can. We must choose none directly, but when we are forced upon some by our own infelicity or fault; it is the best remedy for the gangrene that we lose our arm or leg: and he that is in the fatal necessity, no otherwise can be permitted to choose a sin, than he is supposed to be desirous to be cut of the stone, when upon any terms he resolves he never will or can endure the torments of the disease. The great reason of this rule is that which was given by Aristotle, ¿v dyatoʊ γὰρ λόγῳ γίνεται τὸ ἔλαττον κακὸν πρὸς τὸ μεῖζον κακόν· ἐστὶ γὰρ τὸ ἔλαττον κακὸν μᾶλλὸν αἱρετὸν τοῦ μείζονος· τὸ δὲ αἱρετὸν, ἀγαθὸν, καὶ τὸ μᾶλλον μεῖζον· “ the less evil in respect of the greater evil is to be accounted good; because the less evil is rather to be chosen than the greater; and what is in any sense eligible, is in some sense good, and that which is more eligible is a greater good." 66 But it seems something harder to inquire concerning this case when it relates to others: for so it uses to be asked; Quest. Whether it be lawful to advise, to counsel, to petition, to determine, to make use of the doubt of another, or his necessity, or perplexity, and to call upon him to do that which is a sin? The case is this; Pollio, an intemperate and wanton young man, falls into adulteries and unnatural lusts; his friend Publius Asinius advises him, not so,-but if he will not leave his vileness, better it is to satisfy his lust by single fornication, and the less harmful complications : Et quas Euphrates, et quas mihi misit Orontes, Whether or no Publius does well in giving this advice, is the question? The reasons of doubting are these: because he that advises evil, is guilty of the sin which he procures; and he that any way consents or induces another to sin, shall be partner in the punishment. To this I answer, that, in the whole intercourse, there are to be considered the formal sin, the material part of the action, and the degrees of the obliquity. The formal part, or the sinfulness, cannot, must not be countenanced, or assisted at all, directly or indirectly; and in the present case it b Lib. v. Ethic. c Propertius, ii. 23, 21. Kuinoel, vol. i. pag. 150. is so far from being countenanced, that it is reduced to as little a proportion as it can, as near to a destruction as the present necessity or perplexity will permit, and it is out of hatred to the obliquity or sinfulness that this lesser way is propounded. Pilate, seeing the Jews resolved to do a spite to the holy and most innocent Jesus, propounded to them a lesser way than murdering him: "I will scourge him, and let him go." Pilate's conscience was not perplexed, though his interest was; and therefore there was no necessity for him to do either, and neither ought he to have propounded the lesser evil, which, it may be, themselves did not design: indeed if they were resolved to do one, he might have persuaded the less, not absolutely (for nothing could have made that lawful), but comparatively; that is, rather that than the other, if ye will do one. 2. But for the material part of the action, if it be already prepared, and the malice known and declared, it is lawful to propound a less instance of the sin without persuading to it; which is to be understood with these cautions: 1. That it be only with a purpose of hindering a greater. 2. When the lesser cannot be hindered, but at least so much must be done by way of redemption. As if Caius resolves to ravish a matron to satisfy his lust, it is lawful to divert his lust upon a common prostitute, who sells her soul for bread; because her malice is always ready and watches for an opportunity, and sins no less, if she wants opportunity which she thirsts after. 3. That it be ever without the prejudice of a third person: as if one of the banditti intends to kill one man, and this happens to be offered to a public and a brave man, it is not lawful to point out his sword to the striking of a meaner person to save the other; because, though, in respect of the effect, it be a less evil, yet it is a direct uncharitableness to a third, which can receive no warrant or legitimation by the intention of the propounder; for although he intends that a less evil be done for the public, yet he intends a greater evil to the particular. 4. That it be in a case certainly known where the malice is apparent and declared, and the matter prepared; for thus we see that God, who sees the hearts of men, diverts their prepared malice upon some special matter, which serves the ends of his providence, and verifies the prophecies of God, and so brings his designs to effect, and a certain event by contingent or voluntary instruments. But we may no further imitate this, than we can attain to little portions of the knowledge of men's private and particular purposes. 3. But as for the degrees of the obliquity or irregularity, it is certain, none is to be persuaded or assisted directly, but suffered in the whole, and persuaded in the instance, by way of remedy against the greater, and more intolerable. Thus Moses permitted divorces, that the Jews might not commit open and frequent adulteries, or kill their wives when they grew weary of them. Thus an inconvenience is suffered, rather than a mischief shall be introduced; and some fooleries and weak usages are suffered in some churches, rather than, by reforming them, make the ignorant people think all religion is indifferent: and if all the people of the Greek church did perceive that any of their old customs were fit to be rescinded, they would, upon the same easiness, quit their whole religion, and turn Turks. And though an error is not to be permitted in any church, when it can be peaceably amended, and when it cannot, it is, as often as it can be, peaceably to be discouraged; yet when