And yet, provided this metaphysical comparison be not drawn, any one may, according to your authors, give away a benefice, and receive money in return for it, without being guilty of simony.Such is the way in which you sport with religion, in order to gratify the worst passions of men; and yet only see with what gravity your Father Valentia delivers his rhapsodies in the passage cited in my letters.He says: "One may give a spiritual for a temporal good in two ways- first, in the way of prizing the temporal more than the spiritual, and that would be simony; secondly, in the way of taking the temporal as the motive and end inducing one to give away the spiritual, but without prizing the temporal more than the spiritual, and then it is not simony.And the reason is that simony consists in receiving something temporal as the just price of what is spiritual.If, therefore, the temporal is sought- si petatur temporale- not as the price, but only as the motive determining us to part with the spiritual, it is by no means simony, even although the possession of the temporal may be principally intended and expected- minime erit simonia, etiamsi temporale principaliter intendatur et expectetur." Your redoubtable Sanchez has been favoured with a similar revelation; Escobar quotes him thus: "If one give a spiritual for a temporal good, not as the price, but as a motive to induce the collator to give it, or as an acknowledgement if the benefice has been actually received, is that simony? Sanchez assures us that it is not." In your Caen Theses of 1644 you say: "It is a probable opinion, taught by many Catholics, that it is not simony to exchange a temporal for a spiritual good, when the former is not given as a price." And as to Tanner, here is his doctrine, exactly the same with that of Valentia; and I quote it again to show you how far wrong it is in you to complain of me for saying that it does not agree with that of St.Thomas, for he avows it himself in the very passage which I quoted in my letter: "There is properly and truly no simony," says he, "unless when a temporal good is taken as the price of a spiritual;but when taken merely as the motive for giving the spiritual, or as an acknowledgement for having received it, this is not simony, at least in point of conscience." And again: "The same thing may be said, although the temporal should be regarded as the principal end, and even preferred to the spiritual; although St.Thomas and others appear to hold the reverse, inasmuch as they maintain it to be downright simony to exchange a spiritual for a temporal good, when the temporal is the end of the transaction."Such, then, being your doctrine on simony, as taught by your best authors, who follow each other very closely in this point, it only remains now to reply to your charges of misrepresentation.You have taken no notice of Valentia's opinion, so that his doctrine stands as it was before.But you fix on that of Tanner, maintaining that he has merely decided it to be no simony by divine right; and you would have it to be believed that, in quoting the passage, I have suppressed these words, divine right.This, fathers, is a most unconscionable trick; for these words, divine right, never existed in that passage.You add that Tanner declares it to be simony according to positive right.But you are mistaken; he does not say that generally, but only of particular cases, or, as he expresses it, in casibus a jure expressis, by which he makes an exception to the general rule he had laid down in that passage, "that it is not simony in point of conscience,"which must imply that it is not so in point of positive right, unless you would have Tanner made so impious as to maintain that simony, in point of positive right, is not simony in point of conscience.But it is easy to see your drift in mustering up such terms as "divine right, positive right, natural right, internal and external tribunal, expressed cases, outward presumption," and others equally little known; you mean to escape under this obscurity of language, and make us lose sight of your aberrations.
同类推荐
Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital
本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
热门推荐
追妻无门:女boss不好惹
青涩蜕变,如今她是能独当一面的女boss,爱了冷泽聿七年,也同样花了七年时间去忘记他。以为是陌路,他突然向他表白,扬言要娶她,她只当他是脑子抽风,他的殷勤她也全都无视。他帮她查她父母的死因,赶走身边情敌,解释当初拒绝她的告别,和故意对她冷漠都是无奈之举。突然爆出她父母的死居然和冷家有丝毫联系,还莫名跳出个公爵未婚夫,扬言要与她履行婚约。峰回路转,破镜还能重圆吗? PS:我又开新文了,每逢假期必书荒,新文《有你的世界遇到爱》,喜欢我的文的朋友可以来看看,这是重生类现言,对这个题材感兴趣的一定要收藏起来。诺桑觉寺 劝导(简·奥斯丁小说全集)
《诺桑觉寺》小说女主角——家境小康的牧师女儿凯瑟琳·莫兰,随乡绅艾伦夫妇来到矿泉疗养地巴思,在舞会上遇见并爱上了青年牧师亨利·蒂尔尼。同时,她还碰到了另一位青年约翰·索普。两位青年恋人经过一番周折,终于结为伉俪。《劝导》是作者奥斯汀最后一部小说,也是她最成熟的—部,被认为比以往的作品更有思想和感情深度。故事讲述了韶光正从安妮的身上消逝,风华正茂的时候,因为接受了他人的“劝导”,她终与意中人温特沃斯上校分道扬镳。两人分手八年后再次相遇,经历了一系列事情之后,他们发现,重新团聚比第一次相爱更为幸福,于是,经受了考验的他们不再若即若离,开始尽情地回忆并表白。穿越:相公你好吗(全本)
晏家幺女晏紫瞳,天性嗜睡,只打了个盹,被贪财的大姐和贪吃的二姐设计出卖。一觉穿越,荣升为半月王朝第二山庄的准二少夫人。第二山庄二少爷夜北溟答应娶她只为冷落她!真的吗?麻烦冷落得更彻底一些吧!最好这辈子老死不相往来。只是……她的如意算盘打得似乎不那么如意。PS:女主特异功能:一目十行,过目不忘。另,本文每个情节的安排都是有目的的,请亲不要以为是突然冒出来的情节,耐心点往下看哈……追妻无门:女boss不好惹
青涩蜕变,如今她是能独当一面的女boss,爱了冷泽聿七年,也同样花了七年时间去忘记他。以为是陌路,他突然向他表白,扬言要娶她,她只当他是脑子抽风,他的殷勤她也全都无视。他帮她查她父母的死因,赶走身边情敌,解释当初拒绝她的告别,和故意对她冷漠都是无奈之举。突然爆出她父母的死居然和冷家有丝毫联系,还莫名跳出个公爵未婚夫,扬言要与她履行婚约。峰回路转,破镜还能重圆吗? PS:我又开新文了,每逢假期必书荒,新文《有你的世界遇到爱》,喜欢我的文的朋友可以来看看,这是重生类现言,对这个题材感兴趣的一定要收藏起来。冥府恋爱纪事
阴阳使蒋晟竑:“没事塞个女娃娃过来,这不添乱嘛?”孟婆:“你那不是一直很乱嘛。”蒋晟竑:“那我随便折腾了你别心疼。”孟婆:“随意。”蒋晟竑:“那不是你选定之人吗?!”(抓狂)“你可不可以不要这么随便!”孟婆:“随便一点好。”…………蒋晟竑:“你好好好学,叫一声苦就把你赶出去!”水黛:“是……”各种课业,各种刁难……这个女娃娃好像还不错,糟了,是心动的感觉……蒋晟竑:“吃荔枝吗?很甜。”水黛:“……不吃。”一般有毒。蒋晟竑:“今天要去城郊走走吗?”水黛:“不了,课业还没做完。”无事献殷勤,非奸即盗。往日造的孽,这下子怎么挽回小美人的心?五殿主阎罗王之侄蒋晟竑漫漫追妻路……不怕,咱时间长得很……