The History of Moral Theology

The end for which Jesus Christ established his Church was the sanctification and salvation of souls. This end the Church was to obtain chiefly by preaching the Gospel which her Founder had revealed and by administering the sacraments which he had instituted.¹ Men were to be sanctified and prepared for eternity by holy living through the grace of God communicated to them principally by means of the sacraments. The Gospels contain a short summary of the general teaching of Jesus Christ; this is developed somewhat in certain directions in the other writings of the New Testament, but the preachers of the Word soon found it convenient to have by them brief summaries of the moral teaching of our Lord by itself. This need was met by such works as the Didaché, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed about the end of the first century, and the Pastor of Hermas, written a little later. It would be utterly impossible to give even an outline of the ethical works of all the Fathers of the Church. Together they form a very voluminous and complete course of moral theology, and more than one such course has been put together by simply printing a consecutive selection of their works. Thus in 1791 an Italian priest, Angelo Cigheri, published at Florence his Veterum Patrum Theologia Universa, in thirteen volumes quarto, of which the three last are devoted to morals. A fairly complete catalogue of ethical works by the Fathers will be found in the indices of Migne’s Patrology, arranged under the separate headings which figure in our modern manuals of moral theology. All that we can do here is to select a few typical works which exhibit the gradual development of the science of Christian ethics. The Didaché may be looked upon as the first handbook of morals which has come down to us, and it will be worth while to give a short analysis of its contents.

¹ Matt. xxviii 19, 20.

This first handbook of moral theology begins with the first general principle of ethics. All righteousness is summed up in the general precept to avoid evil and do good. The doing of good consists in the observance of the two great commandments of love for our God and for our neighbour. The golden tule is added to the statement of the general first principles of morality. ‘‘ There are two ways,” we read, “one of life and one of death; and there is much difference between the two ways. Now the way of life is this: First thou shalt love God that made thee; secondly, thy neighbour as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldest should not happen to thee, neither do thou to another.” The rest of the first chapter is occupied with a development of the precept of love for our neighbour, expressed for the most part in the language of the Sermon on the Mount. The second chapter enumerates some of the principal negative duties toward our neighbour. A similar enumeration occupies the third chapter, but here there is an attempt to give the reason for the different prohibitions, as, for example: ‘“‘ Be not prone to anger, for anger leads to murder; neither a zealot, nor contentious, nor passionate, for from all these things murders are begotten.” In the fourth chapter are set down the duties towards preachers of the Gospel, of making peace, of judging righteously, of almsgiving; duties toward parents, children, servants; of avoiding hypocrisy, and not adding to or taking away from the precepts of the Lord which they had been taught. The chapter concludes with, “ This is the way of life.”

The fifth chapter consists of a long enumeration of sins, and ends with the prayer, “ May ye be delivered, children, from all these.”

In the sixth chapter there is a warning against being led away from this teaching by anyone, for such a one would not teach according to God. A distinction is drawn between what is required for perfection and what is morally possible. The faithful are bidden specially to beware of what has been sacrificed to idols.

A brief instruction on Baptism occupies the seventh chapter, and in the eighth Christians are taught to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, so that their fasting-days may be different from those of the Jews, who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays, They are told to say the Our Father three times a day. The ninth and tenth chapters give instructions on the celebration of the Eucharist, while the two following deal with the way in which prophets and strangers should be received. The thirteenth chapter prescribes the offering of firstfruits. In the next chapter the faithful are instructed to meet together on every Lord’s Day, to offer the eucharistic sacrifice, after confessing their sins, so that their sacrifice may be pure. Enemies, too, should be reconciled lest the sacrifice be defiled. It was of this sacrifice that Malachias prophesied. The fifteenth chapter deals with the election of bishops and deacons and the respect which is due to them. The duties of fraternal correction, of prayer and almsdeeds, are enjoined as they are contained in the Gospel of our Lord. The last chapter contains an exhortation to watch, and inculcates the necessity of faith and perseverance, for Antichrist will appear and seduce many. The treatise concludes with a short description of the signs of the last day.

The whole of the second book of the Pastor of Hermas is a document of early Christian moral teaching very similar to the Didaché, but more attempt may be observed in it to show the connection between one prohibition and another, and to give reasons and motives for their observance.

A great advance is observable in the catechetical works of Clement of Alexandria. They are almost exclusively devoted to moral teaching, which their learned author illustrates and confirms by constant quotations from the Greek classical authors, With an enthusiastic and personal love for Jesus Christ, and faith in his teaching as a divine and full revelation of the truth to men, he combines a high esteem for reason and philosophy. According to Clement, philosophy was the pedagogue of the pagan world, preparing it for Christ and leading it to him, as the law did the Jews. Philosophy is the handmaid of theology, he says, and the dictates of reason are but the promptings of the Word .which illuminates every man that cometh into the world. This, of course, is but a development of ideas which we find in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and it is a natural consequence of Christian teaching concerning God and his relation to man and to the world. It is a very superficial view which regards the action of Clement and other Fathers in the use they made of reason and philosophy as a corrupting influence in Christian teaching. With them, as with the scholastics in the Middle Ages, that action was the necessary result of a firm faith in the Gospel message, and the natural desire to understand it and penetrate its full meaning as far as possible. It was Fides quaerens intellectum, the moving spirit of Catholic theology from the beginning. Better than any lengthy-exposition, an extract or two from Clement will show how far the science of moral theology had progressed at the end of the second century. The following extract is taken from an apologetic work entitled An Exhortation to the Heathen.

“Wherefore, since the Word himself has come to us from heaven, we need not, I reckon, go any more in search of human learning to Athens and the rest of Greece, and to Ionia. For if we have as our teacher him that filled the universe with his holy energies in creation, salvation, beneficence, legislation, prophecy, teaching, we have the Teacher from whom all instruction comes; and the whole world, with Athens and Greece, has already become the domain of the Word. For you, who believed the poetical fable which designated Minos the Cretan as the bosom friend of Zeus, will not refuse to believe that we who have become the disciples of God have received the only true wisdom; and that which the chiefs of philosophy only guessed at, the disciples of Christ have both apprehended and proclaimed.”¹

¹ Exhortation to the Heathen, c. 11.

The next extract, from the Pedagogus, a work containing instructions for recent converts, shows the place which reason or conscience holds in Christian ethics. “ Everything that is contrary to right reason is sin. Accordingly, therefore, the philosophers think fit to define the most generic passions thus: lust, as desire disobedient to reason; fear, as weakness disobedient to reason; pleasure, as an elation of the spirit disobedient to reason. If, then, disobedience in reference to reason is the generating cause of sin, how shall we escape the conclusion that obedience to reason—the Word— which we call Faith, will of necessity be the efficacious cause of duty? For virtue itself is a state of the soul rendered harmonious by reason in respect to the whole life. Nay, to crown all, philosophy itself is pronounced to be the cultivation of right reason; so that, necessarily, whatever is done through error of reason is transgression, and is rightly called sin.”¹

¹ Pædagogus, i, c. 13.

The Stromata, or Miscellanies, are a collection of materials for the ethical instruction and training of the Christian theologian. The philosophical and theological detail to which Clement descends in the treatment of his subject may be illustrated by an extract from the fourteenth chapter of the second book of the Stromata, on the different ways in which an act may be involuntary. The matter, of course, belongs to the treatise on Human Acts, sometimes said to be the last treatise which was added to our manuals of morals. “What is involuntary is not matter for judgement, But this is twofold—what is done in ignorance, and what is done through necessity. For how will you judge concerning those who are said to sin in involuntary modes? For either one knew not himself, as Cleomenes and Athamas, who were mad; or the thing which he does, as Aeschylus, who divulged the mysteries on the stage, who being tried in the Areopagus was absolved on his showing that he had never been initiated. Or one knows not what is done, as he who has let off his antagonist, and slain his domestic instead of his enemy; or that by which it is done as he who in exercising with spears having buttons on them, has killed someone in consequence of the spear throwing off the button; or knows not the manner how, as he who has killed his antagonist in the stadium, for it was not for his death but for victory that he contended; or knows not the reason why it is done, as the physician who gave a salutary antidote and killed, for it was not for this purpose that he gave it, but to save.”¹

¹ Stromata, ii, c. 14.

As yet no attempt had been made in the Church to write a systematic treatise of morals by reducing the various virtues and vices to logical order under appropriate general principles. This step was taken by St Ambrose at the end of the fourth century. This great Father and Doctor of the Church com posed his work De Offictis for the instruction of the clergy of his church of Milan. He expressly tells us that he followed Cicero’s work with the same title as his pattern. Cicero wrote his book for the instruction of his son; St Ambrose desired to write for the instruction of his spiritual children. Although he followed Cicero closely in the arrangement and treatment of the matter, yet he never loses sight of what appears to have been the chief motive that he had in view in the composition of his work—namely, to demonstrate the superiority of Christian over pagan ethics.

The work is divided, like Cicero’s, into three Books. In the first he treats of what is honourable and dishonourable. He points out that the philosophic distinction between ordinary and perfect virtue has its counterpart in the Gospel, which distinguishes between what is matter of strict precept and of counsel. Certain elementary duties, as those toward parents and elders, are touched on, and then follows a discussion on the four cardinal virtues. The second Book treats of what is expedient with reference to eternal life. The third Book treats of what is honourable and expedient in conjunction, and the author has no difficulty in reconciling these conflicting principles according to Christian teaching. “ For,” he writes, “T said that nothing can be virtuous but what is useful, and nothing can be useful but what is virtuous. For we do not follow the wisdom of the flesh, whereby the usefulness that consists in an abundance of money is held to be of most value, but we follow the wisdom which is of God, whereby those things which are greatly valued in this world are counted but as loss. For this κατόρθωμα, which is duty carried out entirely and in perfection, starts from the true source of virtue. On this follows another or ordinary duty. This shows by its name that no hard or extraordinary practice of virtue is involved, for it can be common to very many.” This principle of perfection is then applied to the pursuit of gain and other questions, A very famous book on morals, somewhat more restricted in scope than the De Officus of St Ambrose, is the Pastoral Care of St Gregory the Great. This, together with the same author’s Morals on Job, was a favourite textbook in the Middle Ages. It lays down the qualities required in those who have the cure of souls, how they themselves should live, how they should instruct and admonish those subject to their authority. The book was brought to England by St Augustine and translated into English¹ by King Alfred for the benefit of the bishops and priests of his kingdom.

¹ De Officiis, iii, c. 2.

A word must here be said on Christian asceticism, which has been so utterly misunderstood and misrepresented by such writers as Lecky and Harnack, and whose true relation to Christian morals is so seldom perceived by non-Catholic authors.

Christ our Lord expressly taught that renunciation of self, of the world with its riches and pleasures, was in a certain sense a necessary condition of discipleship. This renunciation, however, admitted of different degrees, as is also plain from the Gospels. Some were called only to spiritual poverty and detachment, and these hoped to save their souls by remaining in the world without being of it. Outwardly they lived much like other people, but their affections were detached from this world and centred on God and eternity. They went to heaven by the way of the commandments. Others, on the contrary, voluntarily embraced the counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, given by our Lord to those who were called, and who felt that they had the spiritual strength to follow the call. They made a special profession of following the counsels, and were assigned a place of honour in the Christian assemblies, but at first they seem to have lived in the bosom of their families. They soon, however, began to find it very difficult to persevere in their adopted form of. life while exposed to the distractions and temptations of the world, and this, together with the violence of the persecutions, drove them into the desert. There they lived at first solitary lives as hermits, but before long they began to come together and put themselves under the authority of some ancient Father of the desert renowned for his prudence and sanctity. Their aim was to subdue their passions and ascend the heights of Christian perfection. The task is notoriously difficult both in theory and in practice, and many mistakes were made. The Church had not yet drawn up her minute code of laws for the regulation of religious life. Those writers, however, who industriously pick out the mistakes and the exaggerations of indiscreet fervour, and piece them together to produce a picture of Christian monachism and asceticism, only succeed in producing a caricature. ‘To convince one’s self of this it is sufficient to dip into the Institutes of Monasteries and the Conferences of Cassian, who was in the middle of a long life in the year 400, In the twelve Books of his Institutes Cassian describes the dress of the monks, their method of singing the divine office, the training of postulants and novices, and then he devotes the last eight Books to a minute account of the nature, causes, and remedies of the eight principal vices which bar the way to the summit of Christian perfection. He maps out every portion of the pilgrim’s progress to his heavenly country, and shows what dangers and obstacles he will meet by the way. In brief, he says, progress toward perfection begins with the fear of God, from which arises a salutary sorrow for sin, which leads to renunciation and contempt of the world; this begets humility, from which springs mortification of the will, and by this all vices are subdued and extirpated. Then all virtues begin to flourish in the soul, which thus arrives at purity of heart and the perfection of apostolic charity.¹ The vices to be overcome are classed under eight different heads by Cassian, and he says that the classification was admitted by all.² These principal or capital vices are typified by the seven people, whom the Israelites were commanded by God to extirpate when they came into the land of promise. Egypt makes the eighth, from which they had been delivered, and which, Cassian says, typifies gluttony. From this vice the monk is indeed delivered by his abandoning the world for the desert, but he may not extirpate it altogether; he should aim only at curbing its excesses. Gregory the Great adopted in substance the teaching of Cassian on the capital vices, but by making pride the queen of all the rest, and placing it in a category by itself, the other seven became the seven deadly sins which with their daughter vices were so famous in the literature of the Middle Ages, and figure in the books of morals and in the catechisms of Christian doctrine to the present day.

¹ De Cenobiorum Institutis, lib. iv, c. 43.

² Collatio v, c. 18.

To show how conservative the Catholic tradition has been, even in the expression of doctrine, I will give the following passage in St Gregory's own words: " Ipsa namque vitiorum regina superbia cum devictum plene cor ceperit, mox illud septem principalibus vitiis, quasi quibusdam suis ducibus devastandum tradit. Quos videlicet duces exercitus sequitur, quia ex eis proculdubio importunae vitiorum multitudines oriuntur. Quod melius ostendimus, si ipsos duces atque exercitum specialiter, ut possumus, enumerando proferamus. Radix quippe cuncti mali superbia est, de qua, Scriptura attestante, dicitur: Initium omnis peccati est superbia (Ecclus. *("For pride, the very queen of the vices, when it has fully seized a conquered heart, straightway hands it over to be laid waste by the seven principal vices, as though by certain generals of its own. And an army follows these generals, because from them, without doubt, importunate multitudes of vices arise. This we shall show better if we set forth the generals themselves and the army, enumerating them particularly, as we are able. For the root of all evil is pride, of which, as Scripture testifies, it is said: Pride is the beginning of all sin.)*x 15). Primae autem ejus soboles, septem nimirum principalia vitia, de hac virulenta radice proferuntur, scilicet (And its first offspring, namely the seven principal vices, spring from this venomous root, that is to say) gloria, invidia, ira, tristitia, avaritia, ventris ingluvies, luxuria. Nam quia his septem superbiae vitiis nos captos doluit, idcirco Redemptor noster ad spirituale liberationis proelium spiritu septiformis gratiae plenus venit.

"Sed habent contra nos haec singula exercitum suum. Nam de inani gloria inobedientia, jactantia, hypocrisis, contentiones, pertinaciae, discordiae, et novitatum praesumptiones oriuntur. De invidia, odium, susurratio, detractio, exsultatio in adversis proximi, afflictio autem in prosperis nascitur. ira, rixae, tumor mentis, contumeliae, clamor, De indignatio, blasphemiae proferuntur. De tristitia, malitia, rancor, pusillanimitas, desperatio, torpor circa praecepta, vagatio mentis erga illicita nascitur. perjuria, inquietudo, obdurationes laetitia, cordis scurrilitas, De avaritia, proditio, violentiae, et contra oriuntur. De immunditia, ventris inconsideratio, inconstantia, ingluvie, multiloquium, sensus circa intelligentiam propagantur. mentis, fraus, fallacia, misericordiam inepta hebetudo De luxuria, caecitas praecipitatio, amor sui, odium Dei, affectus praesentis seculi, horror autem vel desperatio futuri generantur. Quia ergo septem principalia vitia tantam de se vitiorum multitudinem proferunt, cum ad cor veniunt, quasi subsequentis exercitus catervas trahunt. (For because he grieved that we were held captive by these seven vices of pride, therefore our Redeemer came, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, to the spiritual battle of our deliverance. “But each of these has its own army against us. For from vainglory there arise disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy, contentions, obstinacies, discords, and the presumption of novelties. From envy are born hatred, whispering, detraction, exultation at a neighbour’s adversity, and affliction at his prosperity. From anger are put forth quarrels, swelling of mind, insults, outcry, indignation, and blasphemies. From sloth are born malice, rancour, faint-heartedness, despair, torpor concerning the commandments, and a wandering of the mind after what is unlawful. From avarice arise treachery, fraud, deceit, perjuries, restlessness, violence, and hardness of heart against mercy. From gluttony are propagated foolish mirth, scurrility, uncleanness, heedlessness of speech, and dullness of sense regarding understanding. From lust are begotten blindness of mind, precipitation, inconstancy, self-love, hatred of God, attachment to the present world, and horror or despair of the world to come. Since therefore the seven principal vices bring forth so great a multitude of vices from themselves, when they come to the heart they draw after them, as it were, the troops of a following army.) Ex quibus videlicet septem quinque spiritalia, duoque carnalia sunt," The Conferences of Cassian are represented by him as the teachings of celebrated abbots on various questions of the spiritual life. They are partly speculative, partly practical. There are twenty-four in all, each being divided into a greater or less number of chapters. These two works have provided an ample store of moral and ascetical doctrine for all subsequent Catholic writers on the subjects treated in them.

A large portion of moral theology is taken up with the duties arising from the positive legislation of the Church. In this legislation we have the practical application of Christian moral principles to the varying requirements of time and place, and change and variety are here conspicuous. With the establishment of the Christian religion the positive precepts of the Mosaic law ceased to be binding, but the Church received from her divine Founder authority to make new laws for the sanctification and salvation of her children, The Apostles used this legislative authority, as we see from the Epistles of St Paul, especially from those to Timothy and Titus, and within twenty years after the Ascension we find them legislating¹ in the Council of Jerusalem on the disputed question of legal observances. The decree which we have in the Acts² was a true positive law imposing a new obligation on the faithful concerned, as long as the peculiar circumstances of the time rendered its observance desirable and necessary.2 This council of the Apostles formed the type and pattern for the oecumenical and provincial councils of the Church which were to be held in the future. Innumerable laws and regulations have been enacted by these, affecting Catholic life, discipline, and worship. The bishops, too, as successors of the Apostles, have continued in all ages to exercise the legislative authority committed by them to God and the Church. The Roman . Pontiffs, especially, in the exercise of their jurisdiction over the whole Church in succession to Blessed Peter, have in all ages made wise laws for the peace and prosperity of the Christian people. As instances of this action of the Popes in the early centuries may be mentioned St Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians in the first century, St Victor’s decision about the observance of Easter in the second century, St Stephen’s about the baptism of heretics in the third, and similar action on the part of Popes Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius. Subsequently papal decisions became frequent and notorious. Collections of the decisions issuing from all these sources of positive law began to be made in very early times.. Of these some have survived the ravages of time. The Didascalia of the Apostles may, in the judgement of the learned, be ascribed to the first half of the third century, and the so-called Constitutions of the Apostles, together with the Canons of the Apostles, to the early part of the fifth century. The materials of which these collections are composed are, of course, still more ancient. At the beginning of the fourth century the decrees of the councils were collected and arranged at first in chronological order in the East. At the beginning of the sixth century systematic collections arranged under suitable titles began to appear. Of these early collections of canons the most celebrated is that of John the Scholastic. In the West, Dionysius Exiguus made his translation of Greek canons into Latin about the year 500. A copy of this collection was presented by the Pope to Charlemagne when he was in Rome, and he caused it to be received and approved by the clergy of his empire in 802 at the great Council of Aix la Chapelle. Collections of Church laws continued to grow in number and 2 It ceased to bind in the Latin Church about the ninth century. in bulk twelfth century the monk Gratian issued his Decretum, which became the most famous of them all, and still forms the first volume of the Corpus Juris Canonici. It contains some 4,000 decisions on law and morals taken from the decrees of Popes, the canons of councils both general and particular, the opinions of the Fathers, and even from the civil law.

¹ Moralium, lib. xxxi, c. 45.

² Acts xv 28, 29.

No attempt, of course, can be made in this short sketch to trace the varying phases through which the innumerable positive laws of the Church have passed. It will be sufficient for our purpose to trace in outline those chief precepts which bind all Catholics and which are specially known as the precepts of the Church. They are usually reckoned six in number: the due observance of Sundays and feast-days, the days of fasting and abstinence, confession and Communion, the support of pastors, and the prohibition of marriage within certain degrees of kindred and of its solemnization at certain times of the year.

The observance of the Sunday and its substitution for the Sabbath appears to be due to apostolic institution. There are traces of it in the New Testament; in the Didaché the faithful are bidden to come together on the Lord’s Day, as it was called even then in honour of the Resurrection, and offer the eucharistic sacrifice after confessing their sins. In the second century the custom of observing the Lord’s Day was universal throughout the Church. The chief duty to be performed on that day was to hear Mass. Very soon particular provincial laws began to be enacted urging the obligation and imposing penalties on transgressors. At the beginning of the fourth century the Council of Illiberis in Spain decreed that anyone who might be absent from Mass on three successive Sundays should be deprived of Communion. The Council of Agde at the beginning of the sixth century prescribed that all were to hear an entire Mass on Sunday and not leave until after the blessing of the priest on pain of a public reprehension by the bishop.

It was natural that when Sunday became the Christian Sabbath it should be kept much in the same way as the Jews kept their Sabbath. While knowing from the teaching of our Lord himself that pharisaic exaggeration was to be avoided in this matter, and from St Paul that the sabbatical rest was no longer of obligation, still St Caesarius of Arles in the sixth century expressly says that the Doctors of the Church decreed to transfer all the honour of the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. The very necessity of hearing Mass on that day made a certain abstention from work also necessary. Tertullian testifies to the Christian custom of his day in this respect. Constantine prescribed that judges and artisans in towns should abstain from work on the Sunday, but that agriculture should be allowed on account of necessity. The strictness with which the Sunday repose was observed varied somewhat according to time and place in the period with which we are dealing.

Besides the Sunday other feast-days began gradually to be observed in the same manner by hearing Mass and abstaining from servile work. Easter and Pentecost were assigned to movable Sundays, but the days on which renowned martyrs suffered for the Faith, those on which churches were dedicated, Ascension Day, Christmas Day, and the Epiphany, were soon added to the list. The letter of the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of St Polycarp in the middle of the second century expresses the intention of celebrating the anniversary of the day of martyrdom with joy, both in memory of those who had suffered and as a preparation for those who survived.¹ As the Christian Church took over the Jewish Sabbath but changed the day on which it was observed and rejected the exaggerations of the Pharisees in its observance, so, too, it adopted the Jewish practice of fasting at stated times. As we have seen from the Didaché, the fast of Monday and Thursday was changed into one on Wednesday and Friday. The obligation of fasting on all Wednesdays and Fridays ceased almost entirely about the tenth century, but the fixing of those days by ecclesiastical authority for fasting, and the desire to substitute a Christian observance at Rome for certain pagan rites celebrated in connection with the seasons of the year, seem to have given rise to our Ember Days. In the time of St Leo, in the middle of the fifth century, the Ember Days were a settled institution, though the time at which they fell varied somewhat at different times and in different places.

¹ Cf. A. Villien, Histoire des Commandements de l’Eglise, 1909.

The earliest indication that we have of the fast of Lent is contained in a short extract from Irenaeus which has been preserved for us by Eusebius.¹ Writing to Pope Victor about the middle of the second century, St Irenaeus says that the controversy in the East was not merely about the proper time of celebrating Easter but also about the manner of fasting. “ For some think,” he says, “that they ought to fast only one day, some two, some more days; some compute their day as consisting of forty hours night and day; and this diversity existing among those that observe it is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us, who, perhaps not having ruled with sufficient strictness, established the practice that arose from their simplicity and inexperience, and yet with all these maintained peace, and we have maintained peace with one another; and the very difference in our fasting establishes the unanimity of our faith.” At the time this was written the Lenten fast was obviously very short, and there was no uniformity even in its duration. Tertullian,. fifty years later, refers to the Lenten observance as the fulfilment of the words of our Lord: “ But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then shall they fast in those days.”

¹ Historia Ecclesiastica, v, c. 24.

The first allusion to a period of forty days’ fast occurs in the fifth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325). In the time of St Leo in the fifth century the period was sufficiently well established to be referred by him to apostolic institution. The period was six weeks, but omitting Sundays the actual fasting days were only thirty-six in number. The four days before the first Sunday of Lent were added sometime in the seventh century. The fasts assigned to certain vigils arose from the practice of the early Christians of assembling on the eve of a feast and spending the night in prayer, fasting, and reading the Scriptures. By degrees Matins took the place of the night office, and the vigil office was moved back to the Saturday morning, as. we see to this day from the morning office of Holy Saturday. The fast was thus prolonged through the Saturday till after the morning office of the feast of the next day.

The fast which used to. be observed on the rogation days took its rise in France at the close of the fifth century, and by degrees spread to other Churches. The interrupted fast of Advent was introduced as a preparation for Christmas toward the end of the fourth century. The manner of fasting has varied greatly at different times and in different places, At first the fast seems to have been absolute and continuous. During the days of the bridegroom’s absence the faithful neither ate nor drank anything. When the period was lengthened such a total fast became impossible, but at least in the East food was restricted on fast days to one meal of bread, salt, and water, taken in the evening, or three in the afternoon, at least not before In the time of St Gregory fish was allowed at the single meal in the West. Flesh meat was never allowed on fasting days.

The essence of fasting is still placed by theologians in the single meal, but many relaxations have crept in by degrees. The monks while listening to a Collatio of Cassian before going to bed introduced the practice of drinking an acidulated liquor called posca. By degrees fruits and lighter kinds of food in limited quantity were added, and when about the thirteenth century the full meal began to be taken at twelve midday, the evening collation became an established practice.

In the thirteenth century it was an accepted principle that liquid does not break the fast, and this became the source of another relaxation. A little wine, or coffee, or chocolate, was taken sometimes in the morning, with candied fruits (electwaria) on occasion. The practice was not condemned when the Sacred Penitentiary was asked about it in 1843, provided that the solid food taken then did not exceed two ounces in weight.

At first all seem to have fasted except children and those who were sick. St Thomas’s opinion that those who are still growing are not bound to fast, and that in general the period of growth lasts till the completion of the twenty-first year, has prevailed. Exemptions in favour of workmen and others were soon admitted, and toward the close of the Middle Ages dispensations from the law of fasting began to be granted. The Lenten indult was an established custom before the new Code came into force.

The precept of abstinence from flesh meat which is still observed on Fridays is a survival of the obligation of fasting on that day which obtained in the primitive Church. As we have seen, the Didaché prescribed fasting on all Wednesdays and Fridays, and to this fast all the faithful except mere children and the sick were formerly bound. About the tenth century the obligation of the Friday fast was reduced to one of abstinence from flesh meat, and the Wednesday fast, after being similarly mitigated, gradually disappeared altogether.

While in the East Saturday was observed as a festival in honour of the creation,¹ at Rome and in other Churches of the West it began in early times to be observed as a fasting day On account of the difference of discipline on this point great difficulties arose in the fourth century, as we know from the correspondence of St Augustine and St Jerome. St Ambrose said that he kept festival on Saturday when he was at Milan and a fast when at Rome, and he advised St Augustine to follow the same rule. About the eleventh century the Saturday fast was reduced to an obligation of abstinence, and this was the common law of the Church until the new Code of Canon Law came into force. A dispensation from abstinence on Saturdays, the feast of St Mark, and on Rogation Days was granted for England by a rescript of Propaganda, May 29, 1830.

¹ Apostolic Constitutions, vii, 23.

The Sundays in Lent were never observed as fasting days, but they early became days of abstinence as they remained till the new Code came into force on May 19, 1918.

Annual confession and Communion was first made a positive universal law of the Catholic Church in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). As we know from the Gospel of St John,¹ both confession and Communion were prescribed by our Lord, but he determined neither precept in detail. The practice of the different Churches in the early ages was various in respect to both precepts. We will first trace in outline the history regarding the precept of annual Communion.

¹ John vi 54.

From the earliest times, as we have seen, Mass was celebrated for the assembled faithful on Sundays, and all who were present appear to have received Holy Communion. In some places it was the practice for the faithful to take home with them consecrated particles and communicate themselves therewith out of Mass. Many at Rome, in Spain, and in Africa received Communion daily. This was a common practice at the end of the fourth century, as we learn from the letters of St Jerome and St Augustine. The latter interprets the daily bread for which we ask in the Lord’s Prayer as Holy Communion. The Council of Agde (506) decreed that those who did not communicate at least on the feasts of the Nativity, Easter, and Whit-Sunday were not to be reckoned as Catholics. In subsequent centuries this became a general rule in the Western Church; in the East, according to Theodore of Canterbury, the law was much stricter. The Greeks, he says, both laity and clerics, communicate every Sunday, and anyone who omits to do so on three Sundays is excommunicated. A synod held (747) at Cloveshoe in England prescribed that innocent youths and those in whom years had cooled the ardour of passion should be exhorted to communicate very frequently, A synod held under St Patrick in the fifth century decreed that the Eucharist was to be received at all events at Easter, and that anyone who neglected this duty was not a member of the Church. Robert Pullen, an Englishman who wrote in the middle of the twelfth century, tells us that in his day some communicated more frequently, others less so, but that even laymen followed the rule of the Fathers and communicated at least three times a year. So that when the Lateran Council established the universal law that all who had come to years of discretion were bound to communicate at least at Easter, it made no new rule; it merely enforced by universal statute the least that was expected of anyone who called himself a Catholic.

The precept of annual confession is intrinsically connected with that of Easter Communion both in the Church’s legislation and in its own nature. For, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches,¹ the power of order, although primarily it refers to the consecration of the Eucharist, yet also comprises all that is necessary to dispose the faithful to receive the Eucharist worthily and profitably. It comprises, then, the power to forgive sins, inasmuch as no one who is conscious of mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without previous confession and absolution. The Council of Trent² teaches that the words of St Paul, “‘ Let a man prove himself,” have always been understood in the Church of the necessity of sacramental confession and absolution before Holy Communion when there is consciousness of mortal sin. The law of the Lateran concerning annual confession and Communion is thus one law, confession being ordinarily a necessary preparation for Holy Communion in those who rarely communicate. That the Church always understood this is witnessed to by Alcuin in the eighth century,³ by St Leo in the fifth,⁴ St Augustine in the fourth,⁵ and St Cyprian in the third.⁶ We have the same conjunction of confession and Communion in the sentence of the Didaché: “ But on the Lord’s day do ye assemble and break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure.”⁷ In all probability the confession here spoken of should be interpreted as meaning sacramental confession to a priest. The Council of Trent, then, was justified in saying that before receiving Holy Communion it had always been considered a duty to go to confession when there was consciousness of mortal sin. In the fifth or sixth century a practice sprang up which was the forerunner of the Lateran law of annual confession. At the beginning of Lent public penance was imposed on those who had been guilty of great and notorious crimes. In some of the Penitential Books⁸ the priest is bidden to invite all who are conscious of mortal sin, and even all who by any sin whatever have soiled their baptismal robe, to make humble confession to their own priest on Ash Wednesday, and accept the penance enjoined according to the canons. If there was any special reason for granting absolution at once, that was done, otherwise absolution was deferred till Maundy Thursday, when, the penance having been performed, the penitent was absolved and admitted to Communion. This was a mitigation of the earlier discipline of some Churches, especially in the East, according to which public penance sometimes lasted for years.⁹ The name of Shrove Tuesday and the custom of receiving ashes on the head on Ash Wednesday, still remind us of the old discipline of the Catholic Church, It was natural, then, that when the Church made it obligatory on all to receive Holy Communion at least every Easter, it should also impose the obligation of annual confession. The law indeed does not indicate Easter as necessarily the time for the annual confession, but in practice it follows the time for the annual Communion. Originally the annual confession had by law to be made to the parish priest or to the bishop of the penitent, but for centuries it has been lawful to make it to any priest who has faculties for hearing confessions in the place.

¹ Pt. ii, c. 7, q. 6.

² Supra, p. 102.

³ De Psalmorum Usu, P.L., ci, 499.

⁴ Epist. 108, P.L., liv, 1011.

⁵ Serm. 278, P.L., xxxviii, 2273.

⁶ Epist. 10, P.L., iv, 254; Epist. ii, ib. 257; De Lapsis, xvi, ib. 479.

⁷ C. xiv.

⁸ Schmitz, Bussbücher, i, 775.

⁹ Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 435.

The faithful are bound by natural and divine law according to the teaching of St Paul¹ to contribute to the support of their pastors. For some centuries the revenues of the Church derived from the offerings of the faithful and from other sources constituted one fund, and this was administered by the bishop. The support of the poor, the maintenance of public worship, as well as the support of the clergy and other needs, were all supplied from the common fund. According to a decretal of Pope Gelasius (501) the Church revenues were to be divided into four portions, one for the bishop, another for the clergy, a third for the relief of the poor and strangers, the fourth for the Church fabrics. In his celebrated answers to St Augustine, Gregory the Great tells the first Archbishop of Canterbury that as he was a monk he did not need a separate portion, and should be content to share in - common with his clergy. For several centuries no positive law of the Church was needed to compel the faithful to do their duty in this matter. The Fathers who occasionally urge the obligation are content to appeal in support of it to the teaching of St Paul or to the law of tithes under the Mosaic dispensation.

¹ 1 Cor. ix; Gal. vi 6.

The Penitential attributed to St Theodore enjoins that the custom of the province should be observed relative to contributions to the Church, but that the poor were not to be subjected to violence for the sake of tithes or other matters.

Positive ecclesiastical laws, however, began to appear both on the Continent and in England in the eighth century. Thus the seventeenth article of the legatine council held in England by the authority of Pope Adrian I (785-787) contained the following provision: ‘‘ Wherefore also we solemnly lay upon you this precept, that all be careful to give tithes of all that they possess, because that is the special part of the Lord God; and let a man live on the nine parts, and give alms.” At first there was some variety in the appropriation of tithes, but when the parochial system was introduced, between the tenth and thirteenth century, the appropriation of tithes to the parish priest became the settled rule. In modern times, at least in English-speaking countries, the offerings of the faithful constitute almost the only source of Church revenues as they did in the early ages of Christianity, and their apportionment and distribution are regulated by special laws.¹ As marriage was raised to the dignity of a sacrament by Christ our Lord, and the Church alone has jurisdiction over the administration of the sacraments, it follows that Christian marriage is subject exclusively to the laws of God and of the Church. There are several passages in the Epistles of St Paul² which show that the Church was conscious of her authority in this matter, and that she used it from the earliest times. St Ignatius in his letter to St Polycarp says that it is proper that Christians should contract marriage according to the judgement of the bishop, and Tertullian asserts that marriages which were contracted without being previously notified to the Church were in danger of being considered as no better than adulteries and fornications. The history of the many laws relating to Christian marriage is too large a subject to be treated here even in outline.

¹ Constitution of Leo XIII, Romanos Ponitifices.

² 1 Cor. v, vii; 2 Cor. vi 14.

We will confine ourselves to the impediments of consanguinity and close time.

The natural and divine law prohibits marriage in the first degree of the direct line, and most probably in all degrees indefinitely in the same line. In the collateral line, also, it most probably forbids marriage at least in the first degree. With respect to further degrees in the collateral line the Church adopted the Mosaic legislation, and there are no traces of her having exercised further the independent power which she certainly possessed to enlarge or restrict the limits of kindred before the fourth or fifth century. The Council of Epaon (517) forbade marriages between second cousins, Gregory II (721) prohibited marriage with relations in general, and from the eighth to the eleventh century the prohibition was extended to the seventh degree according to the canonical mode of reckoning. The Fourth Council of Lateran (1215) restricted the prohibition to the fourth degree, and the new Code restricts it to the third.

As the solemn celebration of marriage is not in keeping with penitential exercises, a council of Laodicea in the fourth century forbade the celebration of marriage during Lent. Subsequently the solemnization of marriage was forbidden from Septuagesima Sunday till the octave of Easter, during three weeks before the feast of St John Baptist, and from Advent till after the Epiphany. There was a dispute as to the three weeks before the feast of St John Baptist, and Clement III, at the end of the twelfth century, decided that the period was to be interpreted as extending from the Rogation Days till the Sunday after Pentecost. The Council of Trent¹ decreed that close time for the solemnization of marriage was to extend from Advent till after the Epiphany, and from Ash Wednesday till after Low Sunday, which the Code has altered as above (p. 212).

¹ Sess. xxiv, c. 10.

We must not leave this first period in the history of moral theology without saying something about the penitential books which began to appear in the sixth century and subsequently became very numerous. They were intended as a help to bishops and priests in their duty of imposing canonical penances on sinners and reconciling them to God and the Church. At first they were little more than lists of sins with the appropriate canonical penance annexed to each sin. The quality and length of penance assigned were derived from the councils or from the canonical letters of St Basil, St Peter of Alexandria, St Athanasius, and other Fathers of the Church. Afterward chapters were added containing short moral rules on a great variety of subjects, the method of receiving and dealing with penitents, and the method of reconciling them. They are of importance in the history of moral theology as furnishing a standard by which the malice of various transgressions was measured according to a great variety of circumstances. They fell into disuse with the gradual cessation of public penance in the Church.

The History of Moral Theology.—There are three periods in the history of Moral Theology: the Patristic, the Medieval, and the Modern.

(a) The Patristic Period (1st to 12th century).—The moral writings of the-Fathers are popular, exhortatory, and occasional; and it is not till the Middle Ages that we meet with works of systematic Moral Theology. The following are among the most notable moral works of the Fathers: the Paedagoga of Clement of Alexandria (d. about 217), which explains what the everyday life of the Christian should be; the Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386); the De Officiis Ministrorum of St. Ambrose (d. 397), a Christian counterpart of Cicero’s work De Officiis; the De Civitate Dei of St. Augustine (d. 430), which contrasts love of God and love of self; the Expositio in Job seu Moralium libri XXV of St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), which consists of moral instructions based on the Book of Job.

Celebrated among the ascetical and mystical writings are: the Ladder of Paradise of St. John Climacus (6th century), the Conferences of Cassian (about 416), the Libri V de Consideratione of St. Bernard (d. 1153). St. Gregory the Great’s De Cura Pastorali is a systematic work of pastoral theology, and is regarded as a classic.

