The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 9 · Section 7
Sect. 7. But we may the better bear with them in this, becauſe they ſeem not very tender of killing one another. A man is not to be puniſhed who kills his Wife, taken in Adultery, and the Adulterer together with her. (l)Pet. a. S. Joſeph. de 5. praecepto art. 6. p. 258. 259.He may Kill his own Daughter in like caſe, or his Siſter, yea, or his own Mother, if his Father give order for it; and he may do it as ſafely though theſe his Female Relatives be quick with child. For the Child in the Womb (ſay they) being the ſame morally with the Mother; he that may kill the Mother, may kill the Child too. Thus a private perſon may be judge in his own cauſe, and proceed to mortal execution without Trial, and ſacrifice the guilty and innocent, both at once; to his own or anothers paſſion, and deſtroy together the Body and Soul of his neareſt Relations; and all this with impunity. They deliver it for certain, that a mother in danger, may lawfully uſe a Medicine which tends directly to her cure, though it be probable that it will make her miſcarry. (m)Videtur etiam ſatis certum. &c. Idem. ibid. art. 2. p. 218. vid. Corduba. Pet. Navar. Arragon. Lopez in Fill. tr. 29. n. 104.And becauſe ſhe may take ſuch a courſe to ſecure her life, or recover her health: they conclude it lawful to do this, to preſerve her ſtate, or reputation. (n)Liceret etiam procurare abortum nondum animatum cum ad famam & ſtatum conſervandum opus erit. Baſil. de Leon, de matrim. l. 10. c. 13. n. 2. Liceret etiam faeminae nuptae, aut virgini fornicanti idem efficere, quando nullo alio quaeſito medio ſibi conſulere poſſint, ne crimine detecto, famae vitae que jacturam facerent. Pet. Navar. l. 2. de Reſtit. c. 3. diff. 2. n. 130.So that if a Maid or married Woman, have proſtituted her ſelf to anothers luſt, ſhee may procure abortion, when otherwiſe the Crime might be diſcovered, and her life or credit in hazard. Thus neither Families, nor Pariſhes, nor Monaſteries need be peſter'd with natural children, how many ſoever be got: the ſhame of their birth, and the pain too, may be prevented, and the trouble and expence of their education avoided, by a receipt approved by the Roman Doctors, if it be but taken in time. As for the cenſures of their Church in this caſe, or worſe, there's no fear, for even (o)Secundum Sylveſtrum Monialis ſolicitans aborſum non est excommunicata, quia non injuriam ſibi ſed proli facit. Lopez. cap. 64. p. 322. vid. Nald…m in Bonacin. de reſtit. d. 2. q. ult. p. 7. n. 6.a Nun got with Child may procure abortion, and not be Excommunicate (ſo much more favourable is New-Rome to her Veſtals than the old was, though their crimes be doubled.) Any who are ſo diſpoſed, have incouragement enough, to venture upon both. For as to the murder, they are ſecured from the Laws of God by this Doctrine, which makes it no ſin; from the Laws of the Church by her natural indulgence; and may be from thoſe of the ſtate, by their own private conduct: And as to the Whoredom, they may be quitted upon as eaſie terms, as they would wiſh. For the the Prieſt, if he get the child, is impowered to abſolve the Mother; and he need not be ſo ſtrict, as to injoyn for penance, the avoiding of the ſin. Yet for all this, they ſeem ſo tender (which may amuſe us) of unborn Infants in other caſes, thus they will have (p)Aliqui affirmant non tantum id licere, ſed …tiam matrem teneri talem ſectionem procurare, & ferre, ne illius infans ſine Baptiſmointereat. Pet. a S. Joſeph. ibid. p. 220.it lawful to cutt up the Mother quick, and ſhe obliged to ſuffer, yea procure it, that the child in her Womh may not periſh un-baptized. Thus their Doctrine will have them more regard the Reputation of a Whore, than the life of an honeſt VVoman; yea the child may periſh without regard of its wanting Baptiſm, when the credit of a Strumpet is concerned: but a chaſt VVoman muſt be killed in the other caſe, that the Infant in her VVomb may have it. Yet one would think the iſſue of VVhoredomin as much danger for want of Baptiſm, as the fruit of lawful Matrimony.
