same remaining in his own ship, in order that he himself with the ship may not come into the power of the enemy,

&c.

66

May or ought a person about to be condemned, or already condemned, flee from prison if he can do it without violence?

"If he should be innocent, he would properly be bound to make his escape: unless the good of the state or of religion should otherwise advise: thus many martyrs, although they could escape, remained in prison.

"But if he is guilty, it is commonly taught, that such a one may flee, but yet that he is not obliged to escape: that he is not obliged to flee, is proved from this, that death would not ensue from his failing to escape, but from the crime which he has committed: yea, more, it is believed that a criminal may, of his own accord, give himself up to the judge, that he may make satisfaction to God and the republic.

"That he may escape, is proved from this, that flight is the means of preserving life: but he would too much repugn his natural inclination, if it were not lawful to avail himself of such means: and hence some believe that to this end, he may even break from jail and confinement.

"He is not considered a suicide who permits himself to be killed, because he cannot preserve his life, except by extraordinary means; for instance, by the most costly medicines, the severest pains, &c.: thus, also, a monk is not obliged to go out of the cloister, that he may get a change of air, for the sake of obtaining health.

"Whether a Carthusian is obliged, at the risk of life, to abstain from eating meats, see resolved, No. 46, concerning the Laws, &c."

I will here insert the chapter to which allusion is made in the last paragraph.

Concerning the obligation of the constitution of the Carthu sians. (No. 46, Vol. II., p. 82.)

"Is the constitution of the Carthusians, by which all eating of meats is forbidden, under mortal sin, obligatory when life is in extreme danger?

"Ans, If other articles of food are not at hand, they

eat meats lawfully; indeed they are obliged to eat them, lest they may perish of hunger: because their constitution cannot include this case, as it cannot oblige them to perish with hunger. The case would be the same, if there were no other except poisoned articles of food at hand; because these are not naturally adapted to sustain life.

"But if other articles of food may be supplied, it is not lawful for them to eat meats, even if in the judgment of physicians the eating of them would be necessary for the preservation of life. The reason is, because their constitutions, approved by the church, most strictly forbid the eating of meat and the ancient custom of this order teaches that this prohibition holds good even in this case.

"Besides, this rigour is necessary for the preservation of the strength and honour of this institution, which would easily decline, if a dispensation should be granted even in a single instance, as the event has frequently shown in other religious orders, and also sometimes in this itself: which Vasquey records that he had himself heard from the strictest fathers of this order.

66

Obj. A Carthusian who has no food except meats, is obliged to feed on meats, as was said above: but when he cannot preserve life without meats, it is the same to him as if he could have no other food: therefore, he then lawfully

eats meat.

"Ans. I deny the minor: for although other articles of food might be thought not advantageous, yet certainly they are sufficient in themselves, and serve to sustain life: and hence, although the sick man may perhaps die from the disease, yet he cannot be said to die of hunger: and therefore it is not the same as if no food was at hand: therefore, the eating of meats in this case can only be regarded as medicine; but just as a sick man is not obliged to procure the most costly medicines, although others may seem of no advantage, so neither is the Carthusian obliged to eat meats, which would be very injurious to his order, by relaxing discipline, &c."

To most of the preceding chapters, I have thought it advisable to subjoin short refutations of the erroneous and unscriptural principles, which are inculcated in the theology of

the Romish Church; but it will not be necessary to offer one word of comment, when the poison is so rank, that no sane man would touch it, and my readers will therefore understand why it is that in subsequent chapters, I shall often refrain entirely from commenting upon the text, which Peter Dens offers. Whenever there is anything so specious that an honest man might be deceived, I shall feel it my duty, for the sake of those who may not always be prepared to separate the precious from the vile, to furnish suggestions, which will perhaps not be altogether unprofitable.

Not a few of the subjects upon which we are about to enter are of a somewhat delicate nature, and in many instances I shall therefore be obliged to condense and give a mere outline, in order that details, offensive to modesty, may be avoided. I wish to present a fair and full exposition of the principles, which are inculcated in Romish Seminaries, in so far as I can accomplish it without defiling my pages with anything indecent or obscene; at the same time, however, I shall not suffer myself to be hampered by prudery, or false modesty; I shall spread before Protestants and Papists, so much of the theology (!) of Romish priests, that it will be an easy matter for an ordinary imagination to supply as much of the suppressed matter as a decent person would choose to know. But whilst endeavouring to present my reader with a correct idea of Peter Dens' theology, I shall not designedly pander to the depraved curiosity of any vicious mind.

23

CHAPTER XXVII.

OF HOMICIDE. (No. 122.)

"WHAT is homicide?

"It is the voluntary and unjust killing of a person. It is forbidden both by natural and by positive and divine law, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

"Is the killing of irrational animals also forbidden by the command, Thou shalt not kill?'

་

"No. For God, Gen. ix. 3., has expressly permitted this: Every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you.'

"St. Thomas observes that by killing animals in a cruel manner a certain impropriety may be committed; for animals have been left not for our cruelty but for our use. This cruelty Sacred Scripture also condemns; Prov. xii. 10. The just regardeth the lives of his beasts; but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.'

"Whether the eating of meats was permitted before the deluge, is disputed: Sylvius thinks that it was permitted, but

THAT THE MORE RELIGIOUS ABSTAINED FROM IT.

"Explain the command, Thou shalt not kill.'

"By this command, not only homicide is forbidden, but also mutilation, wounding, whipping, &c., and whatever tends to the injury of a neighbour's person.

Indirectly, gentleness, patience, peace, love, beneficence, &c., are enjoined, as the Roman catechism explains, part 3., concerning the fifth precept of the decalogue.

"Is every killing of a person, under all circumstances, forbidden by this precept?

"No: but that which is committed by private authority, without either the command or permission of God: hence, in the definition of homicide, it was said that it is the unjust killing of a person.

"What killing of a person is not forbidden by this precept?

"That which is done by divine authority: Thus, 1. Abra

ham did not sin, who, at the command of God, was willing to kill his own son Isaac, Gen. ch. xxii. ver. 10.

"2. Nor does the state, which puts malefactors to death: as God has likewise given this power to the state for the common good, as will be proved in the following number.

"3. Nor they who wage war justly by slaying the enemies: for Sacred Scripture, the fathers, and the practice of the most conscientious rulers abundantly prove that this er has been divinely given. The conditions of a just war, see briefly in the Analogy of Becanus, ch. xviii., quest. 1."

pow

"Is it lawful to kill malefactors by public authority? (No. 122.)

"It is not only lawful, but it is also commanded by public authority and due process of law to put to death criminals who are hurtful to the state: such as robbers, incendiaries, sacrilegious persons, thieves, &c. This was enacted in the Third Lateran Council against the Waldenses.

"It is proved from the divine permission granted, Exod. xxii. 18.Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.' And Rom. xiii. 4. If thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.'

"Add to this also natural reason, which dictates that a limb must be amputated, when by it the destruction of the whole body is threatened: but from these pernicious malefactors there is danger of the corruption and disturbance of the state; therefore, &c.

"May the state at its option put to death any malefactors whatever?

"No: but only such as are very injurious to the state: and hence, in this case, the grievousness or malice of the sin, in itself considered, is not to be regarded, but the injury which it occasions to the republic.

"Hence the military laws are just, which decree the penalty of death for faults in themselves slight, for trifling disobedience, neglecting trust, petty theft, &c.; because from faults of this kind, although they are in themselves trifling, the most grievous evils might arise to the state, unless they were most strictly forbidden.