to the laziness and lusts of men and not to their conscience which it destroys by procuring to it a false repose which causes it to sleep securely in misery and death Finally he pretends that we are not obliged to love God in any higher degree than the Creatures Amicus saith the same thing and brings the same reason for it 3 Quod nimirum semper homo debeat esse onx us an intensiori actu amaverit Deum quà m ullam creaturam Amicus tom 4 disp 29. scot 2. num 15. pag. 388. That a man would be always in trouble to know whether he bore love towards God in a higher degree than towards any creature It seems these people have taken for their task not to teach men their duty and to carry them on to the performance of what they ought but rather to dispense with them therein when they find any trouble or difficulty to perform it Which thing they do in the greatest part of the most important Precepts of Christianity For men believing them to be too perfect and difficult for them look for nothing but to be dispensed with in their obligation unto them instead of representing unto God their inability and to pray him to give them force and grace to bear themselves therein as they ought Amicus enlarges himself yet farther on this reason For speaking of two ways of loving God above all things to wit by loving him as much as we can by his common assistance or by loving him indeed at the least more than any creature 4 Uterque modus reddit praeceprum servatum moraliter impossibile semper dubium relinquit operantem de ejus impletione Ibid. The one and the other manner saith he make the Precept of loving God morally impossible and leaves him who labours to fulfil it always in doubt whether he have accomplished it or not If it be impossible to love God as much as we can or more than any creature as this Jesuit pretends it is impossible to love him with all our heart and all our might and to love him as much as can be above all things and to love him more than any creature is but the same thing He would say then that it is impossible to keep the first Commandment of God in the manner God himself hath injoyned us to observe it Which is not only simply to destroy it but to reduce it as we may say below nothing by maintaining that it is not so much as possible since God cannot command that which is impossible as he himself cannot do it We are not to wonder if presupposing that it is impossible to love God as he hath commanded as he conclude that we are not at all obliged thereunto But he draws also from this same Principle many other Conclusions whereof he makes so many Maxims and Rules of Christian life 1. 1 Secunda sententia docec Deum diligendum esse super omnia tantum appretiativè seu praelative non autem intensivè quae ver◠est sequenda Ibid. n. 15. Talis dilectio appretistiva seu praelativa effentialiter comparativa est◠quia praesert Drum in amor◠omnibus aliis amabilibus Ibid. num 16. He saith that it is sufficient to love God appretiatively by way of Valuatien more than all other things that is to say as he expounds himself to prefer God and his love before every Creature and its love 2. 2 Quoniam possumus ralem aestimationem de Deo habere ut propter increatam suam bonitatem praeserendus sit in amore rebus omnibus creatis tamen nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendere Quod tolis dilectio esse possit etiamsi in gradu remississima sit constat ex jactis principlis Ibid. num 20. That unto this it is not only not needful to have more love for God than for the Creatures but that it is sufficient to have one single degree of love to God how small soever it may be 3. 3 4. Quod autem vi hujus praecepti ad nullam certam dilectionis intensionem teneamur constat ex dictis cum nec uspiam sit nec ex aliquo revelatoideducatur Ibid. n. 21. Unde negandum est certam intensionem in actu dilectionis esse sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio Ibid. n. 22. 1 Intensio dilectionis non est sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio 2 Sola dilectio appretiativa super omnia sufficit ad implendum praeceptum charitatis erga Deum etiamsi remississima sti num 19. Etiamsi nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendat That God commands us no more when he commands us to love him above all things 4. 3 4. Quod autem vi hujus praecepti ad nullam certam dilectionis intensionem teneamur constat ex dictis cum nec uspiam sit nec ex aliquo revelatoideducatur Ibid. n. 21. Unde negandum est certam intensionem in actu dilectionis esse sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio Ibid. n 22. 