They teach further, that a man may kill another, either to ſecure his own perſon, or his Goods, or his Reputation. In defence of his perſon they hold it lawful to ſlay any one; (q)Bonacin. ibid. punct. 8. n. 4. ubi Sylveſter, Julius Clarus & alij communiter.a Servant may kill his Maſter aſſaulting him unjuſtly, or a Monk his Abbot, or a Subject his Prince, or a Child his own Father. This is their common Doctrine, and thereby there is warranty for it, not only to ſecure ones life, but to avoid a wound or a blow (r)Si non …oſsum effugere quiu me percu…ias, niſi te interficiam, licite te interficio. Angel. Sum. v. defenſ. n. 4. ibi Bartolus, Florianus, Navar. cap. 15. n. 4. Lopez part 1. c. 62. Pet. a S. Joſeph. ibid. p. 221. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. & alij communiter.. Any one may do this at any time, (s)Angel. Sum. v. homicid. 3. n. 2. Sylveſt. v. homicid. 1. n. 13. Graff. l. 2. c. 64. n. 8.even a Prieſt while he is celebrating, may kill one that invades him: and when he has ſhed his blood, may go on with his other Sacrifice, which will be unbloody notwithſtanding. If he that (t)Bonacin. ibid. n. 5. ibi. Bartolus, Gomez. & alij.aſſails him be Frantick, or in Drink, yea or aſleep, and has no ſenſe that he offers any wrong; he may innocently kill him for all that, whoever he be, if he cannot otherwiſe avoid the injury; yea though the aggreſſor have had the higheſt provocations, (u)Pet. a S. Joſeph. ibid. p. 222. & 230. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. ubi Pet. Navar. Sotus, Julius Clarus, Rodriguez.by intolerable reproaches, or the loſs of his Eſtate, or the defiling of his bed: yet in this caſe he that has given the occaſion, and done the wrong, may kill the ſufferer; the Thief may lawfully ſlay him whom he has Robbed; and the Adulterer may kill the Husband, after he has abuſed the Wife, or deflowred his Siſter, or Buggar'd his Child. He may not only kill the aggreſſor, but an innocent perſon alſo to eſcape himſelf (x)Petrus a S. Joſeph. de 5. praecept. art. 2. p. 223. Pet. Navar. de reſtit. l. 1. c. 3. n. 147. Bonacin. ibid. punct. 7. n. 1. ubi Julius Clarus. Corduba. Cajetan. & alij.. As if he cannot be ſecured from Peter, without killing Paul, he may be the death of them both; or ſtate it thus, and they cannot ſtick at it, if he cannot eſcape his Father without killing his Mother, he may ſlay both Father and Mother at once. Thus they may deprive any of life, not only when they are actually aſſaulted, but before any blow is given. (y)Graff. l. 2. c. 64. n. 4. Soto de Juſt. & jure. l. 5, q. 1. art. 8. p. 143.When a man perceives one coming towards him with his Weapon ready, and fears he is not able to deal with him, he may ſhoot him dead at a diſtance. Nor need he be hindred by the conſideration, that killing him in ſuch circumſtances (ſince he is in mortal ſin) will be the deſtruction both of Body and Soul together. Soto objects this to himſelf, but abates nothing of his concluſion notwithſtanding. Yea he anſwers, that to hold it not lawful to kill in this caſe (with the deſtruction of the ſlain mans Soul too) is both to pervert the Law of nature, (z)Ibid.and to render the ſweet and eaſie yoke of Chriſt intolerable. They give further inſtances wherein they will have it no ſin to kill a perſon, that has not yet touched them; it is ſufficient, in their account, if they know that he is prepared for it, yea or does but deſign it. (a)Graff. l. 2. c. 64. n. 5.In caſe one be ſhut up in a Houſe or a City, ſo that he cannot get out, and knowes there is one in the Town that deſigns upon his life, and waits but an opportunity to execute it: he may prevent the deſigner, and fall upon him unawares, and kill him. They declare it lawful for a man to kill his Wife taken in Adultery: but then they allow the Adultereſs to be before-hand with her Husband, and kill him firſt if ſhe can; (b)Navar. c. 15. n. 3. Lopez. c. 62. p. 311. Bonacin. de reſtit. d 2. q. ult. p. 9. n. 2. Ubi Julius Clarus, Bannes, Rodriquez, Corduba & alij.ſhe may diſpatch him with the poyſon prepared for her, or ſtab him with the Weapon he has ready, and ſo ſecure her Adultery by Murder, and yet be innocent.
