PAUL LAYMANN.

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

If a magician, soothsayer, or diviner, has employed his art in favour of any person and received reward for it, although he may have sinned in making the agreement, yet Rodriguez and Sanchez maintain that he is not bound, in foro conscientiæ, to restore the reward. But Sanchez adds with probability, that a magician is not bound to restore although the matter required of him should not have come to pass; provided that he be skilled in the magic art and have used his diligence and means, which may be valued at a price.--(Lib. iv. Tr. 10. c. 4. n. 8.)

But if a man or a beast be tormented with an enchantment, the doctors are not agreed whether it is lawful to bring a magician to dissolve it. In order to understand this, it is necessary to suppose, with Martin Delrio, Lessius, and Sanchez... that the enchantment may be dissolved in two ways; first, by destroying the signs on which it depends by compact with the devil; secondly, by employing new signs, by which, through the compact entered into with the devil, the enchantment may be destroyed. On which supposition, I answer in the first place, that he who certainly or probably persuades himself that the enchantment may be destroyed by a magician in

the former manner, may cause him to be brought, even although he should suspect that he had been taught the art by the devil. For he may use a good art properly, which he has improperly learned. Add to this, that although it should be suspected that the magician would not use the lawful method which he might employ for the destruction of the enchantment, but another and an illegal method, by means of a new sign and magic compact; still he may be brought, and required (to use his art), as Lessius, Suarez, and Sanchez teach. Yet the doctors rightly advise, that if there is a hope that the magician will consent, by express demand or agreement, to use a legal rather than an illegal method, then every one is bound by the law of charity to exhort the magician to do so: for by these means he may, without much trouble, prevent his neighbour from committing a great sin... (Ibid. n. 9.)

The same writers observe, that it may readily be presumed of the author of an enchantment, that he has the power of destroying the signs which he has himself placed, and of averting their moral effect; which he is in justice bound to do, and may therefore be compelled to it even by threats and blows.--(Ibid.)

TRACHALA.

Lavacrum Conscientiæ. Bambergæ, 1759.

LIA, the mistress of a family, on certain days after her dinner, leaves for her household deities the fragments of the repast upon the table, wrapped in the table-cloth, for the good fortune of her house.

Quest.-Has she greatly sinned?

Answ.-LIA, in thus reverencing her household gods, has greatly sinned; unless, as it generally happens, her good faith, ignorance, or simplicity, may excuse her from mortal sin: for she does not intend to worship her household gods as so many divinities, or to implore from some evil spirit the prosperity of her house (for that would be a proof of great superstition): but following the example of her ancestors, she only intends to observe a custom which is very useful to her household; and in this unmeaning ceremony, she scarcely exceeds the limits of a venial offence.-Laymann.--(Tit. XV. cás. 2.)

It is an universal rule, that the confessor should not be very strict in examining ordinary persons concerning the number of their enchantments, benedictions, and vain observances; since, as Busembaum observes, in those cases in which there is a tacit compact, they in general sin but venially, as Sanchez and others maintain: neither

should he be very strict about the kind of superstition; for there is no distinction made between them, as Diana, &c. maintain.--(Ibid. cas. 4.)

SECT. VII.

ASTROLOGY.

RICHARD ARSDEKIN.

Theologia Tripartrita. Coloniæ, 1744.

If any one affirms, through conjecture founded upon the influence of the stars and the character, disposition, and manners of a man, that he will be a soldier, an ecclesiastic, or a bishop; this divination may be devoid of all sin: because the stars and the disposition of the man, may have the power of inclining the human will to a certain lot or rank, but not of constraining it.-(Tom. II. Pars II. Tr. 5. c. 1. § 2. n. 4.)

BUSEMBAUM & LACROIX.

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

Palmistry may be considered lawful, if from the lines and divisions of the hands, it can ascertain the disposition of the body, and conjecture with probability the propensities and affections of the soul (Tom. II. Lib. iii. Pars I. Tr. 1. c. 1. dub. 2. resol. VIII.)

...

SECT. VIII.

IMPIETY.

JOHN OF SALAS.

In Primam Secundæ Divi Thomæ. Barcinone, 1607. (Ed. Bibl. Archiep. Cant. Lamb.)

An entire love of God is not due to him through justice, nor is even any due; though all love is due through a due through a certain kind of decency and credit; because God is of himself worthy of love, and a measure of it is due to him either through charity or some other virtue.. (Tom. I. Quæst. 3. Tr. 2. Disp. 2. § 5. n. 40.)

JAMES GORDON.

Theologia Moralis Universa. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1634. (Ed. Bibl. Acad. Cant.)

Having established the obligation of this command (the love of God), we must next enquire when it is binding..

I think that the time in which this precept is binding, cannot easily be defined. It is a sure thing, indeed, that it is binding; but at what precise time is sufficiently uncertain."1

91 "Existimo non posse facilè designari tempus quo obliget hoc præceptum. Certum quidem est esse obligationem; sed de tempore definito satis incertum.". Tom. II. Lib. vi. Quæst. 13. c. 4. art. 2. n. 8.