1 Intensio dilectionis non est sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio 2 Sola dilectio appretiativa super omnia sufficit ad implendum praeceptum charitatis erga Deum etiamsi remississima sti num 19. Etiamsi nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendat That This is sufficient in effect to enable us to say that we love God above all things and that we are ready to quit and lose all things rather than offend him and therefore to accomplish the first and great Command of Divine love And that to love God more is an advice and not a command and by consequence no man is obliged thereto I undertake not to examine here these Maxims and Arguments because I have already said something of them in another place I represent them here only to discover according to the design of this Chapter that the Jesuits have taken in hand to blot out of the Gospel the principal and greatest Commandment which obligeth us to love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our might and they say on the contrary that we cannot love God so little as not to satisfie this Commandment God declares that he will be loved with all our heart that is with all the extent of our affections with all our might that is to say as much as we are able Amicus on the contrary pretends that he ought to be content that we love him as little as we please because to love him more 1 and to a certain degree is only an advice It sufficeth that we love him much under what we could if we would 2 because the least degree of love is enough for him and for to satisfie this Commandment If this Jesuit had resolved to make a Party against God and to contradict and contend with him openly he could not speak with more violence and evidence and unless he would quite abolish
pass by the opinion of Azor who alleadges eight times or eight occasions and that of Sanchez who acknowledges but one alone wherein this precept obliges he leaves the one as too large and the other as too severe and too exact e Sequor autem Henriquez tria ad hoc praeceptum tempora assignantem Primum quidem est morale principium rationis Secundum mortis articulus Tertium tempus vitae intermedium saltem singulis quinque annis Addo ex Filliutio probabile esse won quinquennis singulis rigorose obligare sed sapientum arbitrio Ibid. But I follow Henriquez who observes three times in which this precept obliges The first is when a man begins to have the use of reason the second is upon the point of death the third is all the time of a mans life between those two at the least from five years to five years But I say farther following Filliutius that it is probable that this precept doth not oblige in rigour every five years but at the discretion and judgement of wise persons If a man be obliged to love God but upon one occasion as Sanchez would have it or at the beginning of his use of reason and at death and now and then during his life as Henriquez believes or from five to five years and even less as Escobar adds or at most upon eight occasions onely which may happen during a mans whole life according to Azor all the rest of his time that is to say almost all the life of a man shall be for lust and one may employ it to love any other thing besides God that is to say to love the creatures temporal things the goods of this world without being obliged to turn away his minde and his heart from them to love God it being certain that the heart of man cannot be without some love and that that of the world and of the creatures doth occupy all that which the love of God doth not possess Amicus not daring to oppose himself absolutely to the opinion of Divines who hold that to satisfie the precept of loving God we are obliged to have actually more love for him than for the Creature expounds this opinion in such sort that he doth indeed defend it f Secunda sententia docet Deum esse diligendum super omnia tantùm appretiative seu praelative Est communis Thelogorum opinio quae vera sequenda Amic tom 4. disp 29. sect 2. n. 15. p. 388. The second opinion holds saith he that it behoves to love God above all things in preferring him above them and esteeming him more but not in loving him with more tenderness This is the common judgement of Divines which is true and which ought to be followed And for to expound this more clearly he addeth g Omnis appretiatio nascitur ex judicio comparativo unius prae alio Ex eo enim quod judico unum esse melius perfectius alio Ibid num 18. All preference comes from a judgement by which after we have compared two things we choose the one and leave the other For because I judge that the one thing is worth more than the other I preferr that which I judge to be the better He distinguishes here two acts the one is that by which we compare two things together and the other that by which we give the preference to that which we judge the better And he puts apprecicative love in the latter of these two acts which is for all that an act of judgement and of understanding as well as the former So that to love God more than all the creatures appretiatively or by preference according to him is no other thing then to Judge that God is better and more perfect then all the Creatures But this may be done by the greatest Sinner as well as by the greatest Saint this judgement being more in the head than in the heart and proceeding more from knowledge and light of minde than from affection Also it is clear that one may esteem them much whom he loves not at all and also more than those whom he loves And there is nothing more common then to