They maintain it is lawful to kill others to ſecure their goods. (c)Soto. ibid. Graff. ibid. n. 17. Lopez. Cap. 62. Navar. c. 15. n. 2. ibi Cajetan. Antoninus, Silveſter.So it is no ſin with them, to take away the life of him, that would take away part of their Goods by night or day; yea if he that ſteals makes no reſiſtance, or defence, but flyes, he may be purſued and ſlain, to recover what he has taken. And although the Goods may be recovered otherwiſe, and in a legal way, (d)Non licet furem occidere—ſi ſpes eſſet certiſſima quod facilimo negotio recuperari poſſet—ubi autem res eſſet dubia, poſſet liberum eſſe Domino jure uti ſuo, Soto. ibid.yet if it be not certain, that he may get them with the greateſt eaſe, but doubtful that it may give him ſome trouble, he may uſe his liberty, and ſend him to Hell to ſave himſelf a little trouble. But of what value muſt the Goods be? (that we may diſcern at what rate they ſet the life and Soul of a man). It muſt not (ſayes Soto) be a vile thing, it ſhould not be ſo little worth as 2 or 3 Duckats (e)Ibid. p. 144.. So that it ſeems, if what is ſtoln, be of the value of about Twenty ſhillings, a man may be kill'd for it, and his Body and Soul deſtroy'd together. And ſince a Crown or a Shilling may be more to ſome than Twenty to others; thoſe who follow him, might well infer from hence, that a mans life might be taken away for a Crown or leſs: yea for an Apple, ſince to ſome perſons that may be of more value, than the ſums mentioned. Accordingly, they conclude expreſly, (f)Etiamſi res ſit valoris unius aurei aut minoris—videtur poſſe occidi Bonacin. de reſtit. d. 2. q. ult. p. 10. n. 1.that he who takes a thing, the owner or keeper of it ſeeing, and offering to hinder him, may be lawfully ſlain for it; though it be but of the value of one Crown or leſs either, becauſe thereby he offers an affront. That's another ground of their Lawful murder. (g)Comuniter omnes docent, Vid. Victorel. add. Tol. l. 5. c. 6. famam ſuam—negligere & prodigere poteſt ſine peccato. Pet. S. Joſeph, de 8. praecept. art. 2. vid. Navar. c. 18. n. 27.A man, they avow, may kill others for his Honour or Reputation; for though it be ſo ſlight a thing, that it will be ſcarce a fault in a man to throw it away himſelf (as we heard before): yet they will have him maintain it at the expence of the blood, and life of others, and his own too. For example, (h)Soto ibid.If he ſees one approach to aſſault him, though he might avoid the danger by retiring, yet he may kill him rather than ſo avoid it; becauſe it would be a diſparagement to him to fly, and ſo rather than ſuffer the leaſt, in the repute of the injudicious Rabble, he may be the death of any perſon; and be a man of blood, that he may be the Maſter of ſuch honour, as a truly generous ſpirit muſt deſpiſe. They advance further yet; if one ſhould offer to (i)Si quempiam aggrederetur, ut eum fuſte leviſſime percuteret, poſset id alter etiam hostem interimendo repellere. ibid. Victoria. Navar. & Sylveſter in Fill. tr. 29. n. 50.give a perſon a blow with a Cudgel, or a light Switcb; he that is offered ſuch an affront may lawfully kill him for it, eſpecially in Spain, where this is counted a great injury ſayes Soto. And elſewhere a box on the ear may be reſented, as ſuch an injury. Accordingly others determine, that he who gives it, may lawfully (k)Ad vitandum vulnus vel alapam—poteſt occidere. Navar. c. 15. n. 4. Lopez. p. 1. c. 62. p. 316. Bonacin. ibid. n. 6. & alij.be ſlain for it, yea or he that does but offer it. If he be any perſon of any moment that is thus attempted, he need not ſtay till he feel it, but may prevent it by killing him that offers it, if there be no other honourable way to avoid it. He need not fly to avoid it, if that would be a diſgrace, for he is not obliged to ſuffer ſuch an inconvenience, though by retiring he might ſave both his own life, and the aggreſſors, ſayes Bonacina after others. In this manner when one ſmites them on the Cheek, do they turn the other; and thus do they comply exactly with Chriſt's advice by ſtabbing him to the heart, who ſmites their Cheek, or does but offer at it.
The ſame they determine of ill-language, that is with them a ſufficient ground to kill men. In the judgment of all (l)Ex omnium ſententia licet contumelioſum occidere, cum aliud non manet remedium eam injuriam arcendi. de reſtit. l. c. 2. 3. n. 376. vid. Bonacin. & apud eum plures infra.(ſays Navar) it is lawful to kill him that gives reproachful words, when there is no other way to avoid the injury (and the words being once paſt, there's no preventing them). Thus killing men may be as common as provoking language, when ſuch language by their Doctrine may be as common as any they ſpeak. They teach that it is but a venial fault (10000 of which he may commit every day, or every hour without indangering his Soul) to give one the ly, to call him a Fool, a Baſtard. (m)Vid. Navar. c. 18. n. 23. 24.&c. And then they declare it lawful to ſlay men for ſuch words: as if it were their deſign to have it thought tolerable for men to do nothing elſe but kill one another; and ſhedding mans blood were no more to be avoided, than ſuch faults as they incourage the continual practice of. They proceed further yet, and conclude it lawful to kill one, not only for contumelious words, (n)Poſſe occidi qui afficit contumeliis atrocibus ſive per verba ſive per ſigna, Bonacin. de reſtit. diſp. 2. q. ult. p. 10. n. 7. ibi. Gomez. Rodriguez, Lopez. Pet. Navar. Julius Clarus & alij.but for mere ſigns of ſuch import, when an ill word is not ſpoken (ſuppoſe ſuch motion of the tongue, or lips, or noſe, or fingers as are accounted an affront). This is after the Roman mode to imitate Chriſt, and comply with the Apoſtles rule in laying down their lives for their Brethren; when they take away their lives, for a foul word, or an untoward geſture. But what if one who gives ſuch a blow, or ſuch language, or the like affront, ſhould run for it, when he has done; is it lawful to purſue him to force ſatisfaction from him, though it be by the loſs of his life? yes ſay they, the perſon affronted, may purſue him, and ſtrike him till he have reparation of his honour, though it be by killing him (o)Poſſit eum perſequi, & percutere tantum, quantum ad ſui honoris defenſionem opus eſſet—etiam occidendo. M. Navar. c. 15. n. 4. Pet. Navarra. ibid. n. 380. Rodriguez Lopez, & alij in Bonacin. ibid. n. 8. plurime apud Henriquez. Sum. l. 14. c. 10..