(b) The Medieval Period (12th to 16th century).—The method of the moralists of this period differs from that of the Fathers in that the former is systematic and philosophical, and more proximately adapted to the use of confessors. The masterpiece of scientific Moral Theology is of course found in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). Works of casuistry were composed by St. Raymond of Pennafort (about 1235), by John of Freiburg (d. 1314), by John of Asti (about 1317), by Angelus of Chiavasso (about 1476), by Sylvester Prierias (d. 1523). The Summa Theologica of St. Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459) has been called an inexhaustible storehouse for manuals of casuistry.

Among the ascetical writers are: St. Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor (d. 1274), John Gerson (d. 1429), John Tauler (d. 1361), Bl. Henry Suso (d. 1366), and Denis the Carthusian (d. 1471).

(c) The Modern Period (16th century to the present).—Characteristic of this period are the commentaries written on St. Thomas, the controversies over the systems of conscience, the appearance of numerous manuals and special treatises, and the attention given to changed conditions of society and ecclesiastical discipline. Noteworthy among modern works are: the Commentary on St. Thomas by Cajetan (d. 1534); the writings of Bartholomew de Medina (d. 1581), called the father of moderate Probabilism; the De Paenitentia of Lugo (d. 1660), a handbook that combines speculative and casuistical theology; the Roman Catechism, which was issued by the authority of the Council of Trent in 1566; the Theologia Moralis of St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787), a work whose authority is universally recognized; the celebrated treatise on the virtues by Lessius (d. 1623); the classic work of Suarez (d. 1617), De Religione; the Summa Casuum Conscientiae of Toletus (d. 1596); the commentaries of Francis de Victoria (d. 1546), which are writings of extraordinary merit. More recent works are so numerous that it is impossible to mention them here.

Among the many modern works on Moral Theology which have been published abroad, not a few are in the vernacular—in German, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. While they are not intended to replace the Latin text-books used in seminaries, these are nevertheless a very great help to a fuller knowledge of the matter treated and to a more ready use of it in the work of the ministry.

So far there has been a dearth of works on Moral Theology in English; and it is this want that has occasioned the present work, which aims at presenting Moral Theology, not only in its essentials, but even more in detail and with greater fullness than is done by most of the text-books commonly in use. And yet, while pursuing this larger and more comprehensive plan, the authors of this new work have tried to be as brief and compact as possible. It has been their endeavor especially to avoid digressions into other fields and to sum up pertinent matter in as clear and simple a manner as the subjects treated will permit.

What have been the vicissitudes of Moral Theology? - There have been various vicissitudes of Moral Theology, both as regards its didactic development and as regards the development of the general rule of morals in doubtful cases.

As regards its methodical form, various ages can be distinguished in it, and they are the following six.

The first age, from the beginning, in the time of the Apostles, was when moral doubts were resolved by the decisions of the Supreme Pontiffs, by the decrees of Councils, and by the opinions of the Fathers, who especially in their homilies and sermons to the people explained those things which are necessary for rightly informing morals and for salvation.

The second age succeeds a little later, when in the first centuries of the Church the use of canonical penance became established, and Penitential Books were employed. Special treatises on moral matters were gradually multiplied in this age, either together with speculative doctrines or separately, up to the twelfth century, when, after St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in the year 1033, and after St. Bernard, first Abbot of Clairvaux, who died in 1153, Peter Lombard, called the Master by antonomasia, wrote the books of the Sentences, in the third of which he treats of the virtues and of vices; he died in 1164. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 11; Decree of Gratian, at the end.

The third age extends from the thirteenth century to the fourteenth. In this age sacred practical doctrine made great progress, especially through the work of William of Paris, who died in 1249, St. Bonaventure, O. Min., who died in the year 1274, St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P., who died in the year 1274, called the Angelic Doctor, St. Raymond of Pennafort, of the Order of Preachers, who died in the year 1275, and Peter Paludanus, O.P., who died in the year 1342, who for St. Alphonsus is a doctor of perfect knowledge.

The fourth age embraces the two following centuries, the fifteenth and the sixteenth; and it is distinguished by the notable saints who flourished in this age. Among others are celebrated St. John of Capistrano, O. Min., who died in the year 1440, St. Bernardine of Siena, O.S. Fr., who died in the year 1444, St. Lawrence Justinian, who died in the year 1455, St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, who died in the year 1459, Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., who died in the year 1534, a man of most subtle genius, Francis de Vitoria, O.P., who died in the year 1546, Dominic Soto, O.P., who died in the year 1560, Peter Soto, O.P., who died in the year 1563, Bartholomew Medina, O.P., who died in the year 1581, St. Charles Borromeo, who died in the year 1584, Martin Azpilcueta, called Navarrus, who died in the year 1590, Cardinal Francis Toletus, S.J., who died in the year 1596, and Louis Molina, S.J., who died in the year 1600.

The fifth age embraces the seventeenth and eighteenth century up to St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori, and it is distinguished by many learned scholastic theologians who expressly expounded and illustrated moral questions in copious treatises. Among many others there excel Thomas Sanchez, S.J., who died in the year 1610, Francis Suarez, S.J., who died in the year 1617, Leonard Lessius, S.J., who died in the year 1623, Basil Pontius, O.S. Aug., who died in the year 1629, the Salmanticenses, O. Carm. Disc., from 1631 to 1722, Martin Bonacina, who died in the year 1631, Giles Coninck, S.J., who died in the year 1633, Ferdinand De Castro Palao, S.J., who died in the year 1633, Paul Laymann, S.J., who died in the year 1635, Francis Sylvius, who died in the year 1649, Augustine Barbosa, who died in the year 1649, Cardinal John De Lugo, who died in the year 1660, Peter Marchant, O. Min., who died in the year 1661, Antoninus Diana, Cleric Regular Theatine, who died in the year 1663, Zacharias Pasqualigo, Cler. Reg., who died in the year 1664, Hermann Busembaum, S.J., who died in the year 1668, Henry Pirhing, S.J., who died in the year 1670, Thomas Tamburinus, S.J., who died in the year 1675, Anacletus Reiffenstuel, O.S. Franc., who died in the year 1703, Claude La-Croix, S.J., who died in the year 1714, Patrick Sporer, O. Min., who died in the year 1714, Prosper Lambertini, Benedict XIV, who died in the year 1758, and Lucius Ferraris, Ord. Min., who died in the year 1760.

The sixth age takes its beginning from St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori, who died in the year 1787, and extends down to our own times. St. Alphonsus, most outstanding in genius and doctrine as well as in sanctity of life, and divinely given for exterminating Jansenist errors and severities, wrote a Moral Theology in which he treats all questions learnedly, eruditely, and with the highest prudence, recounting almost all that had been handed down before him; hence he was deservedly adorned by the Church with the title of Doctor. Hence it happened that in more recent times Moral Theologians followed St. Alphonsus as leader and master. In our age very many compendia of Moral Theology have been published.

The name indeed is modest, but the works are certainly of notable merit. For in these compendia the whole doctrine of Moral Theology is handed down briefly and in order, and in them is contained, accurately set forth, not only the doctrine of the old theologians accumulated in the course of time, but also that which has been acquired for Moral Theology either from the more recent Acts of the Holy See and of the Sacred Roman Congregations, or also from the progress of the natural sciences. Nor indeed have more expansive treatments been lacking in this age, as can be seen in the treatises On Justice and Law and On Contracts of D. Carriere, and in the scholia, annotations, and dissertations of Fr. Anthony Ballerini, S.J. Zitelli, Enchirid.;

Hurter, Nomenclat.; D'Annibale, Summ., 4th ed., p. 1, n. 2 ff.; Bouquillon, Inst. Theol. Mor. Fundam., Introduction V.

As regards the development of the general rule of morals in doubtful cases, for several centuries each one defended his own opinion, according to the varying weight of the reasons, as seemed better to him. In the year 1572 Antonius Cordubensis first began to contend on behalf of law, because of the authoritative and obligatory prerogative of law, and accordingly he established that in doubt the safer part must always be held. But in the year 1577 Bartholomew Medina, professor at Salamanca, began, on the contrary, to contend on behalf of liberty because of the prerogative of its natural right, and accordingly he established that in doubtful matters he acts prudently and licitly who follows an opinion truly probable and favoring liberty, even after leaving aside the more probable opinion in favor of law. He was the first who reduced the doctrine concerning probable opinions into a system. From this Tutiorism and Probabilism arose.

In the following seventeenth century Synnichius, who died in the year 1666, brought Tutiorism down into Rigorism, while Caramuel brought Probabilism into Laxism: for the former denied that we can follow an opinion favoring liberty, even if it is most probable, which was condemned by Alexander VIII in the year 1690; the latter, on the opposite side, affirmed that we can follow an opinion even slightly probable, which was proscribed by Innocent XI in the year 1679. Hence in that same century Probabilism was widely diffused, and became a very common and very received doctrine in every school: of almost all the disciples of St. Thomas, of almost all the disciples of Scotus, of almost all the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, and of other theologians, with few exceptions.

But since many of these probabilists favored liberty too much, asserting that it was lawful to follow even an opinion that was probably and doubtfully probable, the Probabilists were divided among themselves, and there arose moderate Probabilism, standing in an opinion truly and gravely probable, and broad Probabilism, proceeding even to doubtful probability. Hence, while the Fathers of the Society of Jesus commonly remained in Probabilism, the Thomists passed over to Probabiliorism, requiring for liberty an opinion more probable than the opinion favoring law. Zitelli, in his Enchiridion, mentions as the head of the probabiliorists Francis Genet, who died in the year 1702.

In the eighteenth century, to overthrow broad Probabilism and Probabiliorism at the same time, St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori undertook to defend moderate Probabilism, establishing that it is lawful to use a probable opinion even in competition with one more probable for law, whenever the former has a certain and grave foundation. And for that reason the Holy Doctor called his system moderate Probabilism, against rigid Probabiliorists and lax Probabilists, Equiprobabilism, with aeque taken according to the nature of true probability, not according to equality of degree.

But since the word nevertheless was not free from ambiguity in itself, hence after St. Alphonsus another system arose, which the Redemptorist Fathers defend, namely the system of Equiprobabilism, by which it is established that it is lawful to follow an opinion favoring liberty when it is equally or a little less probable than the opinion favoring law; but that it is not lawful when the latter is much more probable than the former, which in truth falls back into Probabiliorism. La-Croix, vol. 1, prodromal book, Franc. Ant. Zachariae and Quaest. facti of Stephen De Champs; Zitelli, Enchir.; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 8 ff.; Bouquillon, Inst. Theol. Mor. Fundam., Introduction II; E. E. M. n. 114, 119.

52. Finally, as regards the various vicissitudes of Moral Theology: in the first centuries of the Church down to the thirteenth century, it is contained in many writings concerning the right institution of morals and the right administration of the sacrament of penance, which were published either by private doctors or by the authority of the Church. Moral truths, not yet collected and ordered into one body of doctrine, are found chiefly and everywhere in the works of the Holy Fathers. - But in the thirteenth century, together with dogmatic theology, Moral Theology began to be handed down in scientific and scholastic form, especially by the work of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Scotus. Many little Summas of moral matters were published in this second age, which extends to the fifteenth century and to the Council of Trent. - After the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, innumerable men wrote concerning the theology of morals. Some wrote Commentaries on the I-II and II-II of St. Thomas; others illustrated the whole of moral theology or at least a great part of it. The Spaniards are eminent in this period: some treated special matters, some collected cases of conscience, others rather cultivated pastoral theology. Among others, Eusebius Amort, a German, is celebrated; St. Alphonsus held him in great esteem. Among all, the most celebrated are Thomas Sanchez, S.J.; L. Molina, S.J.; Francis Suarez, S.J.; Cardinal De Lugo, S.J., Spaniards; Leonard Lessius, S.J., a Belgian; Paulus Laymann, S.J., a German. In this third age, which extends to St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori, sharp controversies were stirred up by the works of the Jansenists; defending an exaggerated and intolerable rigorism, they held catholic doctors, whom in contempt they called casuists, as corrupters of Christian moral doctrine. Many fought against them, especially from the Society of Jesus, among whom are reckoned Ven. Paulus Segneri, Bl. Francolinus, La Croix, and many others. In this same age controversies concerning probabilism were begun, and many of them were settled by Apostolic Authority. - The fourth and last age, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, takes its beginning from St. Alphonsus down to our times. He himself is the leader and master of all probabilists, who afterward, in no small number, all followed him down to our times. Rejecting both laxism and rigorism, the Holy Doctor defends true probabilism. According to the Holy Doctor, where the honesty of a human act is at issue, it is licit to follow a truly probable opinion, by forming for oneself a practically certain conscience through reflex principles; and indeed it is licit to follow this truly probable sentence in favor of liberty, even when the opposed more probable one has been left aside. And this doctrine of his, which St. Alphonsus expressly handed down and invincibly proved in the Dissertation for the moderate use of a probable opinion in concurrence with a more probable one, he always most constantly defended and never retracted.

13. In order that the aforesaid sources, especially the works of the Fathers and theologians, may be inspected more deeply, and that the method to be followed in Moral Theology may be better understood, it will not be beside the matter briefly to delineate the history of this science. In it a twofold age can be distinguished: the former, of the Fathers; the latter, of the theologians. In each age, several epochs may be distinguished, which have their own proper character: the difference among these does not proceed from their mutual opposition, but from successive evolution; and, since one epoch is a preparation for another, it can often scarcely be defined where this one begins and the other ends.

¹ Zacharia, Dissertatio de Casuisticae Theologiae originibus; Patuzzi, op. cit.; C. F. Standlin, Geschichte der christlichen Moral; Luthardt, Geschichte der christlichen Ethik; Ziegler, Geschichte der christlichen Ethik; E. Muller, Theologia Moralis, Introduction, § 11-13; Pruner, Theologie Morale, translated by Belet, t. I, p. 19-47; Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis Fund., Introduction, n. 124-195.

Catholic Moral Theology has a very extensive literature. In this compendium we can do little more than give a list of the principal authors and their more important works. We shall supplement this enumeration with sufficient data to make it serve as an historical outline of the development of our science.

The history of Moral, like that of Dogmatic Theology, and Church History in general, may suitably be divided into three periods: (1) the Patristic, (2) the Medieval or Scholastic, and (3) the Modern Period.

Order and manner of treatment. To retrace the historical fortunes ¹ both of moral science and of the sources which exhibit it is as foreign to the purpose of this book as to our ability; but we judge that to give certain historical indications will be useful to many and pleasing.

Therefore, after first considering the New Testament, we shall distinguish the Apostolic age; the age of the Fathers properly so called; the age of the Fathers less properly so called, by which at the same time transition is made to the age of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages; the age of the Scholastics after the Middle Ages; the post-scholastic age, down to St. Alphonsus; and the age after St. Alphonsus down to our own days.

Then, in a few conclusions, we shall gather, as it were, the fruits of the exposition made.

Not a few learned works contribute aids for history, for example, von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts, Stuttgart, 1875; Grabmann, Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1909-1911; Turmel, Histoire de la theologie positive jusqu'au Concile de Trente, Paris, 1904; Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes dans l'antiquite chretienne, 3 vols., Paris, 1905-1912-1919; J. de Ghellinck, S.J., Le mouvement theologique du XIIe siecle, Paris, 1914; Pourrat, P., La spiritualite chretienne, Paris, I, 1919; II, 1921.

Recently R. D. Callewaert learnedly exhibited the History of the Liturgy, Liturgicae Institutiones, vol. 1, c. 3, n. 53-118, Bruges, 1919.

¹ Bouquillon, Theologia moralis fundamentalis, in the Introduction, n. 72-140, treats at sufficient length the chiefly literary history; Koch treats the same argument in Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Introduction, § 10. Before them d'Annibale, in the Prooemium of his very well-known Summula, n. 3-11, treats of the vicissitudes of Moral Theology, whose formal origin he ascribes to the thirteenth century, so that only from that century does he expound its fortunes.

Already in the Gospel itself, the Lord directly proposes the moral sum, with principles concerning the charity of God and neighbor, or the greatest commandments to which all the documents of the law and the prophets can be referred ¹; and with precepts, both those which direct human actions ², and those which regard sacrifice and the sacraments ³.

To moral doubts the Lord adapts responses, as when he declares marriage indissoluble ⁴.

To responses are added counsels, for example, concerning the renunciation of riches for his sake ⁵, and concerning almsgiving ⁶.

His speech becomes polemical against the scribes and Pharisees, to whom he objects that they made void the commandment of God because of their own traditions ¹, and that they joined violation of the weightier commandments with scrupulosity in the smallest things ².

Likewise he reproves a certain rigorism which did not tolerate that the disciples plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath in order to eat ³, nor grasped the saying: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" ⁴; and which bound heavy and unbearable burdens ⁵.

Indeed, he already prepares the moral apology of Christians, when he wills that the justice of the disciples abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees ⁶, and that it excel beyond the customs of the Gentiles by love of neighbor and merciful beneficence. The Lord pronounced a word of immense fecundity when he taught this mysterious law: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." St. Paul recalls this ⁸, and then, in the first century, St. Clement praises it as accepted by Christians in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "You were all of humble mind... giving more gladly than receiving" ⁹.

¹ St. Matthew 22, 37-40: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God... Thou shalt love thy neighbor... On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets."

² St. Matthew 19, 18.19: "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal," etc.

³ St. Matthew 28, 19: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc. St. Luke 22, 19.20: "And having taken bread, he gave thanks... This is my body... Do this in commemoration of me." St. John 20, 22.23: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them," etc.

⁴ St. Matthew 19, 9. [Corrected from printed/OCR "10, 9" by context.]

⁵ St. Matthew 19, 21: "If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast."

⁶ Luke 16, 9: "Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity."

¹ St. Matthew 15, 6.

² St. Matthew 23, 24: "Blind guides, straining out a gnat, but swallowing a camel."

³ St. Matthew 12, 8.

⁴ St. Matthew 12, 7.

⁵ St. Matthew 23, 4.

⁶ St. Matthew 5, 20.

⁷ St. Matthew 5, 47; 6, 7.

⁸ Acts of the Apostles 20, 35.

⁹ To the Corinthians, c. 2.

The canonical writings of the Apostles are full of moral documents, and indeed of the highest perfection, which are proposed to all the faithful. In his whole First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul rebukes contention and vice; he teaches the faithful which states are good, which are better; he solves cases concerning things sacrificed to idols; he hands down laws concerning public worship; he instructs the faithful concerning mystical matters. Moral are his three Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and the Epistle to Philemon. In the Epistle to the Romans, chapters 12-15 are moral; in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 8 to 9, 15; the Epistle to the Galatians is moral from chapter 5; the Epistle to the Ephesians, from chapter 4; the Epistle to the Colossians, from chapter 3; the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, from chapter 5; the Second, from chapter 3; the Epistle to the Hebrews, from chapter 10. Moral are the whole Catholic Epistle of St. James and each Epistle of St. Peter. The Epistles of St. John are a perpetual exhortation to charity. The Epistle of St. James is moral. The first part of the Apocalypse directs moral admonitions to various churches.

To give certain special examples: in these sacred letters principles, responses, and counsels alike recur. The excellence and primacy of charity are extolled ¹. The faithful are deterred from sins ². Cases are solved concerning the privilege of the faith ³, concerning things sacrificed to idols ⁴; the counsel of virginity is inculcated ⁵, as is patience of injuries ⁶. Rigorism also is rejected ⁷. The apologetic exposition is prepared, while the vices of paganism are denounced ⁸, and the necessity of higher justice is preached ⁹. Documents concerning mystical theology are already handed down ¹⁰. Precepts concerning various states are explained ¹¹. The First Epistle of St. Peter contains general admonitions concerning holiness, which can be called a moral summa, just as the Catholic Epistle of St. James itself, which at the same time, not undeservedly, would be called "social" in the present meaning.

But in the first Council, which the Acts of the Apostles report to have been held at Jerusalem ¹², four moral and disciplinary points are defined or decreed; and an example of authoritative solution is offered to us.

¹ 1 Corinthians, c. 13, which chapter is wholly in praise of charity; Romans 13, 9: "Love is the fullness of the law"; Galatians 5, 14: "All the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

² 1 Corinthians 6, 10.

³ 1 Corinthians 7, 15.

⁴ 1 Corinthians 10, 27. And cf. the various questions solved in 1 Corinthians, cc. 7-11.

⁵ 1 Corinthians 7, 1-25 ff.

⁶ 1 Corinthians 6, 7.

⁷ 1 Corinthians 10, 28-29 and Galatians 4.

⁸ Romans 1, 24-32.

⁹ 1 Corinthians 5, 6-13.

¹⁰ 1 Corinthians 12-14.

¹¹ 1 Timothy 3, 1-13 and cc. 5-6.

¹² Acts 15, 29.

Both these things had to be accomplished in the Apostolic age: the new Christians had to be imbued with evangelical perfection, and the unity of the Catholic society founded by Christ had to be strengthened by the bond of obedience and mutual love. And this twofold solicitude is in fact demonstrated by the monuments of that age.

The Apostolic Fathers ¹, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius Martyr, St. Polycarp, especially commend union with superiors and charity. This is especially seen in the magnificent Epistle to the Corinthians which St. Clement wrote, having taken occasion from the sedition against the presbyters. After recalling the splendid examples of the Corinthians, which had brought so great peace and abundance of grace, he chiefly preaches humility, modesty, simplicity of soul, and concord. In the same age, the very well-known Didache is ascetical in its first part, where it opposes the way of life, which is exhibited by the moral discipline of Christians, to the way of destruction; in the other part, it teaches sacramental theology, while the third part, assigned to ecclesiastical ordering, can be called canonical. The two ways also, of light and of darkness, are described in the other part of the Epistle called that of St. Barnabas. And in the second book of the Shepherd, Hermas seems to hand down the twelve commandments as a kind of moral summa of Christians.

¹ Concerning the Apostolic Fathers, the edition of Funk is to be commended, which Fr. Diekamp edited at Tubingen with new care; also the edition of Lightfoot: The Apostolic Fathers, London, 1890.

I. First period of the Fathers. Resting upon the revealed sources, the Holy Fathers commend the theological virtues, prayer, patience, flight from worldly delights, so that all moral discipline is supernatural. The virtues of Christians especially commend the new religion. Controversies are carried on concerning the reconciling of those who had fallen away from the faith; concerning the value of baptism ministered by heretics. And the rigor of the Montanists must be opposed.

In the second and third century there are written:

1. Apologetic works, in which it is brought out how greatly the morals of Christians excel those of pagans. Aristides does this; Athenagoras does this in the Legation for the Christians. The wonderful life of Christians is also described in the Epistle to Diognetus, which they ascribe to the second or third century.

2. Monographic works, such as the two epistles to virgins which are inscribed under the name of Clement of Rome; several treatises which Tertullian wrote, both as a Catholic and as a Montanist ¹; St. Cyprian, in most beautiful opuscules and ascetical little books; Origen, whose opuscule On Prayer is said to be an excellent work of the Alexandrian Doctor.

3. More general treatises, for example, the Paedagogue of Clement of Alexandria, books 2 and 3. Then also there appear the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Apostles and the Didascalia of the Twelve Apostles, which imitate the Didache in moral and canonical rules.

¹ He himself calls the Lord's Prayer the Breviary of the whole Gospel. Koch, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Introduction § 10, I, p. 21, note 7, observes that the first principle of a good action is placed by Tertullian in the formal fulfillment of the divine will: "For neither because it is good ought we therefore to listen, but because God commands" (De Paenitentia, 4).

The golden period of the Fathers. In that golden age of the Fathers, which contains the fourth century and the first part of the fifth century, the Church must be protected from the dangers of prosperity and peace. Wherefore the Fathers of that age: a) try to restrain the invasion of the morals of the Gentiles. They inveigh against usury, so that St. John Chrysostom seems somehow to have been attracted by a certain image of a better communism; b) many are occupied in describing the duties of each state; c) St. Augustine founds the City of God in the love of God, of which every virtue is a mode; d) the foundations of mystical theology are laid both by St. Macarius and by St. Augustine; e) from St. Augustine we learn the clear distinction of mortal sin from venial sin; f) in polemical controversies against the Pelagians, doctrine concerning the necessity of grace, free choice, and the conditions of merit is more accurately proposed.

The authoritative responses at that time were the responses of bishops, which were often given in Councils ².

But in conciliar canons dogmatic definitions must be distinguished from disciplinary ones. Thus it must also be carefully weighed what the Holy Fathers said as witnesses of divine-apostolic tradition, and what they said as theologians.

Moreover, in the fifth century a very extensive collection of ecclesiastical law with moral rules is published under the name of the Apostolic Constitutions.

Moral matters are proposed: a) In the homilies of the Fathers: think of St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, the pious and affective homilies of St. Macarius of Egypt, father of mystical Theology.

b) In methodical monographs, of which St. Augustine writes many: think of his books On Lying, Against Lying, On the Good of Marriage, On Holy Virginity. St. John Chrysostom composed the classic work On the Priesthood; the work On Virginity, exhortations To Theodore the Fallen. On virginity we have the ascetical treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Also to be remembered is St. Methodius, martyr (311), Symposion, or the banquet of ten maidens, in which ten virgins in order celebrate virginity and at the end sing a fervent hymn in praise of Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church.

c) In epistles. From epistle 211 (formerly 109) and from sermons 355 and 356, On the Morals of Clerics, the rule of St. Augustine was taken. Many and excellent epistles of St. Jerome are had, for example, the 22nd to Eustochium, On the Duties and Institutes of Virgins, the 52nd to Nepotian, On the Priestly Life. The responses of St. Basil to the Brothers in the desert, both the fuller and the briefer, constitute his rule. He himself also already ordered the canonical discipline of penance in three canonical epistles to Amphilochius.

d) We have a manual book for the use of Christians in the work of St. Ambrose On the Duties of Ministers; while in the works On the Mysteries and On Penance, he treats sacramental theology. St. Augustine also left us a more general work, at once dogmatic and moral, the Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity.

e) The so-called Testament of the Lord, or the little book which in its second part orders the whole Christian life, seems to be of the same age. The Lausiac History of Palladius, the Institutes of the Coenobia and Conferences of Cassian, and the Monastic History of Theodoret teach us the ascetical norms of monks; Theodoret's fifth book exhibits summarily the Catholic doctrine of faith and morals.

² St. Cyprian, ep. 52, 6, recalls a little book in which solutions were preserved in writing. This seems to be the beginning of collections of canons.

III. The third period of the age of the Fathers, which in the West is concluded by St. Isidore of Seville (636), is prolonged in the East to St. John Damascene (about the middle of the eighth century).

Already after the middle of the fifth century, authors and inventors yield their place to collectors and repeaters. Both in the West and in the East, labor is expended in copying and arranging things previously said. There is zeal for preserving, not for increasing, the sacred sciences. By this zeal a more methodical exposition of matters is prepared.

The most outstanding were Boethius (524-529), whose celebrated treatise On Consolation contains many moral and ascetical things; Cassiodorus (570); St. Gregory of Tours (595), who in his work On Ecclesiastical Courses gives us a liturgical enchiridion; while St. Gregory the Great (604), in the Commentaries on the Book of Job whose title is Moralia, left us an ample moral work. In the golden book of the Pastoral Rule, the same Pontiff left us an outstanding ascetical work. St. Caesarius of Arles (542) wrote a very ancient rule for virgins. St. Gregory also deserved very well of sacred and liturgical music; we have his complete Missal under the name of the Gregorian Sacramentary.

In the sixth century, the canonical collection of Dionysius Exiguus is to be remembered; since it was sent by Hadrian II to Charlemagne, it is thence called Hadriana. In Britain and Ireland the first penitential books appear, which exhibit the order of doing penance; in Gaul they are to be expected at the sixth century.

In the seventh century, the first books of sentences come to light; by their very name they profess to be collected sayings of others. The three books of St. Isidore of Seville propose dogmatic and moral matters to us. St. Julian of Toledo (690), in the Prognosticon of the Future Age, hands down counsels concerning death and burial. Then also the canonical Spanish Collection is brought into systematic order.

In the East, the very celebrated liturgical and mystical works of the pseudo-Dionysius, of the Neoplatonic school, are ascribed to the sixth century. Although these were first usurped by the Monophysites and rejected by Catholics, and are not empty of every error, nevertheless, with great applause, when in the ninth century they were rendered into Latin, they were received in the Middle Ages as true works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and were adorned with many commentaries.

In the East also, many florilegia appear, Eklogai. Controversies are often carried on through opposed allegations.

Moschus composed the celebrated work concerning the virtues and miracles of ascetics under the name Spiritual Meadow. From St. Maximus the Confessor (662), besides most excellent chapters on charity and examinations of many doubts, we have an ascetical book by question and answer, in which a younger monk is instructed by the abbot concerning the end of man and of the world and concerning the duties of the spiritual life.

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene, who has been called the Thomas of the East, a strenuous defender of the holy images, by his greatest work, Fount of Knowledge, precedes the works of the Scholastics, especially that of the Master of the Sentences. He treats many dogmatic and moral matters in the work whose title is Sacra Parallela, so called because individual vices are compared there with individual virtues. Many things concerning the theology of the sacraments are contained in his work On the Orthodox Faith. Yet he himself also openly confesses that he does not speak from his own opinion, but is a collector of ancient sayings.

As to canonical collections, in the year 692, the collection made in the Trullan Council, or Quinisext Council, is like the Code of Oriental law.

The public calamities themselves already explain why this third period of the Fathers is much inferior to the preceding one.

In this age, while the Fathers gradually cease to be such, the age of the Scholastics is prepared through the doctrinal exposition of masters in abbatial and episcopal schools, which are ordered especially by the capitularies of Charlemagne.

In the eighth century, in the West, St. Bede the Venerable must be named, an assiduous copyist, with whose works, genuine or spurious, six volumes of Migne are filled. He offers aids to moral theology already in exegetical works, but especially in homilies and in the lives of certain saints.

The most ancient Ordo Romanus also must be cited, that is, a liturgical collection.

In the ninth century, Alcuin (804) is to be remembered; in two opuscules, On the Virtues and Vices and On the Reason of the Soul, he repeats for us many things from St. Augustine. He also explained the manner of confessing in the opuscule On the Confession of Sins, and wrote on Liturgy.

Rabanus Maurus (856), besides exegetical works, has liturgical and moral works: On Not Seeing God, on Purity of Heart, and the Manner of Penance; On Vices and Virtues and the Satisfaction for Sins; On the Sacred Orders, on the Divine Sacraments and Priestly Vestments; On the Marriages of Blood-Relations and on the Deceptions of Magicians and False Divinations.

Notable in ecclesiastical history are the attempts then begun to be made, and which were to be continued through this whole epoch, of reconciling with one another the sayings of the Fathers; and they attempted this the more scrupulously because not a few then thought that the Fathers had been inspired writers ¹.

But the century is celebrated because of its collections. In the East, Photius, with great erudition and skill, publishes his nomocanon, in which civil laws are placed alongside canonical ones. In the West, besides several general collections composed in an imperfect systematic order, there are also special collections: penitential books. Famous also are the spurious collections: the capitularies of Benedict the Levite; the capitula of Angilramn; and especially the Pseudo-Isidorian Collection, which for a long time was held to be authentic ².

Already above we warned that, in the ninth century, the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius were diffused in the West.

In the tenth century, to which belongs the name "the iron century," few writers, and those of slight merit, are to be alleged. The age is distinguished by the singular fortune which the dialectical art then had, so that every syllogism was held for an argument ³.

But in the eleventh century a new age already begins to dawn. They begin to write from their own judgment. Dispute arises concerning the place to be conceded to dialectic in dogmatic matters; and the use of reasoning in theology becomes greater.

The works are monographic. We shall cite St. Peter Damian (1072), who, by epistles, by sermons, and by opuscules, deserved very well concerning moral matters. He wrote On Almsgiving, On Contempt of the World, On the Perfection of a Monk. He most gravely reproved moral abuses in the opuscule which is called Gomorrhianum, while another, which is called Gratissimum, demonstrates the validity of an ordination made simoniacally.

Lanfranc (1089) gave us the opuscule On Concealing Confession and the Decrees for the Order of St. Benedict.

In the same century appears the Book of Decrees of Burchard of Worms, a celebrated canonical collection.

In the twelfth century, the principal honor is owed to the great Doctor St. Anselm (1109), although the praises of him are claimed by the dogmatic theologian and the philosopher, and he promoted moral science rather by ascetical writings.

The celebrated school of Liege offers to us for praise Alger (1132), with his treatise On Mercy and Justice. Hugh of St. Victor (1141) wrote a work On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith. Abelard comes before us, with his very well-known Sic et Non, or collection of opposed opinions from the sacred books and the Holy Fathers. With what intention he did this, de Ghellinck explains ¹. Abelard attributes so much to intention that he seems almost to efface the objective distinction of good and evil. He assigns far more parts to reason than St. Bernard (1151), by whom for that reason he was vigorously opposed. That holy Doctor, besides epistles and sermons, supplies us excellent moral documents in the work On Consideration (to Pope Eugene) and On the Duties of Bishops.

Toward the end of the century, Peter of Blois has many moral things in epistles, sermons, and treatises: On Christian Friendship and the Charity of God and Neighbor; On the Twelve Benefits of Tribulations; On Sacramental Confession; On the Institution of a Bishop.

The mystical-ascetical school obtains outstanding doctors: St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugh of St. Victor, and Richard of St. Victor (1173).

But here we must turn especially to collection. The canonical collection of St. Ivo of Chartres, which is named Decretum, and the Panormia of the same author, and the Summa of Sentences, which for a long time was ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor, are so excellent that Bouquillon, n. 99, did not hesitate to write that through them the edifice of moral theology had been erected which Clement of Alexandria had begun.

In the middle of this century there also appeared the most celebrated Decretum of Gratian, which from forensic use acquired a certain authenticity, improperly so called.

It is divided into three parts. The first treats of ecclesiastical persons and offices. It is divided into 101 Distinctions, which in turn are divided into canons. The other Part embraces 36 Causes, divided into questions. Cause 33 treats On Penance. The remaining causes touch upon many matters. The third Part is destined for Liturgy and is called On Consecration. The solicitude for reconciling authorities appears in the very title which Gratian had given to his work: The Concord of Discordant Canons.

In theological matters, before all others the four Books of Sentences (1150) of Peter Lombard come to be known. The intention of the author was, by copying many things, to give a full theological work. Throughout all the remaining Middle Ages, the work was held in the highest esteem and obtained many commentators, and those most excellent. Let it suffice to name St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Scotus. For several centuries it was the classic work of theology.

It embraces four books, divided into chapters without a very logical order. Afterwards it was divided into Distinctions ¹. The first book is on God and on the Most Holy Trinity; the second, on creation, on the angels, on the works of the six days, on the state of man before and after sin, on grace and on sin. The third book is on the incarnation, on the virtues, on sins, and on precepts. The fourth book treats of the sacraments and of the last things.

At the close of the twelfth century, special Summas on matrimony already exist.

¹ Cf. de Ghellinck, S.J., Le mouvement theologique du douzieme siecle. Cf. V, 3, p. 317 ff.

² Today they are sufficiently agreed that the collection was written in Gaul, in the city of Le Mans, between the years 849 and 851. The intention of "Isidore" was that of restoring ecclesiastical discipline.

³ Cf. de Ghellinck, Le mouvement theologique du douzieme siecle, p. 38-40.

¹ Le mouvement theologique du douzieme siecle, p. 102-104 and p. 331 ff.

¹ In the Middle Ages, Distinctions signify a certain collection of chapters, or also the pauses to be made in reading according to the punctuation. de Ghellinck, cited work, Le mouvement, etc., p. 132.

In that age, which is extended from the end of the twelfth century to the sixteenth century, a separation of theology and law was indeed made, but dogmatic theology is for the most part treated together with moral theology. The Doctors, in their youth, write commentaries on the books of the Sentences; when occasion is given, they compose quodlibetal questions; the things which they wish to examine more deeply they reserve for disputed questions. Finally they write Summas, as storehouses for the use of learners.

Sometimes they conclude the course with compendious works, such as St. Thomas's Compendium of Theology, in which course also they do not refuse to compose separate opuscules.

All these things are proposed in a plain and brief form, without sought-after elegance of style; altogether didactically. Documents of faith are cited very briefly; the sound philosophy of Aristotle helps them to confirm the concord of faith and reason. In this thirteenth century, Alexander of Hales (1245), O.M., was the first to use the philosophy of Aristotle in his Summa.

Before St. Thomas, Blessed Albert the Great (1280) and St. Bonaventure (1274), the Seraphic Doctor, expounded the text of the Master of the Sentences. After St. Thomas, John Duns Scotus (1308) did the same.

By unanimous consent, the prince of the Catholic school is St. Thomas, especially through his Summa Theologica.

He himself had previously written Commentaries on the books of the Sentences; disputed questions. He also has various quodlibetal questions, and many opuscules on special arguments: for example, on justice, on superstition, on the religious life (the controversy with William of Saint-Amour), on the Eucharist, so that we may give the subjects which more often gave origin to these treatises.

Using diverse philosophical principles, the Scotist school is opposed to the Thomistic school. Thomists trust reason more than Scotists: you would call the latter akin to Tertullian, when he attends to the will of God alone, and to Alcuin, when he ties a good moral action almost to intention alone. Thomists, on the contrary, more defend the necessity and immutability of the order of reason; they separate venial from mortal sin more objectively; they connect good habits with sanctifying grace in another way; concerning the essence of several sacraments, for example, penance, they disagree.

St. Bonaventure, with a more peaceful course, and not differing from St. Thomas in method or principles, directs as it were a third school; and at the same time he is celebrated as a doctor of mystical-ascetical theology.

Henry of Ghent (1293) also must be named; he left us quodlibetal works and a Summa.

We have a moral exposition separated from dogma in William Peraldus (before 1270), in his Summa on Vices and Virtues.

In the place of Decrees, Summas succeed. Celebrated is the Summa on Matrimony of Tancred (1210-1214), which St. Raymond received almost word for word into his own Summa. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Robert of Flamesbury used the expository and casuistic method in his Penitential; likewise a moral Summa of an unknown writer preceded the very well-known Summa on Penitential Cases, which St. Raymond of Pennafort, O.Pr., composed. With the same author, Gregory IX, in the Constitution Rex Pacificus, on 5 September 1234, promulgated the books of the Decretals, five in number, whose matter is exhibited in order by this little verse: Iudex (Prelate), iudicium, clerus, conubia, crimen.

And at the end of the century, on 3 March 1298, Boniface VIII promulgated the Sixth Book of the Decretals, arranged in the same order.

In the fourteenth century, perhaps because of the propagation of nominalism, and certainly because of the iniquity of the times, in which the Church was struggling with the State and was suffering the Western Schism, scholastic theology lost not a little of its vigor: it becomes less ample, more subtle, more polemical ¹.