esteem those for whom one has no true affection at all but an intire indifference So that this esteem and this judgement cannot be named love but improperly he he who sets not his love which is due unto God above all things otherwise then in in this judgement and in this estimation which makes him prefer him above all things as deserving to be beloved above all things doth not at the bottom attribute unto him any true love at all and holds in effect that there is no love due to him at all But if these Doctors who know to give to their own words as well as to those of others such sence as they please even that which they have not and which they cannot have naturally as we have made appear in the former Chapter I say if these Doctors that they may not seem to abolish intirely the commandment of love to God say that although they place this love that is due to God in the esteem which we ought to make of him above all the creatures they exclude not for all this from that preference all sort of affection for God and that they suppose we have always some love for him They reduce elsewhere this love whatsoever it be according to them to so base a degree that they testifie sufficiently that all their explications are rather to disguise their judgement than to expound it clearly and that not daring absolutely to deny the commandment of loving God they diminish and deface as much as they can the love which they suppose to be due unto him h Quod autem sola dilectio appreciativa Dei super omnia sufficiat ad implendum praeceptum charit tis erga Deum etsi remissima sit probatur Ibid. num 19. I will prove unto you saith Amicus that although the love of God appretiative above all things be in a very low degree It sufficeth for to accomplish the precept of love towards God This is to abolish intirely the commandment of loving God by maintaining that we are not obliged to love him as it doth command for God doth demand all our love since he demands all our heart And Amicus saith and attempts to prove that the lowest degree of love suffices to accomplish the precept of love towards God And that he might not leave any place to doubt of his thought upon this point he repeats the same thing in the following number and he speaks thereof as of a truth which follows from his principles i Quod autem talis dilectio possit esse etiamsi in gradu remississimo sit constâ—… ex principiis quoniam possumus talem aestimationem de Deo habere ut propter increatam suam bonitatem praeserendus sit in amore omnibus rebus creatis tumen non nisi remisse
first of the Commandments which God gave in the old Law and which he hath repeated in the new is 1 Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex to to corde tuo Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart And Father Sirmond is not afraid to maintain that we are not obliged by this Commandment to love God For God saith he tr 2. p. 16. commanding us to love him is satisfied in the main that we obey him in his other Commandments And as he saith also pag. 28. A God so loving and lovely commanding us to love him is satisfied that we obey him without loving him It is easie to destroy all the Commandments by this Method there being none more important nor more clearly explained nor oftner repeated in the Old or New Testament than this When God saith Thou shalt love me with all thy heart if it be lawful to say that he intends something else than what he saith and that he would not oblige us to love him though he saith it with an expression so clear and strong there can be nothing certain in the whole Word of God and we may in this manner clude all the Commandments pretending that he desires not that of us which he demands or that he would not oblige us in good earnest to that which he testifies to be his desire But the reason of this Father why God would not have us to love him is excellent because he is loving and lovely as if love desired any thing so much as reciprocal love or could be otherwise acknowledged and satisfied than by this love He ought also at least to consider that God is not only amiable and loving but also a great lover of truth and sincerity and that so there can be no apparent ground to make him a lyar or dissembler in commanding men to love him without desiring to oblige them thereunto This Jesuit corrupts also this same passage and Commandment in another manner saying Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. signifies no other thing than thou shalt love him if thou wilt without being obliged thereto because the Commandment to love God is a Command of pleasure in respect of affective love but a Command of rigour in respect of effective love and the execution p. 21. He would say that God by this Commandment demands the outward actions and not the affection that he commands us to produce the effects of love without obliging us to have this love and that he is content provided we do the things which he commands though they be done without loving him or thinking of him No wise man would be served in this manner of his children or of