They ſpeak favourably of Duels. Cajetan ſayes (p)Sum. v. duellum.Princes may permit them lawfully among their Subjects; as the Stews are permitted upon reaſonable conſiderations. So that it ſeems, they may farm out this liberty, as the Pope does the other. Bannes determines, that an innocent perſon may either accept, or offer combat; not only to ſecure his life or eſtate, but his Reputation, when he cannot otherwiſe do it. (q)In n. 2. q. 64. art. 7. dub. 4. concl. 2.Such a perſon, when one goes about to acouſe him falſly before a Judge, and he is like thereby to be defamed, may challenge him and kill him lawfully. This he reports as Cajetan's opinion, and counts it more than probable; But there's no need of Duels in the caſe, they diſcover a way to diſpatch men more effectually with leſs notice, and leſs hazard to the murderers, allowing them to kill any privily, to ſecure their Repute. The ſame Dominican in the caſe mentioned concludes, that (r)Ibid.if the accuſer being admoniſhed will not deſiſt, the aggrieved perſon in defence of his concerns, may kill him. Not only judicial accuſations, but more private aſperſions, are counted a ſufficient ground to kill men. (s)Q…i murmuratione, & detractione injuriam, maculamque inferre conatur, licebit, ſi aliter infamiam & dedecus fugere non poteſt occidere. De reſtit. l. 2. c. 3. n. 376. Calumniatorem occulte occidere licet, Duvallius Doctor Sorbonicus de Charit. q. 17. a. 1. Sayrus. Cas. Conſc. c. 17. n. 22, 23.He who by whiſpers and detraction endeavours to wrong, and beſpot another, if the infamy and diſgrace cannot otherwiſe be avoided, it will be lawful to ſlay him. So Pet. Navar, who gives reaſons why he thinks it more adviſeable to kill a defamer privily, than in a Duel. Nor need he ſtay till he be actually aſperſed, but when one threatens, or ſignifies he will do it, he may lawfully prevent it, by killing him. Forty nine Doctors are produecd in favour of this. Prado (t)Theol. Moral. tom. 2. c. 10. q. 4. n. 14.an eminent Dominican ſayes it is the common Doctrine of Aquinas his followers.
Theſe are ſome of the Maxims, which ſerve ſo much to furniſh thoſe who deſign upon mens lives, with lawful occaſion to murder; and tend ſo plainly to fill all places with blood, and ſlaughters, without leaving any man ſecurity of his life: that even ſome Jeſuits, though they deny not that they may be probable in ſpeculation, yet ſem ſhy to allow their common practice. But this is rejected by others, (and ſo the Jeſuits cautiouſneſs and moderation counted unreaſonable) ſeeing (*)Opinio ſpeculative probabilis, eſt practiee probabilis Serra, Leander, Spinola, Jo. Henriquez, Narbona, Averſa, Machado, in Diana, part. 10. tr. 11. Reſol. 47.that in matters of morality, what is ſpeculatively probable i. e. ſafe and lawful, in point of Conſcience, muſt, as ſuch, be admitted in practice (*)Vid. Jo. Sanc. diſp. 44. n. 63. & diſp. 54. n. 11.. Indeed though there be no charge more odious upon the Society, than their Doctrine of murder; yet ſo far as I can diſcern, they are out-done here by others, both in numbers and extravagancy. However the Maxims, to diminiſh the horror of which the Jeſuits ſeem ſolicitous, are now the common Doctrine in that Church: the Divinity of her Schools and Doctors generally, being advanced to ſuch a pitch, as to bid defiance to common humanity. And if the civil Laws did give as much liberty to murder, as their rules for Conſcience do; Deſolation would ſoon be brought upon the face of the Earth.