Nevertheless, the celebrated Scotists O.M. Peter Aureolus (1321), the Eloquent Doctor, and Ockham (1349), author of nominalism, must be named; then, from the Friars Preachers, the Thomist Peter Paludanus (1312), and Durandus, not a Thomist, the Most Resolute Doctor.

Very well known among purely moral works is the Summa on Cases of Conscience of Astesanus (ca. 1317), called the Astesan; and the Summa of Bartholomew of Pisa (1338), called the Pisan.

Germany, Flanders, and Holland then brought forth mystics of great name: Tauler (1361), H. Suso (1365), Blessed Ruysbroeck (the Admirable Doctor), Gerard of Zutphen (1398).

The Corpus Iuris Canonici was completed in the same century by the Clementines, which, arranged in the same order as the Decretals, were promulgated on 25 October 1317; and by the Constitutions which are called Extravagantes, because they were outside the authentic collections: 20 of John XXII and 70 common Extravagantes.

In the fifteenth century, John Capreolus, O.Pr. (1441), wrote highly esteemed commentaries on the Master of the Sentences, to which were added controversies between St. Thomas and the other theologians and philosophers.

In mystical theology Thomas a Kempis (1471) is to be praised.

Angelus de Clavasio (1495), whose Summa was called the Angelica, and Silvester Prierias (1523), who wrote the Summa Silvestrina, honored casuistic moral theology.

¹ Cf. Bouquillon, n. 104.

Moral theology knew a golden age from the Pseudo-Reformation down to Jansenism, with Doctors who began in the schools, in place of the Books of Sentences, to expound and illustrate the Summa of St. Thomas. "Then monuments of science are erected, incomparable in solidity, amplitude, and beauty" ¹.

Some Doctors elucidate more strictly the text of St. Thomas; Cajetan (1534) did this in his very well-known commentary, and Francis Toletus (1596), S.J. Others, after giving a brief explanation of St. Thomas, append ample disputations to the individual articles of St. Thomas; this is the method of Suarez (1617) and Vasquez (1604). In these works dogmatic matters are proposed and discussed together with moral matters. Suarez uses the scholastic method more strictly in his renowned disputations, since, before his own solution, he accurately proposes and weighs the contrary reasons. Besides those supreme men, Louis Molina, S.J. (1600), Gregory of Valencia, S.J. (1603), Bannez, O.Pr. (1604), and Lezana, O.Carm. (1659), must also be cited.

To the works which strictly or broadly expound a part of St. Thomas's Summa there are also added outstanding treatises independent of the praised Summa, and this in a twofold way. Some, being destined for special parts of moral theology, more easily preserve the scholastic method. Thus L. Molina, On Justice and Law; Lessius, S.J. (1623), On the Four Cardinal Virtues; D. Soto, O.Pr. (1560), On Justice and Law; Suarez, S.J., On Laws (a classic work), On the Threefold Theological Virtue, On the Virtue of Religion, Five Treatises on the Prima Secundae; Thomas Sanchez, S.J. (1610), On the Sacrament of Matrimony, On the Precepts of the Decalogue (which work remained incomplete); Bonacina (bishop, 1631), On Laws; Coninck, S.J. (1633), On the Sacraments and Censures, On the Virtues; and John de Lugo, S.J. (1660), On Divine Faith, On Justice and Law, On the Sacraments. He, by Cardinal d'Annibale, confirming a similar judgment of St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. III, 552), although sometimes more subtle, is presented as "the greatest of all Moralists before, excepting the one Angelic Doctor, and after." Others treat the whole of moral theology solidly indeed, but less scholastically: Azor, S.J. (1603); Castropalao, S.J. (1633); P. Laymann, S.J. (1635); Candidus, O.Pr. (1654); Sayrus, O.S.B. (1602); Bonacina, who wrote a most complete treatise on censures.

Works of smaller bulk are also composed, whose writers, being more intent on immediately practical utility, are called casuists. Among them stand out Martin Azpilcueta (the Navarrese Doctor, 1586), who wrote the Manual for Confessors; add Cajetan, O.Pr. (1534), whose work is the Summula of Cases; E. Sa, S.J. (1596), whose work is the Aphorisms of Confessors; Toletus, S.J. (1596), whose work is the Summa of Cases of Conscience. Especially the Medulla of Moral Theology of Father Busembaum, S.J. (1668), must be alleged; it had innumerable editions, and to it St. Alphonsus himself joined his Moral Theology, almost as the Scholastics joined their works to the Master of the Sentences or to St. Thomas.

At the same time Lychetus (1520), from the school of Scotus, illustrated that Doctor with learned notes.

The golden age did not lack mystical or ascetical writers. We shall cite Louis of Blois (1556); Louis of Granada (1588); St. Teresa (1589); St. John of the Cross (1591); L. Scupoli, O.Theat. (1610); Alphonsus Rodriguez, S.J. (1616); Bellarmine (1621); St. Francis de Sales (1622).

The same Bellarmine becomes in that age the prince of polemical theology by his classic work of the Controversies.

The division which previously, in the question of the helps of grace, separated the Society of Jesus from the illustrious Order of St. Dominic, passed into the practical order in the question of probabilism, after most of the Friars Preachers, with Billuart, adhered to the doctrines of probabiliorism. And thus there exists a school which uses stricter principles, opposed to another more benign school. On the stricter side stand, together with the Friars Preachers, the Carmelites; while the Order of St. Francis, with the Society of Jesus, defends the more benign views.

But certain abuses, by which the genuine doctrine of probabilism was adulterated, together with the Jansenist heresy and Thomistic philosophy abandoned for Cartesian philosophy, paved the way to the morbid age, or the age of languor.

¹ Bouquillon, Theol. fundament., n. 117.

Nor through that age, which we have called morbid, were distinguished theologians lacking. Tamburini, S.J. (1675), can be cited, both in his more extended work and in his practice of ready confession and communion; Gobat, S.J. (1679); Viva, S.J. (1726); Voit, S.J. (1780); Lacroix, S.J. (1714); Reuter, S.J. (1762); the Carmelite Salmanticenses, whose course, consisting of six volumes, begun in the year 1665, was not completed until about the year 1725; Bordonius, Tert. O.S.Fr. (1671); Sporer, O.M. (1683); Elbel, O.M. (1756); Struggl, O.Serv. B.M.V. (1760); Caramuel, O.Cist. (1682); Roncaglia, O.M.Dei (1737); Amort (1775); D. Concina, O.Pr. (1756); Passerinus, O.Pr. (1677); Collet (1770).

On pastoral theology many works were written, for example, by M. Wigandt, O.B. (1708), and J. Reuter, S.J. (1769).

Liturgy had excellent expositors, such as Merati, O.Theat. (1744), and Cavalieri, O.S.Aug. (1757); or editors of texts, such as Mabillon, O.S.B. (1707), Martene, O.S.B. (1739) ¹, and both brothers Assemani (1768 and 1780), of whom the younger edited the liturgical Code of the universal Church.

Nevertheless, the scholastic method having been abandoned for Cartesian reasoning, and the Jansenist plague raging, great confusion was brought into the theological disciplines. The sufficiency of attrition in the sacrament of penance was disputed, whether absolution was to be given or deferred; but especially the epoch is full of disputations on probabilism: which cause, well defended by not a few, knew friends who by their laxism harmed it. Not a few laxer or "ill-sounding" propositions were reproved. Thence those who followed the stricter side gained strength, although these also were more than once condemned by the Holy See ¹, when divine Providence provided for the Church the great moral Doctor, St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787), who, not without the opposition and envy of many, vindicated its rights and place for the solidly probable opinion. Koch also observes ² that, after the middle of the eighteenth century, in Germany and elsewhere, moral theology was almost confused with natural ethics, so that it had nearly lost the supernatural regard.

Moral theology was contained especially in courses and compendia. Gradually St. Alphonsus obtained the principal place in Catholic schools.

¹ He also excellently explains Liturgy in the work On the Ancient Rites of the Church.

¹ d'Annibale, Summula, I, 11, writes: "It was all over for probabilism... had not St. Alphonsus happened..." Yet this seems excessive.

² Lehrbuch, etc.

Therefore, by the authority of St. Alphonsus it was brought about that excessive severity and excessive benignity were excluded from Catholic schools.

At the same time also the political regime was changed almost everywhere from the foundations.

For then, prepared through the heresies of the sixteenth century, the public apostasy of Christian nations was formally consummated, so that civil society began to rest on another foundation, and that a human one rather than an evangelical one.

This condition of affairs is deplored by some as the beginning of an ever-increasing disturbance, while for others "a great order of the ages is born anew." That is, just as, through various stages, the first of which was marked by the bloody sufferings of the martyrs, the religion of Christ raised human society from paganism to Christianity, so now divine Providence, in no way unmindful of the promises made to Christ, reserves, through a new series of ages, another and more glorious triumph for the Catholic Church, which it will win over apostasy itself, and by which it will lead society back from neo-paganism, worse than the former paganism was, to a Christianity or Catholicism more perfect than the former one was.

However these things will turn out - for who knows the counsels of God - the ways to a new prosperity of moral science seem to lie open. Jansenism and Gallicanism have been overthrown; Josephinism, with the very princes who used to call ecclesiastical matters back to themselves, has vanished. Catholic theologians, by the diligent prudence of the Holy See procuring this, have gratefully recovered the Angelic Doctor, and have received St. Alphonsus as a safe guide, especially in circumspectly defining practical matters. More accurate editions of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, and the advances of a more refined cultivation of history, bring no slight aids to theologians. And in not a few questions themselves which today must be weighed, an opportunity is offered to minds for exercising their keenness. Therefore nothing seems to be lacking which is necessary or useful for the new vigor of moral theology.

Yet it must be confessed that, in the nineteenth century, after some breath had been taken from political disturbances, almost nothing was published except Manuals and Compendia; among these, to speak only of the dead, Gury-Ballerini, S.J., Bishop Simar, Cardinal d'Annibale, Aertnys, C.SS.R., Cl. Marc, C.SS.R., Lehmkuhl, S.J., and Genicot, S.J., rightly excel. Indeed certain works, for example the very celebrated compendium of Gury, by the very catechetical form of questions and answers seemed to profess a less adult age of science. For we prefer to ascribe the smallness of most works to a new beginning of life rather than, as d'Annibale thinks ¹, to powers failing from old age. Moreover, more notable special treatises appeared, such as those on the cardinal virtues written by the illustrious Bishop of Bruges, Waffelaert, and those on justice and contracts by Carriere in France and by Crolly in Ireland. Indeed, both by abundance of matters and by force of speaking and arguing, the Moral Theological Work of Ballerini approached the classic works of the golden age; after the death of the illustrious professor, the very learned Palmieri, S.J., edited and completed it.

And as signs of new vigor we joyfully regard as auspicious the lesser esteem in which merely casuistic treatises are now held, especially those which consist almost solely in the negative parts of moral theology, or in weighing sins and vices; and the fervor with which ascetical studies have begun to be cultivated.

Besides, by the Constitution Providentissima Mater, on 27 May 1917, the Code of Canon Law was promulgated. It not only embraces the disciplinary laws of the Church with wonderful brevity and arrangement, but also supplies to moral theology, concerning justice, the sacraments, and censures, many certain and entirely secure rules, since they emanate from the supreme legislative power of the Church, which in ordering matters of faith and morals is infallible.

¹ Summula, I, 7.

Present-Day Requirements. Moreover, it seems necessary that present-day writers of moral theology satisfy these desires: 1) that they strive to perfect the rational investigation of questions which do not surpass the powers of reason, so that the intrinsic reason of conclusions may become more manifest; 2) that the positive part of Christian justice, which consists in pursuing honorable and better parts, may obtain greater honor in moral treatises, and that the sublime perfection of the Gospel may be preached more openly and boldly; 3) that present-day difficulties and obscurities of cases, psychological, political, and social, which arise daily, may be examined with a more confident mind and more generous labor by men to whom present-day facts and juridical regimes are not unknown, and may be dispelled as far as possible. Thus it will happen that practical norms are truly brought down to the use of our contemporaries, and assertions are not now merely repeated from the most illustrious Doctors, which they, for their own age, discovered and proposed with admirable genius and erudition. Thus present-day moralists will be able to be called imitators rather than copyists of their illustrious predecessors; thus also by their own lucubrations they will confirm the hope of a new golden age.

I. On moral controversies. To know the controversies themselves is of no little profit to him who wishes to penetrate doctrinal history more deeply. For although their occasion not rarely is error in faith or morals, so that they end in apostasies or in the cutting off of rotten members, and although their excessive fervor is wont to injure charity, nevertheless at the same time they prepare more accurate concepts and a more conscious possession of truth. Thus, in our matter, how much the controversies concerning the Most Holy Eucharist and concerning the cult of the Sacred Heart have profited devotion itself. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in which there was so great a struggle against the usurpations of laymen in the conferral of benefices, those usurpations spread simony; thence the question was moved concerning the value of ordinations obtained simoniacally; thence the theology of the sacraments was perfected.

To indicate certain principal controversies: in the first age, the value of baptism conferred by heretics, the reconciliation of those who had fallen away from the faith, martyrdom voluntarily undertaken, virginity, and second marriages were controverted; and the rigor of the Montanists had to be opposed.

In the second age of the Fathers, Manichaeism had to be overthrown; and in the Middle Ages itself the sects of the Manichaeans infested Europe and induced the more severe discipline of the Inquisition.

In the ninth century, in the East, there was a struggle concerning the cult of the holy images.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries simony had to be extirpated.

Through the Middle Ages, the ascetical question, already prepared by St. Augustine, and which returned in the mystical controversies of the eighteenth century, was moved, concerning the reconciliation of our love and the love of God ¹.

Already in the thirteenth century and then in the fourteenth, several ascetical questions concerning the religious life and poverty were sharply moved, even among religious.

In the eighteenth century mystical controversies troubled the Church after Molinos (1690). But the question concerning usury, already arisen in the fourth century, has not even today wholly ceased. From the sixteenth century the controversy became frequent both between Catholics and heretics (in which matter Jansenist rigorism rather adhered to non-Catholics), and among Catholics themselves. Benedict XIV, having convoked an assembly of theologians, wished to settle the matter by the Encyclical Letter Vix Pervenit, concerning whose value there was afterwards dispute, until in our days milder responses practically prevailed ¹.

From the seventeenth century there arose the great conflict concerning Probabilism, which some, a few years having elapsed, tried with little appropriateness to renew in Holland and Switzerland.

Besides that question, the so-called Americanism, about which Leo XIII wrote letters to Cardinal Gibbons; the spiritual method; the liturgical informing of piety; and the renewal of a certain suspect mysticism occupy minds not a little.

At the same time, sexual and conjugal questions demand most diligent studies from moral theologians. Add doubts concerning cooperation with "modern" liberties.

¹ On this matter it is useful to read Rousselot, S.J., Le probleme de l'amour au moyen-age, in Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, t. VI (Baumker and von Hertling).

¹ Cf. our Questions on Justice, n. 358-362.

II. Various conclusions or corollaries.

1. Shall we say that in the history of moral theology there have been various successions of ages which are distinguished in the life of a human person, so that childhood was followed by adolescence; to this succeeded the age of maturity or manhood, which would end in cold old age? Rather, in the individual epochs of the Fathers and of the Scholastics, there was a beginning, a noonday splendor, and then an evening twilight. But through the night itself a new day was being prepared, so that rather, after its beginnings, the age of moral theology - why should we not say the same of every science? - was one of perpetual and progressing adolescence, though not by a continuous motion. Not without merit did St. Paul join the perfect man with the age of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph. 4, 13).

2. The completed science of moral theology requires the use of the sources of revelation; the aid of the principles of philosophy; the concrete examination of causes to which the principles must be applied. The age of the Fathers taught the use of revelation: it built a supernatural moral science; the age of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages contributed the aid of philosophy; the age of the Scholastics after the Middle Ages added a better examination of facts. Psychological investigation will be the work of the present age.

Moral theology needs both matters and an ordered disposition of matters. Prosperous periods contributed the matters; through more cloudy times the systematic disposition was prepared.

Therefore, if we wish to define by some principal quality the individual ages which we have distinguished, they seem able to be exhibited in order thus: the Apostolic age was paraenetic or hortatory; the following age of two centuries, both hortatory and apologetic; the golden age of the Fathers, theologically (with attention to the sources) doctrinal and censorial; the age of the Fathers less properly so called, collecting and ordering; the age of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, philosophical or ratiocinative; the age of the Scholastics after the Middle Ages, because of the fullness of exposition, can be called moral by antonomasia; to this succeeded the contentious age; while the age after St. Alphonsus is more conciliatory and practical. With the accession now of psychological analysis, moral theology will receive a new complement.

3. In moral theology arguments from authority must be joined with arguments from reason. If you rely on authority alone, the force of authority is easily extended beyond what is right, and progress is impeded. Thus, in an age when men thought only of preserving doctrine, the Fathers were considered inspired, whence violent interpretations came about. If you neglect the revealed sources, either dialectical subtleties enervate the rules, or there is now proposed only a human and natural honesty, in place of the evangelical sublimity which was before the eyes of the first Christians.

False philosophy harms science more than the necessity of attacking heresies. This latter sharpens minds and polishes norms; the former destroys science while by error it perverts even the minds of good men.

4. In every age a certain rigorism had to be overthrown, which by its very severity turns men away from religion.

1. Notion of Theology. - Theology is a science deduced from the principles of revelation concerning God and other things in order to God. For, led by the light of supernatural revelation, it treats scientifically of the deity itself, that is, of God as God. Now God, under the aspect of deity, is a supernatural being, inasmuch as He is elevated absolutely above every created nature and natural knowledge, and knowable by revelation alone, and is the supernatural principle or cause and end of things, especially of man.

Theology embraces a twofold part: first, one is merely speculative, "concerning God in Himself and as He is the principle and end of things," which treats of God in Himself, one and triune, and of His works ad extra, especially of man, whom God has destined to a supernatural end: the intuitive vision of Himself, to which man can come through divine grace, which Christ bestows upon us. From this, secondly, there spontaneously arises the other, practical part: for if God is our principle and end, duties follow in us toward Him; namely, we must acknowledge Him as our author and tend toward Him as our ultimate end. This part immediately treats of human acts by which we tend toward God, and also, but consequently, of their rules and principles. Hence it is inscribed by St. Thomas: "concerning the motion of the rational creature toward God."

Thus in I, q. 2, in the proemium. - It is a treatise on man as the image of God "insofar as by image is signified what is intellectual, and free by choice, and possessing power over itself" (Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa II, 12), that is, "insofar as he himself is the principle of his acts, as having free choice and power over his works." St. Thomas, I-II, in the prologue.

In brief: theology is the science of supernatural religion. Religion is the moral bond between God and man. Hence theology treats not only of God, the author and end of supernatural things, and of man destined to a supernatural end, but also of the bonds and duties by which man is bound to God, and of the moral relations also which intervene between the two.

2. Difference between Speculative and Practical Theology.

Speculative and practical theology differ:

1. In end: speculative theology directly and solely tends to the knowledge of truth, which it seeks for its own sake, that is, for the perfection of the intellect, and in which it rests; practical theology tends further to right operation and seeks truth for the sake of something else, that is, for the perfection of the will. Namely, it seeks those truths which are necessary for acting well; indeed, because it is a rule of acting, it directly and principally intends to direct human acts and morals. Hence it speculates concerning practice.

2. In matter: speculative theology treats of those things which are merely to be known or also believed, which are called matters of faith or dogmas, and therefore it is called dogmatic; practical theology treats of things to be known and at the same time to be done, which are called matters of morals, whence it is called moral.

3. Definition of Moral Theology. - Moral theology is defined: the part of theological science which treats of human acts to be ordered to God as supernatural end according to revealed principles. It is said:

1. Of science: for it is an evident and certain knowledge of truths which are deduced from certain principles and are coordinated among themselves into a synthesis by a logical connection and order; and thus it is distinguished from common and catechetical knowledge, which all the faithful in some way have concerning human acts and their duties.

2. Theological, that is, deduced from the principles of revelation; and thus it is distinguished from human and merely rational sciences, which proceed from the light of natural reason alone.

3. Part, because it is not a distinct species but only an integral and constitutive part of theological science. For theology does not embrace several sciences as philosophy does, but is an entirely one science, because it has one subject: God, and one formal reason (formal object by which): revelation. Hence moral theology is one and the same science with dogmatic theology, although they are different parts.

4. Which treats of human acts: this is the special matter of which moral theology treats and about which it is immediately occupied, namely, all human acts; and therefore it regards all things which pertain to them, and thus it is distinguished from dogmatic theology.

5. To be ordered to God as supernatural ultimate end: moral theology considers all things in order to God, the supernatural ultimate end, or to God as God. For theology has one principal subject, God, of whom dogmatic theology treats; and all other things, even human acts to be ordered, it considers in order and conformably to God, who is their supernatural principle, exemplar, and end. Hence moral theology is not a merely descriptive science, but a normative one, which judges human acts and directs them to the ultimate end; and yet it differs in species from natural ethics, which directs them to the natural end.

6. According to revealed principles: this is the formal reason, or the proximate motive and immediate medium by which the subject, which is the supernatural end, and the acts necessary for it are known. For revealed principles, admitted by the divine light of faith, are the medium for arriving at theological conclusions and for understanding them.

The conclusions themselves are properly the object of theological science, and they are concerning God and concerning things in order to God, especially, for the moral part, concerning human acts; although these are also customarily called by moderns the object: namely, God the primary object, other things the secondary object. But they understand the object about which theology treats, not the object which it asserts: the latter is theological conclusions.

4. Relation between Moral Theology and Other Disciplines.

From the preceding definition it is understood:

1. From Moral Philosophy: the latter considers human acts in order to the natural end and relies on the principles of reason alone; the former, however, considers human operations as they are ordered to the supernatural end, and its proper medium of knowledge is divine revelation; whence they differ in matter and end, and at the same time in the formal motive.

Nevertheless, a) the supernatural end does not exclude but rather contains the natural end, as the perfect contains the less perfect; likewise b) revelation does not destroy reason but rather perfects it; finally c) revelation also teaches and expressly confirms many rational moral truths, and has others connected with itself. And therefore moral theology agrees in many things with moral philosophy and includes the matter of the latter. But it exceeds it, because it extends more widely even to revealed things, namely, to supernatural actions, virtues, and laws, and because it directs us by a higher light.

2. A fortiori, from the Science of Civil Law, Politics, Sociology, Economics, etc., which have a proximate end that is temporal, or also particular, not the ultimate end itself.

3. From Dogmatic Theology, as has already been said, n. 2.

4. From Ascetical and Mystical Theology: moral theology in the stricter sense treats more of acts necessary to the end insofar as they are under precept (according to the purgative way from sin); ascetical and mystical theology treat of acts insofar as they are of perfection and counsel, that the end may be attained better and more fully. For they teach the ways of perfection, either for progressing in virtue and acquiring perfection (according to the illuminative way), or for exercising perfection and contemplative union with God (according to the unitive and mystical way).

Yet if moral theology is considered in its full and complete sense, it includes ascetical and mystical theology, which rest upon the same principles. But, just as dogmatic and moral theology are now usually treated separately, although they are two parts of one and the same theological science, so nothing prevents those things which are more of precept and those things which are of perfection and counsel from being specially and distinctly explained, as is usually done, yet as integral parts of one practical science ordered to the supernatural ultimate end.

5. From the Science of Canon Law and of Liturgy, which study the scientific knowledge of laws, that is, of their origin, interpretation, and mutual relation to one another and to their proper end. For they are immediately concerned with the laws by which the external order of the Church or public worship is determined, and consequently certain acts of the faithful are directed, but proximately to the order and governance of Christian society, not to the ultimate end. Hence they directly regard the social order and the external forum; moral theology, however, is immediately concerned with acts, and only consequently with laws, even ecclesiastical laws, but it takes these laws in relation to the ultimate end and treats of their value in the forum of conscience. And considered in this way, positive laws already pertain to moral science, of which they are an integral part.

6. From Pastoral Theology: this properly is not a science, but a practical method and art by which the pastor of souls, according to the principles of moral and ascetical theology, leads the souls entrusted to him to salvation and perfection.

B. That it excels the other practical sciences 1) in end and necessity, for unlike them it does not tend toward a further end but is concerned with the ultimate end itself; 2) in extension, for it touches all operations in order to the ultimate end; 3) in certitude, for it rests upon the divine light itself. Hence it is the supreme practical science, and therefore is a) the norm of the others, by which they are to be regulated, insofar as, with respect to their proper end and with respect to the choice and use of means, they must be honorable, conformable to the ultimate end; likewise b) their mistress, because the others serve it insofar as it uses them as aids, disposing of them for its own end.

D. That, unlike Ethics, which hypothetically supposes and feigns man such as he could have been but never was nor will be, namely, in the natural state, Moral Theology considers man such as he truly is. And therefore it alone is absolutely the practical science of morals.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis I, n. 1.

E. That it is inferior to Dogmatic Theology: 1) for it treats of human acts, which are a certain secondary matter, whereas dogmatic theology treats of God, who is the chief and proper subject of theology; whence 2) dogmatic theology is the foundation of the moral part; indeed 3) the end, since the moral part is ordered to speculative theology perfected in heaven, where, namely, the motion into God ceases, and there is now perfect rest in God.

5. Division of Moral Theology. - Moral theology is divided into a twofold part:

a) The general part explains the general and common notions and principles upon which one must rest as upon a foundation in solving various moral questions. Hence it treats:

1. Of the last end of man, to which and according to which all human acts must be ordered. For although it is last in execution, nevertheless it is first in intention; knowledge of it must be presupposed as the source, root, and hinge of all the rest, because nothing is willed unless it has been foreknown. Hence it stands as a kind of principle in morals and in operable things, since we are moved from the end to the means, and our acts have their impulse from the end, and thus all things depend upon the end and are ruled by it.

2. Of human or voluntary acts, to be ordered to the end.

3. Of their rules, to which they must be conformed, proximate and remote, namely, conscience and law.

4. Conversely, of acts discordant with conscience and law, or of sins.

5. Of the principles of human acts, or good and evil habits, virtues and vices. - Concerning all these it treats not in particular but in general.

b) The special part treats specifically of individual good and evil acts, of individual species of conscience, of individual virtues and vices, and of individual precepts pertaining to all these.

6. Method.

In moral theology a threefold method is used: a) positive, when proofs are drawn more from the documents of revelation and canons are enunciated; b) scholastic, when principles are more illustrated by reason, conclusions are established, and all things are proposed systematically and in order; c) casuistic, when principles are especially applied to practical cases. But it is preferable to use the threefold method together, so that we do not neglect the documents of revelation, especially insist upon founded reasons and systematic proposition, and, for the sake of clarity, also apply principles to certain cases.

Preliminary Note

Although this catalogue neither is able nor wishes to bring forward all the authors who have written on moral theology, nevertheless it will be of no moderate utility for the readers of our Manual. For very many authors and their works will be cited in order to support the opinions proposed. Now although some proposed opinion does not yet become certainly probable or safe in practice from this reason alone, that five or six authors defend it, nevertheless from this there is generated a strong presumption that such an opinion rests also upon grave intrinsic reasons. Therefore the authority of doctors in moral theology is by no means to be despised. But the authority of all is not the same; for there are some who indulge excessive laxity, others excessive severity.

The purpose of the present catalogue is threefold: 1. a supplement is furnished to those things which below, in the Introduction, chapter 4, will be said concerning the history of moral theology; for there, because brevity requires it, individual authors and individual works cannot be accurately reviewed; 2. a sober judgment is offered to the reader concerning the value of each cited author; 3. the complete titles of works are brought forward, which in the course of our Manual could be cited only in abbreviated fashion.

A

Abelly, Lud. (1604-1691), bishop of Rodez, wrote several works, especially ascetical. He was familiar with St. Vincent de Paul, whose life he also wrote. He is called by St. Alphonsus "a grave author and a classic probabilist." His moral work, Medulla theologica, has been very often edited, also at Regensburg, 1839, 3 volumes in 8vo.

Aegidius de Praesentatione (Fonseca), Portuguese, O.S.A. (1539-1626), wrote very extensive commentaries on the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas, I-II, questions 1-5. Then he wrote two volumes on the voluntary and the involuntary.

Aertnys, Ios., C.Ss.R., Dutch (d. 1918), published several little works and works on moral and pastoral theology, for example De occasionariis et recidivis, De usu matrimonii. His work Theologia moralis iuxta doctrinam S. Alphonsi de Lig., eminent for clarity and brevity, has often been edited after the author's death by C. A. Damen, C.Ss.R., and is highly recommended for the use of schools. Similarly his work Theologia pastoralis has already been edited often.

Alberti, Ios., Italian, Auditor of the Sacred Roman Rota, published several treatises on moral and pastoral theology, which join clarity and brevity in friendly fashion, for example Compendium theologiae moralis, Theologia pastoralis, and so forth.

Blessed Albert the Great (d. 1280), German, O.P., bishop of Regensburg, wrote on almost every knowable thing. What he taught in moral theology in his individual works is shown very well by Herm. Lauer, Die Moraltheologie Alberts des Grossen, 8vo, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911.

Alexander Natalis (1639-1724), French, O.P., a man of sharp intellect, very vast learning, indefatigable labor, and distinguished piety, wrote a very celebrated ecclesiastical history. Another of his principal works is Theologia dogmatica et moralis secundum ordinem Catechismi Tridentini, in which he strenuously attacks Probabilism. He wrote several other works, which are indicated by Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 811 sqq.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, bishop of St. Agatha of the Goths, founder of the renowned Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, was a most fecund writer. Among his writings the moral works stand out: Theologia moralis, Homo apostolicus, Examen ordinandorum. The critical edition of the work Theologia moralis was prepared in 4 volumes in 4to, Rome 1905-1912, by Leon. Gaude, C.Ss.R. The greatest authority of St. Alphonsus in moral theology is proclaimed not only by all theologians, but also by the Sacred Penitentiary.

Alvarez, Didacus, O.P., Spanish, archbishop of Trani in Apulia (d. 1635), a most illustrious theologian, was summoned to the so-called "Congregation de auxiliis." Besides other works he wrote: De auxiliis divinae gratiae, Disputationes theologicae in primam secundae S. Thomae. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 482.

Amicus, Franc., S.J., Italian (1578-1651), published a work entitled Cursus theologicus, scholasticus et moralis, 9 folio volumes, Antwerp, 1650. He proposed some opinions which were afterward condemned by Alexander VII and Innocent XI. Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator litt. III, 933.

Amort, Eusebius, Canon Regular of the Lateran, German (1692-1775), already before St. Alphonsus taught the system of Aequiprobabilism. He published several moral works; his work Theologia eclectica moralis et scholastica, under the auspices of Benedict XIV, was published at Augsburg in the year 1752, 4 volumes in folio.

Anacletus, see Reiffenstuel.

Angelus de Clavasio, see Carleti.

D'Annibale, Ios., Italian, Cardinal, bishop of Carystus (1815-1892), wrote, besides an excellent Commentary, called the Reatine Commentary, on the bull Apostolicae Sedis, a work entitled Summula theologiae moralis, which is eminent for subtlety and solidity of doctrine, 5th edition, Rome 1908, 3 volumes.

Antoine, Paul Gabr., S.J., French (1679-1743), wrote the works Theologia universa speculativa et dogmatica, Pont-a-Mousson 1723 and often afterward, and Theologia moralis universa. This last work, edited very often with additions, was prescribed by Benedict XIV as a manual for the students of the College de Propaganda Fide. According to St. Alphonsus, Homo apostolicus, tract 16, 108, Antoine is an author of a very rigid opinion.

Antonelli, Ios., Italian, wrote Medicina pastoralis, 3 volumes, Rome 1912, several times edited. It is a useful work in moral questions which touch human physiology.

St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459), archbishop of Florence, wrote among other things: 1. Summa theologica, which was published complete twenty times and according to a part six times. The better, though not more accurate, edition of this work is that which Petrus Ballerini prepared in the year 1740, 4 folio volumes, Verona. 2. Summula confessionis, called the Summa Defecerunt, often edited and translated, 1 volume in 4to, Venice 1538. Among the moralist authors of his time St. Antoninus seems to hold the first place, and it is not established that he favored Probabilism.

Antonius a Spiritu Sancto, Discalced Carmelite, Spanish (d. 1677), bishop of Angola, wrote: 1. Directorium confessariorum, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1668-1671. 2. Consulta varia theologica, iuridica et regularia, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1675. 3. Directorium spirituale, in which he treats of the law of religious, 1 folio volume, Lyons 1661. 4. Directorium mysticum, which is also entitled Cursus theologiae mystico-scholasticae, 2 folio volumes, Seville 1724. A new, rather faulty edition of this work appeared in 2 volumes in 8vo, Paris 1904. Antonius a Spiritu Sancto is sometimes an excessively benign author in moral matters.

Arauxo, Franciscus de, O.P., Spanish, bishop of Segovia, counselor of Philip IV (1580-1664), wrote commentaries on almost all parts of the Theological Summa; nevertheless they are to be read with some caution, since they have been interpolated by another hand. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 610 sq.

Arregui, Ant., S.J., Spanish, wrote in a very clear and concise style Summarium Theol. mor. ad recentem codicem iur. can. accommodatum, Bilbao 1918, a very widely circulated and commendable work, and already often edited.

Arriaga, Rodericus de, S.J., Spanish (1592-1667), wrote Disputationes theol. in Summam S. Thomae, 8 folio volumes, Antwerp 1664 and Lyons 1647-1669. The treatise on law and justice is lacking in his works. For his other works see Hurter, Nomenclator IV, 11 sqq., who says of him: "Arriaga excels in his works by subtlety of intellect, at times perhaps excessive, by sagacity, and by profound speculation."

Aversa, Raphael, Theatine, Italian (1589-1657). He was five times superior general of his order, of which he was a great ornament, endowed with clarity of speech and sharpness of intellect; he published Theologia scholastica universa ad mentem S. Thomae, distributed into six parts and nine volumes, which appeared separately in various places and under various titles within the years 1631-1642.

Azor, Ioannes, S.J., Spanish (d. 1603), published Institutiones morales, 3 folio volumes, Rome 1600, a work very often cited by St. Alphonsus and printed again and again.

Azpilcueta, see Navarrus.

B

Bail, Ludovicus, French (1610-1669), Doctor of the Sorbonne, besides other works published La theologie affective ou St. Thomas en meditation, a useful work for meditation, often edited and translated into other languages. Besides this he composed a work entitled De triplici examine ordinandorum, confessariorum et poenitentium, praemissis monitis de vocatione, 1 volume in 8vo, Paris 1651.

Ballerini, Anton., S.J., Italian (1805-1881), besides several moral little works, wrote learned notes to the compendium of Gury. These notes indeed show singular sagacity of judgment and most wholesomely promoted the solid study of moral theology, but they are sometimes too sharp and rather subtle than true. Therefore they were attacked by a work entitled Vindiciae Alphonsianae, Rome 1873, Brussels 1874, enlarged edition. But Ballerini tries to refute these attacks in the subsequent editions of the Guryan compendium. His posthumous Opus theologicum morale, edited and enlarged by Dom. Palmieri, S.J., surpasses all modern moral works in size and is distinguished by vast learning.

Ballerini, Petrus, Italian (1698-1769), almost always had in his works his own brother Hieronymus (1702-1781) as companion, wherefore these authors are commonly cited as "the Ballerini brothers." They are very fecund authors and excellently meritorious concerning patrology, canon law, moral theology, and apologetics. They republished, and that excellently, several works of the ancient Fathers and theologians, for example the works of St. Leo the Great, St. Zeno bishop of Verona, St. Antoninus, the Summa of St. Raymond of Pennafort, and so forth. They fought strenuously against Probabilism in diverse published little works; by St. Alphonsus they are called "moderate followers of the rigid opinion." Cf. concerning their other works Hurter, Nomenclator V, 106 sqq.

Bancel, Ludov., O.P., French (1628-1685), endowed with great learning, wrote a work entitled Theologia moralis D. Thomae ex omnibus ipsius operibus exacte deprompta, 2 volumes in 4to, Avignon 1677. He proceeds alphabetically, as the ancient Summists did. He also wrote Cursus universae theologiae scholasticae, divided into 7 volumes in 12mo, Avignon 1682 to 1692. Bancel favors Probabilism.

Bannez, Dominicus, O.P., Spanish (1528-1604), wrote commentaria in Sum. theol. S. Thomae, on Part I down to question 64; on Part IIa down to question 78, 3 folio volumes, Salamanca 1584-1594. He favors Probabilism.

Baptista, Ioan. Ildephonsus, O.P., Spanish (d. 1648), by mandate of the General Chapter celebrated at Rome in 1644, published commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas down to question 48, Lyons 1648. Because he favors Probabilism too much, he was strongly attacked by several theologians. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 558.

Baronius, Vincentius, O.P., French (1604-1674), vehemently attacked Tamburini, Caramuel, and other excessively lax authors; but some of his works, among which is also his Theologiae moralis summa bipartita, were proscribed by the Holy Office on 15 June 1672 and are still listed in the Index of Prohibited Books.

Bartholomaeus a S. Fausto, O.Cist., Sicilian (1571-1636), of whom there exist: 1. Theologia moralis, 3 folio volumes. 2. Speculum confessariorum et poenitentium, in 4to, Lyons 1621. 3. De Eucharistiae sacramento, Naples 1635. 4. De horis canonicis, Naples 1634.

Bartholomaeus de Pisa, or de Sancto Concordio, O.P., Italian (d. 1347), wrote a very well-known summa of cases, which is called Pisanella, Bartholomaea, Magistruccia, and which imitates the Summa confessorum of Ioannes Friburgensis, O.P.

Bassaeus, Eligius, O.Cap., Belgian (1585-1670), wrote Flores totius theologiae practicae, 2 folio volumes, Venice 1666. He is not rarely cited by St. Alphonsus.

Bauny, Stephanus, S.J., French (1564-1649), an excessively benign author, wrote several moral works in either the French or the Latin language, some of which were placed on the Index and which are attacked more than is just by Pascal.

Becanus, Martinus, S.J., Belgian (1561-1624), whose works excel in clarity and brevity. The author published about 50 little works, chiefly for defending the Catholic faith and the Church. For moral theology, the Tractatus de iure et iustitia and the Tractatus de sacramentis are useful.

Beccaria, Antonius, O.P., bishop of Scutari in Dalmatia (d. 1543), besides several other works wrote Commentaria in secundam partem Summae theologicae; likewise Declarationes quorundam casuum conscientiae. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 120.

St. Bellarmine, Robertus, S.J., Italian, archbishop of Capua and Cardinal (1542-1621). His works are chiefly polemical and most excellently attack the errors of the Protestants. Moreover he published distinguished little works on asceticism. For moral theology his Tractatus de sacramentis in genere et in specie are useful.