his friends nor of his slaves themselves and who would not scorn such services He hath also invented a third gloss which is no other than a consequence of the former saying Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart signifies thou shalt love him freely and without any obligation For God saith he the God of love will be loved freely and without any obligation and if he threaten it is that he may be obeyed But if we love not them freely whom we love of duty and upon obligation we must say that a Son loves not his Father freely because he is obliged to love him by the Law of God and Nature and if that which is done of duty be not freely done it follows that the Religious Orders keep not their vows freely nor the Faithful any of the Commandments of God because they are thereunto obliged But if he threatens saith he it is that he may be obeyed and not that he may be beloved We must believe then that there are no penalties nor threats against them that never love God Which neither agrees with what S. Paui saith He that loves not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be accursed 1 Cor. 16. nor with that which S. John saith Qui non diligit manet in morte 1 John 3. He that loveth not abideth in death The one threatning them with death and the other with a curse who love not Jesus Christ There remains yet his last corruption of this very word of God of Jesus Christ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart That is to say thou shalt not hate him at all For albeit his sacred love be not kindled in our hearts saith he Pag. 19. though we love him not at all and the motive of Charity do not incline us to do that which he commands us yet we cease not for all that to obey the Commandment of Love in as much as we do the works of Love So that herein we may see the goodness of God he hath not so much commanded us to love him as not to hate him either formally by an actual hate which were indeed devillish or materially by the transgression of his Law This excess is visible enough of it self and needs not be represented more particularly and it might easily be apprehended to be the extreamest that can be committed on this subject if there were not found another yet greater in this little Book which is as it were the foundation of all the rest For he talks of the love of God as a thing odious and servile and he represents the Commandment of loving God as a yoke and servitude unsupportable attributing it to the particular favour and grace of Jesus Christ that he hath delivered us as he pretends from the obligation of serving God in love that our services might be pleasing to him and meritorious unto eternal life And to justifie this his imagination which scents strong of impiety he abuses these words of Jesus Christ 1 Si vos Filius liberaverit vere liberi critis Joh. 8. v 36. If the Son make you free you shall be free indeed which speak manifestly of freedom from sin as appears by what goes before See here how he expounds this passage If the Son make you free saith he himself in S. John you shall be free indeed Yea I hope we shall by his own proper testimony yea even from that very strait obligation wherewith some would charge us which is to love God in every point which hath any reference unto merit Tr. 3. p. 60. He pretends then that Jesus Christ hath not only delivered us from sin as is formerly affirmed in this place but also from the obligation even of loving God himself and of serving him in love which appears unto him too rigorous Which hath reference to what he saith tr 2. p. 24. that God neither could nor ought command us to love him but only to serve him See here saith he how God hath right and might command us his sacred love he hath right to command us so far as concerns the effect but not in what concerns the inward affection It must needs be therefore that according to the opinion of this man the love of God
felicity If not that is to say though we never have the felicity to love him actually provided we do not otherwise offend him he will not damn us Whence we must conclude according to these Principles and Reasonings that there is not absolutely any true Command which obliges us to love God since that which he hath given us himself contains neither threat nor penalty at the least no grievous one against them who fail therein if you will believe in him rather than S. John S. Paul and the Son of God himself who say the contrary in so many places of Scripture SECTION II. That according to Father Sirmond the Gospel speaks hardly any thing at all of Divine Love and Charity and that Jesus Christ hath not much recommended it AFter Father Sirmond had reduced this great and first Command of God to a simple advice and no more this advice is also of so little consequence in his Judgment and according to the mind of Jesus Christ himself if you will believe this Jesuit that he hath scarcely mentioned it in the whole Gospel You will be troubled to find saith he pag. 162. tr 2. that he hath spoken manifestly of this divine practice if it be not at the conversion of