the necessity is great, and the evil feared is certain, and felt, and is intolerable; it is a sad necessity, but no man can help it, and therefore it must be as it may,—the lesser error is to be endured, till it can be remedied, with a remedy that is not worse than the disease. Quest. Upon this occasion, and for the reducing the rule to practice, and to regulate a case which now-a-days happens too frequently, it is not amiss to inquire concerning the necessities of women married to adulterous, and morose vile-natured husbands; whether it be lawful for a wife, out of a desire to live with some degree of a tolerable comfort, to connive at her husband's stolen pleasures, and to permit him quietly to enjoy his folly? and what is a woman's duty, and what were her most prudent course, and manner of deportment? Some of great reputation in the church of God, both of old and later times, put a speedy period to this inquiry, and absolutely condemn it as unlawful for a man or woman to live with their husband or wife respectively, if either of them be notoriously guilty of adultery. Of this opinion was St. Jerome, saying, "That a man is sub maledictione si adulteram retineat;' 'under a curse if he retains an adulteress in his embraces.' And St. Chrysostom," Sicut crudelis et iniquus est qui castam dimittit, sic fatuus et iniquus, qui retinet meretricem. Patronus enim turpitudinis est, qui celat crimen uxoris;" "As he is cruel and unjust, who puts a chaste wife from him, so he is unjust and a fool, that keeps a harlot. For he is a patron of his wife's turpitude, who conceals his wife's adultery." And this they prove out of Solomonf: "Qui tenet adulteram, stultus est;" almost the words which St. Chrysostom uses: "He is a fool that keeps an adulteress:" areßns it is in the Greek LXX. "He is an ungodly man." And of the same opinion was Bucer, in the last age, who for his opinion brings two arguments, which are not contemptible. The first is taken from Deuter. xxiv. 4. where God enjoins, that if a man puts away his wife, he must at no hand receive her again, “quia ipsa polluta est," "she is defiled," meaning, if any man else hath lain with her; and if this be a good reason, it will conclude stronger, that if she have committed adultery, she may not be entertained, because, in that case, she is much more polluted; and where the reason of the commandment does intervene, there also the obligation does go along. But the other is yet more considerable; for if God commanded that the adulteress should be stoned to death, certainly he much rather intended she should be turned out of doors. To which I add this consideration, that since an adulterer is made one flesh with the harlot with whom he mingles impure embraces, it follows that he hath dissolved the union which he had with his wife, or she with her husband; for he cannot be one with his wife, and one with the harlot, and yet he be one in himself, and they two, for that is a perfect contradiction; for that which is one with two, is not one but two. Now for a woman to lie with a man, or a man with a woman, between whom there is not a just and legitimate union, seems to be an unjust and illegitimate uniting; and therefore it cannot be lawful to lie with an adulterer, who is one with a harlot. d In 19 Matth. e Caus. 32. q. 1. c. Sicut. f Prov. xviii. 22. Before I come to the resolution of the question, I must describe how much these arguments do prove and infer: because, though they do not prove so much as their contrivers do intend, yet they do something towards the whole question. 1. The words of St. Jerome infer nothing but this, "That to live with a harlot is a great calamity, and a horrible curse, and it cannot indeed tend towards a blessing, or end well, or be at all endured, if it be not intended to purposes beyond the proper effect of that calamity." He that is smitten with a leprosy, or he that is hanged upon a tree, is accursed; but if the leprosy makes a man run to God, or to Christ, or the man that dies upon a tree does confess and glorify God, and by his death intends to do so, the leper shall be presented pure before the throne of grace; and he that hangs upon the tree, does die with Christ, and shall reign with him for ever. 2. And the design expressed in the words of St. Chrysostom, do verify this commentary upon the words of Jerome. For St. Chrysostom, charging not only infelicity, as the other does, but folly and cruelty upon him who retains a harlot, gives this reason,-because he is a patron of his wife's turpitude if he conceals it;—meaning it, if he conceals it out of carelessness and positive neglect, or, which is worse, out of interest, or base designs. All wise and good men in the world condemn the fact of Cato, who did lend his wife Marcia, a virtuous and a chaste matron, to his friend Hortensius. He that conceals his wife's crime, with an unwillingness to reform it, or a pleasure in the sin, or the fruits of it, is his wife's betrayer and murderer; nay, he is an adulterer to his own wife. But these words cannot be true in all cases; for he that conceals her shame, lest the discovery should make her impudent, and harden her face, he is no patron of the sin, but a careful guardian, watching lest she should commit a worse. And this also is the meaning of the words of Solomon; for although they are not at all in our Bibles, because they are not found in the Hebrew text, yet the words,-which are found in the Greek LXX. and in the vulgar Latin, and which are certainly in the Bibles which St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom did use, and which were the cause and original of their opinion,-have in them this sense, That as he who expels a good woman, thrusts good from his house, so he that does not thrust an |