Benedict XIV, formerly Prosper Cardinal de Lambertini (1675-1758), published several works outstanding for solidity of doctrine, especially in canon law. In his truly golden work De synodo dioecesana he also touches several questions pertaining to moral theology, and likewise in the work De sacrificio Missae.

Benger, Michael, C.Ss.R., German (1823-1870), wrote a work entitled Pastoraltheologie, Regensburg 1858-1863, 3 volumes, a useful, practical, copious work, though the manner of discussion is perhaps less pleasant and polished. Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator V, 1804.

Berardi, Aemilius, Italian, published several works on moral theology, among which his Praxis confessariorum seu moralis theologia theoretico-practica, 4 or 5 volumes, often edited at Faenza, stands out. Besides this he published little works De sollicitatione et absolutione complicis, De recidivis et occasionariis, Theologia pastoralis, and so forth. The author sometimes seems to proceed in a manner too casuistic and perhaps also too benign.

Beringer, Franc., S.J., German (d. 1909), wrote a most useful work, approved by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and afterward by the Holy Office, entitled Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch; the 15th edition, Paderborn 1921, was prepared by Pet. Steinen, S.J.

Besombes, Iac., French, of the Congregation of Christian Doctrine, wrote Moralis christiana ex Scriptura Sacra, Traditione, Conciliis, Patribus et insignioribus theologis excerpta. The better edition appeared at Venice, 1764, 2 volumes in 4to. Besombes is a rigid author, and his work seems to have exercised some influence upon St. Alphonsus, who nevertheless never seems to cite it.

Billot, Ludovicus, S.J., wrote subtle dissertations on almost all theology. For moral theology, his three treatises are most worthy of mention, namely De sacramentis, De natura et ratione peccati personalis sive Introductio ad tractatum de poenitentia, and De virtutibus infusis.

Billuart, Carolus Renatus, O.P., Belgian (1685-1757), perhaps the chief man of his age in universal theology. In moral theology, according to Gury, he is a moderate Probabiliorist, to be counted among the most approved theologians for clarity, doctrine, solidity, and learning; he wrote Summa S. Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata. This work has often been edited down to our own days.

Bishop, Ioel, wrote New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, Chicago 1891, and Commentaries on the Law of Contracts, 2nd edition by Marion C. Early, Chicago 1907, works useful for North American law.

Blanchis, Paulus, O.P., Italian (d. 1622), collected cases of conscience in a work entitled Disceptationes de difficilioribus materiis casuum et dubiorum occurrentium in conscientia: de poenitentia, de negotiatione, de bello publico et privato, 1 folio volume, Venice 1622 and again there 1630.

Bonacina, Martinus, Italian, bishop of Utica (d. 1631), wrote several works on moral theology which appeared very often. His treatise De horis canonicis is worthy of special mention.

St. Bonaventure, O.Min., Italian, Seraphic Doctor, Cardinal and bishop of Albano (1221-1274), wrote excellently on moral matters in his Commentaries on the Sentences and in many little works.

Bordonus, Franc., Italian, prefect general of the Tertiaries of the Order of St. Francis (d. 1671), wrote several works on moral theology and on the law of religious; his Opera omnia iuridico-regularia et moralia appeared in 7 folio volumes, Lyons 1665. He was a most keen defender of Probabilism.

Bosco, Ioannes, O.Min., Belgian (1613-1684), holds an eminent place among Scotists; he wrote Theologia sacramentalis ... ad mentem Doctoris subtilis Ioannis Duns Scoti, 5 folio volumes, Louvain 1665-1678. A sixth posthumous volume was published at Antwerp, 1685.

Bossius, Ioann. Angelus, Barnabite, superior general, Italian (1590-1665), treated most fully De matrimonii contractu, 5 or 6 folio volumes. He also wrote a work entitled Moralia varia, whose third part, namely on scrupulous conscience, separately edited, was placed on the Index on 4 December 1674, "until it is corrected."

Bouquillon, Thom. Ios., Belgian (1840-1902), professor of moral theology at Bruges, Lille, and finally in the University of Washington, wrote excellently De theologia morali fundamentali, 2nd edition, Bruges 1890. Likewise he wrote De virtutibus theologicis, 2nd edition, 1900, and De virtute religionis, 1880.

Brancatius, Laurentius de Lauria, Lauria being a town of Lucania, O.Min.Conv., Italian, Cardinal (1612-1693), wrote Commentaria in III et IV libr. Sententiarum Ioannis Duns Scoti, 8 folio volumes, Rome 1653 to 1682. He was a man distinguished both for knowledge and for piety. Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator IV, 351.

Brocardus a S. Nicolao, Carmelite, German, of the seventeenth century, besides other things wrote several very commendable works on moral theology, for example Theologia mor. fundamentalis, De conscientia, Alphabetum morale, and so forth. Certain of his treatises were reprinted by Migne, Curs. theol. XI, 655 sqq.

Bucceroni, Ianuar., S.J., Italian (1841-1918), professor in the Roman Gregorian University, published several works on moral theology, for example Institutiones theologiae moralis, 6th edition, 4 volumes, 1913 sqq.; commentaries on reserved cases, on censures, on the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, on the constitution Sacramentum poenitentiae, on absolution to be given, deferred, or denied. As to intellect and manner of writing he is sufficiently similar to Antonius Ballerini, S.J.

Busembaum, Herman., S.J., German (1600-1668), wrote the very celebrated work whose title is Medulla theologiae moralis, and which obtained both innumerable editions and illustrious commentators, among whom are Lacroix, St. Alphonsus, and Ant. Ballerini.

C

Cabassutius, Ioan., of the Congregation of the Oratory, French (1604-1685), a man of the greatest learning and piety. He was highly regarded by St. Alphonsus in moral theology; he wrote the work entitled Theoria et praxis iuris canonici ad forum tam sacramentale quam contentiosum, often edited.

Cabrera, Petrus de, Order of St. Jerome, Spanish (fl. 1602), wrote commentaries and disputations on diverse parts of the Theological Summa of St. Thomas, especially on the sacraments in general.

Cagnazzo, Ioan., O.P., see Tabiena.

Caietanus, see de Vio.

Camargo, Ign., S.J., Spanish (1650-1722), most sharply attacked Probabilism in the work entitled Regula honestatis moralis, Naples 1702, 1 folio volume.

Candidus, Vinc., O.P., Italian, Master of the Sacred Palace (1573-1654), wrote Illustriores disquisitiones morales, 4 folio volumes, 1637-1643. According to Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 580, Candidus sometimes supports the laxer opinions.

Canus, Melchior, O.P., Spanish, bishop of the Canary Islands (1509-1560), besides the very well-known work De locis theologicis, published Relectiones de sacramentis in genere et de poenitentia. His commentaries on the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas were not printed, but are contained partially in Vatican Library codex 4648. Canus is a very acute author, but he sometimes defends opinions altogether singular or even false.

Cappello, Felix, S.J., Italian, wrote, among other things, Tractatus canonico-morales de sacramentis, 3 volumes, and de censuris. He is an author of great learning and perspicacity.

Capreolus, Ioan., O.P., French (d. 1444), who by reason of honor is called "prince of the Thomists," wrote distinguished commentaries on the books of the Sentences, which in these last years have been neatly edited again.

Caramuel (de Lobkowitz), Ioan., O.Cist. (1606-1682), born at Madrid of a German father and a Bohemian mother, bishop of Campagna and then of Vigevano, a man of truly wonderful intellect, wrote 77 folio volumes. In moral matters he was, not without merit, called by St. Alphonsus "the prince of the laxists." His principal work pertaining to moral theology is Theologia moralis fundamentalis. The different editions differ greatly among themselves. We have used the Roman edition of the year 1656. It is a work written with a flying pen, and in some parts is a rough and undigested mass, lacking every logical order.

Cardenas, Ioan. de, S.J., Spanish (1613-1684), his principal work is Crisis theologica sive disputationes selectae ex morali theologia, in folio, Lyons 1670, and several times edited afterward. This work is called Crisis theologica because it contains a judgment concerning several opinions and questions proposed by Caramuel.

Carleti, Angelus (de Clavasio), O.Min., Italian (d. 1493), wrote the celebrated Summa of cases of conscience, arranged in alphabetical order and often edited, which is commonly called Summa angelica. It was called by Luther a summa more than diabolical and was publicly burned. It rests upon the Summa pisana.

St. Charles Borromeo, Cardinal and archbishop of Milan (1538-1584). Among his works the Instructiones pro confessariis and Instructiones pastorum are very useful.

Carratinus, Thomas, O.P., Italian (fl. 1743), wrote against Concina a book entitled Vita claustralis ... praesertim de voto paupertatis, Verona 1743.

Carriere, Ios., French, of the Congregation of St. Sulpice (1795-1864), wrote lectures de matrimonio, 2 volumes, de iustitia et iure, 3 volumes, de contractibus, 3 volumes, which are sufficiently learned and which he afterward reduced into a compendium for the use of schools.

Castro, Alphons., O.Min., Spanish (d. 1558), wrote several works, among which, for moral theology, the Tractatus de potestate legis poenalis is of some importance. All his works together were published at Paris, 1771-1778.

Castropalaus, Ferd., S.J., Spanish (1581-1633), clearly and learnedly treats universal moral theology in the work entitled Opus morale, 7 folio volumes, Lyons 1631 and often afterward.

Catechismus Romanus, published by command of the Council of Trent and perfected by Leonardus de Marinis, O.P., Aegidius Fuscararius, O.P., Franciscus Forerius, O.P., and Mutius Calini, is of the greatest authority for all theology. It is divided into four parts, but the subdivision of these parts is not the same in all editions. We have used the edition prepared by Adolphus Buse, 1867.

Catharinus, Ambrosius, O.P., Italian (1487-1553), was a man of singular intellect, but also, not only once, of singular and false opinions; he wrote several works, of which those which treat of the sacraments and notably De intentione ministri sacramentorum pertain to moral theology.

Cathrein, Victor, S.J., Swiss, wrote learnedly and neatly several works, among which the often edited books Moralphilosophie, 2 volumes, and Philosophia moralis are worthy of special mention.

Chokier, Erasmus, Belgian (1569-1625), advocate, distinguished for probity of morals and learning, wrote among other things De iurisdictione Ordinarii in exemptos, Cologne 1620, in 4to.

de Clavasio, see Carleti.

Clericatus, Ioan., of the Congregation of the Oratory, Italian (1633-1717), wrote Decisiones sacramentales..., Venice 1727, 9 volumes in 4to.

Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, Rome 1907, 2 volumes in 4to. This collection of decrees issued by diverse Roman Congregations is not indeed authentic, but nevertheless is most useful for practical use.

Collet, Petrus, of the Congregation of the Mission, French (1693-1770), wrote several things, among which are Institutiones theologicae, 2 volumes in 4to, and Continuatio praelectionum theolog. H. Tournely. By St. Alphonsus he is often called "the continuator of Tournely." He is a rigid author.

Comitolus, Paulus, S.J., Italian (1544-1626), among other things wrote Responsa moralia in septem libros digesta. He attacked Probabilism, whence he is called by Ballerini "a man of anomalous intellect and of zeal inclined toward stricter things." Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator III, 888.

Concina, Daniel, O.P., Italian (1687-1756), a most keen attacker of Probabilism and author of many books pertaining to theology, among which stands out Theologia christiana dogmatico-moralis, 12 volumes in 4to, Venice 1740-1751. A good enlarged edition of this work appeared at Rome in 1773. There several things were added, namely Apparatus ad Theologiam christianam, on theological places, on conscience, on the history of Probabilism, the life of the author, and a list of all his works. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. book 3, no. 547, says of Concina: "the learned Rev. Fr. Concina himself, although a famous supporter of rigid opinions, in his most learned work of dogmatic-moral Theology instructs me that things are not to be imposed upon men under grave fault unless evident reason persuades it." Concina in controversies with his adversaries sometimes exceeds the limits of mildness and equity, but he was highly regarded by Benedict XIV and does not deserve the contempt shown to him by several modern authors. His works truly can be consulted with great fruit.

Confettius, Ioan. Bapt., Italian (fl. 1596), compiled Collectio privilegiorum Ordinum FF. Mendicantium et non Mendicantium, Florence 1598.

Coninck, Aegid., S.J., Belgian (1571-1633). His works pertaining to moral theology are: 1. Commentarii ... in universam doctrinam D. Thomae de sacramentis et censuris, 1 folio volume, 2 tomes, Antwerp 1616, and several times afterward. 2. De moralitate, natura et effectibus actuum supernaturalium in genere, et fide, spe ac caritate speciatim, 1 folio volume, Antwerp 1623. 3. Responsio ad dissertationem impugnantem absolutionem moribundi sensibus destituti, Antwerp 1625.

Contenson, Vinc., O.P., French (1641-1674), wrote the work entitled Theologia mentis et cordis, often edited. The last edition appeared in 4 volumes in 4to, Paris 1875. Contenson indeed has a most acute intellect, but sometimes in moral theology he inclines too much into rigid opinions.

Corduba, Antonius de, O.Min., Spanish (d. 1578), wrote several works on moral theology, for example Quaestionarium theologicum, 1 folio volume, Venice 1604, and Tratado de casos de conciencia, 1578.

Corradus, Ioan. Bapt., O.P., Italian (d. 1606), especially cultivated Casuistry, writing Responsio ad cuiuscumque paene generis casus conscientiae and Quaesita 400 pro examinandis qui ad animarum curam vel confessiones audiendas promovendi sunt. Both works were edited several times, for example Perugia 1596, Venice 1607.

Corradus, Pyrrhus, Italian (d. ca. 1656), wrote De praxi dispensationum apostolicarum and De praxi beneficiaria, works often edited and worthy of mention.

Costantini, Victor, Italian, wrote clearly and briefly Institutiones Theologiae moralis, 3 volumes in 8vo, often edited.

Covarruvias, Did., Spanish, bishop of Segovia (1512-1577), a very celebrated jurist often cited by St. Alphonsus. All his works were edited again and again and can be consulted with utility, especially in the treatise on justice.

Cuniliati, Fulgentius, O.P., Italian (1685-1759), wrote several works on asceticism and hagiography. His Universae theologiae moralis accurata complexio, which already down to the year 1786, that is, twenty years after the first edition, had been edited twelve times, consists of 2 volumes in 4to; he proceeded in almost the same manner as Gury did afterward.

Curiel, Ioan. Alph., Spanish (d. 1609), a great ornament of the University of Salamanca, wrote Lecturas seu Quaestiones in D. Thomae Aquin. primam secundae, in folio, Douai 1618.

D

Damen, see Aertnys.

De Becker, Belgian, professor in the University of Louvain, wrote the distinguished treatise De sponsalibus et matrimonio, 2nd edition, Louvain 1903.

De Cocq, Florentius, O.Praem., Belgian (d. 1683), briefly collected Principia theologiae moralis et speculativae, Cologne 1682, 3 volumes in 8vo. Likewise he wrote De iure, iustitia et annexis tractatus quattuor ... maxime iuri Belgico accommodatos, in 4to, Brussels 1687.

Decreta authentica S. Rituum Congregationis. This collection contains all the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued down to the year 1926, distinguished by successive numbers.

Decreta authentica S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum. Rome 1883.

De la Cruz, Ioan., O.P., Spanish (d. 1624), wrote De statu religionis et de privilegiis Regularium, Madrid 1613 and edited several times afterward; it is a small volume in 8vo. Likewise he published Directorium conscientiae divided into two parts, namely 1. on the precepts of the Decalogue; 2. on the sacraments, Madrid 1624 and several times afterward. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 433.

Delama, Dion. (d. 1896), Austrian, published Institutiones theologiae mor., Trent 1895, and Tractatus de iustitia et iure praecipue Austriaco, 3rd edition, Trent 1889.

Delbene, Thom., Cleric Regular Theatine, Italian (d. 1673), wrote, among other things, Tractatus morales, on conscience, on the roots of restitution, on oath, and so forth.

De Smet, Alois., Belgian, professor at Bruges, wrote excellently De sponsalibus et matrimonio, 4th edition, Bruges 1907; De casibus reservatis, Bruges 1914; and on the Sacraments.

Diana, Antonin., Cleric Regular Theatine, Sicilian (1585-1663), according to St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. book 6, no. 257, "in choosing opinions for the most part inclines to the benign side and not rarely inclines more than is fitting"; he published Resolutiones morales, 12 folio volumes. This work, composed without clear order, was arranged in better order by Martinus de Alcolea, O.Cart., 10 folio volumes, Venice 1698. We have used only this edition.

Dicastillus, Ioan., S.J., Spanish (1585-1653), wrote several things on moral theology, for example De iustitia et iure ceterisque virtutibus cardinalibus, in folio, Antwerp 1641; De sacramentis, 3 folio volumes, there, 1646 sqq.; De iuramento, periurio et adiuratione, necnon de censuris et poenis ecclesiasticis, there, 1662.

Dionysius Carthusianus de Rickel, Belgian (1402-1471), was hailed as the "Ecstatic Doctor." He left almost innumerable works and little works, which in our times are being edited again at Montreuil, 48 volumes in 4to. His commentaries on the books of the Sentences, against the vices of superstition, against avarice, ambition, and so forth, partly pertain to moral theology.

Donatus, Hyacinthus, O.P., Italian (d. 1661), a man most experienced in cases of conscience and a distinguished preacher, wrote a very good work both for Moral Theology and for canon law, entitled Rerum regularium praxis resolutoria, 4 folio volumes, Naples 1652 and Cologne 1675.

Drouven (Drouin), Renatus Hyacinthus, O.P., French (d. 1742), wrote a very learned work, but one containing some less correct opinions, De re sacramentaria libri 10, 2 folio volumes, Venice 1737. It appeared again at Venice in 1756, enlarged with the notes of Patuzzi, and at Paris enlarged with the notes of L. Richard. Several of the moderns copied Drouven, yet without mentioning him.

Du Hamel, Ioan. Bapt., French (1623-1706), among other things wrote in a neat and elegant style a work entitled Theologia speculatrix et practica. He follows almost the order of the Summa of St. Thomas.

Durandus de S. Porciano, O.P., French, Master of the Sacred Palace, bishop of Meaux (d. 1334), called the "Most Resolute Doctor," wrote, besides other things, Commentaries on the books of the Sentences. He is indeed of acute intellect, but also a supporter of singular and more or less false opinions.

Duval, Andreas, French (1564-1638), wrote, besides other things, Commentaries on the Prima Secundae, 2 folio volumes, Paris 1636.

E

Ehrentreich, Adam, S.J., German (d. 1708), wrote several little works for attacking pure Probabilism, for example Principia et conclusiones ... de usu probabilis opinionis, 6th edition, Rome 1699.

Elbel, Beniamin, O.Min., German (1690-1756), is deservedly numbered among the foremost writers on moral theology, although he seems sometimes to decline too much toward Casuistry. He wrote, by way of conferences, Theologia decalogalis et sacramentalis, which Iren. Bierbaum, O.Min., edited again neatly, 1891 sqq., 3rd edition 1903.

Elizalde, Michael, S.J., Spanish (1616-1678), wrote under the anagrammatic name Anton. Cellades the work entitled De recta doctrina morum, which after his death appeared enlarged at Fribourg, 1684. Elizalde strenuously attacked Probabilism. Cf. Dollinger-Reusch, Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten, 51 ff.

Engel, Ludov., O.S.B., Austrian (d. 1674), wrote especially on canon law. His very often edited work Manuale parochorum pertains to moral theology.

Escobar y Mendoza, Ant., S.J., Spanish (1589-1669), wrote: 1. Universae theologiae moralis ... disquisitiones, 7 folio volumes, Lyons 1652-1663. 2. Liber theologiae moralis 24 S. J. doctoribus reseratus, very often edited. It is known to everyone how vehemently and unjustly Pascal attacked this author in the Lettres provinciales.

Esparza, Mart., S.J., Spanish (1606-1689). His principal work is Cursus theologicus, according to the order of the Summa of St. Thomas, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1666. In the following editions there were added treatises on the theological and moral virtues and on the lawful use of probable opinion.

Estius (Hesselo van Est), Guilelmus, Belgian (1542-1613), wrote, besides very well-known commentaries on all the epistles of St. Paul and the seven catholic epistles of the apostles, also Commentaries on the four books of the Sentences, 2 folio volumes, Douai 1615, and often edited afterward.

Eymericus, Nicol., O.P., Spanish (d. 1399), a man most celebrated in his age, who, as Quetif and Echard enumerate, Scriptores Ord. Praed. I, 709 sqq., published 36 works. His Directorium inquisitorum, 1 folio volume, Rome 1587, pertains in some way to moral theology.

F

Fagnanus, Prosper, Italian (1587-1678), was made blind in the 44th year of his age, wherefore he was called "the most keen-sighted blind doctor"; he wrote a truly classic commentary on the Decretals of Gregory IX. He also wrote a little work De opinione probabili. In general he defends rigid opinions; wherefore he is called by St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. book 3, no. 669, "the great prince of the rigorists."

Fagundez, Stephan., S.J., Portuguese (1577-1645), wrote: 1. In 10 praecepta Decalogi, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1640; 2. In 5 praecepta Ecclesiae, in folio, there, 1626; 3. De iustitia et contractibus, in folio, there, 1641.

Feije, Henr., Belgian, professor at Louvain (1820-1894), among other things wrote the excellent work De impedimentis et dispensationibus matrimonialibus, Louvain 1867, 4th edition 1893.

Ferraris, Lucius, O.Min., Italian (d. ca. 1760), wrote the most useful work known to everyone, Prompta bibliotheca canonica, iuridica moralis, theologica.... The edition prepared by Migne, 1860, is the best. Bucceroni published a supplement to this work in the year 1899.

Ferreres, I. B., S.J., Spanish, enlarged the works of Gury, Compendium theol. mor. and Casus conscientiae, with very good additions. Besides this he published several moral and canonical works, which are excellent and very useful, notably for peoples who use the Spanish and Portuguese languages.

Filliucci, Vinc., S.J., Italian (1566-1622), wrote Quaestiones morales, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1622 and often edited afterward.

St. Francis de Sales, French, bishop of Geneva, Doctor of the Church (1567-1622), in his ascetical works handed down most useful things for the practice of confessors.

Franzoja, Angelus, Italian (d. 1760), wrote: Theologia morum ab H. Busenbaum primum tradita, tum a cl. Lacroix et Fr. Ant. Zaccaria eiusdem sociis aucta, nunc demum iuxta saniores et praesertim D. Thomae Aq. doctrinam ad trutinam revocata, Bologna 1760. The author is very rigid.

Frassen, Claudius, O.Min., French (1620-1711), a distinguished Scotist, besides other things wrote the famous work Scotus academicus, seu universa Doctoris subtilis theologica dogmata, 4 folio volumes, Paris 1672-1677. Still in 1900 sqq. a new edition of this work was made at Rome, consisting of 12 volumes in 8vo.

Friburgo, de, Ioannes, see Ioannes.

Frins, Vict., S.J., German (1840-1912), wrote extensively De actibus humanis, 3 volumes in 8vo, Freiburg im Breisgau 1897 sq.

Fumus, Barthol., O.P., Italian (d. 1545), wrote Summa theologiae moralis, which is called Aurea armilla and has often been edited, for example Venice 1596. It treats moral matters in alphabetical order.

G

Garcia, Franc., O.P., Spanish (d. 1583), wrote Tratado utilisimo de todos los contratos, cuantos en los negocios humanos se pueden ofrecer, 2 volumes in 8vo, Valencia 1583. This work was translated into the Italian language. Garcia also labored much to correct the text of the Summa of St. Thomas, but not always with a happy outcome. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 267.

Gasparri, Petr., Italian, Cardinal, wrote several truly distinguished works: De matrimonio, 2 volumes in 8vo, 2nd edition 1904; De eucharistia, 2 volumes in 8vo, 1897; De s. ordinatione, 2 volumes in 8vo, 1893.

Gatticus, Ioan. Bapt., Canon Regular of the Lateran, Italian (1704-1754), wrote a learned and erudite work, De oratoriis domesticis et de usu altaris portatilis, in folio, Rome 1746.

Gaume, Ios., French (1802-1879), excellently gathered salutary counsels for confessors in the work entitled Manuel des confesseurs, 10th edition, 1872.

Gavanti, Barth., Barnabite, Italian (1569-1638), a distinguished and very well-known liturgical author, whose Thesaurus sacrorum rituum has often been edited.

Genicot, Eduard., S.J., Belgian (1856-1900), published Theologiae moralis institutiones, composed in a clear and succinct order; the 6th edition, 1909, was prepared by J. Salsmans. Likewise he published Casus conscientiae, in which, however, he not rarely shows himself too benign.

Gennari, Casim., Cardinal, Italian (1839-1914), wrote Consultazioni morali-canoniche-liturgiche, 1 volume, Rome 1902; Consultazioni canoniche-liturgiche, 1 volume; Breve commento della nuova legge sugli Sponsali e sul Matrimonio, and several other very commendable works and little works.

Gerson (Charlier), Ioan., chancellor of Paris (1363-1429), all his works were edited several times; the best of all seems to be the edition prepared by Du Pin, 5 folio volumes, Antwerp 1706. He wrote very useful things on mystical theology, but in other matters sometimes defends false opinions.

Gerster, Fr. Thomas Villanova, O.Cap., German, besides many other things wrote Katholische Sittenlehre, 3rd edition, 1927, a short but clear work and very useful for practice.

Gobat, Georg., S.J., Swiss (1600-1679), wrote several moral little works, in which even some condemned propositions are found. All the moral works of this author were published at Munich, 1681, 3 tomes in 2 folio volumes, and often afterward. Gobat is a pure Casuist and his works today are of little practical utility. Cf. Theol. Zeitschr., Innsbruck 1915.

Goepfert, Adam Franc., German, professor at Wurzburg (1849-1913), published a treatise on oath, Der Eid, Mainz 1883; then the work begun by I. B. Renninger, Pastoraltheologie, 1893; and finally the work entitled Moraltheologie. The eighth edition, 1920, was prepared by Carolus Staab. He is a clear author, using a simple style, lucid order, and solid doctrine.

Gonet, Ioan. Bapt., O.P., French (1616-1681), most sharply attacked Probabilism. His principal work is Clypeus theologiae thomisticae, 5 folio volumes, Cologne 1671. Several editions of this work exist.

Gonzalez, Thyrsus, S.J., Spanish (1624-1705), was superior general of the Society of Jesus; he tried to introduce Probabiliorism into the whole Society of Jesus. He wrote, besides other things: 1. Fundamentum theologiae moralis, id est tractatus de recto usu opinionum probabilium, Rome 1694; 2. Selectae disputationes ex universa theologia scholastica, Salamanca 1680-1686, 4 folio volumes. In the controversies concerning Probabilism the right manner of charity, and even of justice, was not rarely injured by several authors.

Gotti, Vinc., O.P., Italian, Cardinal and patriarch of Jerusalem (1664-1742), wrote, besides apologetic works, Theologia scholastico-dogmatica iuxta mentem D. Thomae Aq., 16 volumes in 4to, Bologna 1725-1735. This work, which shines with clarity, solidity, and polish, was edited several times afterward.

Gousset, Theod., French, Cardinal and archbishop of Rheims (1792-1866), wrote the very well-known and often edited work Theologie morale a l'usage des cures et des confesseurs, Paris 1845.

Graffius, Iac., titular abbot of Monte Cassino, Italian (1548-1620), composed several very useful casuistic moral works, for example Decisiones aureae casuum conscientiae, 3 volumes in 4to, Venice 1609; De arbitrariis confessariorum, in 4to, Naples 1613.

Granada, Ludovicus de, O.P., Spanish (d. 1588), conspicuous both for holiness of life and breadth of doctrine. His works have been edited very often. That edition which was made by Iustus Cuervo, O.P., 14 volumes in 4to, Madrid 1906, surpasses the others. For moral theology those things which he wrote on virtues and vices are of great importance.

Grossi, Phil., O.P., Italian (d. 1704), wrote Tractatus in universam theologiam moralem secundum doctrinam Angelici Praeceptoris, S. Thomae Aq., 4 folio volumes, Modena 1694.

Gury, Ioan. Petr., S.J., French (1801-1866). Perhaps there do not exist moral works in the nineteenth century so widely circulated as the Compendium theologiae moralis and Casus conscientiae, written by Gury in a clear and succinct manner.

H

Habert, Ludov., French (1635-1718), wrote Theologia dogmatica et moralis, 7 volumes in 12mo, Lyons 1709. This work indeed is not altogether immune from the Jansenist stain.

Haine, I. F., Belgian (1815-1900), besides other things wrote a clear and solid work, Theologiae moralis elementa ex S. Thoma aliisque probatis auctoribus, Louvain 1881, 4 volumes in 8vo. After his death, I. Bund, C.Ss.C., prepared the fifth edition in 1906. Haine is a benign author and sincerely tries to attain the mind of St. Thomas.

Halensis, Alexander, O.Min. (d. 1245), surnamed the Irrefragable Doctor, is a great ornament of the Order of Minors. The critical edition of his Commentaries on the books of the Sentences has been begun.

Henno, Franc., O.Min., Belgian (ca. 1713), wrote Theologia dogmatica et scholastica, a work edited several times, for example 2 folio volumes, Cologne 1718. He is a sufficiently subtle Scotist and in several matters a vehement adversary of the Thomists. He is attacked more than once by Billuart.

Henricus a S. Ignatio, Carmelite, Belgian (1631-1720), wrote a rather well-known work entitled Ethica amoris, which was condemned by the Holy Office on 21 August 1714, because it does not sufficiently guard against the errors of Baius and Jansenius.

Henriquez, Henricus, S.J., Spanish (1536-1608), wrote Summa theologiae moralis, Salamanca 1591 and often afterward. He is very often cited by St. Alphonsus.

Herinckx, Guilelmus, O.Min., Belgian, bishop of Ypres (d. 1678), wrote Summa theologiae scholasticae et moralis ad mentem Scoti, 4 folio volumes, Antwerp 1660. It contains some condemned propositions, which were retracted by his confrere van Goorlaeken in the edition prepared in 1702-1704.

Hilarius a Sexten, O.Cap., Austrian (d. 1900), composed several moral works in a clear style, for example Compendium theologiae mor., 2 volumes in 8vo, Meran 1889; Tractatus pastoralis de sacramentis, there, 1895; De censuris, Mainz 1898.

Hollweck, Ios., professor at Eichstatt, wrote or edited very commendable works, filled with learning: Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, Mainz 1899; Das kirchl. Bucherverbot, 2nd edition, 1897; Hergenrother, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts, 1905.

Holzmann, Apollonius, O.Min., German (d. 1748), wrote Theologia moralis, 2 folio volumes, Kempten 1737-1742, a useful work both because of clarity of doctrine and because of the added practical cases.

Hurtado, Gaspar., S.J., Spanish (1575-1646), wrote several things on moral theology, for example De fide, spe et caritate, De iustitia et iure, De sacramentis et censuris, and so forth, Madrid 1632 sqq.

I

Ildephonsus, Ioan. Bapt., O.P., see Baptista.

Illsung, Iac., S.J., German (d. 1695), published a work inscribed Arbor scientiae boni et mali, sive Theologia practica universa de bono et malo morali, in folio, Dillingen 1693.

Ioannes Rumsik, Lector de Friburgo, O.P., German (d. 1314), devoted his whole life to practical moral theology and published several works on this matter, among which his Summa confessorum stands out; it is the foundation of almost all similar works afterward published by other theologians. It first appeared at Reutlingen 1487, in folio, and afterward very often. For other works of Ioannes de Friburgo see Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. I, 523 sqq.

Ioannes a S. Thoma, O.P., Spanish (1589-1644), stands out among the commentators of St. Thomas; he teaches moderate Probabilism. His works Cursus philosophicus and Cursus theologicus, edited several times, the last edition Paris 1867 and 1888, are most worthy of recommendation.

Jone, Heribert, Capuchin, German, wrote among other things Kathol. Moraltheologie, Paderborn 1930, a work indeed brief, but excellent for clarity, solid doctrine, and practical utility.

Juenin, Gaspar, of the Congregation of the Oratory, French (1640-1713), is a rigid author. His Institutiones theologicae, proscribed by the Holy Office on 22 May 1708, are still found in the Index of Prohibited Books.

K

Kazenberger, Kilian, O.Min., German (d. 1750), continuator of the Moral Theology edited both by Sporer and by Sargar.

Kenrick, Patric., archbishop of Baltimore (1797-1863), wrote, besides other things, Theologia moralis, 2 volumes in 8vo, Mainz 1860, very practical.

Koch, Ant., professor at Tubingen, German, wrote Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1905 and afterward several times edited. It is a work avoiding the rocks of Casuistry, giving solid and clear doctrine.

Konings, A., C.Ss.R., Belgian (d. 1884), reduced the theology of St. Alphonsus into a compendium, 5th edition, New York 1882, a useful work especially for America. He also arranged a Commentarium in facultates apostolicas ad usum ven. cleri Americani, whose enlarged third edition was prepared by his confrere Ios. Putzer, in 8vo, Ilchester 1893, a work likewise very useful especially for America.

Kugler, Ioan., S.J., Bohemian (1654-1721). His principal work is Tractatus theologico-canonicus de matrimonio, several times edited, for example Breslau 1728, in folio.

Kutschker, Ioan. Rud., Austrian (1810-1881), Cardinal and archbishop of Vienna, arranged with great diligence: 1. Das Eherecht der kath. Kirche nach seiner Theorie und Praxis, 5 volumes, Vienna 1856; 2. Die gemischten Ehen, Vienna 1838; 3. Die Lehre vom Schadenersatz, Olmutz 1851, and several other things.

L

Lacroix, Claud., S.J., Belgian (1652-1714). His Theologia moralis was often edited both before and after the author's death; it is an excellent commentary on the Medulla of Busembaum. The last edition appeared at Paris 1874, 4 volumes in 4to.

Lambertini, Prosper, see Benedict XIV.

Larraga, Franc., O.P., Spanish (d. 1715), wrote Prontuario de teologia moral in 8vo, often edited and revised even in our own days, Avila 1919.

Laymann, Paul., S.J., German (1574-1635), equally skilled in moral theology and in canon law, wrote works distinguished by clarity and solidity. Besides his great work Theologia moralis, he was the author of many treatises on canon law, which were collected and arranged under the title Ius canonicum R. P. Laymann, 3 volumes, Dillingen 1663.

Leander a SS. Sacramento, O.SS.Trinit., Spanish (1591-1663), is an excessively benign author in moral matters. He wrote Quaestiones morales theol., distributed into 8 parts, which, collected together after his death, appeared at Lyons 1669 sqq., 8 folio volumes.

Ledesma, Barthol. de, O.P., Spanish, bishop of Oaxaca, or Antequera, in Mexico (d. 1604), wrote a collection of cases of conscience under the title Una suma de casos de conciencia o de los sacramentos, Mexico 1560, enlarged and revised at Salamanca 1585.

Ledesma, Martinus de, O.P., Spanish (d. 1574), wrote Commentaries on the fourth book of the Sentences, 2 folio volumes, Coimbra 1555-1560.

Ledesma, Petrus de, O.P., Spanish (d. 1616), a very celebrated doctor in theology, wrote among other things: De magno matrimonii sacramento, 1 volume in 4to, Venice 1595; Summa seu theologia moralis de sacramentis. The work was written in Spanish and afterward rendered into Latin, 2 folio volumes, Salamanca 1614 and Lisbon 1617.

Lehmkuhl, Aug., S.J., German (1834-1917), deservedly obtained a very eminent place among writers on moral theology. He wrote, besides many other things, Theologia moralis, 2 volumes in 8vo, already printed twelve times. Likewise Casus conscientiae, 2 volumes in 8vo, 4th edition; Probabilismus vindicatus, Freiburg 1906. It is to be regretted that his style sometimes lacks limpid clarity.

Lessius (Leys), Leon., S.J., Belgian (1554-1623), wrote the very celebrated work De iustitia et iure ceterisque virtutibus cardinalibus, in folio, Louvain 1605, often edited. Less known are his Tractatus de beatitudine, de actibus humanis, de sacramentis, de censuris, in folio, Louvain 1645. But it is known to everyone how very sharp disputes broke out because of Lessius's works on efficacious grace, predestination and reprobation, free will, and so forth; but these rather pertain to Dogmatics.

Lezana, Ioan. Bapt. de, O.Carm., Spanish (1586-1659), wrote several works on theology and on the law of Religious, for example Summa theologiae ex Angelico Doctore, 3 folio volumes, Rome 1651 sqq.; Summa quaestionum regularium, 5 folio volumes, Rome 1634; Consulta varia theologica, in folio, Venice 1651.

St. Liguori, see St. Alphonsus.

Linsenmann, Franc. Xav., German (1835-1898), among other things wrote Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1878, a clear work, but not always correct.

Lopez, Ludov., O.P., Spanish (d. 1596), wrote Instructorium conscientiae..., in 4to, Salamanca 1585, a work very often edited and also translated into the Italian language. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 316, note: "In deciding cases of conscience he is judged by learned men to be rather lax." The same author wrote Tractatus de contractibus..., in folio, Salamanca 1592.

Lorca, Petrus de, O.Cist., Spanish (1554-1606), wrote most learned Commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas, 2 folio volumes, Alcala 1609, and on II-II of St. Thomas, in folio, Madrid 1614.

Loth, Ludov. Bertr., O.P., Belgian (d. 1662), wrote, besides other things, Resolutiones theologicas illustrium difficultatum contingentium in Belgio, in folio; this work was edited after the author's death at Bruges, 1687.

Lugo, Franc. de, S.J., Spanish (1580-1652), wrote Tractatus de septem sacramentis, in 4to, Venice 1652, and Decursus praevius ad theologiam moralem, in 4to, Alcala de Henares 1642.

Lugo, Ioan. de, S.J., Spanish, Cardinal (1583-1660), brother of Franciscus de Lugo, endowed with acute intellect, highly esteemed by St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. III, 552, wrote several works, of which these pertain to moral theology: Tractatus de fide, de iustitia et iure, de contractibus, de sacramentis, Responsa moralia. A neat edition of Lugo's works was prepared by I. B. Fournials, 8 volumes in 4to, Paris 1868.

Luydl, Corbin., O.Min., from Augsburg (1718-1778), a sharp anti-probabilist, wrote a learned indeed but too prolix work, Institutiones theologiae moralis christianae et evangelicae, which his confrere Bonif. Schneidenbach continued, Kempten, 20 volumes in 12mo, 1771-1784.

M

Maeratius, Ludov., S.J., French (d. 1664), left Disputationes in Summam theol. universam S. Thomae, 3 folio volumes, Paris 1633.

Malderus, Ioan., Belgian, bishop of Antwerp (1561-1633), wrote Commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas, in folio, Antwerp 1623; moreover De virtutibus theologicis, de iustitia, de religione, in folio, Antwerp 1616; finally he published Tractatus de sigillo confessionis sacramentalis, in 8vo, there, 1626.