Magdalen and in his Sermon at his last Supper where he exhorts us to love him In these two places which he observes as those alone wherein our Lord hath spoken of the practice of the love of God he will not have him therein to recommend it as necessary but only that he commends it and exhorts us to it as a good thing that is to say that he advises but commands it not And in this he testifies that he hath read the whole Gospel very exactly and that he hath very well dived into the sense of the words of Jesus Christ saying to his Apostles at the last Supper 1 Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem Joan. 15. v. 12. The commandment which I give you is that you love one another He discovers also by his discourse that he understands perfectly well what the Gospel and new Law is which according to the Divines after S. Thomas is no other thing than the Law of love and love it self So that when he saith that love is scarcely spoken of through the whole Gospel it is as if he should say that the new Law is not spoken of in the new Law nor the Gospel in the Gospel But to shew that he speaks not hereof without having considered it well he observes that of 32 Parables which is the most frequent manner of Christs discourse he applies but one for the recommendation of the love of our neighbour in the person of that distressed poor man abused by thieves betwixt Jericho and Jerusalem pag. 121. After he hath read the Gospel so exactly as to number the Parables contained therein as he hath observed only two places wherein our Lord speaks of divine love so he hath found but one wherein he speaks of the love of our neighbour So that S. Paul had no reason to say writing to the Romans 2 Plenitudo legis est dilectio qui diligit proximum legem implevit Rom. 13. v. 10. That love is the fulfilling of the law and that he who loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law For if love be the accomplishment and fulfilling of the Law it will follow that love is extended through the whole Law otherwise it could not fulfil nor comprehend it all And so it would neither be the fulfilling nor accomplishment of it and if the love of our neighbour fulfil and accomplish the Law the love of our neighbour must contain and be contained in all the Law as the Soul fills and contains and is filled and contained by the body which caused S. Austin to say 3 Non praecipit Scriptura nisi charitatem nec culpat nist cupiditatem to modo informat mores dominus That the whole Scripture old and new is and commends nothing but charity If we will not submit to the Authority of S. Austin and S. Paul we should at least give way to that of Jesus Christ and acknowledge his errour or raze out of the Gospel so many passages wherein he recommends so expresly and clearly the love of God above all things and that of our neighbour by making thereof an express Commandment which he calls his and the Commandment proper to the new Law as when he saith in the 13. of S. John 4 Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos Joan. 13. v 34. A new commandment give I unto you that you love one another as I have loved you And in Chap. 15. 5 Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem Joan. 15. v. 12. This is my commandment that you love one another And a little after 6 Hoc mando vobis ut diligatis invicem Ibid. v. 17. I command you to love one another and many other places there are wherein he speaks of charity and of the command to love God and our neighbour as a Commandment which is not only proper to the new Law but which contains also the whole Law new and old as he expresly declares in S. Matthew where speaking of the double Commandment to love God above all things and our neighbour as our selves he saith 7 In his duobus mandatis úniversa lex pendet Prophetae Matt. 22. v. 40. That all the Law and Prophets depend on these two Commandments SECTION III. The mixture and agreement of Self-love with the Charity invented by Father Sirmond the Jesuit IT soffices not Father Sirmond to have taken away and dasht Charity as much as he could out of the Law of God the sacred Scriptures and the heart of man he sets upon it in its own nature and he seems to desire to drive it from it self first in mingling it with and secondly in changing it into self-love He mixes it with self-love when he saith tr 2. pag. 47. The more that charity possesseth it the less doth the Soul think of any other thing than to love and the more it takes to heart the interests of God the less it cares for its own peculiar but all this is accidental unto charity whereof the highest perfection may subsist in a heart altogether inclined to and concerned to the utmost for it self without falling short of what it owes unto the principal object of its affection as it comes to pass among the Blessed who eschewing all sorts of evil provide for all that which concerns them and yet are not the less belonging to God If it be true that to lay to heart the interests of God and to care for them more than our own be accidental unto charity as this Jesuit pretends S. Paul understood not what charity was and he hath spoken very improperly of it in 1 Cor. 13. where making the most express and exact description of
