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
“You must conclude then, father, that neither sinners nor yet saints
have always that knowledge, or those desires and inspirations every time
they offend; that is, to use your own terms, they have not always actual
grace. Say no longer, with your modern authors, that it is impossible
for those to sin who do not know righteousness; but rather join with St.
Augustine and the ancient fathers in saying that it is impossible _not_
to sin, when we do not know righteousness: _Necesse est ut peccet, a quo
ignoratur justitia_.”
The good father, though thus driven from both of his positions, did not
lose courage, but after ruminating a little, “Ha!” he exclaimed, “I
shall settle you immediately.” And again taking up Father Bauny, he
pointed to the same place he had before quoted, exclaiming: “Look
now—see the ground on which he establishes his opinion! I was sure he
would not be deficient in good proofs. Read what he quotes from
Aristotle, and you will see that after so express an authority, you must
either burn the books of this prince of philosophers or adopt our
opinion. Hear, then, the principles which support Father Bauny:
Aristotle states first, ‘_that an action cannot be imputed as
blameworthy, if it be involuntary_.’”
“I grant that,” said my friend.
“This is the first time you have agreed together,” said I. “Take my
advice, father, and proceed no further.”
“That would be doing nothing,” he replied; “we must know what are the
conditions necessary to constitute an action voluntary.”
“I am much afraid,” returned I, “that you will get at loggerheads on
that point.”
“No fear of that,” said he; “this is sure ground—Aristotle is on my
side. Hear, now, what Father Bauny says: ‘In order that an action be
voluntary, it must proceed from a man who perceives, knows, and
comprehends what is good and what is evil in it. _Voluntarium est_—that
is a voluntary action, as we commonly say with the philosopher’ (that is
Aristotle, you know, said the monk, squeezing my hand;) ‘_quod fit a
principio cognoscente singula in quibus est actio_—which is done by a
person knowing the particulars of the action; so that when the will is
led inconsiderately, and without mature reflection, to embrace or
reject, to do or omit to do anything, before the understanding has been
able to see whether it would be right or wrong, such an action is
neither good nor evil; because previous to this mental inquisition,
view, and reflection on the good or bad qualities of the matter in
question, the act by which it is done is not voluntary.’ Are you
satisfied now?” said the father.
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