Many, S., French, wrote several very solid and useful works especially regarding canon law, for example Praelectiones iuris canonici, namely 1. on the Mass, 2. on the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, 3. on sacred places, 4. on sacred ordination, Paris 1904 sq.

Marc, Clem., C.Ss.R., French (1831-1887), wrote a work eminent for clarity and solidity of doctrine, entitled Institutiones morales Alphonsianae, which had already obtained 18 editions by the year 1928, 2 volumes in 8vo.

March, Acatius, O.P., Spanish, bishop of Orihuela (d. 1665), wrote in the Spanish language Resoluciones morales, 2 folio volumes, Valencia 1656-1658. He proceeds in alphabetical order, as almost all the little summas compiled at that time did.

Marchant, Iac., Belgian (1648), wrote the very widespread work Hortus pastorum, Cologne 1635. He also wrote Opuscula pastoralia, Cologne in the same year.

Marchant, Petr., O.Min., Belgian (1585-1661), is a distinguished probabilist, who wrote the rather curious work Tribunal sacramentale et visibile animarum in hac vita mortali, 2 folio volumes, Ghent 1642. For his other works of lesser importance see Hurter, Nomenclator III, 1203.

Margarita confessorum seems to have been published by a certain religious of the convent of St. Paul at Seville, O.P., 1 volume in 8vo, Seville 1526.

Marres, P. H., Dutch, wrote a very useful work for the Netherlands, namely De iustitia secundum doctrinam theologicam et principia iuris recentioris, speciatim vero Neerlandici, 2nd edition, Roermond 1889.

Martin, Conr., bishop of Paderborn (1812-1879), besides several other works wrote Lehrbuch der Moral, Mainz 1850, several times edited.

Martinez, Gregor., O.P., Spanish (1575-1637), wrote very extensive Commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas, 3 folio volumes, Valladolid 1617-1637.

Martinez, Ioannes de Prado, O.P., Spanish (d. 1668), is a fecund author who published several solid works on moral theology, for example Theologiae moralis quaestiones praecipuae, 2 folio volumes, Alcala 1654-1656; Dubitationes morales de sacramentis in genere et in specie, in folio, there, 1660; De poenitentiae sacramento, there, 1669, a posthumous folio work.

Mas, Vinc., O.P., Spanish (d. 1772), wrote works with these titles: Propositionum canonice damnatarum praedamnatio Augustino-thomistica, 2 volumes in 4to, Valencia 1761; Incommoda probabilismi, in 4to, there, 1765.

Mastrius, Barth., O.Min., Italian (1673), to be numbered entirely among the foremost Scotists, wrote, besides Disputationes theol. in 4 libros Sententiarum, Theologia moralis ad mentem DD. Seraphici et Subtilis concinnata, in folio, Venice 1671.

Matharan, Mauritius, S.J., French (d. 1894), wrote a clear and useful work, Casus de matrimonio fere quingenti, Paris 1896, 2nd edition; he also arranged a Compendium theologiae moralis, Paris 1893, often edited afterward.

Mausbach, Ios., German (1861-1931), published several moral works furnished with beautiful style and solid doctrine, for example Thomae Aq. de voluntate et appetitu sensitivo doctrina, Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus, Katholische Moraltheologie, and so forth.

Mayol, Ios., O.P., French (d. 1704), wrote Summa moralis doctrinae thomisticae, Avignon 1704. Part of this work was reprinted in the complete course of theology compiled by Migne, volume 13, 715-962.

Mayr, Anton., S.J., German (1673-1749), wrote Theologia scholastica, 8 volumes in 8vo, Ingolstadt 1729, where he defends Aequiprobabilism already before St. Alphonsus.

Mazzotta, Nicol., S.J., Italian (1669-1746). His Theologia moralis, often praised by St. Alphonsus, was published after the author's death at Naples, 1748, and afterward several times.

Medina, Barth., O.P., Spanish (1528-1581), is called the father of Probabilism. He wrote Commentaries on I-II and on III of St. Thomas, 2 folio volumes, Salamanca 1577, and then several times afterward. Likewise he published Breve instruccion de como se ha de administrar el Sacramento de la Penitencia, in 8vo, Salamanca 1580. This work, translated into Latin by Raphael de Cesare, was often edited.

Medina, Ioan., Spanish (1490-1546), is held in great esteem in moral theology, although he defended some erroneous things. His works were edited several times. In the Ingolstadt edition of 1581, which seems to be better and which we used, this is the series of treatises: on the sacrament of penance, on fasting, almsgiving, prayer, volume 1; on restitution and contracts, volume 2.

Mendo, Andreas, S.J., Spanish (1608-1684). "He is among those authors whose name scarcely appears elsewhere among citations than where some anomalous opinion is produced." Thus Ballerini, note to Gury I, no. 414. He wrote the very long Elucidatio in Bullam S. Cruciatae, in folio, Lyons 1668; Epitome opinionum moralium, in 8vo, Venice 1676; Statera opinionum benignarum. This last work is still found in the Index of Prohibited Books.

Meratus, Caiet., Theatine, Italian (1668-1774), is a classic author in liturgical matters; he edited and enlarged the Thesaurus sacr. rituum compiled by Barth. Gavanti.

Mercado, Thom., O.P., Spanish (1575), wrote Summa de tratos y contratos, in 4to, Salamanca 1569, a work edited several times and also translated into the Italian language.

Mercorus, Iul., O.P., Italian (d. 1669), wrote the work entitled Basis totius theologiae moralis, in folio, Mantua 1658. He attacks lax opinions proposed by Escobar, Caramuel, Pasqualigo, and others. Hence it happened that afterward he had to publish several other little works in order to defend himself against the attacks of adversaries.

Milante, Pius Thom., O.P., Italian, bishop of Stabiae, Castellammare (d. 1749), had St. Alphonsus as a disciple. Among other things, on moral matters he wrote Exercitationes dogmatico-morales in propositiones proscriptas, 3 volumes in 4to, Naples 1738-1740. Against Concina he wrote Vindiciae Regularium in causa monasticae paupertatis, in 4to, Naples 1740.

Minderer, Sebaldus, O.Min., German (1710-1784), wrote, as a supplement to the moral theology arranged by Elbel, the distinguished treatise De indulgentiis et iubilaeo, in 8vo, Augsburg 1763.

Molina, Lud., S.J., Spanish (1536-1600). For moral theology his very extensive treatise De iustitia et iure is worthy of mention. The best of all seems to be the edition prepared in 5 tomes in 2 folio volumes, Mainz 1733.

Montesinos, Lud. de, Spanish (1553-1621), a man excelling in clarity of intellect, left Commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2 folio volumes, Alcala 1622.

Moran, Ios., O.P., Spanish, wrote in the Spanish language Teologia moral, 3 volumes in 4to, Madrid 1883, a solid and commendable work.

Morinus, Ioan., of the Congregation of the Oratory, French (1591-1659), a distinguished archaeologist. For moral theology his works De disciplina in administratione sacramenti poenitentiae 13 primis saeculis, in folio, Paris 1651, and Commentarius ... de sacris Ecclesiae ordinationibus, in folio, Paris 1655, are worthy of mention, but are to be read with some circumspection.

Moya, Matth. de, S.J., Spanish (1610-1684), is not a commendable author. Under the fictitious name Amadeus Guimenius he wrote Opusculum singularia universae fere theologiae moralis complectens adversus quorumdam expostulationes, Lyons 1664. This book was not only placed on the Index, but was also proscribed by a Brief of Innocent XI on 16 September 1680. Another work of Moya, Quaestiones selectae in praecipuis theologiae mor. tractatibus, in folio, Madrid 1670, was likewise placed on the Index.

Muller, Ern., Austrian, bishop of Linz (1822-1888), elaborated Theologia moralis, often edited, also after the author's death. In this work there is not only solid and clear doctrine, but also knowledge and piety are neatly united, so that instruction and one's own edification can be drawn from it at the same time.

N

Naldus, Antonius, Theatine, Italian (d. 1645), compiled Summa seu resolutiones pract. casuum conscientiae, alphabetica serie ... digestas, Rome 1635 and often edited.

Navarrus. Thus Martinus Azpilcueta, Spanish (1493-1586), Canon Regular, is commonly called. In his time he was very well known, and for a long time he fulfilled at Rome the office of Penitentiary. All his works appeared in 5 folio volumes, Lyons 1594 and several times afterward.

Nazarius, Ioan. Paul, O.P., Italian (1556-1646), wrote very extensive Commentaries on the Summa of St. Thomas, comprised in 6 folio volumes. Moreover he published a seventh volume containing several little works, some of which pertain to moral theology, for example Responsiones ad quaedam quaesita casuum conscientiae, on the state and obligation of religious, and so forth.

Nider, Ioan., O.P., German (d. 1438), an altogether distinguished man, left several very widely circulated works. To moral theology pertain, for example, Formicarius, a work often edited; Praeceptorium divinae legis, that is, a treatise on the ten precepts, Basel 1473 and afterward edited at least seventeen times down to the year 1500, cf. Hain, Repert. II, 11, 780; Tractatus de contractibus mercatorum, Paris 1514; Consolatorium timoratae conscientiae, Paris 1487, and so forth.

Noldin, Hieronym., S.J., Austrian (1838-1922), wrote among other things a work entitled Summa theologiae moralis, 3 volumes in 8vo, 20th edition, Innsbruck 1930, prepared by Schmitt, and it is deservedly numbered among the best works of this time because of clarity, solid doctrine, and the neat manner of treating all practical questions.

O

Ojetti, Bened., S.J., Italian, wrote very commendable works: Synopsis rerum moralium et iuris pontificii alphabetico ordine digesta, in 4to, 3rd edition, Rome 1912; In ius antepianum et pianum ex decreto "Ne temere" ... commentarii.

Ostiensis (Henricus de Segusia), Italian (d. 1271), a very celebrated canonist, wrote Summa super titulis decretalium, very often edited, which because of its excellence was called golden.

Oviedo, Franc. de, S.J., Spanish (1602-1651), wrote Commentaries on I-II of St. Thomas, 1 folio volume, Lyons 1646, and Tractatus de virtutibus theologicis, 1 folio volume, there, 1651.

P

Palmieri, Dom., S.J., Italian (1829-1909), composed several works, for example De matrimonio christiano, De poenitentia. He also edited the great moral work of Antonius Ballerini, 3rd edition, Rome 1898-1901, and the Compendium written by Gury, 15th edition, there, 1907.

Paludanus, Petrus, O.P., French (d. 1342), patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote besides many other works, cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. I, 603 sq., Commentaries on the third and fourth books of the Sentences, most diligently revised by Vinc. de Haerlem, 2 folio volumes, Paris 1514.

Pasqualigo, Zachar., Theatine, Italian (1600-1664), is sometimes an excessively benign author. Some of his works were placed on the Index, for example Decisiones morales, in folio, Verona 1641; Sacra moralis doctrina, in folio, Venice 1650. His classic work is De sacrificio novae legis quaestiones theologicae, morales, iuridicae, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1662 and several times afterward.

Passerinus de Sextula, Petr., O.P., Italian (1594-1677), is counted among the best canonists of his time. For his works see our Manual of Canon Law, p. XXXVI.

Patuzzi, Vinc., O.P., Italian (1700-1769), is Concina's apologist and colleague in attacking Probabilism. He also attacked St. Alphonsus. He wrote several works. Pertaining to moral theology is Ethica christiana sive theologia moralis, 3 folio volumes, Bassano 1760, which, reduced into a compendium, has been edited several times, for example 4 volumes in 8vo, Lodi 1833.

Pauwels, Ios., O.Min. (ca. 1759), wrote very well-known treatises: De casibus reservatis, 3 volumes in 8vo, Louvain 1750-1756, and Magnum matrimonii sacramentum reductum in casus, 2 volumes in 8vo, Louvain 1750.

Pellizarius, Franc., S.J., Italian (1596-1651), is a very well-known author on the law of Religious. Since the earlier editions of his works were placed on the Index, the editions corrected according to the Roman edition of 1755 must be used.

Pennacchi, Ios., Italian (d. 1898), published extensive and learned Commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, 2 volumes in 8vo, Rome 1883, and on the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, 1 volume in 8vo, Rome 1898.

Peraldus, Guil., O.P., French (d. ca. 1250), wrote the distinguished work Summa de vitiis et virtutibus, very often edited, for example Paris 1519, 2 volumes in 8vo.

Petrocorensis, that is, Theologia moralis ad usum seminarii Petrocorensis, 6 volumes in 12mo, Padua 1735. It is a work not rarely cited by St. Alphonsus.

Piscetta, Alois., Italian, wrote a neat and solid work, Theologiae moralis elementa, several times edited at Turin 1908, 3rd edition, 3 volumes in 8vo. A fourth volume, Elementa theologiae sacramentariae, was added by Dante Munerati.

Pontas, Ioan., French (1638-1728), composed Dictionarium casuum conscientiae. This work was first written in the French language, but afterward translated into Latin and often edited and revised, for example by Concina and Collet. That edition which Migne prepared in 1847, 2 volumes in 4to, is good. Pontas is a rigid author.

Pontius, Basil., O.S.A., Spanish (1569-1629), wrote very good works De sacramento matrimonii, in folio, Salamanca 1624 and often afterward, and Tractatus de impedimentis matrimonii, in 4to, Salamanca 1613. Pontius fought strenuously for preserving Thomism in the Academy of Salamanca.

Portel, Laur., O.Min., Spanish (ca. 1630), wrote several casuistic works, for example Dubia regularia, in 4to, Venice 1641; Responsiones ... casuum moralium, 2 volumes in 4to, Venice 1645.

Prado, O.P., see Martinez.

Prickartz, Ios., O.Praem., Bohemian (d. 1737), wrote Theologia moralis, 7 volumes in 8vo, Cologne 1752 sqq. This work at that time was sufficiently widespread in Germany.

Prierias, Sylvester (Sylvester Mazolinus de Prierio), O.P., Italian, Master of the Sacred Palace (d. 1523), is a very celebrated and most fecund author. For a list of his works see Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. II, 55 sqq. For moral theology his Summa Summarum, which is called the Silvestrina, is most worthy of mention; in it, in 715 articles arranged alphabetically, all moral theology is treated, 2 volumes in 4to. More than 49 editions of this work exist.

Pruner, Ioan. Evang. (1825-1907), German, professor at Eichstatt, a truly apostolic man, published very good works: Katholische Moraltheologie, 3rd edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 1903; Pastoraltheologie, 5th edition prepared by J. Seitz, Paderborn 1920; Die Lehre vom Recht und der Gerechtigkeit, 1857.

Q

Quarti, Paul. Maria, Theatine, Italian (d. ca. 1655), wrote, besides distinguished works on liturgy, the book entitled Matura discussio casuum episcopalium, in 4to, Naples 1668.

Quintanaduenas, Ant. de, S.J., Spanish (d. 1651), is sometimes cited by St. Alphonsus; he wrote: 1. Singularia theologiae moralis ad septem Ecclesiae sacramenta, in folio, Seville 1645; 2. Ad quinque Ecclesiae praecepta necnon ad ecclesiasticas censuras et poenas, in folio, Madrid 1652.

R

Rassler, Christoph., S.J., German (1654-1723), proposed Aequiprobabilism already before St. Alphonsus in the work Norma recti seu tractatus theologicus ... de regula honestatis ac de recto usu opinionum probabilium, in folio, Ingolstadt 1713. Rassler is also the author of the anonymous work Vindiciae Gobatianae, in 4to, Ingolstadt 1706.

Raus, J. B., C.Ss.R., Luxembourger, re-edited the Institutiones Mor. Alphonsian. elaborated by the distinguished Marc. He also published the solid work De sacrae obedientiae virtute et voto, Lyons 1923.

St. Raymond of Pennafort, O.P., Spanish, penitentiary of the Pope, master general of the Order of Preachers (1175-1275), is the celebrated compiler of the Decretals of Gregory IX and author of the Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio; this distinguished book was illustrated with commentaries by several, for example Guilelmus Rhedonensis and Ioannes de Friburgo.

Raynaudus, Theophil., S.J., French (1582-1663), is a most fecund author, writing 20 folio volumes. Some of his works were placed on the Index, until they should be corrected. From the whole mass of these works almost nothing worthy of mention exists for moral theology except his treatise De aequivocatione et mentali restrictione, found in volume 14 of the works.

Reding, Augustin., O.S.B., Swiss (1625-1692), was abbot of Einsiedeln and wrote with the highest learning, though not always with a clear style, Theologia scholastica universa, 13 folio volumes, Einsiedeln 1687. Everywhere he follows the Thomistic school.

Reginaldus (Renaud), Valerius, S.J., French (1543-1623), wrote several works pertaining to moral theology, which are commended by St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Alphonsus. His principal work is Praxis fori poenitentialis, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1616 and then often edited.

Reiffenstuel, Anaclet., O.Min., German (1641-1703), wrote not only the classic work Ius canonicum universum, but also Theologia moralis, edited thirty times. The seventh edition, with additions by Massaeus Kresslinger, appeared at Modena 1745, in folio.

Reuter, Ioan., S.J., German (1680-1762), wrote Theologia moralis, reprinted several times, 4 volumes in 8vo. More known and useful is his work entitled Neoconfessarius, edited again even in our age at Paris, Regensburg, and Freiburg im Breisgau.

Rodriguez, Emanuel, O.Min., Spanish (d. 1613), an illustrious canonist and moralist, very well known from the work Quaestiones regulares et canonicae, 4 volumes in 4to, often edited, for example Salamanca 1604-1606. He also wrote Summa casuum conscientiae, edited several times, for example Venice 1628, in 4to.

Roncaglia, Constant., of the Congregation of the Mother of God, Italian (1677-1733), wrote, besides other things, Universa moralis theologia, 2 folio volumes, Lucca 1630, often edited and much praised by St. Alphonsus. He also wrote Consiliorum moralium liber singularis, in folio, Lucca 1729.

Rosella, see Trevamala.

Roskovany, Aug. de, Hungarian, bishop of Nitra (1802-1892), an indefatigable compiler, wrote among many other things De matrimoniis in Ecclesia catholica, 2 volumes in 8vo, Eger 1837; De matrimoniis mixtis, Pecs 1842-1882, 7 volumes with a Supplement, 1888.

Rosset, Michael, French, bishop of Maurienne (1830-1902), wrote De sacramento eucharistiae, 1 volume in 8vo, Chambery 1876; De sacramento matrimonii, 6 volumes in 8vo, Paris 1895-1896, a very prolix work, in which, however, not enough account is taken of history.

Rumsik, Ioannes, O.P., see Ioannes de Friburgo.

S

Sa, Eman., S.J., Spanish (1530-1596), wrote the little work Aphorismi confessariorum, 1 volume in 12mo, placed on the Index in 1603, but afterward corrected.

Sabetti, Alois., S.J., Italian (1838-1898), reduced the Compendium theologiae moralis composed by Gury and Ballerini into a new form especially suited for America, New York 1884; the 28th edition, prepared by Tim. Barrett, appeared in 1922.

Saettler, Gasp., German (d. 1779), a moderate Probabiliorist, wrote Theologia moralis universa, 4 volumes in 8vo, which I. Rousselot illustrated with selected and copious annotations, 1810.

Salas, Ioan. de, S.J., Spanish (1553-1612), wrote Commentaries both on I-II of the Theological Summa of St. Thomas, 3 folio volumes, and on II-II, a posthumous work on contracts, 1 volume in 4to, Lyons 1617.

Salesius, see St. Francis.

Salmanticenses are called the very well-known Carmelite authors of the works: 1. Cursus theologicus ... Summam theologicam complectens, often edited, and indeed even in our own times, 20 volumes, Paris 1870. 2. Cursus theologiae moralis, a work often edited, for example Venice 1714, 6 folio volumes, and very highly esteemed by St. Alphonsus. Sometimes, however, individual authors are not correctly cited among the Salmanticenses.

Salon, Mich., Augustinian Hermit, Spanish (1538-1620), wrote Controversiae de iustitia et iure atque de contractibus, 2 folio volumes, Venice 1608. He is a faithful disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Sanchez, Ioan. (Sanctius), Spanish (d. ca. 1624), wrote Selectae et practicae disputationes de rebus in administratione sacramentorum ... passim occurrentibus, in folio, Madrid 1624. This work was placed on the Index because of the lax opinions contained in it.

Sanchez, Thomas, S.J., Spanish (1550-1610), wrote: 1. Opus morale in praecepta Decalogi, 2 folio volumes, Madrid 1613; 2. Consilia seu opuscula moralia, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1634; 3. De s. matrimonii sacramento, 3 folio volumes, Genoa 1602. This last work is very learned; yet it is censured by some because it descends too much into particulars of the conjugal act. In the first work cited above Sanchez more than once defends excessively benign opinions.

Sasserath, Reiner., O.Min.Conv., German (d. ca. 1775), wrote Cursus theologiae moralis, divided into four parts, 4 volumes in 8vo, Augsburg 1771 and afterward very often edited. It is a work outstanding for clarity and solidity of doctrine.

Sayrus (Saye), Gregor., O.S.B., English (1560-1602), wrote several distinguished moral works, for example Clavis regia sacerdotum, casuum conscientiae ... locos omnes aperiens, in folio, Venice 1605, edited ten times down to 1659; Thesaurus casuum conscientiae de censuris ecclesiasticis, in folio, Venice 1601, and seven times afterward. Besides this, Sayrus arranged some similar moral works from the works of Navarrus. The works of Sayrus were always of great authority among all theologians, and it is remarkable that this man, who departed from this life at the age of 42 years, was able to complete so many volumes, and those very weighty.

Scarpazza, Faustinus, O.P., Italian (1720-1793), wrote, besides other things, a clear, solid, and often edited work entitled Teologia morale ossia compendio di etica cristiana, 12 tomes, 4 volumes, in 8vo, Palermo 1843.

Scavini, Petrus, Italian (1790-1869), wrote the distinguished and very widespread work entitled Theologia moralis universa ad mentem S. Alphonsi, 4 tomes in 8vo, Novara 1847; at Milan 1902 there appeared the 16th edition.

Scheicher, Ios., Austrian, is a most fecund author. He wrote Allgemeine Moraltheologie, 1885; he revised Binder's Handbuch des Eherechtes, 3rd and 4th edition, 1887/91; Compendium theologiae moralis, 3rd edition, 1904.

Schilling, Otto, German, wrote much on sociology; besides this, Moraltheologie, a work of small size but of abundant and solid doctrine, which work he afterward enlarged into Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Munich 1927, 2 volumes in 8vo.

Schindler, Franc., Austrian (1847-1922), wrote, besides several works on sociology, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, 3 volumes, Vienna 1914, 2nd edition.

Schuch, Ignat., O.S.B., Austrian (d. 1893), wrote the useful and very well-known book Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Innsbruck 1910, 15th edition prepared by Polz.

Schwane, Ios., German (1824-1892), among several other things wrote Die theologische Lehre uber die Vertrage, Munster 1871; Spezielle Moraltheologie, 2nd edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 1885; Allgemeine Moraltheologie, there, 1885.

Scotus, Ioan. Duns, O.Min., English (1265-1308), called the Subtle Doctor, acquired great authority for himself, but defended some opinions evidently false. All his works appeared in 12 folio volumes, Lyons 1639; 26 volumes in 4to, Paris 1891 sqq.

Silvius, Franc., Belgian (1581-1649), wrote very well-known Commentaries on the whole Theological Summa of St. Thomas; and besides this some little works, 6 folio volumes, Venice 1726 and several times.

Simar, Hub., German, archbishop of Cologne (1835-1902), wrote on moral theology Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, 3rd edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 1893; Die Lehre vom Wesen des Gewissens, there, 1885, part I and only part; Der Aberglaube, Cologne 1893, 3rd edition.

Sinnigh, Ioan., Irish (d. 1666). He is an excessively rigid author, favors Jansenism, and seems to have defended the proposition afterward condemned by Alexander VIII: "It is not lawful to follow an opinion, even the most probable among the probable." For the list of his works, some of which are proscribed in the Index, see Hurter, Nomenclator IV, 100 sq.

Slater, Thomas, S.J., English, an author known in England and in North America, published, besides Tractatus de iustitia et iure, Principia theologiae moralis, 1 volume in 8vo, London 1912; A Manual of Moral Theology for English Speaking Countries, 2 volumes, 4th edition, New York 1918, works succinct and clear.

Soto, Dominicus de, O.P., Spanish (1494-1560), a man of great soul, theologian at the Council of Trent, wrote besides many other things Relatio de ratione tegendi et detegendi secretum, Salamanca 1552 and often afterward; De iustitia et iure, 10 books, there 1556 and often afterward.

Soto, Petrus de, O.P., Spanish (d. 1563), wrote among other things Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum, qui sub episcopis animarum curam gerunt, in 4to, Dillingen 1558 and often afterward.

Sporer, Patritius, O.Min., German (d. 1714), wrote Theologia moralis decalogalis et sacramentalis, which was enlarged by a supplement made by Kilian Kazenberger, 2 folio volumes, Venice 1731, and was newly edited by Iren. Bierbaum, 1897 and 1902. Sporer is an altogether grave author, although sometimes too benign.

Stoz, Matthaeus, S.J., German (d. 1678), wrote Tribunal poenitentiae, which work his brother Ioannes Stoz completed and published, 1 volume in 4to, Dillingen 1684.

Suarez, Franc., S.J., Spanish (1548-1617), all works, in folio, 23 tomes, Venice 1740-1757, and Paris, Vives, 1856-1861, 28 volumes in 4to. Suarez is deservedly numbered among the greatest theologians of the renowned Society of Jesus. His Tractatus de virtute et statu religionis is truly classic.

Summa confessorum is the name given to several books for the use of confessors, arranged in brief, clear, and almost always alphabetical order. See St. Raymond de Pennafort, Ioannes de Friburgo, Sylvester Prierias, Carleti, Trovamala, Toletus, and so forth.

Surbled, Georg., French, a physician, wrote a very useful work, widely circulated and translated into other languages: La Morale dans ses rapports avec la medecine et l'hygiene, 4 volumes in 12mo, 12th edition, Paris 1921.

Sylvester Prierias, see Prierias.

T

Tabiena, that is, Ioan. Cagnazzo de Tabia, O.P., Italian (d. 1521), wrote the very well-known Summa casuum conscientiae, which is briefly called Summa Tabiena and has been very often edited. A good edition appeared at Venice 1602, in 4to.

Tamburini, Thomas, S.J., Sicilian (1591-1675), wrote several moral works, for example Explicatio Decalogi, Methodus expeditae confessionis. All the moral works of this author appeared several times, especially under the care of Ant. Zaccaria, 3 folio volumes, Venice 1755. Tamburini is indeed very learned, but too indulgent, and therefore to be read with caution. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. book 3, no. 645. He openly teaches that it is lawful to follow an opinion which is probably only probable, Explicat. Decalogi book 1, chapter 3, § 3, no. 8.

Tanner, Adam, S.J., German (1572-1632), wrote Universa theologia scholastica, speculativa, practica ad methodum D. Thomae, 3 folio volumes, Ingolstadt 1626.

Tanquerey, Ad., French, wrote, besides Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, also Synopsis theologiae moralis et pastoralis, 3 volumes in 8vo. This work has several new editions and is outstanding for solid doctrine and a more scientific manner of treating moral matters.

Tappehorn, Ant., German (1823-1908), wrote several very useful and commendable works, for example Die lassliche Sunde, Dulmen 1883; Der Priester am Krankenbett, 5th edition prepared by Heinekamp, Paderborn 1910; Die Verwaltung des Bussakramentes, 5th edition prepared by Rich. Heinrichs, Dulmen 1908.

Terillus, Ant., S.J., English (1623-1676), is one of the principal defenders of Probabilism. He wrote: 1. Fundamentum totius theologiae moralis seu Tractatus de conscientia probabili, in 4to, Liege 1668. 2. Regula morum, in folio, there, 1678, a posthumous work.

Texeda, Franc. Lopez de, O.P., Spanish (ca. 1640), wrote Controversiae theologiae moralis omnes status concernentes, 2 folio volumes, Naples 1632-1646.

Theodorus a Spiritu Sancto, O.Carm., Italian (d. 1764), wrote very good treatises De indulgentiis, 2 folio volumes, Rome 1743, and De iubilaeo, in folio, there, 1750.

Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congregationis Concilii from the year 1718-1909, 167 volumes in 4to, then in folio. This complete collection is very rarely found in libraries.

St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Italian (1226-1274), Doctor of the Church, is deservedly called the prince of scholastic theology. His principal work, namely the Summa theologica, contains not only Dogmatics, but also Moral Theology, and indeed both in a most perfect way.

Toletus, Franc., S.J., Spanish (1532-1596), Cardinal, wrote Instructio sacerdotum and De septem peccatis, which work was very often edited and sometimes also under the title Summa casuum conscientiae sive instructio sacerdotum in libros VIII distincta. St. Francis de Sales highly commended this work to his clergy. Besides this Toletus left several unpublished writings, from which Ios. Paria, S.J., published In Summam theologicam S. Thomae enarratio, 4 volumes in 4to, Rome 1869.

Torre, Raphael de la, O.P., Spanish (d. 1612), wrote Commentaries on II-II of St. Thomas, 7 questions, namely: 1. De religione et eius actibus from question 80 to question 91, in folio, Salamanca 1610; 2. De vitiis oppositis religioni from question 92 to question 100, in folio, there, 1612. The third volume, on the remaining parts of justice, where, when treating of obedience, he added a copious treatise on the religious state, was ready for the press, as the author himself testifies, but was not yet printed.

Tournely, Honorat., French (1658-1729), wrote Praelectiones theologicae, which, completed by Collet, were often edited, for example Cologne 1752-1765, 10 folio volumes.

Trovamala (Novamala), Baptista, O.Min., Italian (d. 1495), wrote a Summa of cases arranged in alphabetical order, which is called Summa Baptistiniana or Rosella casuum, very often edited in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example Nuremberg 1484.

Trullench, Ioan. Aegid., Spanish (d. 1644), is cited rather frequently by St. Alphonsus and the Salmanticenses; he left several works pertaining to moral theology, for example Opus morale sive in 10 Decalogi et 5 Ecclesiae praecepta ... expositio, 2 folio volumes, Valencia 1640; Praxis sacramentorum, in folio, there, 1646; De iure parochi, in 8vo, there, 1647.

Turrianus, Ludov. (Luis de Torres), S.J., Spanish (1552-1635), published several works regarding moral theology, for example Disputationes in II-II S. Thomae, 2 folio volumes, Lyons 1617; Summa theologiae moralis, in folio, there, 1634; Disputationes de poenitentia, 2 folio volumes, Madrid 1628.

U

Ulricus, Engelbertus de Argentina, O.P., German (d. ca. 1277), disciple of Blessed Albert the Great, left a Summa theologica, which Ioannes de Friburgo often used in the Summa confessorum, but which, alas, has not yet been printed.

V

Valentia, Gregor. de, S.J., Spanish (1549-1603). His principal work is Commentarii theologici in totam Summam S. Thomae Aq., often edited, for example Lyons 1600, 4 folio volumes.

Van de Burgt, E. P., Dutch (d. 1883), wrote the distinguished treatise De matrimonio, 's-Hertogenbosch 1859, in 8vo. A new edition was prepared by Schaepman.

Van der Velden, Pius, O.Min., Belgian (d. 1857), wrote Principia theologiae moralis theoretice et practice exposita. This work, enriched with several annotations, was edited again by Fr. Piat, Capuchin, 3 volumes in 8vo, Paris 1875.

Vasquez, Gabriel, S.J., Spanish (1551-1604), wrote Commentaries on the Summa of St. Thomas, and moral little works De eleemosyna, de scandalo, restitutione, and so forth. More than once he defends singular and less safe opinions. All his works were edited at Lyons 1630-1631, 9 volumes, 10 tomes, in folio.

Vega, Andreas, O.Min., Spanish (d. 1560), wrote, besides other things, the work entitled De iustificatione doctrina universa, Venice 1548 and afterward often edited. He is a very learned author, but some of his opinions are less correct, especially concerning the necessity of supernatural faith.

Vermeersch, Arthur, S.J., Belgian, is a grave and fecund author, who published several works of solid doctrine, for example Quaestiones de iustitia, in 8vo, 2nd edition 1904, Bruges 1901; De religiosis institutis et personis, 4th edition, there, 1909, to which work periodic supplements are added; De castitate et vitiis contrariis, Rome 1919; Theologiae moralis principia, responsa, consilia, 2nd edition, Rome 1927.

Victoria (Vitoria), Franc. de, O.P., Spanish (1480-1546), is a very celebrated theologian, who wrote altogether distinguished works: Relectiones theologiae, in 8vo, Lyons 1537 and often afterward; In II-II commentaria, in 4to, Paris 1512. Several works of Franciscus de Victoria have not yet been printed. Cf. Ehrler in Katholik 1884, 508 sqq., and Getino in La Ciencia Tomista 1910, 1 sqq.

Vidal, Franc., O.P., see Wigandt.

Villada, Paul, S.J., Spanish, wrote Casus conscientiae his praesertim temporibus accommodatos et resolutos, 3 volumes in 8vo, Brussels 1884 sqq.

Villalobos, Henr. de, O.Min. (d. ca. 1637), wrote the often edited work Suma de la teologia moral y canonica, 2 folio tomes, Salamanca 1623.

Vincentius Bellovacensis, O.P., French (d. 1264). Under his name was printed Speculum morale, which nevertheless seems to be a compilation of another author. Cf. Quetif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed. I, 213 sqq.

Vio, Thomas de (Cajetan), O.P., Italian, Cardinal (1469-1534), a man of most acute intellect and indefatigable labor, wrote, besides the very well-known Commentaries on the Theological Summa, Peccatorum summula in alphabetical order, in 8vo, Rome 1525 and several other times, and very many little works treating moral matters. In choosing opinions Cajetan is usually a very benign author, sometimes defending even false opinions.

Viva, Dominicus, S.J., Italian (1648-1726 [1710]), wrote a rather well-known work, Damnatae theses ab Alexandro VII, Innocentio XI..., 3 volumes in 4to, Naples 1708 and afterward often; all his theological-moral works with observations by Franciscus Zaccaria were published, 8 volumes in 8vo, Ferrara 1757.

Vlaming, Th. M., Dutch, wrote learned and clear Praelectiones de iure matrimonii, 2 volumes in 8vo, 3rd edition, Bussum 1919.

Vogler, Ios., S.J., German (d. 1708), wrote especially De restitutione, in 4to, Ingolstadt 1705; Iuris cultor theologus circa obligationes restitutionis ... instructus, in 8vo, there, 1733.

Vogt, Ios., German, wrote in a succinct style a truly distinguished work, Das kirchliche Eherecht, in 8vo, 3rd edition, Cologne 1910. Besides this he wrote Kirchenvermogensrecht, in 8vo, there, 1903.

W

Waffelaert, G. J., Belgian, bishop of Bruges, published several moral works full of solid doctrine and great learning, for example Tractatus theologici de virtutibus cardinalibus, 3 volumes in 8vo, Bruges 1885-1889; Annotationes in tractatum de virtutibus theologicis, in 8vo, there, 1900; De la science sociale, in 8vo, there, 1894; Sur la malice du mensonge..., in 8vo, there, 1884; Sur l'obligation en conscience des lois civiles, in 8vo, Tournai 1884.

Walsh, G. J., Irish, archbishop of Dublin, wrote the learned and solid work De actibus humanis, Dublin 1880.

Wernz, Franc. Xav., General of the Society of Jesus, German (d. 1914), wrote an altogether distinguished work and very useful also for moral theology, Ius Decretalium, 6 volumes in 8vo, Rome 1898 sqq. New editions are prepared by Vidal.

Wigandt, Martin, O.P., German (d. 1708), wrote the very well-known, useful, and clear work Tribunal confessariorum et ordinandorum, in 4to, Augsburg 1703; this work, very often edited, was afterward revised and enlarged by Franciscus Vidal, O.P., in folio, Venice 1754.

Wiggers, Ioan., Belgian, Professor at Louvain (1571-1639), wrote in a clear and brief style Commentaries on the whole Theological Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Wirceburgenses are the theologians of the Society of Jesus so called: Thomas Holtzclau, Henr. Kilber, Ulr. Munier, Ign. Neubauer; they published a dogmatic and moral theology, 1766-1771. A new edition appeared at Paris 1879-1880 in 10 volumes. The moral part is found in volumes 5-10.

Wirthmuller, Ioan. Bapt., German (d. 1905), wrote, besides other things, Uber das Sittengesetz, Wurzburg 1878; Die moralische Tugend der Religion, Freiburg 1881. This last work is very commendable.

Y

Ysambert, Nicol., French (1642), a distinguished professor of the Sorbonne, wrote Commentaries on the Theological Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, 6 folio volumes, Paris 1639.

Z

Zaccaria, Franc. Anton., S.J., Italian (1714-1795), is an author of indefatigable labor and perhaps too fecund, since, besides his works not yet edited, 161 printed works are enumerated. He also re-edited with annotations the works of other authors, for example Tamburini, Busenbaum, Lacroix, and Natalis Alexander. For moral theology, mention must be made of his dissertation De casuisticae theologiae originibus, locis ac praestantia. This dissertation, written at the request of St. Alphonsus, treats of the places of moral theology.

Zanardi, Mich., O.P., Italian (1570-1642), wrote, besides other things, Directorium theologorum ac confessariorum, 3 volumes in 8vo, Cremona and Venice 1612-1614. He seems to be an author too benign in moral matters.

Zaninetti, I. Steph., Italian, compiled with great learning Theologia moralis seminariorum usui accommodata, Novara 1908 sq.

Zenner, Fr. Xav., Austrian (d. 1861), wrote the brief and clear Instructio practica confessarii, 6th edition, Vienna 1867.

Zumel, Franc., O. de Merc., Spanish (d. ca. 1607), wrote for moral theology Commentaries on I-II of the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, 3 folio volumes, Salamanca 1595. Zumel is a faithful Thomist.

It is to be regretted that in schools the history of Moral Theology is not treated equally with the history of Dogmas and the history of Philosophy. For knowledge of history would certainly produce a more perfect knowledge of Moral Theology itself. Let at least a brief and succinct historical conspectus of Moral Theology be offered here. For the sake of clarity we distinguish three periods, namely: the first down to the thirteenth century; the second down to the end of the Council of Trent; the third down to our own days.

That the Alphonsian Moral Institutions, which Father Clement Marc thirty years ago published for the first time, is a most excellent work, both by solidity of doctrine, and by abundance of matter, and by clarity of method and language, is clear from the praises of many learned men and of periodicals; it is clear also from this, that very many prelates of the Church and superiors of religious orders wished the same to be used in their seminaries and religious institutes. Hence it has come about that already fourteen copious editions have been distributed among the clergy of the whole Catholic world.

