together. In this place you fay that VASQUEZ permits no murders: but what do you fay, Fathers, in another place? Why, “That "the probability of one fentiment, does not " hinder the probability of another which "contradicts it." And again fomewhere else, "That it is permitted to follow the leaft

probable and leaft fafe opinion, forfaking "the most probable and fafeft one." What other confequence can be drawn from all this put together, but that we have full liberty of confcience to follow any one of those oppofite opinions which we best approve of? What then becomes, Fathers, of all that fruit you your hopes with that you fhould gather

fed from your quotations? It is all vanished; fince those very maxims need only be united for your condemnation, which you separate for your juftification. Why then do you produce those paffages of your authors not quoted by me, to excufe those which I have quoted, fince there is no connexion between them? What authority, or what right does that give you to call me an impoftor? Have I faid that all your Fathers are alike licentious and depraved? Have I not, on the contrary, shewn your principal intereft to arife from having all forts of opinions to fuit all forts of your VOL. II.

I

occafions?

occafions? Does any one chufe to murder? Lay LESSIUS before him: does any one not chufe it? Bring out VASQUEZ; that no one may depart unfatisfied, and without having one GRAVE author for him. LESSIUS will talk of homicide like a Heathen, and yet perhaps of alms-giving like a Chriftian: VASQUEZ will talk of alms-giving like a Heathen, and yet of homicide like a Christian. But by the means of probability, which VASQUEZ and LESSIUS equally maintain, and which makes all your opinions agree in common, they will mutually lend one another their respective sentiments, and will be under an obligation to give abfolution to those who shall have acted agreeable to the opinions which both the one and the other of them have condemned. You are then confounded with this variety. Uniformity would be more fupportable; and nothing is more contrary than this confufed mixture of all forts of opinions to the exprefs orders of St. IGNATIUS, and of the firft Generals of your order. Perhaps, Fathers, I may take some opportunity hereafter, to talk to you on this head when the world will be surprised to fee how much you are fallen off from the first direction of your inftitution S

ftitution; and how the Generals of your own very order forefaw that the depravity in your doctrine of morals might happen to prove fatal one time or other not only to your own fociety but even to the whole univerfal Church. But farther I must tell you, you can draw no fort of advantage from the opinion of VASQUEZ; it would be very odd indeed, if, amongst so many Jesuits who have turned authors, there fhould not be one or two of them who should say the fame thing that all Christians unitedly confefs. There is no glory to be gained by affirming that one cannot murder for a box on the ear, according to the Gofpel; but it is horridly shameful to deny it. So that this is so far from justifying you that it rather oppreffes you with greater weight; fince though you have had doctors amongst you who have told you the truth, yet you have not walked in the paths of truth, but have chofen darkness rather than light. For you have been taught by VASQUEZ, "That it is a Heathenish and "not a Christian opinion to fay that one may

give him a blow with a ftick who has "given one a box on the ear. That it is "destroying both the Decalogue and the "Gospel to fay one may murder him for it; I 2 "and

a

" and that the most abandoned villains man"kind have amongst them acknowledge this to be true." Yet notwithstanding this, and in oppofition to these manifeft verities, you have fuffered LESSIUS, ESCOBAR, and the reft of them to decide, that notwithstanding all the prohibitions GOD has laid upon homicide, yet they are no obftacles to murder for a box on the ear. Of what use is it. therefore now to produce this paffage of VASQUEZ against the opinion of LESSIUS, unless it is to fhew that LESSIUS is both CC "Heathen and a villain,” according to VASQUEZ? And yet these are terms I durft not make use of myself. What conclufions can be drawn from hence but that LESSIUS" deftroys "both the Decalogue and the Gofpel?" That VASQUEZ will condemn LESSIUS on this very point at the laft day, as LESSIUS too will condemn VASQUEZ on fome other? And that all your authors will rife up in judgment one against the other, and reciprocally condemn each other for the horrid outrages they have been guilty of, in oppofition to the law of JESUS CHRIST.

Let us then, Fathers, draw this conclufion, that, fince your doctrine of probability makes the good fentiments of fome of your authors

;

authors useless to the Church, and useful only to your own POLICY, thofe fentiments are of no other service than to fhew us by their contrarieties the double dealings of your hearts, which indeed you have perfectly laid open to us, by declaring on the one part that VASQUEZ and SUAREZ are against homicide and on the other, that several celebrated authors are for homicide; on purpose only to offer two ways to mankind, by destructively perverting the fimplicity of the spirit of God, which pronounces a curfe on those who are double hearted, and prepare two ways for themselves to walk in: "Va! duplici corde "et ingredienti duabus viis!