and to indispose him towards that sickness whereof he dyed But nothing touched him more to the quick than the corruption which the Jesuits had introduced into the Morality of the Church He was a mortal enemy to their compliances and he could not bear with their presumption which bent them to consult no other in their Divinity than their own proper light He declared against their loosness in all the Ecclesiastick Conferences whereunto he was invited and he gave himself up particularly in the Sermons and Instructions which he made in the Churches to fortifie the Faithful against their pernicious Maxims His Discourses made so much deeper impression upon their Spirits because they were sustained by his own examples and the truths of Christianity were no less visible in his manners than they were intelligible in his words He handled all sorts of matters with such exactness and solidity as if he had employed all his life only in study of some one of them alone and it might be perceived that he studied in all his Discourses only to clear the understanding to touch hearts and heal diseases and not to puzzle the mind please the ears and flatter the diseased But the love which he had for the purity of Christian Morals was too great for to suffer him to rest so contented He believed that to heal well the mischiefs which the Jesuits had done the Church it was necessary to have a perfect knowledge thereof and to imitate Physitians who addict themselves to know the bottom of diseases before they apply themselves to any remedy He gave himself for this cause to read the Books of these Fathers and to extract out of them the principal Errours of which he hath composed this Book which we now publish but at length he could not but sink under so painful and afflicting a labour His patience found it self exhausted The grief he had to see the Morality of Jesus Christ so horribly disfigured seized his heart and cast him into such a languor as dryed him up by little and little and ravished him away from the Church after he had received with great resentments of Piety and Religion all the Sacraments at the hands of his upper Pastor I will not take in hand to give here an Idea of the design which this excellent Man hath had in this Work of the order which he hath observed of the reasons which he hath had to undertake it and of those in particular which have engaged him to cope with the Doctrine of the Jesuits because he hath himself given satisfaction in all these points in his Preface I shall only answer here to those who have wished that he had not discovered the Errours which are represented in this Work without refuting them by the true Principles of Christian Morality which are Scripture and Tradition They avow that this had been advantagious to the Church and it was the very design of the Author But this hinders not but that his labour although separated from the more large Refutation may have also its utility For they who are acquainted with the Affairs of the Church understand that it is no new thing simply to set down the Errours which the Corrupters of Faith and Manners have attempted to introduce into the Church without undertaking to combate them by long Reasoning and that S. Epiphanius as also S. Austin observed Historics narratione commemorans omnia nulla disputatione adversus falsitatem pro veritate decertans S. August de Hares hath only represented by way of History the pernicious Opinions of the greater part of Hereticks without taking in hand to refute them in particular rehearsing all things with an Historical Narration but not contending for the truth against falshood by any disputation I know well that there is cause to believe by that which S. Austin adds presently after that he had only an Abridgment of the Books of S. Epiphanius But I know also that if this Saint had seen them all entire he would still have discoursed after the same manner and that this Judgment may very justly be passed on them for that of eighty different Sects of which Epiphanius hath undertaken to report the Errours he only tracks the foot as I may say of them one by one and refutes in the manner of a Divine only four or five contenting himself in a few words and as it were on his way passing by them to shew the absurdity of the Conceits of those Hereticks and how far they were distanced from the truth See how he interprets himself in his Preface concerning the manner in which he had designed to handle these things In which truly this one thing we shall perform that we shall oppose against them as much as in us lies in a few words as it were an Antidote whereby we may expel their poysons and by Gods help may free any one who either wilfully or unawares happens to fall into these Heretical opinions as it were into the poyson of some Serpents In quo quidem hoc unum praestâ—bimus ut adversus illa quitquid in nobis situm erit paucis uno atque altero verbo velut antidotum apponamus