After the author had died, while he was preparing the third edition, other editors further reviewed and perfected this work according to the norm of the recent decrees of the Holy See. Since I succeeded them, it seemed good to me, employing the work of an expert confrere (to whom here I pay due thanks), to subject this fifteenth edition once again to new care, that I might adapt even more to our times a work already so excellent.

Wherefore, first indeed, I judged that various new moral questions, especially those which have arisen from the condition of society today, either should be added or treated a little more fully. Other questions, although sufficiently explained by the author for his own time, I have in some measure recast, according to the manner in which they are proposed today by the authors, so that in this way account might also be taken of the progress of moral science. Then, since the author perhaps was too sparing in bringing forward the authorities of more recent writers, I, that I might comply with the desire of our time, have gathered together in each matter several theologians, both ancient and recent, either that I might show the reader the way for a fuller study, or that I might indicate to him the opinions of others, especially of more recent writers, often adding my judgment concerning them.

As regards form, I changed a few things which would contribute to a more didactic method; I cut away other things which seemed superfluous or of little use, so that, although many new things have been added, the bulk of the work nevertheless has not increased. I judged that the same numbers were to be preserved, lest confusion arise because of too great a discrepancy, when preceding editions are used or cited. I have always cited the moral theology of St. Alphonsus according to the typical edition of Father Leonard Gaude, which was received with common applause by learned men and adorned with great praises. Finally, that all things have been exactly and accurately brought into conformity with the most recent decrees of the Apostolic See, it is scarcely necessary for me to observe.

And so the distinguished work of the illustrious Marc has indeed remained substantially the same; nevertheless this edition is entirely revised, and enlarged with many new questions.

The wishes which the author expressed in the first edition are the same also in this fifteenth edition; for which reason I judged that his preface should be brought forward here almost entire.

Rome, on the 1st day of May, 1915.

As soon as St. Alphonsus was declared Doctor of the Church, at the exhortation of the superiors of our Congregation, I formed the plan of writing these Institutions, both that I might consult the usefulness of our students and missionaries, and that I might labor, according to my strength, for the propagation of the moral doctrine of the Blessed Father. Nor did the consideration of long labor deter me; for I had deeply imbibed in my mind that very opinion which His Eminence Cardinal William Sanfelice quite recently expressed in his Synodal Statutes thus: "Experience bearing witness, that confessor will gather richer fruits who, in the confessional, shall have come nearer to the opinions and practice of Liguori" (Synod. dioec. Neapol., June 1882, c. V, § IX).

Indeed from that time several compendia of moral theology have appeared, which, already widely diffused, have greatly enlarged the celebrity of the name of Alphonsus. Yet I did not for that reason judge that I should cease from pursuing my labor. For although the aforesaid compendia are most worthy of commendation, nevertheless it seemed that this work of mine would not be devoid of all usefulness, on account of the particular end which I set before myself to attain in composing it. For, as appears from the title of the work, I had set before my labor a threefold aim: the first was that I might faithfully set forth the whole doctrine of the Blessed Father concerning moral matters; the second, that I might reduce it into a truly methodical form; the third, finally, that I might complete the same with all those additions which seemed to respond more to the necessities of present times.

And in the first place, what is expected before all else from a son of St. Alphonsus treating of moral matters is this: that he propose to readers the doctrine of his Father with the greatest fidelity. And this was my principal end. But that I might attain this, I found myself furnished with several and very opportune aids. There were entrusted to me all the editions of the various moral works which the Holy Doctor revised with his own hand; and from these, compared among themselves, I detected what explanations and modifications he himself, with the passage of time, judged should be inserted into his doctrine: a thing which is often of much help for attaining the true mind of any writer whatever. I had at hand also very many annotations written by him, and many letters treating of moral matters, which, after they had lain in oblivion for almost an entire century, have happily been found again at last in these most recent times.....

I was much occupied in investigating all those things which regard Probabilism. And since, for interpreting the genuine sense of authors, the rules of criticism prescribe this, that their earlier works be judged from their later works, I judged that I had especially to attend to that dissertation which was inserted in the sixth edition, as also to the other works which from the year 1762 were published by the Holy Doctor. And I conformed myself to this norm the more securely, because he himself, before this time, always in his Moral Theology, and in the compendium of this (Homo Apost.), expressly declared "that he prescinded from that question: whether it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion, the more probable being left aside".....

My second aim was an ordered and methodical exposition of moral doctrine. As regards order, it pleased me generally to retain that which St. Alphonsus held in his compendia. But while I was choosing this order, I thought that I would be doing a useful thing if I distinctly showed by what logical connection the various treatises thus arranged cohered among themselves. To demonstrate this, it helped me especially to bring forward the words of St. Thomas and of the Roman Catechism, whose authority no one is ignorant of.....

My third aim, finally, was to enrich the present Institutions with all those additions which present necessities more demand for themselves. Hence I placed all the care I could in resolving, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, very many cases which are accustomed to arise from the condition of present affairs. Hence I not only carefully went to most of the modern authors who have written on moral matters, but also frequently cited them, especially those who follow the Alphonsian doctrine more faithfully. Hence I was most diligent in seeking out and verifying the various Decisions which are continually published by the Roman Congregations, holding it as certain that in this matter also I was walking in the footsteps of our Blessed Father, who received with veneration all the decrees of the sacred Congregations as oracles.....

In citing the older authors (apart from St. Thomas and some others, who were especially dear to St. Alphonsus), I wished to be very sparing, for these two reasons: first, that it might be distinctly known that I am chiefly engaged in setting forth the doctrine of St. Alphonsus; then, that readers, in any difficulty that occurs, might be referred more certainly to the Blessed Doctor, with whom they will find indicated various authors who, in his judgment, treated the matter better.

Behold, therefore, with what mind I have written these Institutions.....

But may our most loving Redeemer grant that this labor of mine, whatever it may be, may redound to His glory, and that through it many souls, with St. Alphonsus as leader and patron, may be led into the bosom and embrace of God.

Rome, on the 19th day of March, the feast of St. Joseph, in the year 1885.

6. History. The history of moral theology (the distinguished Ernest Muller bearing witness, Introduction, 211) can conveniently be divided into three periods. Its first period runs from the beginning of the Church up to the time when scholastic theology began to flourish; the second from the beginning of introduced scholastic theology up to the time of the Reformation; the third, finally, from the time of the Reformation up to our age.

I. First period. Moral doctrine, although arranged into no scientific system, nevertheless in all its points, according as necessity demanded it, is found to have been explained, indeed discussed, by the Fathers of the Church and by ecclesiastical authors already in those ancient times; and this indeed: 1. In writings against the Gentiles attacking Christian ethics (St. Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian). 2. In works written for Christians themselves, in which they were admonished to holiness of life, especially to defending and confessing the faith bravely, to loving enemies and persecutors sincerely, to showing obedience exactly to ecclesiastical and civil power, etc. Cf. Hermas, in the work entitled Pastor; the three works of Clement of Alexandria: Paedagogus, Stromata, and On the Right Use of Riches; likewise very many works of Tertullian; the opuscula of St. Cyprian: On the Lapsed, On the Lord's Prayer, On the Dress of Virgins, On Work and Alms, etc.; likewise some works of St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa; likewise the books of St. Augustine: On Lying, On the Combat of Christ, On the Morals of the Church, etc. 3. In public sermons, in which moral precepts were handed down to the faithful people. Let St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory the Great be consulted. 4. Finally, in special instructions to priests, such as, for example, the instructions of St. Chrysostom, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Gregory Nazianzen: On the Priesthood; St. Ambrose's three books: On Duties; St. Jerome's letter to Nepotian; St. Gregory the Great's Moralia on Job and On Pastoral Care, etc. Among those who, from the seventh century up to the beginning of scholastic theology, treated moral matters, St. Isidore of Seville (seventh century), St. John Damascene and Venerable Bede (eighth century), and St. Peter Damian (eleventh century), chiefly deserve to be named.

II. The second period shines forth with doctors of the greatest name. Their praise is to be placed chiefly in this, that they arranged not only dogmatic truths but also moral truths into a scientific system, using especially the scholastic or speculative method. For those most learned men attained this: that they illustrated by the aid of philosophy all the moral doctrines contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition, and all those either expressly proposed by the Church, or at least universally received in the Church, and fortified them with solid reasons against any opponents whatever, and thence drew legitimate conclusions. In this great labor before the rest shone Peter Lombard (d. 1164), Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), Albert the Great (d. 1280), St. Bonaventure (d. 1274), called the Seraphic Doctor; then he who stands before all as prince, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), the Angelic Doctor; and lastly Duns Scotus (d. 1308), the Subtle Doctor.

But the casuistic method was cultivated no less. For to this belong both the Summa on Penitential Cases, by St. Raymond of Pennafort, and the Moral Mirror, which is ascribed to Vincent of Beauvais, and the Theological Summa and Confessional Summa, by St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, and many other works. See more in the outstanding dissertation of Father Zacharia, on the origins of casuistic theology, etc.³

III. Third period. "The heresiarchs of the sixteenth century," says Ernest Muller, "attempted to weaken and overthrow the foundations of moral doctrine; for these, therefore, to be strongly defended, it was necessary to take arms especially from Sacred Scripture and from Tradition; for which reason, from that time, moral theology, as also dogmatic theology, was handed down more positively, without however the speculative treatment of the same lying neglected; for most scholastics still flourishing in this age (such as Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, Lugo, Gregory of Valencia, Becanus) set forth the sacred discipline of morals both positively and speculatively.

"Casuistic theology was very much cultivated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the less the innovators admitted good works as necessary for salvation, the more Catholic theologians, with Holy Mother Church, urged the same, and the more studiously they strove to explain the rules of acting well. Very many theologians of this kind being passed over in silence, the following are celebrated with great praises by right and merit: Francis Toletus (d. 1596), heaped with encomia by the Roman Pontiffs themselves; Reginald (d. 1623), numbered by St. Alphonsus among the classical authors, whose works St. Francis de Sales, and also St. Charles Borromeo those of Reginald, commended to their clergy; Emmanuel Sa (d. 1596), highly esteemed by St. Pius V; John Azor (d. 1603), especially commended among theologians for talent and knowledge; Francis Suarez (d. 1617), whom Benedict XIV called a luminary of theology; Leonard Lessius (d. 1623), highly esteemed by Paul V, Sixtus V, and Urban VIII, and endowed with praises by St. Francis de Sales on account of his 'most useful work' On Justice and Right; Thomas Sanchez (d. 1610), held in the highest esteem by Clement VIII and called by St. Alphonsus a most pious man; Laymann (d. 1635), outstanding in doctrine and talent, consulted as an oracle from the most remote places; Martin Bonacina (d. 1631), who is deservedly numbered by St. Alphonsus among the classical authors; Cardinal De Lugo (d. 1660), whom St. Alphonsus says is easily prince among moral theologians after St. Thomas; the Salmanticenses (the theologians of the college of Salamanca in Spain), who likewise are numbered by St. Alphonsus among the classical doctors. Herman Busenbaum (d. 1668) composed a compendium of moral theology, which from the year 1650 to the year 1770, in more than two hundred repeated editions, had been spread everywhere, imitating, as he himself says, little bees, which gather the most useful things from the best flowers and arrange them in order in the hive."

When, in the seventeenth century, the Jansenists poured forth assertions opposed to the sound doctrine of Christ, moral science experienced very sad fortunes. For those heretics, deceitfully simulating great piety and a singular fervor for protecting moral science, brought it about that in France, Italy, and other provinces they drew many learned men to their side: among whom were also Peter Collet (the celebrated continuator of Honore Tournely), Louis Habert, and Natalis Alexander, who, although they rejected other errors of the Jansenists, nevertheless accommodated themselves in many things to their immoderate rigor. Indeed there were not lacking those who defended more benign opinions, such as Louis Abelly, Eusebius Amort, Castropalaus, Gobat, Roncaglia, Cardenas, Viva, Lacroix, Sporer, Reiffenstuel, Reuter, Voit, Holzmann, Elbel, Mazzotta, etc., without however being able wholly to repress the swelling rigor of doctrine.

While these things were being done, St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligorio, not without the most provident counsel of God, undertook to write moral theology, that he might accurately and solidly defend the truly Catholic doctrine of morals, holding the middle between excessive severity and excessive benignity. First indeed (in the year 1748) he published the Medulla of Herman Busenbaum, with notes and cases added; but since this work did not fully satisfy his end, he began to elaborate another very extensive work (in the year 1753), in which, with singular perspicacity, most profound learning, and rare facility and clarity of discussion, he treats of all moral matters "which serve more for practice." With what method this most wise man proceeded in composing this work, he himself declares in these words worthy of remembrance (Apolog., 1): "I protest before God that I certainly did not send the Moral Theology to press in order that I might receive from men the name of learned; but the end of this work was no other than the glory of God and the salvation of souls. For the space of almost thirty years I read innumerable authors, both strict and benign, and in this time I continually prayed God that He deign to enlighten me. Finally, I built the moral system not upon my own reason, but upon the doctrines of theologians, and first of all of the prince of theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas; if, therefore, I err, I err with this Holy Doctor. The texts drawn from canon law I examined and noted in the sources with the greatest care. If I found cited the text of some Father bearing on the matter concerning which there is controversy, I noted it with its proper words, and with all the study owed to such authority I investigated the sense. Besides, also in more intricate controversies, where I could not resolve doubts from the authors, I consulted various learned men; and I learned many things by the experience of thirty years of confessions and missions."

As regards the method observed in this work, St. Alphonsus follows the same order which H. Busenbaum held in his Medulla of Moral Theology; indeed, he sets forth first the whole text of that author, to which afterward he is accustomed to add those things by which the opinions alleged from the Medulla are accurately discussed, or confirmed, or rejected, or modified, with very many things also added which are lacking in the Medulla, and which he himself treats at length. Then in individual controversies he is accustomed to bring forward all the opinions of doctors with their reasons, and to interpose his own judgment concerning them, with reasons added. Moreover this work, which while St. Alphonsus was still living obtained nine editions in Italy, was reduced (in the year 1757) by the same Holy Doctor into a compendium, which first was entitled Istruzione e pratica, then, turned into Latin, Homo Apostolicus. To these he added the little work whose title is Praxis confessarii, which had already been published in the Italian idiom in the year 1755 (cf. preface to the edition), and in the year 1764 another brief compendium, which he entitled Confessore diretto. This compendium indeed is the more commendable, because it was written after the Blessed Doctor had already established his moral system in a definitive manner, and because it sets forth more openly the opinions which he holds in practice (cf. Vind. Alph., Preliminary Dissertation).

Finally, as regards the authors who in this century have written on moral matters, it remains for us to say that most of them, because of the singular esteem with which the Holy See has followed the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, have chiefly attended to this: that they might follow him as teacher and leader (cf. Concession of the title Doctor, Response to the observations, c. 4, n. 196).

7. Sources. The sources of moral theology, in the stricter sense, are theological places, or documents in which known moral truths are contained and from which they are drawn.

Commonly the following eight are cited: 1. Sacred Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament. 2. Councils, both general and particular. 3. Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, issued either through Constitutions (Encyclicals) or through responses of the Sacred Congregations. 4. Works of the Holy Fathers, who are both witnesses of Tradition and doctors of truths pertaining to morals. 5. Works of theologians, especially of those whom the Church highly esteems; she attributes singular authority to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. 6. Ecclesiastical and civil law. 7. The usage and practice of the Church. 8. Moral philosophy (Zacharia, Dissertation already cited).

It must be noted that, since moral theology is sacred doctrine, some of these sources are constitutive, others auxiliary, and not all are by nature fitted to enjoy equal authority in every matter.

San Francisco, September 13, 1876.

Rev. Father,

After it was given me to be present at the canonization of St. Alphonsus, and for about forty years to admire the doctrine and writings of so great a Doctor, I rejoice that it is also given me to commend your compendium of the Moral Theology of the same Doctor, as consonant with his doctrine and very useful to the students of our colleges, and indeed to the Venerable Clergy.

• JOSEPH S. ALEMANY, O.P., Archbishop of San Francisco.

Rev. Fr. A. Konings, C.SS.R., etc.

Natchez, Miss., March 9, 1877.

Rev. A. Konings, C.SS.R.:

Rev. Dear Sir: Since I have had an opportunity of looking through your Moral Theology, I cordially agree with what has been said in its commendation by so many better judges. Its special value for this country is its treating of so many matters particularly belonging to us - making a good use of the judicious opinions of the venerated Archbp. Kenrick; and yet not hesitating to give authorities and reasons opposed to them, where such exist. Another special value is in the various recent documents of the Holy See that you give; together with suitable remarks: making your Theology a practical manual for reference; - for the Syllabus, for various answers and instructions of the Holy See, for the Faculties of Bishops, etc. With regard to the general merits of your work, - I have not studied it enough to form a definitive judgment, but as far as I have seen it, I think you manifest a very practical judgment; what we call solid good sense; that you are clear and positive in your opinions, when the matter admits of it, and yet very modest and deferential to others, in your expression of them. Of all the Moral Theologies that I know, yours is the one which I would most wish every priest of my diocese to have and to use.

Your faithful servant in Christ,

• WILLIAM HENRY ELDER, Bishop of Natchez.

St. Paul, March 18, 1877.

Rev. Dear Sir:

Allow me to express to you the great satisfaction I have found in examining your Compendium of Moral Theology. I have recommended it earnestly to all of my priests.

• THOMAS L. GRACE, Bishop of St. Paul.

Rev. A. Konings, C.SS.R.

Harrisburg, Pa., September 24, 1876.

Very Rev. Dear Sir:

It gives me pleasure to add my feeble word of commendation to the many high testimonials you have received for your truly valuable work on Moral Theology.

I am, very respectfully,

Yours in Christ,

J. F. SHANAHAN, Bishop of Harrisburg.

Very Rev. A. Konings, C.SS.R.

Ottawa, September 20, 1876.

Very Reverend Father:

Your work, whose title is: Moral Theology of the Most Recent Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus, reduced into a compendium, clearly sets forth the genuine doctrine of the Holy Doctor, and is most excellently adapted also to the condition of this Canadian region.

For this reason it is very pleasing to me to commend it,

• J. THOMAS, Bishop of Ottawa.

St. Cloud, Minn., November 10, 1876.

Rev. and Dear Father:

It gives me great pleasure to add my weak voice of approbation to that of so many learned and distinguished prelates. I consider your Compendium Theologiae Moralis a most useful, I might say necessary, book for every priest, and chiefly for students of Theology. May God bless you for your labors.

Yours very sincerely,

• RUPERT SEIDENBUSH, O.S.B., Vic. Apos. North Minn.

St. Hyacinthe, September 17, 1876.

Very Reverend Father:

I have been able to go through only in part the excellent work, Moral Theology of St. Liguori, which you have published, and of which you kindly sent me a copy. I thank you very much for your kind attention, and I make it a happiness to join my approbation to those, already numerous and of such great weight, which you have received from the venerable Bishops of the United States and elsewhere. I do not hesitate to declare that your work is precious to religion, and that it will be extremely useful to the clergy of the United States and of Canada, who find themselves in nearly the same position, and facing similar needs.

In making very sincere wishes for a wide and prompt diffusion of your work, I remain, very respectfully, my Reverend Father,

Your wholly devoted servant in Our Lord,

• L. Z., Bishop of St. Hyacinthe.

Very Reverend Father Konings, C.SS.R.

Seton Hall College, South Orange, N.J.,

I. The authority of the Supreme Pontiffs in settling controversies of morals and of faith wise theologians have illustrated in entire volumes. All Catholics receive and venerate it alike. In this compendium it is not permitted, for brevity's sake, to illustrate this argument at greater length.

II. The Doctors and Fathers of the Church must be distinguished from doctors who are in the Church. The Probabilists and Casuists call one another by the title of Doctor. Nothing is more frequent in their books than this phrase: So the Doctors; so the Doctors commonly. And who are these Doctors? Caramuel, Diana, Gobat, Escobar, Tamburini, La Cruz, Vera Cruz, Sporer, Candidus, La-Croix, and six hundred of the same sort. If these men have received the laurel of the Doctorate in some University — as it is wont to be received very easily — they may be called doctors dwelling in the Church, but not Doctors and Fathers of the Church. Three endowments are required that anyone be numbered among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church: 1. eminent doctrine; 2. signal sanctity; 3. the testimony of the Church. The Doctors of the Church are called, in the fifth chapter of Matthew, the salt of the earth and the light of the world: You are the salt of the earth ... You are the light of the world ... so let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works. Wisdom dissipates darkness and illuminates minds; sanctity of morals inflames others to the pursuit of virtue; the testimony of the Church approves both the wisdom and the sanctity.

III. As the first Fathers of the Church, and at the same time as divine writers, the Evangelists and Apostles stand eminent, and after them follow the disciples of the Lord, all of whom by degrees are Fathers of Fathers; as St. Augustine says, explaining the versicle of Psalm 44, Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee: that is, he says, the Apostles were sent as Fathers. In the place of the Apostles, sons have been born to thee: bishops have been established. The episcopal grade is a singular prerogative, which, joined with eminent doctrine and signal sanctity, constitutes a more excellent Father of the Church; since the episcopate is the chief channel of tradition, through which the uncorrupted doctrine of the Apostles has come down to us.

IV. The Fathers are commonly distributed into three ages. The first age comprehends the first three centuries; the second, the following three; the third extends from the beginning of the seventh century to the thirteenth. The Fathers of the first age are worthy of the greater veneration, the nearer they stood to the primeval origin and fountain of the apostolic traditions. Yet the Fathers of the second age do not for that reason excel with lesser authority, if they have illustrated the Church more copiously with the splendor of a richer doctrine and of heroic virtues. The Fathers of the third age, although inferior to their predecessors in antiquity, erudition, and eloquence, nevertheless, since they have taught the same doctrine as the first, and at times hand it down more compactly and more distinctly, are themselves also to be held in the highest esteem.

V. The chief among the Latin Fathers are Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, Leo the Great, Prosper, Fulgentius, Gregory the Great. The more celebrated among the Greeks are Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Basil, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Damascene.

VI. St. Bernard, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure are Doctors and Fathers of the Church on account of their eminent knowledge, their signal sanctity, and the testimony of the Church. Among the ancient Fathers of the Church are not reckoned Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Rufinus: for although their erudition and knowledge be eminent, the Church nevertheless has not adopted them as her Doctors. Great, notwithstanding, is their authority in those things in which they do not depart from the doctrine of the Church. I shall touch in few words upon what is commonly held concerning the authority of the Fathers.

VII. Rule I. Many things are disputed in theology which pertain neither to faith nor to morals, and hence have been neither revealed nor handed down. In such minor questions no one is bound to embrace the authority of the Fathers. Rule II. In those things which pertain to faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers produces a most certain judgment, which no Catholic can call into question. For if all the holy Fathers by unanimous consent were to fall into some error, the Church herself would err — which, as was shown above, cannot happen; and this rule is common, and is confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. Rule III. When, in matters of faith, a few of the holy Fathers dissent, that is to be embraced which the rest teach by unanimous consent. Rule IV. The authority of one or another Doctor of the Church is to be held in the greater esteem, the more clearly it is established that they were given by God, by a peculiar providence, in this or that grave controversy for the defense of the Church's doctrine, and were endowed with a more excellent sanctity. With these gifts there shines forth among the ancients St. Augustine, who after St. Paul was given by God to champion the doctrine of grace and predestination against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, and to assert the sincerity of Christian speech against lies and mental restrictions. And what shall I say of that stupendous portent of Christian fortitude, unheard of through the ages, the great Athanasius, who for nearly half a century fought fearlessly and strenuously against the Arians? The doctrine of Aquinas the Pontiffs rightly call the shield and antidote against all heresies.

VIII. Of scholastic theology and the authority of theologians I have discoursed at greater length in Tome I of the Apparatus, book I, dissertation 3, chapters 12 and 13. A few things I shall now touch upon. The office of scholastic theology is to gather into one the doctrine dispersed in the Scriptures, in the Councils, and in the Fathers; to distribute it into treatises; and, once distributed, to explain it by way and reason and right method, and to strengthen the dogmas of faith and morals with the weight of arguments. The first of all to gather the dispersed theology into one body and digest it was St. John Damascene, a Greek by nation, who lived in the eighth century. St. Anselm, in the West, published a body of scholastic theology in the eleventh century. In the footsteps of Damascene and Anselm followed, in the twelfth century, Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, called the Master of the Sentences, who from holy Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers, and above all from St. Augustine, published the chief treatises of theology. In the thirteenth century many scholastic theologians flourished, among whom stand eminent Alexander of Hales, Blessed Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and not a few others.

IX. To resist the concordant judgment of all the Scholastics in matters of faith and morals, if it is not heresy, is next door to heresy, says Melchior Cano. He adds that the multitude of the Scholastics ought not to overwhelm the theologian. Yet the diversity of the theologians must be regarded: for to withstand the common doctrine of the graver theologians is not free of temerity. But against theologians who are eminent neither in sanctity nor in doctrine, however many they be, it is lawful for anyone to contend, provided that both solid reasons and graver theologians, though fewer in number, bring him support.

X. With the sixteenth century waning and the seventeenth beginning, scholastic theology suffered its greatest detriment. And that you may perceive this clearly, you must know that Christian theology is one, embracing these two things: what is to be believed, and what is to be done. It receives various appellations according to different respects. It is called Dogmatic and Positive when it interprets the articles of faith; Polemical, when it vindicates such articles from the cunning inventions of heretics; Scholastic, when it digests all things by way and reason and reduces them to a fixed form of reasoning; Moral theology comprehends both what is to be believed and what is to be done. It explains the articles of faith, and briefly indeed and soberly points out the chief heresies against which Christians must be on their guard. A moral theologian cannot be complete unless he be at once dogmatic, polemical, and scholastic. A theologian of this kind now sits before the tribunal and pronounces judgments — not about the dripping of eaves, not about the boundaries of fields, but about eternal beatitude or eternal misery; now, as master and orator, he teaches, persuades, rebukes; now he draws the sword against enemies both domestic and foreign. The theologian, whether dogmatic or polemical, once his argument has been established, runs his course in his dissertations by an unobstructed way. The moral theologian, on the contrary, continually strikes upon rocks, sandbars, and obstacles: now one circumstance opposes him, now another; on every side lie snares and frauds. Wherefore in the moral theologian, besides polemical, dogmatic, and moral science, there are required an exquisite judgment and a keen mind, a mature and abundant prudence, purity of soul, the government of the appetites, and contempt of earthly things.

XI. Now this most noble nation of theologians was, at the time indicated, divided into two parties: that of the Scholastics, and that of the Moralists. The former, established as it were upon a more eminent bench, claiming for themselves acumen of mind and the art of disputation, look down as from a lofty watchtower upon the Moralists lying in the lowest station, and despise them almost as blockheads and dullards. This is the truth of the matter. In any community whatsoever, those who excel in acumen of mind are deputed to preside over the chairs of the Scholastics and are honored with laurels and degrees; while to the cultivation of the science of morals, to the hearing of confessions, and to the delivery of sermons are sometimes destined those who are unfit for the sublimer scholastic science. And just as many scholastic theologians procured for themselves the greater fame, the subtler and the more futile the questions they stirred up, so very many moral theologians, emulating the glory of the Scholastics, intruded the vainest subtleties and the most inept petty distinctions into Christian theology, and stitched together, like patchwork, an ill-digested heap and arbitrary decisions.

XII. Hence it came about that the illustrious theologians of the age, prejudiced by these abuses, judged that their own glory and their own learning would be ill served if they conferred study and labor upon illustrating the theology called Casuistry. Upon this first absurdity there followed another. For to the adorning of this province there came not a few who were sufficiently strong neither in talent, nor in erudition, nor in prudence. Wherefore it is no marvel if the queen of the sciences lies daily more despised, daily more squalid; if she teems and overflows with quibbles, with captious arguments, with the vainest inventions, alien to evangelical simplicity. This, nowadays, the garrulous old woman, this the doting old man, this the wordy sophist take upon themselves; this they all presume upon, mangle, and teach before they have learned it, says St. Jerome of the handlers of another similar subject.

XIII. Who could sufficiently lament that Christian discipline has in many places come to such a pass of evils, that that supreme and most holy apostolic office of explaining the divine word and of ruling souls is committed to men less vigilant, less learned, less furnished with talent, erudition, dexterity, and therefore with prudence; while to the chairs of disputing, of wrangling, of caviling over matters of almost no moment are raised men perspicacious, erudite, acute, and learned? Ill indeed would the Christian commonwealth be provided for, if the more excellent, the sublimer, the holier ministries — which Christ himself performed, which the Doctors of the Church discharged through so many centuries — were now consigned for their exercise to men less skilled, less learned (what if also less holy?).

XIV. The authority of those who, neglecting the Scriptures, the Councils, and the Fathers, go after others like sheep and birds, as Navarrus and Cardenas say, has no more force than the weight of the reasons they bring forward — if indeed they bring any. That long census of citations is of no weight whatever, when the testimonies of holy Scripture, of the Fathers, of the Councils, and of the graver theologians are wanting.

XV. The knowledge of Canon Law is necessary to the theologian. Exceedingly useful, moreover, are skill in ecclesiastical history — which narrates above all the acts of the Martyrs and Confessors — and the frequent reading of it. For, as the common proverb has it, examples move more than words. That profane history also is of no small assistance to the theologian, Melchior Cano teaches at length. The use of natural reason, moreover, is necessary not only to the theologian, but to every man of sound mind. In theology, however, it must serve divine authority. For in those things which concern faith and morals, human reason has been greatly darkened, and is twisted into error by the tyranny of the appetites, unless it be aided by interior grace and directed by exterior law.

I. In few words I have touched upon what I discussed at greater length concerning the theological loci in Tome I of the Apparatus. There will not be wanting, however, those who will carp even at these few things. What, they will say, have there been thrust even into this very Compendium of Theology things that pertain more to sermons than to moral theology? For moral theology consists of concise questions and answers: it exhibits the resolutions of the cases that occur, or can occur. For in this way confessors straightway find opportune resolutions for solving the difficulties by which they are wont to be tormented while they hear confessions. These men loathe an oratorical and preacherly style, sprinkled with witticisms. They wish to be instructed in few words, since they lack the time in which they might devote their labor to the Scriptures, to the Fathers, or to theological books themselves written out in continuous discourse. Add to this that neither the divine Scriptures nor the holy Fathers of the Church contain the decisions of cases which are found in the Casuists. These, more or less, are the petty objections which are wont to be obtruded by not a few. That I may dispel the objections recounted, and at the same time instruct my Reader, I shall give certain admonitions.

II. Admonition I. Those who, in the correction of morals and the refutation of depraved opinions, condemn a vehement style, seem to depart from the institute of the divine Scriptures. For the divine Writers, both of the old covenant and of the new, pursued depraved opinions with a strong, a forceful, and — as the time required — a sharp style. Thus God addresses Isaias in chapter 48: Cry, cease not: lift up thy voice like a trumpet. He urges Jeremias in chapter 2: Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem. The divine Seer laments, in the second chapter of the Lamentations, that false Doctors were softening the severity of the divine law by the favor of benignity: Thy prophets have seen false and foolish things for thee: and they have not laid open thy iniquity, to excite thee to penance. But they have seen for thee false burdens. A few of the things which St. Jerome writes upon this text I recall before your eyes. Hardly, he says, can anyone be free of this curse, since we both frequently flatter the wicked on account of their power, and despise the good on account of their poverty. More deeply still does God, through Ezechiel in chapter 3, rebuke the benign and smooth-spoken Doctors: Thy prophets, O Israel, were like foxes in the deserts. You have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel. He threatens scourges to those Doctors who with soothing petty opinions foster the crimes of the people: And my hand shall be upon the prophets that see vain things, and that divine lies ... because they have deceived my people ... Woe to them that sew cushions under every elbow. With what force of speech, with what a sharp and vehement style, did not Christ the Lord inveigh against the hypocrite Pharisees, the adulterators of the Decalogue, in Matthew chapter 15? Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... Woe to you, blind guides ... Ye fools and blind ... Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you make clean the outside of the cup ... Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup ... You serpents, generation of vipers ... a wicked and adulterous generation ... you are of your father the devil. Christ the Lord embraced sinners with infinite meekness and clemency. Against the pseudo-prophets, against the fawning masters and flatterers of the peoples, he most frequently hurled the most tremendous maledictions. It is almost always against such men that God has thundered those terrible Woes — Woe, Woe, Woe — both in the old Testament and in the new. The holy Apostle Paul rebuked Elymas, who was perverting the Proconsul, with these words in Acts 13: O full of all guile and of all deceit, child of the devil, enemy of all justice, thou ceasest not to pervert the right ways of the Lord. And now behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun. Again the same Apostle cries out to the Galatians, chapter 3: O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth? Are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?

III. This is to be weighed well: that God never reprehended the Prophets and Doctors for having interpreted his law with too great severity. Once he reproved the Pharisees, because, neglecting the divine Law, they burdened the people with their arbitrary ceremonies, petty devotions, and petty prayers. Those he always rebukes who flatter, who trim their sails, and who indulge the desires of the peoples. O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive thee, and destroy the way of thy steps: Isaias chapter 3. Hence the holy Fathers gather that no clearer sign occurs for distinguishing and knowing false Doctors and inept directors of consciences, than the blandishments of their discourses, and opinions that titillate the senses and the ears. It is a singular mark of the pseudo-prophets (says Chrysostom) if they be blessed by all men. For pseudo-prophets always promise sweet things. I pass over the testimonies of the other Fathers, which attest this same thing.

IV. Admonition II. Those who object that our method is preacherly rather than theological are not sufficiently touched by the corruptions that have been brought into Christian theology. The diction of orators and preachers is indeed broader and more polished; the style of theologians, the matter being considered absolutely, is more compact and more exact. But our censors must needs distinguish the dogmatic, polemical, and theoretical theologian, who only propounds and explains what is to be believed, from the moral theologian, who besides what is to be believed chiefly enjoins, and persuades to, what is to be done. It belongs to this latter theologian not only to teach, but also to reprehend, to rebuke, to move, to press — though more sparingly and more soberly than the orators. But, that those who are wont to say that the minds of men are not conquered by exclamations may not persist in opposing us, let them explain to us: to what end did Christ the Lord so frequently sprinkle his law with parables, rebukes, and persuasions? Why did he so frequently rebuke and adjure? Let them know that in moral theology it is not the mind only that must be subdued, but the senses also that must be vanquished, the appetites that must be restrained, the flesh that must be crucified with its concupiscences. This victory is by no means obtained by argumentations alone and metaphysical speculations; there is need of the study of that art which is most suited to this end. The execution of works, and of difficult works, wars as an enemy against the flesh and the appetite. Therefore the powers must be raised up, the spirit must be stirred and inflamed, that the obstacles may be removed. This method the Evangelists, the Apostles, and all the Fathers observed through ten centuries and more.

V. It is my pleasure to confirm all this by the authority of Fr. Michael Elizalde, a most learned Jesuit, who suffered many adversities because he endeavored to overthrow the corrupted Ethics, and to purge the evangelical doctrine of morals from the new manner of opining and from its pernicious benignity. "For neither" (says he, part 2, question 6, § 6, page 188) "in the time of the Apostles above all, did they deliver one set of things in their preaching, while there survived other theologians thereafter from whose sayings men were to live; nor did they announce one set of things as ministers of the discourses and of the word of God, and teach other things thereafter, as theologians, by their epistles or by word of mouth. Neither in the time of the Martyrs, nor in the age of the Doctors, was there that division of sacred Orators and Theologians, such that some indeed should be theologians, and others thereafter announcers of the word of God, and that each should teach different things; and that it should belong to the theologians to hand down doctrine, and to the Preachers I know not what else; and that these latter should discourse from the Scriptures, while the former should discourse from other sources and settle causes, and appeal should be made from these to those. For, to speak plainly, and that all, if they will, may understand: it was by no means so, that Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory, and like men of God spoke indeed from on high and in the churches, while there survived thereafter certain others, as it were theologians, to whom appeal might be made, and by whose theology life should be regulated. Nowhere was there any such class of men. Nor again did those greatest men deliver their homilies and sermons and discourses as though they were one faculty, and then set down, as though it were an entirely different matter, the discipline of morals and the moral theology by which men should live: but sermons, homilies, discourses, and moral theology and the discipline of morals were one and the same thing — not one set of men, and then others altogether different, who should be called moral theologians; and even those works which are not sermons are such as could be delivered from the pulpit, being plainly of the same nature, of one single doctrine, compacted from the same books and filled with the same words of God. But now each of those two faculties differs and stands apart from the other so far, that scarcely any others disagree more. And the preachers seem to judge that they have no need of doctrine, and they do I know not what else; and when they play the theologian, they pass over all the rest — even, as though it were no concern of theirs, the Prima Secundae and the Secunda Secundae, which treat so copiously of vices and virtues in general and in particular. Which sheer thoughtlessness Augustine repels from chapter 16 of book 4 of On Christian Doctrine: and he who is not able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to reprove the gainsayers and convict them of false speech, falsely assumes in the Church of God the person of a Doctor, and undertakes the office without the necessary doctrine. Would therefore that we had such sermons as would avail also in the schools; would that we had such a theology as would edify also in the churches: that each of these two faculties, conspiring into one, might mutually aid the other, lest the one scatter what the other has planted and watered. Assuredly, to close this rather lengthy digression, I will say it without fear: the Christian life is nowhere to be learned, whether in the churches or in the tribunals, where the head of all is not Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Him the Apostle Paul, with the other Apostles and Doctors, continually preached.

VI. Admonition III. The last objection — that in the divine Scriptures there do not occur the decisions of cases which are found in the Casuists — is the most inept of all. Wherefore it is of the highest moment to admonish all pastors and directors of souls to beware of a most grave and most pernicious hallucination; otherwise they will destroy eternally both themselves and their flock. What is this hallucination? Give attentive ears. If volumes of cases were published and resolved every day, they would be most inept for the best and evangelical instruction of Pastors and Confessors. For, granted whatever multiplication of innumerable cases you please, they always vary by reason of circumstance — whether of persons, or of time, or of events, or of other accidents. Wherefore such ill-stitched patchworks of cases often beget nothing else than confusion of mind and neglect of the Laws.

