PAUL LAYMANN.

Theologia Moralis. Wirceburgi, 1748. (Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1627. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

It is not simony to bestow gratuitously upon any one who grants a spiritual office, a temporal gift, which may be valued at a price... Neither does it matter whether the gift be offered after, or at the time, or before the spiritual office is conferred; and that, too, with the intention that the patron may be induced, from a motive of gratitude, to give the spiritual benefice.—(Lib. iv. Tr. 10. c. ult. § 2. n. 8.)

BUSEMBAUM & LACROIX.

Theologia Moralis nunc pluribus partibus aucta, à R. P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu. Coloniæ, 1757. (Coloniæ Agrippinæ, 1733. Ed. Mus. Brit.)

These authors (Suarez, Lessius, &c.), also add, that the simony is not complete, although a bond may have been given for the payment of the purchase-money; because that bond is not a part of the price: Diana, &c. ... do also remark against Suarez, that if the payment be made in counterfeit money, the simony will not then be complete; because counterfeit coin is not a true payment."

77 "Addunt adhuc (simoniam) non esse omninò completam, quamvis datum sit chirographum de solvendo pretio, quia illud

the patron.

It is not simony to give or to receive money for procuring more easy access to the person of Thus think Suarez and others. Hence there will be no simony, Lessius says, if you give money to the steward of a bishop, in order to gain admission to his family, intending thereby to win the favour of the prelate with your services, and thus to obtain from him a benefice. For then you do not give the money for the benefice, but for the opportunity of deserving well of the bishop, and of receiving from him a benefice gratuitously. By means of the money, indeed, you prepare the way to the benefice, but remotely and indirectly, which is not unlawful.--(Tom. II. Lib. iii. Pars I. Tr. 1. c. 2. Dub. 3. Quæst. 18. § 15. n. 93.)

Sanchez concludes that it is not simony to make this bargain:--choose me provincial, and I will choose you prior;-because this agreement and interchange in spiritual things is only forbidden in reference to benefices.--(Ibid. Quæst. 20. 1. n. 103.)

chirographum non est pars pretii; notant quoque Diana ... contra Suarez, si falsa pecunia daretur, etiam non compleri, quia falsa pecunia non est verum pretium."-Tom. II. Lib. iii. Pars I. Tr. 1. c. 2. Dub. 3. Quæst. 46. n. 212.

SECT. IV.

BLASPHEMY.

FRANCIS AMICUS.

Cursus Theologici, Tomus VI. Duaci, 1640.

As the WORD was able to assume a nature which was irrational and incapable of all knowledge; so might he also have taken a reasonable nature, destitute of all knowledge.-(Tom. VI. Disp. 24. Sect. 4. n. 114.)

The WORD was able to assume the stupidity of the ass's nature; and therefore, also, he might have assumed the imperfection of the human nature."

78

It is not more repugnant to (suppose) the WORD to err and to lie materially, through the nature which he assumed, than in the same assumed nature to suffer and to die: therefore, if he was able to suffer and to die in his assumed nature, he could in the same nature have erred and have lied materially."9

78 Potuit VERBUM assumere stoliditatem naturæ asininæ ; ergo et errorem naturæ humanæ.”—Tom. VI. Disp. 24. Sect. 4. n. 116.

79"Igitur si potuit in assumptâ naturâ cruciari ac mori, posset per eandem errare, ac falsum materialiter dicere."Ibid.

... Madness has not in itself any moral, or formal, or radical, or material, or objective opposition to the intellectual nature: therefore, there is no reason why it could not have existed in the nature which was assumed by the WORD.-(Ibid. n. 129.)

...

Therefore, there is no reason for conceiving it repugnant (to suppose) that the WORD assumed an insane nature, or to admit that madness was in the nature which he had already assumed.

80

STEPHEN BAUNY.

Somme des péchés qui se commettent en tous Etats. Rouen,

1653.

The penitent must be asked whether he has committed these offences of the tongue; whether he has cursed and done despite to his Maker...

If he should say that passion has hurried him to the expression of these offensive words, it may be determined, that in uttering them he has only sinned venially, inasmuch as they are only evil materially, because anger has deprived the penitent of the means of considering quid formaliter significarent. Laymann ... (Des Blasphemes, c. 5.)

80 66 Ergo non est, cur ex hoc capite repugnet, VERBUM amentem naturam assumere, vel amentiam in assumptâ jam naturâ admittere."-Ibid. n. 130.

L

CHARLES ANTHONY CASNEDI.

Crisis Theologica. Ulyssipone, 1711.

Do what your conscience tells you to be good and commanded: if, through invincible error, you believe lying or blasphemy to be commanded by God, blaspheme.81

Omit to do what your conscience tells you is forbidden: omit the worship of God, if you invincibly believe it to be prohibited by God.82

There is an implied law ... which is this: Obey an invincibly erroneous dictate of conscience. As often as you believe invincibly that a lie is commanded, lie.83

Let us suppose a Catholic to believe invincibly, that the worship of images is forbidden: in such a case our Lord Jesus Christ will be obliged to say to him, Depart from me, thou cursed, &c. because thou hast worshipped mine image... So, neither, is there any absurdity (in

81" Fac quod conscientia dictat esse bonum et præceptum: si putas mendacium, aut blasphemiam, ex invincibili errore, esse à Deo præceptam, blasphema.” — Tom. I. Disp. 6. Sect. 2. § 1. n. 59.

82 "Omitte quod conscientia invincibiliter dictat esse vetitum: omitte cultum Dei putatum invincibiliter à Deo prohibitum."-Ibid.

83 "Lex... reflexa verè existens in Deo est hæc: Obedi dictamini invincibiliter erroneo: Quoties invincibiliter putas mendacium esse præceptum, mentire.”—Ibid. § 2. n. 78.