TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS September 9, 1656 REVEREND FATHERS, I was prepared to write you on the subject of the abuse with which you have for some time past been assailing me in your publications, in which you salute me with such epithets as "reprobate," "buffoon," "blockhead," "merry- Andrew," "impostor,""slanderer," "cheat," "heretic," "Calvinist in disguise," "disciple of Du Moulin," "possessed with a legion of devils," and everything else you can think of.As I should be sorry to have all this believed of me, I was anxious to show the public why you treated me in this manner; and I had resolved to complain of your calumnies and falsifications, when I met with your Answers, in which you bring these same charges against myself.This will compel me to alter my plan; though it will not prevent me from prosecuting it in some sort, for I hope, while defending myself, to convict you of impostures more genuine than the imaginary ones which you have ascribed to me.Indeed, fathers, the suspicion of foul play is much more sure to rest on you than on me.It is not very likely, standing as I do, alone, without power or any human defence against such a large body, and having no support but truth and integrity, that I would expose myself to lose everything by laying myself open to be convicted of imposture.It is too easy to discover falsifications in matters of fact such as the present.
In such a case there would have been no want of persons to accuse me, nor would justice have been denied them.With you, fathers, the case is very different; you may say as much as you please against me, while I may look in vain for any to complain to.With such a wide difference between our positions, though there had been no other consideration to restrain me, it became me to study no little caution.By treating me, however, as a common slanderer, you compel me to assume the defensive, and you must be aware that this cannot be done without entering into a fresh exposition and even into a fuller disclosure of the points of your morality.In provoking this discussion, I fear you are not acting as good politicians.The war must be waged within your own camp and at your own expense; and, although you imagine that, by embroiling the questions with scholastic terms, the answers will be so tedious, thorny, and obscure, that people will lose all relish for the controversy, this may not, perhaps, turn out to be exactly the case; I shall use my best endeavours to tax your patience as little as possible with that sort of writing.Your maxims have something diverting about them, which keeps up the good humour of people to the last.At all events, remember that it is you that oblige me to enter upon this eclaircissement, and let us see which of us comes off best in self-defence.The first of your Impostures, as you call them, is on the opinion of Vasquez upon alms-giving.
To avoid all ambiguity, then, allow me to give a simple explanation of the matter in dispute.It is well known, fathers, that, according to the mind of the Church, there are two precepts touching alms: 1st, "To give out of our superfluity in the case of the ordinary necessities of the poor";and 2nd, "To give even out of our necessaries, according to our circumstances, in cases of extreme necessity." Thus says Cajetan, after St.Thomas; so that, to get at the mind of Vasquez on this subject, we must consider the rules he lays down, both in regard to necessaries and superfluities.With regard to superfluity, which is the most common source of relief to the poor, it is entirely set aside by that single maxim which I have quoted in my Letters: "That what the men of the world keep with the view of improving their own condition, and that of their relatives, is not properly superfluity;so that such a thing as superfluity is rarely to be met with among men of the world, not even excepting kings." It is very easy to see, fathers, that, according to this definition, none can have superfluity, provided they have ambition; and thus, so far as the greater part of the world is concerned, alms-giving is annihilated.But even though a man should happen to have superfluity, he would be under no obligation, according to Vasquez, to give it away in the case of ordinary necessity; for he protests against those who would thus bind the rich.Here are his own words: "Corduba,"says he, "teaches that when we have a superfluity we are bound to give out of it in cases of ordinary necessity; but this does not please me-sed hoc non placet- for we have demonstrated the contrary against Cajetan and Navarre." So, fathers, the obligation to this kind of alms is wholly set aside, according to the good pleasure of Vasquez.With regard to necessaries, out of which we are bound to give in cases of extreme and urgent necessity, it must be obvious, from the conditions by which he has limited the obligation, the richest man in all Paris may not come within its reach one in a lifetime.