VII. The professors of any arts whatsoever, that they may be able rightly to exercise the works of their art, must be thoroughly versed in the principles and fixed rules of that same art. It is required, besides, that the artificers so excel in talent and prudence, that they know how to apply the rules according to the diversity of the works. The rules of consciences and of morals are the divine Scriptures; they are the precepts which God prescribes to be kept. If the directors of souls have these clearly in view, they are forthwith apt for the performance of their ministry. This is the key of the heavenly gate; this is the norm of consciences. Again, therefore, I recall to memory, I inculcate, and I press what I have already indicated above, and what must be repeated again and again, though it can never be repeated enough: namely, that the pastors and directors of souls must first of all know what is the spirit of the Christian life, what is its end, and what means are suited to the attainment of such an end. The end of the Christian life is this: Be you perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect; it is the conformation of our life to the life of Christ Jesus. Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son. The way that leads thither is strait and narrow, and suffers violence. The means are humility, as the basis of the whole edifice, and charity, as the vivifying form. They are fasts, the buffetings of the flesh, the government of the senses, chastity, equity, justice, candor of soul, sincerity of tongue, and the contempt and renunciation of pomps, of luxury, of haughtiness, of ambition. I set the matter forth more clearly. There are, as it were, three ways which lead men to perdition: the concupiscence of the flesh, the cupidity of riches, the pride of life. Carnal love extinguishes the heavenly love of charity. The cupidity of riches opens the way to the violation of justice, glues the human heart to this world, and separates it from God. The pride of life makes war upon God, and destroys the foundation of the first Christian profession.

VIII. Give me a Christian who is humble, chaste, just, and endowed with divine charity; and I pledge myself that he shall be a possessor of Paradise. You too assent, do you not? Now I question you. Who expounds the rules of keeping charity more wisely, who more distinctly, than St. Paul, saying: Charity is patient, is kind, seeketh not her own, and so forth? Who more learnedly than Christ Jesus himself, in his Gospels, prescribes the precepts both for stirring up humility and for guarding chastity? Who teaches more efficaciously, by word and by example, the contempt of riches, of luxury, of pomps, of pleasures? Tell me: do all the Casuists together teach more clearly, more efficaciously, more eloquently the cultivation and exercise of the said virtues, in which the spirit of the Christian life is placed? You would be ashamed even to suspect it. Why then do you neglect the reading of the holy Gospels, in which, as you yourself confess, these things are more wisely taught, and wear away all your time, and torture your mind, in the continual reading of the Casuists?

IX. Open to me that secret. You cannot? Then I shall open it. The spirit of Christian sanctity is depicted in the Gospel in vivid colors. The precepts of the virtues are clear, perspicuous, luminous, simple; the rules for declining from vices, and for cultivating and guarding the virtues, are most evident, and lie open to no tergiversation or escape. But that discourse, so clear and so manifest, is hard to you. What then? You betake yourself to the volumes of the Casuists, that you may find there the liniments and blandishments with which to soothe and temper the rigor of the most evident divine Law. And in very deed, in not a few of them you find granted to you the faculty of tasting the cup of half-unchaste pleasure, and of keeping chastity; you find the power of celebrating funereal contracts, and of observing justice; of lying, and of speaking the truth; of calumniating, and of loving your Neighbor; of serving God and the World, and of composing darkness with light. In fine, by the reading of these books you become, not an observer of the Law, but a caviler at it and a judge over it. Hear the prudent judgment which the most learned and most upright Jesuit, Fr. Michael Elizalde, pronounced upon books of this kind, part 3, book 8, question 7, § 2, page 137, where he writes as follows: Lately I ran through a moral Summa of many volumes ... I sought Christ, and he was not there. I sought the sum of the Prophets and of the Law, namely charity, the love of God and of the Neighbor, and it was not there. I sought the Gospel, and it was not there. I sought humility, without which no man is saved, and it was not there. And yet, if you run through Paul, or another Apostle, or a Saint, you will find the complete contrary — everything crammed full of Christ, of charity, of humility, and of sanctity. Therefore these doctrines seem to have between themselves no degree of succession, none of consanguinity or of affinity ... The Gospel, then, is simple, and abhors all duplicity, and has its "It is, it is; it is not, it is not." The modern Moralism, on the contrary, is double, and makes use of that two-tongued probability, and has its "It is," and at the same time its "It is not"; since its rule is the probability of contrary and of contradictory propositions.

X. Again you insist that rules are contained in the Gospels — general rules of the virtues, but not particular and practical ones, as in the Casuists. Confessors and Pastors, moreover, commonly do not know how to apply the universal evangelical rules to practical and particular cases. This the Casuists supply; therefore the reading of them is the more necessary. Excellently argued! Ineptly, then, did Christ Jesus teach his disciples; ignorantly did the Evangelists — Peter, Paul, James, and the rest of the divine Writers — inform Christians. Are the Gospels superfluous, as containing only rules that are abstract, universal, and too far removed from execution? O wretched Christians of eight centuries and more, who went without casuistic books! Unhappy and ignorant holy Fathers of the Church, who bent their endeavors and their studies to this alone: to persuade, to inculcate, to press the execution and observance of the evangelical Law — rejecting the disputations, the controversies, the petty distinctions, and the patchworks of cases and opinions which the Casuists of this latest age have devised! For the rest, I freely concede that very many Confessors and Pastors do not know how to apply the evangelical rules to practical cases and to the reformation of morals. But why is this? Because, answer the Venerable Master Avila and St. Francis de Sales, scarcely ten out of a thousand are found equal to the discharge of so great an office: since few take up so great a burden at God's call, but rather at the impulse of ambition or of cupidity. But such men abuse alike the Gospel, the Fathers, and the Casuists.

XI. What then, you will say, is to be done with so great a multitude of moral volumes? If I were to disclose to you what I myself think, I should bring upon myself an immense odium. So inveterate have prejudged opinions become, that we cannot make the truth manifest without stirring up against ourselves the wrath and indignation of those who fight and wage war for the new manner of opining as though for their altars and their hearths. But by divine providence it has been brought about and disposed that the most wise Jesuit, Fr. Michael Elizalde, furnished the answer now almost a century ago, part 3, book 8, question 8, § 8, page 150, in these words: "Let this be our briefest, and surely most equitable, answer: namely, that with these books that should be done which, through them and through their authors, has been done with the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church; which likewise has been done with the Prophets, with the Gospel, with the Apostles: and as all these have been well-nigh forsaken, let those books be forsaken for just so long, and let sacred doctrine, and that of the Saints, be restored to use and practice; and thus we repay them their turn most justly. Doubtless in this place many can be offended and stirred up, whether rightly or wrongly — rightly they cannot. Augustine has long lain idle in the forum where consciences are ruled. Who, I ask, is so far removed from Christian principles as not to judge it the wiser course, that Diana at least should lie idle just as long, and that Augustine should return to the forum in his place? If either Ambrose or Caramuel must live, who would not prefer Ambrose? If the peoples are to be ruled either out of Chrysostom and Gregory, or out of Tamburini and Escobar; if the life of the Faithful is to be formed upon the one or upon the other: who would not prefer those whom the holy Church, our mother and our mistress, has held out to us as the Doctors of our life? These things are clear; we do injury to no man; and if we shall suffer persecution for justice' sake, we shall be counted blessed by the Lord. But you say that both can live and reign together. I answer. First: by the pontifical oracle (of Alexander VII) so often recalled, it is established for us — for us, that is (mark it well), for whom the Apostolic See stands in its proper place — that a manner of opining about matters of conscience has crept in which is wholly alien to evangelical simplicity and to the doctrine of the holy Fathers. Now this manner, and these opinions, assuredly exist somewhere; and they exist in certain books. These books, therefore, cannot live and reign together with the Gospel and the doctrine of the Saints. And if there shall be any who make the most of the pontifical oracles issued in their favor, but count as nothing (mark it well) those issued against them, this surely is not good. Secondly: from what has been established in this work ... it is clear that sacred doctrine, and that of the Saints, cannot be reconciled with the opinions of many — not only in certain particulars and quasi-conclusions, but in the very universal principles of their philosophizing. Both, therefore, cannot live and reign together. Thirdly: from the opening of many books of the Moralists it is notoriously evident that there is in them almost no use of sacred doctrine and of the Saints. Let just so much, then, be done with them for a while. Fourthly: these books are full of contrariety and contradiction; whence at least half of them must be false: but no falsity can be reconciled with sacred doctrine, and rarely any, or none, with the doctrine of the holy Fathers on faith and morals. These books, therefore — at least until all these falsities be expunged — cannot live together with the doctrine of the Scriptures and of the Saints. You will say again that in the book of God, and in the doctrine of the Saints, there is wanting the doctrine necessary to salvation for the ruling of peoples and the directing of consciences. But it has been shown that this doctrine was never wanting in the Church, any more than faith was; and that it is a monster of monsters, if they think that they have now come to give knowledge of salvation to his people. For to this end he came who enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world; who built the Church as the ground and pillar of truth, and to whom he entrusted the deposit to be guarded — which she has, beyond doubt, preserved. Here there is need, not of doctrine, but of consideration, and of at least the lowest degree of humility. This, therefore, we unhesitatingly assert must be done with these books: that which, through them, was done with the holy books of God and of the Saints — that these may live and reign; and to the opiners we can say that word of the Apostle: Now you reign without us: and I would to God you did reign, that we also might reign with you. Would, I say, that you reigned — you, namely, who are able to reign together with them. If not — if one or the other party must go into exile — I call upon every Christian judge to say which of them he judges ought to reign."

XII. What this man of God, this servant and companion of Jesus Christ, has here touched in few words, he proves with full pen in his work — a work worthy of gold and of cedar. I shall subjoin an example in confirmation of the things that have been said in passing. Fr. Thomas Tamburini frees from grave fault children who marry — and marry even unworthy persons — without consulting their parents. To the divine Scriptures, and to the Fathers of the Church who teach the opposite, what answer does he furnish? Hear him speaking thus in book 5 on the Decalogue, chapter 2, § 3, number 6: If Pope Evaristus decreed that a girl whom her father himself does not give in espousal is by no means to be held for a wife; if Pope Leo, if Ambrose say that it belongs not to virginal modesty to choose a husband, but that the judgment of the parents is to be awaited; if in the sacred letters this office is entrusted to the parents — Give thy daughter to a prudent man; if St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, expressly teaches that daughters are to be given in marriage by their parents; if many examples of the sacred letters, which Bellarmine adduces, manifestly demonstrate it: what then is to be done? Hear, and be aghast. I answer with Sanchez: these things, and the like, prove indeed that it is very honorable to seek counsel of this kind from one's father; they do not prove the dire necessity of mortal sin.

XIII. A marvelous and truly prodigious force do these three words contain — I answer with Sanchez — against the sacred letters, against Paul the Apostle, against Pope Evaristus, against Leo, Ambrose, Bellarmine, and all the rest! Yet the reason for wonder ceases, if the system of Fr. Sanchez be considered. The first and gravest commandment of the first Table, concerning the love of God, he reduced almost to nothing, restricting it, of itself, to the article of death. What wonder, then, if he reduces the first precept of the second Table, concerning the honoring of parents, to a mere counsel of propriety — and that in the gravest matter of all, namely the contracting of marriage? In the course of this work I shall bring forward examples by the hundred, in which not a few Casuists elude the doctrine of divine Scripture and of the holy Fathers.

XIV. Admonition IV. I therefore inculcate, and with all zeal and with the whole endeavor of my powers I urge, the reading and humble meditation of holy Scripture, for this reason: that men will not subject themselves to the judgments and opinions of other men. Hence proceeds that endless multitude of the Casuists' volumes: for while men read citations of this kind — thus teach Diana, Bonacina, Caramuel, Tamburini, Sanchez, Vasquez, Escobar, Zanardi, Candidus, Leander, Gobat, La-Croix, Pichler, Sporer, and so forth — they straightway infer: if these authors teach thus, others defend the opposite; nay, in the very Moralists cited they find other Casuists cited who teach the opposite. Behold Christian ethics reduced to Scepticism and Pyrrhonism! They are men, they say, and therefore liable to error. Hence it is that, although the pagan philosophers taught excellent lessons of morals, they did not reform morals: because those lessons were regarded as given by men, and the rest of men would not obey them. Only the supreme authority of God subjects to itself the minds and wills of men. When I, reading holy Scripture, reflect that it is God who speaks to me, that it is God who commands me, straightway, trembling and fearful, dismissing all argumentations and cavils, I conclude that God is to be obeyed, not disputed with. When, after the divine Scriptures, I turn over the volumes of the holy Fathers, I reason in like manner: these are they whom holy Mother Church has given me for masters; their interpretations of the Scriptures, therefore, I ought to embrace; upon their method I must insist in expounding Christian theology. Now they are wholly intent upon persuading — with what abundant eloquence, with what vivid figures, with what invincible argumentations! — the observance of the Law. If I am bound to follow them, as men given to me by the Church for masters, then those authors are not altogether to be trusted who fill their volumes with quibbles, disputations, and evasions; who bring all things into doubt, and scarcely ever inflame the souls of their Readers to the execution of the Law. So arid, so thorny, and so sterile is the discourse of most of them, that it extinguishes rather than kindles the spirit of the Christian profession. I do not doubt that all Readers have experienced this very fruit. Far be it from me, however, to condemn the reading of the graver theologians, and especially when the ecclesiastical Laws are to be explained.

I. [The Probabilists allege a great crowd of authors] for themselves; but, a very few excepted, they are of no authority. I do not wish you to put faith in my words; hear rather him who is easily the prince of the Probabilists, Fr. Antonio Terillus, who in the Prologue to his treatise On conscience writes as follows: "Innumerable are they who, for thirty years, have filled the libraries with Summas of cases and treatises of moral matters. And what were they to do, that they might arrive at the fame which they were hunting? ... Made bolder for bringing forth novelties, they cast their eyes and their minds upon the laxer opinions, knowing well that these, above all others, would wonderfully please the ruder crowd of readers. But lest, on account of their open defection from the unanimous opinion of the ancients, they should be accused of temerity, they began to devise certain reasons by which they might both give an honorable appearance to their departure from the elders, and obtain among the unskilled crowd some applause for the truth of their opinion. I myself have seen some of these more recent men — in other respects excellent — who, when in matters of the highest moment, pertaining to the law of God and the obligation of conscience, they had declined from the unanimous opinion of all to an intolerable laxity of opining, yet had nothing by which they were moved except an argument drawn from a similar case. I saw it, and I shuddered. For who would not shudder that a precept of God, previously acknowledged by all and confirmed by solid arguments, should by so frivolous an argument be erased from the tables of the divine and ecclesiastical law, no less impudently than imprudently? Nor did the audacity of certain men stop here. For very many, although far inferior in doctrine, reckoning a similar manner of acting lawful for themselves too, opened for themselves — I should say more rightly, both for themselves and for others — a road from lax resolutions to other laxer ones — a precipice ... Whence it came about that whatever opinions, not expressly condemned by the Church, they found in any author whatsoever, these they both held themselves as truly probable, and delivered to others as a rule fit for the tranquillity of conscience. Nay, it is not incredible that, deceived by the subtle insinuation of Satan, under the enticement of a certain humanity and the appearance of mutual honor, they attributed probability to any sayings whatsoever of others, precisely so that the prerogative which they had freely given to their predecessors, later men might not begrudge to them. By this art the deceitful enemy, after he had bewitched the more learned — who ought both to have watched over themselves and to have provided for others — with the foretasted applause of an ampler fame, surely to be acquired by the publication of lax opinions, oversowed, through these too incautious men, in the field of moral Theology, abundantly sown with the excellent wheat of severe opinions, the detestable cockle of laxity — and went his way," etc.

II. One or two things I weigh. Innumerable Doctors and Casuists have filled their books with lax opinions. Nay, there were not wanting those who, deceived by the insinuation of Satan, with the foretasted applause of an ampler fame, oversowed the detestable cockle of laxity in the field of moral Theology. All these, by the testimony of Terillus himself, are Probabilists, as I have shown in Tome 2 of the Apparatus, book 3, disputation 4, chapter 7. If I were to carp at the Casuists in this Terillian style, they would fill heaven with their clamors. Far be it from me, however, this manner of writing, employed by Fr. Terillus, that most benign Probabilist. Whether they wrote with a pious intention, or inflamed by the insinuation of the demon and the foretasted applause of an ampler fame (as Terillus says), God alone is judge. I sharpen my pen against the lax doctrines alone, my duty toward the authors being preserved. The second thing which presents itself to be weighed is that those innumerable authors of laxities — all those who, at the suggestion of the demon and of their own ambition, disfigured the evangelical doctrine, by the testimony of Fr. Terillus — are Probabilists. For all of them Fr. Terillus praises in patronage of Probabilism, as I have demonstrated at length in Tome 2 of the Apparatus, book 3, disputation 4, chapter 7; and therefore their authority is to be weighed either at nothing, or at little. These things touched upon, I recount, out of very many, a few of the authors who detest Probabilism.

III. The Venerable Seraphinus a Porrecta, Giulio Mercori, Pietro Passarino, Pierre Labat, Vincent Contenson, Jean-Baptiste Gonet, Vincent Baron, Louis Bancel, Serafino Piccinardi, Jacobus a S. Dominico, Majolus, Natalis Alexander, Francisco Sanchez, Francisco Texeda, Martin Wigandt, Juan Martinez de Prado, Tommaso Lucioni, Mario Diana, Johannes Conradus, Ludovico Minutolo, Pietro Martire Petrucci, Domenico de Marinis, Cardinal Capisucchi, Cardinal Gotti, Antonio Irribaren, Olivier Richeceur, Marcello Marona, Giuseppe Bono, Hyacinthe Amat de Graveson, Antonio Bordoni, Ildefonsus a S. Thoma, Norbert del Becque, Franciscus Vanrat, Vincentius Ferrerius, Hyacinthe Serry, Vincenzo Bosio, Tommaso Milante, Giuseppe Agostino Orsi, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Giovanni Battista Molinari. Not to be long: all the Theologians of the Order of Preachers, to a man, declare implacable war upon Probabilism.

IV. Cardinal de Aguirre, Cardinal Sfondrati, Gabriel Gerberon, Jean Mabillon, Abbot Gardius, Facundo Torres, Anselmo Gomez, Battista Larditus, Petit-Didier. In a word, all the illustrious Theologians of the Benedictine Order are opposed to Probabilism no less than to Molinism.

V. Antonio of Cordova, Giovanni Trovamala, Cardinal Laurea, Filippo Fabri, Antonio Matteucci, Barthélemy Durant, François Henno, Cirillo Rossi, Bernardino Ciaffoni, Bonaventura of Recanati, Paul of Lyons, Gaetano of Bergamo, Palbuncius Donadoni, Cardinal Casini.

VI. Lambert Le Drou, Ignacio Lacerda, Christian Lupus, Johann Schervietzer, Bartolomeo Ricci, Federico Gavardi, Leonard Vanroy, Enrico Noris the Cardinal, François Farvacques, Nicolaus Girchen, Aurelius Piette, Johannes Libente, Fulgenzio Bellelli, Antonio Guerrero, Giovanni Lorenzo Berti.

VII. Of the Carmelites: Carolus ab Assumptione, Henricus a S. Ignatio, Marinarius Brocardus, Christophorus a S. Joseph, who against Probabilism cites the holy Mother Teresa and St. John of the Cross.

VIII. Of the Trinitarians: Miguel a S. José published a book entitled Estudio de la Verdad in the year 1715.

IX. Of the Minims: Maignan, and the most wise Palanco, who in an entire tome in folio overthrew Probabilism.

X. Fr. Claude La-Croix, book I, number 169, writes that nearly all the authors of the Society of Jesus defend Probabilism. The like teach Terillus, Casnedi, Fibus, and others: these are the men who pour darkness over the splendor of the illustrious Society, and bring upon it great detriment. Other Jesuit Theologians hold for calumniators those who fasten Probabilism upon that most excellent Society. Fr. Étienne de Camps published a book entitled Quaestio Facti, in which he frees the Society from the note of defending Probabilism as its own. The same was done by Fabri, Daniel, Moya, Gonzalez, Camargo. If Probabilism were a benign doctrine, suited to the loosing of souls, why would these Theologians hold for calumniators those who ascribe Probabilism to the Society?

XI. The wiser Jesuit Theologians have overthrown Probabilism; and first of all three Cardinals — Bellarmine, Toledo, Pallavicino. Fr. Christoph Rassler the Jesuit, disputation 3, question 9, article 2, number 499, writes of Bellarmine: For he is contrary to the more benign opinion in this question, and stands for the more rigid. Yet it may with good reason be doubted whether he did not himself bend aside into excessive rigor. It may be doubted, then, whether Bellarmine was a Rigorist? Fr. Giacomo Sanvitale absolutely asserts that Bellarmine was a Tutiorist.

Some time ago while looking over the shelves of the library my eye was caught by a venerable-looking quarto bound in limp parchment. Outside it bore the title in faded ink, Hallus: De Quinquepartita Conscientia. I took the book to my room and soon became interested in it. In these days when the history of moral theology is so frequently perverted to the prejudice of the Church, it may be worth while to give my readers some of the fruits which I gathered from a closer acquaintance with the rare old quarto. But first of all a word about its author.

Dr. Richard Hall was a young student at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in the reign of Queen Mary. He took his degree in the year 1556, and was elected a Fellow of Pembroke Hall. He was held in general esteem, and his ability and upright character seemed to insure him a useful and honorable career in life. However, before he took his degree of Master of Arts, Queen Mary died, and Elizabeth succeeded to the throne of England. The new Queen very soon made known what was to be her policy in religion, and young Hall, who was sincerely attached to the Catholic faith, followed the example of many more English Catholics of the time and retired to the continent in search of the liberty of conscience denied to him at home. He first went to Belgium and thence to Rome, where he finished his theological studies and took the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He then returned to Belgium and was given the post of Professor of Morals in the Benedictine monastery of St. Rictrude at Marchiennes not far from Douay. Before long the disturbed state of Belgium at the time compelled Dr. Hall to retire to Douay, where the English College for the education of priests destined for the work of preserving the ancient faith in England had just been founded by Dr. Allen. At Douay, Hall became professor of Holy Scripture, and it was there that Pits, the author of De illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus, made his acquaintance about the year 1580. Subsequently Hall was made canon of the cathedral church of St. Omer and official of the diocese. He died at St. Omer in the year 1604. Pits tells us that Dr. Hall’s “ piety, charity, affability, and varied erudition, caused him to be held in universal esteem.” Dodd, in his Church History of England, says that he was “an excellent casuist, and zealous promoter of Church discipline,” that “his writings and behavior were a continual curb to vice and the liberties of the age, and as he was an enemy to complaisance upon those occasions, so the severity of his morals met with some opposition even among the learned.” 1 The Dictionary of National Biography testifies 1 Vol. II., p. 70.

that “he was a severe and uncompromising moralist.”

While engaged in teaching casuistry to the brethren of St. Rictrude Dr. Hall collected the material which he afterwards used in the composition of his chief work De Quinquepartita Conscientia. He tells us in the Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to this work that the general custom was for the professor of casuistry to begin at once with the discussion of cases of conscience. Hall desired to lay the foundations a little deeper, and began with an elaborate treatise on Conscience, for the matter of which he confesses that he was much indebted to the Dominican, John Nider, who wrote his book, Consolatio Pusillanimium, about the middle of the fifteenth century. Many years’ experience in hearing confessions confirmed him in his estimate of the importance of the treatise on Conscience, and when he was now an old man he devoted the leisure moments which his duties as official of the diocese left him, to the composition of his work. He dedicated it to the Archbishop of Cambrai, a prelate who was zealous for the reformation of morals and the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. To show the lofty aim which Dr. Hall proposed to himself in publishing his work and as a specimen of his manner, we may quote the following passage from the Dedicatory Epistle:

For when once men’s consciences have been put right, and that Augean stable has been cleansed, it will be very easy to establish that external discipline which all good men desire and long for. To achieve this purpose in the first place pious and good men must everywhere be appointed pastors and confessors who will teach others by word and example and who will not like hirelings only feed themselves, and seek after their own gain and advantage; but who will seek God’s honor alone and the salvation of souls. From such offices those must be excluded who are addicted to gluttony and other fleshly vices, as well as the ambitious and the avaricious. When the tribunal of conscience has been put right, the next step will be the external forum, where judges and magistrates must be appointed who are not only upright and incorrupt so as not to be turned aside a hair’s breadth from the path of duty by hatred or affection, fear, or hope of reward; but who are as far as possible removed from all striving after popularity and notoriety. Because if they are Thasos there will never be wanting Gnathos who will so distort and blind their judgment with their flattery that they will hardly be able to distinguish good from evil. A very good example of this is furnished by Henry VIII of England who held flatterers in high favor and esteem. Once on his return from a battle in which he had been victorious, and which was fought in defense of the Holy See against those who desired to weaken its authority, he met one of the English bishops who had come to congratulate him on his victory. ‘‘Are we not much beholden, Reverend Father in God,’’ said the King, ‘‘to the divine goodness for the glorious victory which we have gained over the enemy?’’ The bishop knew the vainglorious character of the king, and he answered: ‘‘Nay, most serene King, Almighty God owes much to your Majesty since you have fought so well for His glory and the authority of the Holy See.’’ The king was not a little puffed up by the bishop’s words, and conceiving too high an opinion of himself he not long afterwards fell away from the Holy See and from the Faith which he had defended before with his pen and with the sword.

Dr. Hall’s book, the fruit of long years of study and practical experience, was published at Douay in 1598. The date of publication is of special interest. The book was an elaborate treatise on Conscience, written by a learned and experienced Englishman, a confessor for the Faith, a man of lofty character, somewhat austere even and stern in disposition. Twenty-one years before the publication of Hall’s book Bartholomew Medina, O.P., had issued his celebrated Expositio in Primam Secundae Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae Aquinatis. In this book the learned Dominican had been the first to propound and defend Probabilism in the modern form. No theologian of the Society of Jesus, whose pet doctrine Probabilism is supposed to be, had as yet written at any length on the subject. In 1599 Cardinal Toletus, S.J., issued his Instructio Sacerdotum, and in the same year appeared the Commentaries of Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., on the Prima Secundae of St. Thomas. Cardinal Toletus approved of and used the theory, as two or three other Jesuits had already done, but Vasquez was the first Jesuit theologian who discussed Probabilism at length and defended it. From the historical point of view it may be of interest to inquire what was Dr. Hall’s system of morals, and what was his attitude toward the theory of Medina. In this inquiry I propose to adhere strictly to the rôle of the historian. I shall not play the advocate; I shall strive to be as accurate and objective as possible; and I shall let the texts and the facts speak for themselves. As experience has taught me how little we can trust to what is commonly written on this subject, I will only use authorities whose doctrine I have studied at first-hand in their own works.

Catholic theologians have always taught as a primary rule of conduct that it is sinful to do anything which we are not morally sure is right. To act in doubt whether our action is a good or bad one is to manifest a disposition to do it whether it be good or bad, and thereby sin is committed. It is a mortal sin to do what we think is mortal or what we doubt whether it be mortal or not. Hall insists upon this as do all theologians who discuss the point. “In practical doubt,” he says, “or in doubt about doing something in this place and time, or, as others say, here and now, when its lawfulness is supported by only probable reasons, it is the constant teaching of all theologians that as long as the conscience is in such uncertainty nothing may be done against this doubt, whether the doubt be equal on both sides, or unequal ; and whether there is greater danger on one side than on the other, or equal danger on both sides, for then the text of Wisdom is verified —‘ He who loves danger shall perish in it;’ and it is settled by the authority of all masters that he who exposes himself to the danger of committing mortal sin thereby sins mortally. The text of St. Paul is applicable here: ‘Whatever is not of faith is sin” But what is not according to conscience is not of faith, nor is an action according to conscience — or a certain judgment concerning its lawfulness — when the conscience sways to both sides, hesitates which to choose, and to do what you are not sure whether it be lawful.”² He then quotes Origen and Theophylact who explain the text of St. Paul in this sense. The moral certainty of the lawfulness of an action which is required before performing it must not be taken in too absolute or metaphysical a sense. “It is not the result,” says Hall, “ of evident demonstration, but of probable conjectures, which incline more to one side than the other.”³

² De Quinquepartita Conscientia, L. II., c. 2.

³ Loc. cit., L. III., c. 14.

We come to the special subject of this paper when we inquire what rules Hall followed to determine the choice of an opinion when Doctors disagree. He puts the crucial question on this point in the ninth chapter of the second book. He there asks whether it is lawful in morals to abandon an opinion which is more probable and follow one which is only probable. After giving one or two examples in which the question is of practical importance, and quoting the reasons of those who answer the question in the negative, he says:

But we who hope that timid consciences will derive some help from this little work, and who see that innumerable would be the difficulties of pious souls if it were always necessary to inquire which opinion out of many is the more probable, nor could an issue be readily found since an opinion frequently seems more probable to some though it is not so in reality,—supported by the authority of great men we assert that it is sufficient to follow the probable opinion of some Doctor, so that we need not adopt those obscure arguments by which some maintain that the more probable opinion must be discovered and followed. For as that is a probable opinion in the schools and in disputations which can be defended without incurring any note of error, so in practical matters that is probable which we can follow without sin or danger of sin. For a probable opinion is not so called because it can be supported by reasons drawn from either side, for in this sense many errors and heresies, such as that of Arius, have more numerous, and in appearance more probable arguments in their favor than have some truths held by Catholics. But a probable opinion is so called because it seems probable to one or more men of learning, or to those whose knowledge is specially known and approved. Since then this is agreeable to right reason and is confirmed by the judgment of learned men, why may we not follow it? Is it because the other opinion is more probable? But we are not always bound to follow what in everything is more perfect, because it is sufficient if a thing is perfect in its kind; and since in the schools and in theory it is lawful to defend that which is probable, what hinders us from being able to follow that which is probable in practice and in action? And so this is lawful provided that the opinion which we judge to be probable is not evidently contrary to Holy Scripture or a decision of the Church, as St. Thomas says, and if one can by one’s own knowledge or that of another who is worthy of confidence answer the reasons to the contrary, or at least one sees that clever men despise them; for a good argument in practical matters is derived from the praiseworthy life and excellent doctrine of good and holy men. And indeed though there are some precepts which are common to and obvious to all, and of those no one who has the use of reason and free will can or ought to be ignorant, such as the precepts of the Decalogue which natural reason and Holy Scripture clearly manifest to us; there are others which Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical decisions leave uncertain, as is the case with many contracts. No one should violate the former on account of the opinion of any Doctor whatever; but in the latter which are not yet settled by a decision of the Church we may follow the opinion of some Doctors against others,

provided that we are ready to stand by the judgment of the Church, if she determine otherwise, make restitution if required, and in the meanwhile form for ourselves a good conscience in everything without hesitation or notable doubt to the contrary.

In this passage Hall formally adopts the theory which Bartholomew Medina had formulated some twenty years earlier and which is known as Probabilism. In the extract which I have quoted he does not mention either Medina or any one else by name; he is content with saying in general terms that his doctrine is supported by the authority of great men. However, he does mention Medina on the next page and in the same context, and by other frequent references to him Hall shows that he was largely indebted to him for his doctrine. He makes use too of the principal arguments by which Medina proved his theory. In adopting this view he was clearly of the opinion that he was adopting no novelty, he was merely making use of a ready formula for what in substance had been taught by the older theologians. This comes out well in a passage which occurs in the sixteenth chapter of the third book on a Scrupulous Conscience. He there says:

The scrupulous are often tortured at reading the chapter Juvenis, de sponsalibus, in which the saying occurs—‘‘The safer way must be chosen when in doubt’’; from which they think it follows that in everything that course must be chosen which is the furthest removed from all appearance of sin. But if this be granted them, nobody can ever be certain that in any of his actions he has played the part of an honest man, without being afraid that he could have done better. However, the answer to this is easy: it is not necessary always to choose the safer way; it is sufficient to choose that which is safe, as was said above when I was treating of a probable conscience in questions where Doctors differ. I there said that it is not necessary to follow the more probable opinion; it is sufficient to hold that which is probable when both are defended by approved authors. And Navarrus gives this advice as a special remedy against scruples, viz., to adopt one out of several opinions, choosing first of all in the external forum that which is confirmed by custom, unless it is clearly against the natural or divine law, for against these custom can do nothing. But if the matter be doubtful, custom can interpret it, and such interpretation is to be followed. If there is no such custom, that opinion should be preferred which rests on some text, and against which it is not easy to find arguments, though the common opinion may be on the other side, and that, although the chief question may be concerning one law and the text concerning another. Furthermore, that opinion among several should be chosen which rests on an argument which cannot easily be answered. And if none of these rules is applicable, the common opinion should be chosen, that namely which is known for certain to be the common opinion; and if there is no common opinion, that should be chosen which rests on better grounds and reasons, although they may be arguments which can be answered without difficulty because other things being equal a double or a triple cord is broken with greater difficulty. But where none of these rules applies, the more lenient and more favorable opinion is to be followed. The more lenient and the more favorable opinion is that which favors an oath, marriage, dower, will, freedom, a ward, widow, stranger, or other miserable person, or a private person against the exchequer, when the exchequer bases its action on the wrongdoing of a private person; otherwise the contrary holds. That opinion also is more lenient and more favorable which upholds the validity of the act, whether the act whose validity is in question be

a last will, or a statement of claim, or a joining of the issue, or a sentence, or any judicial act, rescript, or privilege. For the presumption in favor of the act outweighs other considerations, although the validity of the act redounds to the advantage of the plaintiff, and to the disadvantage of the State. With these exceptions that opinion is the more lenient which favors the defendant. And if one opinion is better than another in none of these ways, that should be held which those Doctors affirm who excel in authority or knowledge in the matter in question, as theologians if the question belong to theology, canonists in canon law, legists in civil law; for in all these ways an opinion is probable although perhaps the contrary is sometimes more probable.

It is obvious that in thus quoting what Navarrus teaches about the various methods for choosing an opinion and forming one’s conscience when Doctors disagree, Hall believed that he was merely putting his own theory in other words. “In all these ways,” he says, “an opinion is probable although perhaps the contrary is sometimes more probable.” 4

What Hall quotes from Navarrus is merely the common teaching of theologians on this question previous to the time of Medina. Angelus de Clavasio, O. F. M., who published the first edition of the Summa Angelica in 1486, teaches the same doctrine in almost identical terms, as also does Prierias, O. P., who issued the first edition of the Summa Sylvestrina in 1516. So that according to Dr. Hall the theory of Probabilism was no novelty; it was merely a short and convenient way of stating a theory which was

4“ Nam totidem modis opinio fit probabilis ; etsi fortassis altera sit interdum probabilior.”

supported by the common consent of theologians of all schools. This was not an opinion peculiar to Hall; it was shared by all his contemporaries, as is clear from the fact that Medina’s formula was at once accepted by theologians of all schools as an accurate and convenient statement of what they all held. Let us take a few examples. Michael Salon, a Spanish Augustinian, published his Controversiae de Justitia et Jure in the year 1581, four years after the publication of Medina’s work. Salon holds with Medina “ that it is lawful to abandon the more probable opinion and to follow that which is probable and believed to be true, while to follow the more probable is merely matter of counsel.’”” He adds that this is the opinion of “many and very eminent Doctors, especially among the followers of St. Thomas; that more numerous and more eminent authors and more weighty reasons can be quoted for it than for the opposite opinion; and that these reasons cannot be refuted, while those on the other side can be refuted.”⁵

⁵ Quest. 63, a. 2, controv. 2, conclus. 4.

Gabriel Vasquez, the first Jesuit theologian who wrote at length on the question, published his Commentarii ac Disputationes in Primam Secundæ S. Thomæ in 1599, one year after the publication of Hall’s book. Vasquez says: “I think the opinion is true which Bartholomew Medina follows, and which was already common in the schools and long before his time, viz., that a man of learning may act on the opinion of others although that opinion is less safe and in his judgment less probable (provided that it be not destitute of reason and probability) against his own opinion which he considers to be more probable.”⁶

⁶ Disp. 62, c. 4.

John Azor, S.J., published the first volume of his Institutiones Morales in the year 1600. He gives the common rules in vogue at the time for the choice of opinions; they are identical with those which have been given above as quoted by Dr. Hall from Navarrus. Incidentally he mentions the formula of Probabilism, and says that although authors have not taught it, yet it can be defended by this conclusive argument: “ Because that is well done which is done prudently; but one who is guided by the advice of others acts prudently; and therefore one who in his actions follows a probable opinion of Doctors acts prudently.”⁷

⁷ Lib. 2, c. 16.

These theologians whom we have quoted are merely specimens of great numbers of all schools who might be mentioned. With the solitary exception of the Jesuit Comitolus, we have to wait for another forty years before a dissentient voice is raised against Probabilism. Comitolus, an Italian theologian, published his Responsa Moralia in 1608. He brands Probabilism as the shameful lapse of Armilla, who, this writer asserts, taught it in his Summa, while other representative authors are quoted as upholders of Probabiliorism.⁸ With this solitary and not very weighty exception Probabilism was the universally accepted theory of Moral Theology at least from the time of the publication of Medina’s book till the rise of Jansenism in the middle of the seventeenth century. This historical fact of itself is very significant, and it will have the greatest weight with those who are acquainted with the conservative instincts and the quickness to detect novelties which have always been characteristic of theologians. Furthermore, it is the simple fact that in practice the rule of Probabilism when applied to the solution of disputed questions made no difference in ethical doctrine. The laxity of some authors who abused the theory should not be attributed to sound Probabilism. It is merely a universal formula applicable in all disputed questions of right and wrong, and therefore a convenient substitute for the many and diverse rules which were in use before Medina’s time. The practical solutions of ethical questions remained the same, though they were arrived at by a different and more simple process after the introduction of Probabilism. This will be more clear if we continue the last extract from Dr. Hall where we left off. He continues thus:

⁸ Lib. 5, q. 15,

The same author, Navarrus, gave four very useful rules for the use of those who make choice of one opinion out of many. First, that a judge, counselor or agent, who is going to judge, advise, or do anything in a doubtful matter, before doing it, should, to avoid sin, forthwith drive that doubt out of his mind, and believe or hold for certain that the opinion which he chooses is true; and that he ought to judge according to it in that case; because if before doing it he judged what he advised or did to be doubtfully right, he would commit sin by exposing himself to danger of a doubtful conscience. Secondly, he remarks this, that in both the tribunal of justice and of conscience, one and the same man, in one and the same matter, both may and ought to believe something to be true under one respect for one reason, and the contrary to be true under another respect for another reason. As, for example, a woman may and ought sometimes to believe that the man with whom she lives is her husband with regard to rendering to him his marital rights, but the contrary when there is question of demanding them for herself. Thirdly, that although in a court of law, the rules which we borrowed from Navarrus are to be applied, yet in the forum of conscience to avoid sin it is sufficient to choose as true the opinion of one whom we deservedly consider to be a man endowed with the knowledge and uprightness necessary to form a sound opinion. For, he says, the right understanding of the common saying—‘‘The safer opinion must be chosen in doubt’’— is that it is applicable only in negative doubt, which does not exist when a view is held with sufficient authority and reason, nor when one opinion is chosen as true out of many. Fourthly, that an opinion is not to be called common so as necessarily to be preferred to another on the sole ground that many follow it like sheep one after another, for in this respect, he says, I should consider that to be the more common opinion which six or seven classical authors defend and who professedly treat of the matter, than an opinion approved by fifty who were almost entirely led by the authority of others. He even thinks that both opinions may be said to be common when each is defended by eight or ten authors of weight who choose it deliberately.⁹

⁹ Lib. 3, c. 16.

