if these instances be not sufficient, Escobarb lays down this general rule, that will justify most murders in the world: y Lib. iii. p. 357. Lessius det. Just. lib. ii. p. 9. a Lib. ii. p. 85 and 88. z Ibid. “ We may kill those that do us wrong, as those that rob by night or by day, and all others that offend us, though we be assured that they shall be damned, dying in that condition.” 10. God saith, Thou shalt not steal, Exod. xx. 15. But their casuists teach, that in several cases theft is lawful, or at the most, but a venial sin; whereby poor men, children, servants, &c., are encouraged to commit rapes and robberies. To make this clear and evident, I will produce a few instances out of these miraculous doctors. If a man be in necessity, not only extreme, but such as is hard to be endured, it is lawful for him to steal for his more comfortable subsistence.-Lessius, lib. ii. cap. 12, num. 71, p. 132. Filliucius, tom. ii. tract. 32, cap. 5, p. 243. “If a father deny his child, employed in his calling, as much for his salary as he would give unto a stranger, he may privately take what is proportionable to his labour and industry; when he hath deducted what his father laid out in his education.”—Escobar, tract. i. exam. 9, cap. 4, p. 158. If servants judge their wages too small, they may advance them of themselves by filching and purloining as much from their masters as they imagine necessary to make their wages answerable to their services.-Layman. lib. iii. tract. 3, p. 313. And he confirms this opinion by the testimony of Navar. Lopez. Licent. Diez, Les sius, Molina. I remember the author of the Mystery of Jesuitism tells us a pleasant story of one John d'Alba in the year 1647, who being a servant to the fathers of the college of Clermont, and thinking his wages too low, stole something to make it up. Hereupon they put him in prison, and charged him with felony. This poor fellow being arraigned, confessed that he had taken away certain pewter plates from them; but pleaded that he was not guilty of felony for so doing and urged for his justification this position of their casuists, which he presented to the judges. And if they judge their diet too coarse and scanty, these comfortable casuists will tell them," that what thefts they commit in meats and drinks are not mortal sins, though insensibly they amount to a great quantity, if they steal them to eat and drink, and not to sell."-Lessius, lib. ii. p. 130; Escobar. tract. i. exam. 9, p. 157. “If that which is stolen be something the owner makes small account of, or for which he would not have the robber put to damnation, (and who can be so cruel as to desire the eternal misery of his fellow-creature?) "the theft is at the most but a venial sin."-Lessius, lib. ii. cap. 41, dub. 9, num. 80, p. 537. And if a tailor, who is commissioned by a gentleman to buy stuff or silk to make his clothes, go commonly to one mercer or merchant, who for this reason sells him a good penny |