quo illorum venens propulsemus secundum Deum quemlibet qui vel sponte vel invitus in haeretica illa dogmata velut serpentum virus inciderit si quidem velit ipse liberare possimus This is the same thing which the Author of this Book of Morals which is now made publick hath given us to see therein with a marvellous address and vivacity of Spirit For though he undertake not to refute these Errours of the Jesuits but only to discover them he does notwithstanding discover them without making their excesses to appear most plainly and the opposition also which they have to the truth and sound doctrine So that according to the progress by which we advance in reading this Book we find our selves insensibly convinced of the falsities of all the Maxims which are therein related and our minds filled with the opposite truths and our hearts piously animated against these so horrible corruptions and edified by the violence which we observe this Author hath done upon himself for to moderate his zeal and to keep himself back from refuting opinions so contrary to the common sense of the Faith For unto such evils deep sighs and groans are more agreeable than long discourses Cum talibuâ— malis magis prolixi gemitus fletus quam prolixi libri debeantur S. Aug. Epist 122. Indeed the arguings of the Jesuits which he relates and whereof they make use to authorize their monstrous opinions are so evidently contrary to the Principles and Maxims of the Gospel and to the light of Nature the abuse to which they put the words of Scripture and the Fathers is so visible and so gross and there needs so little discerning to see that they take them in a sense contrary to what they do indeed contain that these Authors
IV. Point Rules for imposing Penance or Satisfaction according to the Jesuits Escobar Bauny Filliutius Pag. 227 V. Point Rules of the same Jesuits for giving Absolution Filliutius Sa Bauny Sanchez Pag. 228 VI. Point The Jesuits advice to Penitents to make the yoke of Confession sweet and easie Bauny Escobar Sa Layman Amicus Pag. 229 Chap. III. Of Prayer That the Jesuits destroy Prayer in teaching that the Laity and the Ecclesiasticks themselves may satisfie their obligation to Prayer by praying without attention without reverence and even with voluntary distraction and diverting themselves with all sorts of wicked thoughts Filliutius Escobar Coninck Bauny Pag. 231 Chap. IV. Of good Works That the Jesuits Maxims destroy them Escobar Tolet Sa Lessius Pag. 238 Chap. V. Of the Sacraments Pag. 244 Article I. Of Baptism and Confirmation ibid. I. Point That the Jesuits take away the necessity of Baptism and destroy the dispositions required thereto Escobar Tambourin ibid. II. Point That the Jesuits divert the Faithful from Confirmation by discharging them from the obligation to receive it Filliutius Escobar Mascarenhas Pag. 246 Article II. Of the Eucharist and Penance What sort of dispositions the Jesuits demand for these two Sacraments and that they teach men to prophane them by sacriledge Filliutius Mascharenhas Pag. 251 Article III. Of the Sacrament of Marriage Tambourin Dicastillus Pag. 256 Article IV. Of them who administer the Sacraments That the Jesuits permit Priests to administer the Sacraments to say Mass and to preach principally for vain-glory or lucre of money and in an estate of mortal sin Filliutius Sa Amicus Sanchez Pag. 260 The Second Part of the Second Book Of the Outward Remedies of Sin THat the Divinity of the Iesuits abolishes or corrupts them Pag. 266 Chap. I. Of the Corruption of Scripture That the Iesuits corrupt the Scriptures divers ways Celot Coninck Sirmond Lessius Pag. 267 Chap. II. Of the Commandments of God Pag. 274 Article I. Of the Commandment which is that of Love and Charity ibid. I. Point Of the Command to love God ibid. Section I. That there is no Command to love God according to the Maxims of the Iesuits Divinity Sirmond Pag. 275 Section II. That according to Father Sirmond the Gospel speaks hardly any thing at all of divine Love and Charity and that Jesus Christ hath not much recommended it Pag. 276 Section III. The mixture and agreement of Self-love with the Charity invented by Father Sirmond the Jesuit Pag. 278 Section IV. The changing and transforming of Charity into Self-love by Father Sirmond Pag. 279 II. Point That the Jesuits by destroying Charity which man oweth unto God destroy also that which be owes himself Filliutius Amicus Molina Celot Sa. Pag. 280 The Sum Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits concerning the Love of Charity which a man owes unto God and to himself Pag. 285 III. Point Of the Command to love our Neighbour that the Jesuits utterly destroy it Bauny Sa Amicus Pag. 286 IV. Point That the Jesuits allow of Magick and Witchcraft Tambourin Sancius Pag. 289 Article II. Thou shalt not swear by God in vain That the Jesuits destroy this Commandment by diminishing excusing weakning the sins of Swearing and Blaspheming Bauny Escobar Sanchez Filliutius Pag. 291 Article III. Of the Commandment of God HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 