Prierias tells us in his Summa that theologians were unanimous in teaching that in doubtful matters where Doctors disagreed a man might safely follow the opinion of his own Master. “ And this,” he says, “you are to understand not only of one who does his best to get at the truth, for such a one would be excused on account of invincible ignorance even if he embraced a manifestly false opinion; but you are also to understand it of one who from a liking for his own Master forms a probable judgment, as it seems to him that what is false is true.”

Although some Doctors distinguished and put certain limitations, still it was commonly admitted that a confessor not only might, but was obliged to, absolve a penitent who wished to follow a probable opinion, although the confessor was convinced that the opinion was less probable and less safe than the opposite opinion which he held himself.

Men who had been taught and who had acted upon such opinions as the foregoing would accept the formula of Probabilism as a matter of course. They were accustomed to the idea that it was lawful to follow a probable opinion even though the opposite might be objectively more probable and supported by greater authorities and better reasons. A confessor was obliged to give absolution to a penitent who wished to act on a probable opinion, though the confessor believed that it was less probable than the opposite which he held himself. In other words, he was compelled in this case to follow a probable opinion of another against his own more probable opinion. The only step that remained to be taken was to show that logically one might always follow a soundly probable opinion even though recognizing at the same time that the opposite was more probable. Theologians who wrote before the time of Medina had not admitted this. The doctrine that in order to act lawfully one must have a certain conscience and no doubt about the lawfulness of the action stood in the way. A man who chooses what he considers to be a less probable opinion exposes himself to the danger of sin, they said; his conscience fluctuates and is uncertain, and so he commits sin, Where there is danger on both sides we must choose that on which there is less. Moreover, rules of law prescribe that in doubt the safer way must be chosen, and what is uncertain must be abandoned. Besides, a judge would certainly do wrong who gave sentence against a litigant who had more probable arguments on his side than his adversary had.

Medina answers these objections and establishes his theory of Probabilism by pointing out that one who follows a probable opinion exposes himself to no danger of committing sin. The opinion in question is admittedly probable, that is, it is approved, and so there can be no danger of committing sin by following it; if there were any such danger, the opinion could not be approved as a rule for action, it could not be probable. The opposite is more probable and more safe, it is true, but we are under no obligation to follow the safer way; it is sufficient if we follow one that is safe. Medina admits that a judge is bound to give sentence in favor of the litigant who brings the stronger arguments; Probabilism has nothing to do with this case, for here there is no doubt but that the litigant has a strict right to sentence being given in his favor; but he maintains that when there are two opinions about the interpretation of a law the judge may follow a probable against a more probable opinion.¹⁰

¹⁰ Loc. cit., Quest. 19, a. 6.

In this Medina was followed by Salon, Dr. Hall, and other theologians, but this last proposition was rejected by Vasquez and others, and finally it was condemned by Innocent XI, 2 March, 1679. Besides his opinion about a judge, there was another weak point in Medina’s exposition of his theory. To the argument that one who acts on probable opinion, acts with the consciousness that the opposite opinion may be true, and so acts in doubt and against his conscience, Medina replies: ‘One who in these cases acts against his own opinion, does indeed act against a speculative doubt or opinion, but he does not act against his conscience, for he is convinced and has made up his mind that when there are two probable opinions one may follow either indifferently.” 11 But, it may be asked, what ground has he for being certain that he is acting lawfully when he acts according to a probable opinion? Medina virtually replies that the certainty rests on his own judgment or on the judgment of prudent and good men that there is no danger of sin in following the opinion ; that is what a probable opinion means. And it is certainly lawful to do what there is no danger of sin in doing. The maxim that in doubtful matters one may do what prudent and learned Doctors judge to be safe was, as we have seen, commonly admitted by theologians, and in general it is a safe rule of conduct. However, on the theoretical side the basis of the maxim is weak. We have seen that Medina and other approved authors misapplied Probabilism to questions of law in the external forum. It would be easy to give instances where scores of approved theologians have gone wrong and held untenable opinions. Whence one might conclude that an opinion is not necessarily probable because it is judged to be so by a number of 11 Quest. 19, a. 6,

prudent, good, and learned men. We might reply that, although this is so sometimes, as a rule the judgment of good and learned men is correct, and therefore is sufficient ground for moral certainty. However this may be, modern probabilists prefer other methods of forming a certain conscience by means of a probable opinion. For this purpose they use reflex principles, such as —“ A doubtful law does not bind.” Virtually the process takes some such form as this: When there is a probable opinion that a particular action is lawful, there is no certain law which forbids it; such a law is at most doubtful. But a doubtful law cannot impose a certain obligation, or in other words a doubtful law does not bind. This is one of the favorite arguments of St. Alphonsus.

In his method of forming a certain conscience by means of a probable opinion Dr. Hall follows Medina and other theologians of his time. In the ninth chapter of the second book from which we quoted above, he argues as follows:

As to what some say, that a man would expose himself to the danger of committing sin by following a probable opinion and abandoning one that is more probable, this we deny absolutely, seeing that in doing this learned men see no danger of sin. In doubts, indeed, the safer opinion must be followed, because there is danger on both sides; but when one opinion is probable and another more probable, both are safe in morals, though the latter may be safer. And when the canon law says that what is more certain must be followed in case of doubt, it supposes that there is danger on both sides; and this we maintain is by no means the case when there are two opinions of which one is probable though the other is more probable. The reason is because in a question of morals not settled for certain by Holy Scripture or by the Church, it is safe to follow that opinion which one sees approved by a good and wise man. Finally, we allow that a judge ought to give sentence for the party which brings the better proofs of its claim, but when there are two opinions in law, of which one is only probable and the other more probable, he can follow the probable opinion, nor need he investigate which is the more probable so as necessarily to follow it.

Vasquez, the first great Jesuit theologian who treated the question ex professo, not only rejected this opinion about the judge, as we have seen, but required the support of more than one Doctor to make it lawful to follow an opinion against one that is recognized by the agent as more probable. He also required that the opinion should be commonly held not to be erroneous, but still to maintain its probability, and thus not to be obsolete.¹²

¹² Disp. 62, c. 4

In both these points Vasquez was followed by the great body of Jesuit theologians, and we see how true was the remark of the learned Cardinal D’Annibale that the Jesuits, far from being the inventors of Probabilism, were as a matter of fact its moderators.

ETHICS has a special place in the Christian religion. Lactantius, writing under the Emperor Constantine, points out this fundamental difference between paganism and the true religion. Pagan religion, he says, is concerned only with external rites and ceremonies performed in honor of the gods; it gives no precepts of righteousness and virtue; it does not form and cultivate men’s characters.¹ On the other hand, ethics forms an essential part of the Christian religion. Christ was called Jesus because He came among us to save us from our sins. This He did not only by atoning for them, but by His example, His teaching, and His grace He showed us how to lead good lives and enabled us to do it. He came to do and to teach, so that not only His words but His actions, too, were lessons to us in conduct. He proposed Himself to us as the Way by which we should walk; He bade us follow His example; He taught us to learn of Him meekness, humility, and all virtues. In Him God, our Creator and Lord, was revealed to us; He is our first beginning and last end. To Him we must refer and order our whole lives and our every action. We are His stewards, and when life comes to an end each of us will be called upon to render a strict account to Him, as our judge, of every thought, word, and action of our lives. Heaven will be the reward of the faithful servant, eternal suffering in hell will be the just punishment of the wicked.

¹ De Divinis Instit., iv, c. 3.

Before finally quitting the earth Our Lord founded His Church, a hierarchical society of men, to continue the work which He had begun for the sanctification and salvation of the whole human race. His last solemn commission to His apostles was a command to teach men to observe all that He had commanded; certain truths had been revealed to them concerning God, as well as moral rules for their guidance, but even the truths concerning God were not merely speculative; they, too, were revealed for the sanctification and salvation of men. A duty of submission of the intellect, under pain of eternal damnation, was laid on all who heard the Gospel preached. The basis of Christian morality thus rests firmly established on the word of God, requiring unwavering faith, not on the uncertain and shifting sands of human opinion. That Gospel contained not only moral precepts which are obligatory on all, but counsels also of great perfection which those who had the moral strength were encouraged to adopt as rules for the conduct of their lives. The perfect holiness of God Himself was held up as the model which they were to imitate and the lofty ideal at which they were ever to aim.

This revelation of Christ was committed to the Church as a sacred deposit to be faithfully kept, guarded from all admixture of error, and diligently preached to men for their instruction, guidance, sanctification, and salvation. The Catholic Church has always understood that this was the object of her foundation by Jesus Christ. That was her mission, to preach the Gospel, to keep the deposit of faith, to teach what Christ had revealed, and not to allow it to be changed or corrupted even by an angel from heaven. It is the boast of the Catholic Church that by the assistance which Christ promised her, through the constant guidance of the indwelling Spirit of Truth which He sent down upon her, she has faithfully accomplished her task. In spite of enemies within and without, in defiance of the hostile powers of hell and of the unbelieving world, she has persisted through the ages in preaching in season and out of season the divine revelation which was committed to her faithful keeping. At first sight it might seem that no history of such a system of doctrine is possible. History is the scientific narration of the varying fortunes and changes which befall the subject of it. What history can there be of a system of doctrine which has always been the same?

The Christian revelation as taught by the Catholic Church does indeed always remain the same in itself, objectively, as it was completed when the last of the apostles died. This revelation, and nothing else, the Church was commissioned to keep and to preach to the end of time for the salvation of men. It is the Church’s greatest boast, as it is her highest claim to our gratitude, that she has ever preserved unsullied through the ages the divine teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. No man ever taught like Him. The moral doctrine which He inculcated by word and by deed is the loftiest ideal of conduct which has ever been manifested to the world. It cannot be improved upon, and it is impious to attempt to change it. The Catholic denies that it has been changed in the Catholic Church. Non-Catholic historians of Christian morals profess to discover instances of change, but this is due to their own philosophical or religious presuppositions. Thus when the Lutheran Dr. Luthardt discovers in the “Didaché,”

written as he acknowledges at the end of the first century, “the beginnings of a false view of works,”¹ we reply that the same view of works appears in the documents that make up the New Testament, and that it is not false. Lecky discovered a change of view as to the lawfulness of taking human life when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.² In proof of this he quotes Lactantius and one or two other Fathers who held that it is never lawful to take human life. It would not be difficult to quote instances of Christian writers up to our own days who have held the same doctrine, and one might deduce therefrom an argument to show either that Christian morality had progressed, or deteriorated, or had remained stagnant for nineteen centuries, according to the exigencies of one’s philosophical system. Harnack discovers the sources of Catholic monachism in the writings of St. Methodius.³ The Catholic sees them writ large in the Gospel of St. Matthew.

¹ History of Christian Ethics, p. 117.

² History of European Morals, ii, p. 42.

³ History of Dogma, iii, p. 110.

These instances will show why the Catholic cannot accept the accounts of growth, change, and decay which are given in many so-called histories of Christian morals. Nevertheless, he allows that there is a progress and development which admits of being traced historically. The Catholic Church has always been explicit on this point. After teaching that the revealed doctrines of the Faith were not proposed by God to man’s intellect to be improved upon like some philosophical system, but were committed to the Church as a divine deposit to be faithfully kept and infallibly explained, the Council of the Vatican could find no better terms in which to describe true development of that doctrine than those which had been used by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century.

“Therefore,” it says, “let the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom of each and of all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, increase and make much and great progress through the ages and the centuries; but only in its own line, that is, in the same truth, in the same sense, and in the same thought.”¹ Change in Christian dogma and moral we refuse to accept or to acknowledge; we readily admit that there has been and ought to be development. The precepts of Christian morality have not always been equally well understood; what was obscure and uncertain has been made more clear and certain. The existence of different conditions, circumstances, and wants, in different ages and countries, necessitated some change in the adjustment of the teaching to the varying surroundings. New duties arose from new positive legislation. Besides, the science of Christian morals is not a mere exposition of the moral precepts of the Gospel and of the positive legislation of the Church. Books have been written containing such an exposition in the very words of Scripture, like the “Speculum” of St. Augustine, and the “Scintillæ” attributed to Venerable Bede,² but such as these are not works of moral theology. The science of moral theology arranges its subject-matter in an orderly and logical way; it shows the grounds and the reasons of the doctrine, it harmonizes part with part so as to form a compact and systematic body of doctrine. All this is the work of time and of many minds, and it admits of historical treatment. In the brief space at our disposal we propose to trace at any rate the chief stages in the development of Catholic moral theology. Our history may conveniently be divided into three periods; the first will embrace the age of the Fathers, the second that of the scholastics, the third will be the modern period.

¹ Vatican, sess. iii, c. 4.

² Migne, P. L. 88, 598.

For English-Speaking Countries. By Rev. Thomas Slater, S.J., St. Beuno’s College, St. Asaph, with Notes in the Text on American Legislation by Rev. Michael Martin, S.J., Professor of Moral Theology, St. Louis University. Complete in Two Large, Handsome Volumes, each Volume with Full Alphabetical Index. The Two Volumes, net, $5.50.

This epoch-making work has met with a reception such as has seldom welcomed what may be considered an innovation in English ecclesiastical literature. So great was the demand for it by the Reverend Clergy that two editions were sold in one month.

“Every English-speaking student of moral theology will have suffered the annoyance and perplexity of repeated statements about the enactment of laws foreign to the Britisher or American, which could never affect him or his ministry. This book, on the other hand, informs him fully, as far as his religious duties are concerned, and in a simple and direct manner, of the bearing of English and American Law upon numerous points of conduct, and is silent about all other civil laws. A feature so characteristic renders the book invaluable, not to say indispensable, for priests in the British Isles and the United States. . . . Moreover, there is no professor of moral theology who will not be glad to study the up-to-date chapters on Loan, Interest, Sales, Insurance, etc. Two articles on the value of money and on the bankrupt’s liabilities in conscience are specially well done, and will be read with satisfaction and profit. Throughout the book we find ourselves in the fresh air of life, and dealing with the moral aspects of subjects referred to in the headlines of the daily papers, such as Employers’ Liability, Sweating, Duties of Electors.”—CATHOLIC BOOK NOTES, London.

“Father Slater has held the Chair of Moral Theology at St. Beuno’s College for the past sixteen years, and during that time has acquired a reputation for soundness and sobriety of judgment, which is thoroughly well borne out by this book. We share his hope that his volume will also be useful to non-Catholics, who have seldom trustworthy first-hand acquaintance with Catholic doctrine.”—THE MONTH.

“As introductory and auxiliary to the seminarian’s professional training, as supplementary to the priest’s theological reading, as enabling one who is fairly acquainted with the subject easily to review it, and, especially by reason of the visualizing power in which the vernacular usually surpasses a foreign tongue, to clarify and familiarize the matter, the work is unquestionably serviceable. Although primarily intended for Catholic students and priests, the book, it may also be hoped, will be useful to non-Catholics—especially the Anglican clergy who, having of late years attempted to introduce the practice of confession amongst their people, are sadly at a loss for some medium of self-instruction and guidance. Unfamiliar as they often are with scholastic Latin, and having at their command in English only imperfect excerpts or compends drawn by their professors from Catholic writers, they will welcome the present superior manual.”—ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

The Fathers of the Church acted upon this teaching. Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Ambrose, St Augustine, took what was true in the teaching of the pagan philosophers without scruple. St Augustine defends the practice, and says that when a Christian teacher does this, he only takes what belongs to him. All truth comes from God; it forms one harmonious whole; one truth is not opposed to another; one truth does not contradict another.

It is an axiom of Catholic theology that Christian teaching contains no new moral precepts except those which have reference to faith and the sacraments. In other words, apart from faith and the sacraments, and the new duties imposed by them, Christian moral teaching is merely the teaching of right reason and common sense. St Thomas taught nothing new; he taught traditional Christian doctrine; he taught the moral doctrine of Jesus Christ. He did this in a form borrowed from Aristotle, but the form did not change the doctrine. He proposed Christian truth in a new way, but what he proposed remained Christian truth. He faithfully adhered to the old maxim—Non nova sed nove.

These are the broad and solid foundations on which St Thomas Aquinas built the moral teaching of the Second Part of his Summa Theologica. He found much that was true in the Ethics and Politics of Aristotle; the pagan philosopher’s authority was being used against the Church; St Thomas determined to “baptize Aristotle”—i.e., to make him subservient to Christian teaching, and he succeeded admirably. He reared a monument which is not touched by modern science; it remains unshaken and unshakable, because it rests on God and on Jesus Christ.

To a Jesuit of the Gallo-Belgian Province

MY REVEREND FATHER

In reply to the letter with which you did me the honor of writing to me concerning the censure of Gobat’s book by His Lordship of Arras, I shall tell you, as a friend, first, that the propositions as they are reported in the censure are not tenable, nor even excusable for the most part. Secondly, supposing it is judged appropriate in your parts to publish some writing in order to defend yourselves, it must contain nothing offensive against the Prelate; and should you address it to him himself, it cannot be too respectful. The note signed by the bookseller of Douai which you sent me appears essential to your justification. In it he declares that Gobat’s book was not reprinted in the Diocese of Arras, but at Cologne; that it was neither on the advice nor at the solicitation of the Jesuits that he entered into partnership with the German printer; that he does not believe they had knowledge of this new edition otherwise than through the distribution he made of it; and that he is ready to maintain this testimony before anyone. This shows that His Lordship of Arras was misled when he was made to understand that this book had recently been reprinted in his Diocese; and yet this fact seems to be the principal motive of his censure. If you had foreseen this new thunderbolt, I am persuaded that by such a clarification you would have prevented it from falling upon you, at least with so much éclat, and that your Bishop’s equity would not have permitted him, on the occasion of the work of a German written thirty or forty years ago, and in which you had no part, to load you with the infamous names of corrupters of morals, persecutors of Bishops, enemies who ravage the portion of the Lord’s inheritance, and above all to accuse you of preparing within his Diocese a refuge for the wicked doctrine exterminated in France, so as to make it reappear one day. Perhaps he would have exercised his zeal against the German Jesuit without attacking you; as one sees in fact that he adopts an altogether different conduct toward the French Jesuits of his Diocese from that which he adopts toward the Flemings, and that he honors the former with his good will at the very time when he gives the latter such great marks of his indignation. It is unfortunate for you that he should have allowed himself to be so badly prejudiced; but after all, this makes me think that, had he been better informed concerning this particular fact, he would have done you greater justice. What you propose to me, informing the world of the origin of the misfortune you have had of falling into this Prelate’s disfavor, might have a good effect. People would be edified to learn that it was because you had not wished to condemn this proposition of a Dominican, that absolution ought not to be refused or deferred propter relapsum praecise [solely because of relapse]. This Thesis appears Catholic to me, and the contrary opinion has with reason appeared dangerous to you. Thus, given the notion people have of the rivalry alleged to exist between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, they would be persuaded that the love of truth alone had prevented you from condemning the Thesis. The approval which the Universities of Louvain and Douai have since given it would be very favorable to you; but it would be a very delicate matter to touch this chord, and I should fear that this means of defense would bear too much the appearance of reproach and insult, which you must above all avoid. The respect owed to dignity must constitute for inferiors a weighty reason not always to make use of all their advantages; and this same reason must perhaps prevent you from descending into the detail of all the affairs that have been stirred up against you since this unfortunate Thesis. In a word, I would rather suffer everything patiently than depart in any manner from the bounds of moderation and respect. Here is an expedient that occurred to me and that some very wise persons and friends of yours have found good. It would be that, after having declared that you in no way approve the opinions contained in the censured propositions, as I know you do not in fact approve them; after having declared that you leave to the German Casuist’s compatriots the task of examining whether some of them can be defended, whether the extracts of the others are faithful, and whether what follows or precedes does not modify them; it would be, I say, that you address yourselves to His Lordship of Arras himself, not in order to refute his censure, for if you had such an object before your eyes when writing, I should fear that you would not be sufficiently masters of your resentment, but in order to offer him, in general, an Apology for the doctrine of your Society. He is your Pastor; and neither he nor anyone else can find fault with your rendering to him an account of your opinions and those of the Body to which you belong. Or, if you prefer, in this Apology you could simply explain your doctrine without addressing the Prelate. This subject would be less embarrassing for you and would exempt you from the greatest difficulty you would encounter in a work of this nature, in which it would be necessary so carefully to measure your discourse when speaking to His Lordship of Arras that there should not be one expression or one word of which he could complain. I incline more to this course for that reason; and I advise you to take it without even making any other writings on the matters of the censure, or on the intentions with which it was published, or on those who are known to have induced the Prelate to it. The sole end at which you ought to aim is to regain his good graces by your moderation and your respect. I would therefore set forth in this kind of Apology only the conduct your Society has always observed in its manner of teaching, the principles it has followed, the precautions it has taken to maintain sound doctrine in its Schools, the malicious and unjust procedure which its enemies have employed to discredit it in this matter, and the disposition in which it is, and in which it has always been, to follow in Moral Theology the rules of the Church and to condemn everything that this Mother of the faithful condemns. He has enough uprightness perhaps to relinquish his prejudices upon reading such an exposition. You act wisely in despising an infinity of writings published against you; but concerning some that may have greater effect, I have often thought that the plan of which I speak ought to be executed, and that you should make such a declaration to the public once and for all. For it is always necessary to begin again: you have obstinate adversaries who, on every occasion and upon the slightest incident, renew without wearying themselves and without fear of wearying the world all their former calumnies; and if it were necessary to answer everything, there would not be enough writers in the Society, extensive as it is, to do so. The occasion presented to you by the censure of M. of Arras, in which this Prelate treats you in so strange a manner, seems a natural one to me. Everyone will agree that you are being compelled to defend yourselves; and when it is seen that you do so without offending him himself, everyone will be edified by it. Once more, I believe that you ought to take this course. The matter is urgent, because people make a point of spreading everywhere the Censure of M. of Arras, in order to stir up against you persons who are poorly informed or already ill disposed. I am, etc.

I have greatly appreciated, Sir, the counsel you gave me, and I have followed it both in the substance of the work and in its manner. I have circulated some manuscript copies of it, and I send you one. Although I composed this writing of my own initiative, I do not believe that I shall be disavowed with respect to the doctrine it contains and the propositions I advance in it. I am, with respect and gratitude, etc.

APOLOGY
FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE JESUITS
SENT TO HIS LORDSHIP THE BISHOP OF ARRAS ON THE OCCASION OF HIS CENSURE OF THE BOOK OF A GERMAN CASUIST

The alleged lax moral teaching of the Jesuits is the most plausible means that the Innovators and their other enemies have employed to discredit them and to estrange upright persons from them. This means has often succeeded for them. Many persons, judging the sincerity of others by their own, cannot persuade themselves that anyone would wish to defame an entire Society by reproaches which, if supposed false, would be atrocious and horrible calumnies.

With this prepossession, they enter blindly into the sentiments of those who speak ill of the Jesuits, and even join themselves to them, believing that they earn merit before God by assisting a zeal whose sole aim, it seems, is to arrest the course of a pernicious doctrine, by discrediting everywhere those who pass for its authors. It is thus that the prejudgment forms and imperceptibly increases, until it passes into the minds of many as a constant truth against which the accused can no longer be admitted to justify themselves.

But if these persons, either a little better instructed or a little more attentive, wished, before pronouncing so decided a judgment in a matter of this importance, to consult the rules of prudence and charity more than they do, I believe that the scruple of a rash judgment might arise in their conscience. I am persuaded that they would at least suspend for some time the sentence which they pronounce without hesitation against an entire Society, which has perhaps rendered some services to them themselves, and which, constantly for more than a century, has served the Church in every part of the world with some success and with some advantage to Religion.

Would it then be possible, say these persons, whose intentions are often very upright, would it be possible that so many people of every rank, of every condition, and of the holiest professions should all be calumniators; or that, without knowledge of the cause, they should every day carry themselves away, in public and in private, into cruel invectives against a body that was innocent of the frightful excesses with which they reproach it? But let them permit me to ask them in turn whether they can easily persuade themselves that a Society such as that of the Jesuits is only a collection of villains and abominable persons. For there is no middle ground here; and if they are such as they are depicted in the libels published against them, they must be regarded as monsters within Christianity.

In vain do their most declared enemies, through an affected moderation, sometimes contrast the regularity of this Society with the detestable doctrine they attribute to it. They live well, says one of their most venomous adversaries, but they teach badly. This contrast is a chimera. To live well and to undertake to ruin the doctrine of the Gospel throughout the earth by a detestable Moral Theology are two things that cannot be reconciled. It has indeed been seen at various times that certain leaders of a heretical party constantly maintained, in order to gain followers, the appearance of a severe virtue. But a Society as extensive as that of the Jesuits, which preserved the integrity of morals for more than a century while applying itself to corrupting them among Christians throughout the earth, would be a prodigy without example and beyond probability.

It is in no way natural to reserve severity for oneself while teaching laxity to others. The contrary happens every day to several of those who appear most animated against this alleged corrupted Moral Theology of the Jesuits. The world is witness to it. Worldly though it is, it is scandalized by it and makes sport of it. Many upright persons groan over it. But after all, judging things by the lights of good sense, it will always be less surprising to see Rigorism preached by those who live in laxity than it would be to see laxity preached by those who practice Rigorism. It is easy to do the first, and it is very much the fashion in the time in which we live. There is no attraction in the second. One gains nothing thereby either on God’s side or on the world’s. It would be to damn oneself at great cost, without being able to reimburse oneself for anything; it would be to enter hell by the narrow gate. Such a project was never in accordance with the ideas of self-love, and, to have conceived it, the Jesuits would all have to be different from the rest of mankind.

This presumption alone appears decisive to many persons in the subject at issue; but I do not wish to avail myself of it to the point of making it the sole proof of the Jesuits’ innocence in defending them against the execrable undertaking imputed to them, of undertaking to ruin everywhere the Moral Teaching of Jesus Christ. What I intend solely is thereby to put all equitable persons who might be prejudiced in a better state to judge soundly of so important a fact, to engage them to suspend for a moment their judgment between the two parties, and to dispose them to receive, with a spirit of charity and equity, the declaration I shall make in the name of the Society of Jesus on the point of Moral Theology. It is for the same end that I am going to add some reflections on the occasion and the origin of the accusations made against it in this matter, and on the means that have been used to support them and to render them plausible to an infinity of persons to whom their atrocity alone had at first rendered them incredible.

Until the time of Baius and Jansenius, the Jesuits were in possession of the reputation of persons perfectly orthodox in matters of Faith and Moral Theology. They could produce on this subject the praises which the Sovereign Pontiffs have so many times bestowed upon their Society, and in particular upon several of their principal Doctors. The heretics of France, England, and Germany could further serve them as witnesses in this regard. According to these Protestant Doctors, to attack the doctrine of the Jesuits was to attack that of the Roman Church. At that time the reproaches of laxity and semipelagianism were common to the Society of Jesus and to the congregation of the faithful. It was a very great honor to this Society to see itself, together with the Church, the object of the calumnies and persecutions of heretics; and nothing contributed more to increasing the esteem and affection that true Catholics had for the Jesuits.

But as soon as the Theologians of this Society had risen up against the innovations of Baius, had denounced them to the Sovereign Pontiffs, and had obtained their condemnation - and much more still when the errors of Jansenius had been anathematized by the Church - then the supporters of this heresy and all the partisans of Jansenius suddenly turned against the Jesuits and began, more than ever, to take them to task.

This was a stratagem to cause the public to mistake the issue. These Innovators were continually pressed hard concerning the fact of Jansenius, over which they persisted in their revolt against the Church and against the Ordinances of the King. To be ceaselessly on the defensive was for them a disadvantageous and very inconvenient course. This, therefore, is again what determined them to attack the Jesuits and to bring suit against them concerning their alleged corrupted Moral Theology.

Then appeared that fine System of the policy of the Jesuits, who have among themselves, it was said, two sorts of Directors: severe Directors and accommodating Directors; the one sort to attract persons of virtue, the other so as not to repel sinners - an infallible means of making themselves masters of every conscience, a secret of the Society which no one until then had penetrated, and whose use turned upon the doctrine of probable opinions.

Since this was a pure counteraccusation to which all the Author’s wit, whatever efforts he might make, could give no plausibility, this idea at first amused many more persons than it persuaded. It even scandalized several who believed that raillery could not be permitted in a subject of this nature. Nevertheless they continued; and, by making various extracts from the books of the Society - some faithful, some unfaithful, some capable of shocking the ordinary run of people who do not examine matters deeply, although there was nothing in them but what was orthodox - they succeeded in giving some color to what had at first appeared a pure chimera.

They did not stop there; and those whom the condemnation of the doctrine of Jansenius had consternated, profiting from the impression that these first attempts had made against the Jesuits, took courage again. They stirred up on every side, especially in Flanders and in France, in every Town and even in the countryside, persons who began, in rivalry with one another, to cry out against the corrupted Moral Theology of the Jesuits. Nothing was seen but libels scattered everywhere, but persons who, dispersed throughout all assemblies and private companies, let themselves loose against the Jesuits. The pulpits of truth, destined to preach charity to the peoples, became in several places theaters of the most venomous calumny. Mechanisms were set in motion to bring into this plot entire bodies of Ecclesiastics from the most considerable cities of the Kingdom. The diversity and multiplicity of the Jesuits’ employments, and the blessings God bestows upon them therein, having at all times raised up many jealous rivals against them, they saw new adversaries rise against them in the Universities and in several religious orders.

One individual of their Society was perhaps the person who caused them the greatest harm in this persecution. In defiance of his Provincial, he caused a Book entitled Apology for the Casuists to appear, in which, taking his position very imprudently upon several particular cases, he drew upon himself the just censure of several Prelates. They did not fail to make all the Jesuits answerable for a work which the wisest and most learned among them were themselves the very first to detest and which was authentically disavowed. Everywhere this book and these censures were used to confirm the idea of the Jesuits’ Moral Theology which the partisans of Jansenius were spreading everywhere. The libels most filled with falsehoods and the grossest calumnies were received with applause and found credence everywhere. The Apologies of these Fathers, however solid they were, were scarcely regarded and produced hardly any other effect than to give occasion for replies even more insulting and calumnious than the first works written against them. All the censures of Rome which branded most of these libels were mocked, and no more account was made of the Decrees of the King’s Council which condemned them to the fire.

But at last the storm was calmed with time. Composure returned after this violent and impetuous fire. Wise persons for the most part soon perceived that passion and cabal had more part in this persecution than true zeal. Those who knew the Jesuits, or who until then had entrusted to them the direction of their conscience, bore witness to themselves that the Moral Theology of these Fathers was not such as it was depicted in the satires published against them. The Parish Priests of Paris and Rouen, who had made the greatest noise, came back for the most part and were sorry to have seconded, contrary to their intention, the passion of a party whose evil designs they recognized.

The greater part of the Prelates of France and Flanders have shown since that time, by the conduct they have maintained toward the Jesuits, that they did not have of their doctrine the ideas which people had endeavored to give them; and they have often borne witness that they had no persons in their Dioceses who labored for the spiritual good of the peoples with more usefulness, more edification, more disinterestedness, and more submission to their Orders.

The most distinguished persons in the Kingdom did not recognize them in the frightful portraits made of them: the intercourse they had had with them; the education that several had received from them; the conduct of those among these Fathers whom their employment obliged sometimes to appear at Court, where, whatever care one takes to dissemble, one is soon known for what one is; their constant application in their most arduous functions; their zeal for the most dangerous Missions - all these ideas, which calumny had not yet been able to efface, rendered the most violent efforts of their Adversaries almost useless.

The Lords of the Court, the Magistrates, and the Nobility of all the Provinces were seen to entrust their children, as before, to these Fathers, to raise them in Letters and in the fear of God, and to render them the honorable testimony that nowhere were the two better united. Their College of Paris, despite all contrary intrigues, did not cease to be as it were the Seminary of all the most distinguished children in the Kingdom. Several of those who were the least attached to them followed the example of the others in this regard, themselves contributing, as if in spite of themselves, to justify them by their own conduct; and everyone agreed that this was the most solid Apology that could be made in their favor against the continual and horrible satires of their enemies.

Notwithstanding all this, the agitations have recommenced for some time past more vigorously than ever; and the Jesuits were often warned that a new storm was forming against them. In fact, severe blows have been dealt them during the last few years. They have tried to parry some of them. They have done so with equal force and modesty; and they have had the consolation of seeing that equitable and well-informed persons have always rendered them justice against Adversaries who do not become discouraged, and who are as constant in the persecution they have stirred up against them as in their revolt against the Church.

Nevertheless, neither do I wish to draw advantage for the defense of this Society from this new presumption furnished me by the character of most of those who for fifty years have made so harsh a war upon it, while they secretly prepare other devices against the Church itself. The sole use I intend to make of it, as also of the first, is to prevent people from relying too readily upon witnesses who must be so suspect, and upon certain others whom they have prejudiced by their artifices and by the clamor they have deliberately raised on every side; and to obtain from those who will read this defense some attention to what I am going to say in what follows.

All Christian Moral Theology can be reduced to two articles. The first comprises what is expressly contained in Scripture, in Tradition, in the Commandments of God and of the Church, in the Councils, and in the Decisions of the Holy See. The second contains an infinity of other cases which are not evidently decided by these first Rules and concerning which, for this reason, there is division among the Doctors in the Schools. One may further include in this number the explanation sometimes given to the Commandments of God or to Scripture, on the occasion of certain particular difficulties which arise in the dealings that men have with one another and which concern the extent of their duties, whether toward God, toward their neighbor, or toward themselves.

I do not believe that the Jesuits need an Apology on the first article; and I think they will not be reproached with ever having taught that adulteries, robberies on the highways, blasphemies, and other similar sins are permitted. It is true that they have been accused of having permitted Idolatry in China; but they have always said that Idolatry was a crime, and the question was reduced to knowing whether what they permitted was actually Idolatry.

It is therefore only the second article that is at issue, that is, things which are not evidently contained in the rules of our Faith, concerning which it is claimed that they always fall into laxity. Here are some propositions whose examination will clarify the truth or falsity of this accusation.

The Jesuits, in matters of Moral Theology, have always followed, in conformity with one of their Rules, the common opinions of the Catholic Schools.

If this proposition is true, it alone suffices to place the doctrine of this Society beyond all suspicion. Now it is a fact which the Jesuits boldly advance: that what ought to be regarded as the doctrine of their Society has always been a doctrine common in the Catholic Universities.

Since this proposition is the solid foundation upon which the justification and conduct of the Jesuits in matters of doctrine must be supported, it is appropriate to apprehend it well and explain it well, so that it may not be believed that, in a proposition too general and capable of having various senses, they are preparing evasions for themselves in order to elude the reproaches their adversaries make against them.

First, this does not mean that the Society of Jesus has a determinate opinion on each point of Theology which is also the general opinion of all the Schools and all the Catholic Universities. That could not be, because upon an infinity of questions opinions are divided there. But in this very division the opposed opinions are often equally common, and it is said of both the one and the other that they are a common doctrine in the School, because the affirmative and the negative are maintained indifferently.

When, therefore, the Jesuits say that their Society has always professed to follow the doctrine commonly received in the Schools and in the Catholic Universities, this means that in each question of Theology it has always kept to the opinions which were current in the School, and which were ordinarily followed there by the Catholic Doctors.

Second, when the Jesuits advance that the doctrine of their Society has always been the common doctrine of the Schools and Catholic Universities, they do not mean that no individual member of their body has ever departed from it, nor that none of their Theologians has ever maintained any proposition worthy of being reproved and censured. They are far from either thinking it or saying it. That would be to give themselves a praise which befits only Holy Scripture and the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is within Christianity neither School nor University several of whose Doctors have not been subject to these weaknesses and these wanderings of the human mind. The Body of the holy Fathers itself, the most respectable body in the Church, is not exempt from this stain. Saint Augustine, saint though he is, has propositions of lax Moral Theology; some could be shown in Saint Jerome and in several other Fathers. And the Jesuits have no difficulty in making such an admission with regard to some of their Theologians. But what they advance without fear, and of which they are ready to furnish the proof, is that the doctrine received and authorized in their Society, that which is commonly followed there, is the same as that which they found was taught in the other Catholic Schools and Universities when they entered them, and that they can no more than the others be reproached for having departed from it.

Here, then, is a means altogether suited to the purpose and a very just rule for determining the truth or falsity of the reproach of lax Moral Theology made against the Jesuits. Has anything been commonly taught in their Society other than what has been commonly taught in the Catholic Schools and Universities? If a difference can be shown in this respect between their School and the other Catholic Schools, condemnation must be pronounced against them; if it cannot be shown, from that moment they are justified.

Some particular cases may be produced in which some of their Theologians have been mistaken; the same will be produced from the other Societies, and I dare advance that a greater number will be produced. Since these mistakes of certain individuals do not take from the other bodies the quality of being orthodox in the matter of Moral Theology, what injustice would it be if they caused the Society of Jesus alone to lose it? Here, then, once again, is the fixed point upon which everything must turn in this matter.

Let the adversaries of the Jesuits attack them on this point and press them as vigorously as they can. They must necessarily make an opening in them at this point; otherwise, it will always be the most manifest injustice to wish to distinguish them from all the other Societies by the shameful character of laxity in Moral Theology.

I add some other propositions which will serve to develop further the general proposition I have just made.

When a Jesuit Theologian has adopted some particular opinion rejected as bad in the Catholic Schools, the greater part of the Theologians of the Society have been against it; and, generally speaking, this Theologian has been neither the only nor the first of the Theologians to have departed on that point. I shall later descend into some detail which may serve as proof of this proposition. The Jesuits again boldly expose it to the criticism of their most vigorous adversaries: let them only take care to apprehend it correctly. But if this fact is true, if, when it is advanced by the Jesuits, it is left without its falsity being shown, calumny is disarmed, and the truth of the fundamental proposition I made at the outset is perfectly established: that the doctrine of the Society, that is, the doctrine authorized by the common sentiment of the Jesuits, is the same as that of the other Catholic Schools; and that, consequently, it is wrong to affect to establish a kind of opposition between the doctrine of the Jesuits and that of the other Catholic Doctors.

When some opinion has been condemned by the Church or by the Holy See, by whatever authority it had previously found itself supported, there is no Society whose superiors have taken greater care than the superiors of the Jesuits have done to ensure that it was not taught in their Schools; and it has scarcely happened that any individual has done so, and has done so with impunity.