The provincial letters of Blaise Pascal : $b A new translation, with historical introduction and notes, by the Rev. Thomas M'CriePascal, Blaise
Religion
The provincial letters of Blaise Pascal : $b A new translation, with historical introduction and notes, by the Rev. Thomas M'Crie
Pascal, Blaise
Jansenists -- France -- Early works to 1800; Jesuits -- Early works to 1800; Port-Royal des Champs (Abbey) -- Early works to 1800
Ignatius[252] and the first generals of your Society, than this
confused medley of all sorts of opinions, good and bad. I may, perhaps,
enter on this topic at some future period; and it will astonish many to
see how far you have degenerated from the original spirit of your
institution, and that your own generals have foreseen that the
corruption of your doctrine on morals might prove fatal, not only to
your Society, but to the Church universal.[253]
Meanwhile, I repeat that you can derive no advantage from the doctrine
of Vasquez. It would be strange, indeed, if, out of all the Jesuits that
have written on morals, one or two could not be found who may have hit
upon a truth which has been confessed by all Christians. There is no
glory in maintaining the truth, according to the Gospel, that it is
unlawful to kill a man for smiting us on the face; but it is foul shame
to deny it. So far, indeed, from justifying you, nothing tells more
fatally against you than the fact that, having doctors among you who
have told you the truth, you abide not in the truth, but love the
darkness rather than the light. You have been taught by Vasquez that it
is a heathen, and not a Christian, opinion to hold that we may knock
down a man for a blow on the cheek; and that it is subversive both of
the Gospel and of the decalogue to say that we may kill for such a
matter. The most profligate of men will acknowledge as much. And yet you
have allowed Lessius, Escobar, and others, to decide, in the face of
these well-known truths, and in spite of all the laws of God against
manslaughter, that it is quite allowable to kill a man for a buffet!
What purpose, then, can it serve to set this passage of Vasquez over
against the sentiment of Lessius, unless you mean to show that, in the
opinion of Vasquez, Lessius is a “heathen” and a “profligate?” and that,
fathers, is more than I durst have said myself. What else can be deduced
from it than that Lessius “subverts both the Gospel and the decalogue;”
that, at the last day, Vasquez will condemn Lessius on this point, as
Lessius will condemn Vasquez on another; and that all your fathers will
rise up in judgment one against another, mutually condemning each other
for their sad outrages on the law of Jesus Christ?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account