297 Article IV. Of the Command of God THOU SHALT NOT KILL That the Jesuits absolutely overthrow this Commandment and authorize all sorts of Murders Lessius Molina Pag. 302 I Point Lessius his Opinion concerning Murder Pag. 303 Section I. How far he enlargeth the permission of Killing in defence of his own life that he holds that a Priest at the Altar may break off the Sacrifice to kill him who assails him ibid. Section II. That according to Lessius it is lawful to kill in defence of our Honour Pag. 304 Section III. That it is lawful to kill in defence of ones Goods according to Lessius Pag. 306 II. Point The Opinions of Amicus concerning Murder respecting the Religious That he permits them to kill in defence of their Honour him who impeaches them of false Crimes or only threatens to discover those they have indeed committed Pag. 312 III. Point The Opinions of other Jesuits concerning Murder Molina Vasquez Filliutius Pag. 317 IV. Point The Opinion of Escobar concerning Murder Pag. 324 V. Point The Conformity of the Jesuits who in our days have taught in their Colledges with the more Ancient in the Doctrine of Murder Pag. 328 Article V. Of Vncleanness which the Jesuits allow against the Command of God and natural Reason Layman Lessius Tolet Sa Escobar Pag. 332 Article VI. Of Theft That the Jesuits authorize it and abolish the Commandment of God which forbids it Sa Escobar Amicus Bauny Layman Pag. 340 Article VII THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSE Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 344 Chap. III. Of the Commandments of the Church Pag. 347 Article I. Of the Sanctification of Festivals Pag. 348 I. Point Section I. That the Jesuits despise the Authority of the Church and destroy the Commandment by which it forbids to work on Feast-days Layman Escobar Filliutius ibid. Section II. Expedients which the Jesuits propose to elude the Commandment which forbids working on Feast-days Escobar Sa Filliutius Pag. 352 II. Point Section I. That for the Sanctification of the Lords-day it suffices according to the Jesuits to bear one low Mass that we may hear it where we will the whole or part and at as many parcels as we please Layman Tambourin Dicastillus Coninck Azor Tolet Escobar Pag. 355 Section II. That according to the Jesuits the Precept of hearing Mass may be satisfied by hearing them without internal Devotion Attention Intention even with an express intent not to satisfie and whilst we entertain our selves alone or with others with other discourse and wicked and dishonest thoughts Coninck Azor Tambourin Dicastillus Filliutius Celot Pag. 360 Article II. Of Fasting and the Commandment to Fast Pag. 364 I. Point That according to the Jesuits Divinity we may prevent the hour of Repast make it as long and great as we please eat more than on another day and break out into all excess and intemperance without breaking our Fast Escobar Tambourin Tolet Sanchez Azor Bauny ibid. II. Point That according to the Jesuits Divinity we may on Fast-days drink as much as we please during our Refection or after it and take every time we drink a morsel of bread or some other thing and be drunk also without intrenching on the Fast Pag. 368 III. Point That according to the Jesuits Dispensations which they give in Fasting hardly any person is obliged to fast Layman Bauny Escobar Sa. Pag. 371 Article III. Of the Commandment to communicate at Easter and of the Confession to be made every year That according to the Jesuits Divinity these Commandments may be satisfied by true Sacriledges Sa Escobar Filliutius Amicus Celot Coninck
in reputation for a knowing and honest man as are in a manner all those of their Society and especially in the judgement of the Peasants of whom he speaks that fornication and theft are sins but that the desire of the one and the other are lawfull For after he had said that even amongst the Modern Casuists there are some who would not excuse this Peasant of mortal sin if following the advice of this man whom he beleeves to be learned and pious he should voluntarily entertain such a desire of fornication he adjoyns in favour of this Peasant or rather of fornication a Quibusdam neotericis doctis videtur banc ignorantiam minime excusare at quamvis hoc probabile sit probabilius tamen credo actum internum excusari omnino à malitia Ibid. though that opinion be probable yet I beleeve that it is more probable that this interiour act is exempt from all sin These two expedients may be made use of indifferently albeit the first is more proper for men of understanding who know how to make metaphysical abstractions and the second for simple and ignorant persons such as are Peasants who may also draw this advantage from the Divinity of the Jesuits above persons of wit and understanding that because of their ignorance they may even commit fornication it self without sin Because invincible ignorance excusing them from sin as the whole Society do agree it as we shall see hereafter when we come to speak of sins of ignorance Filliutius and some others assure us that one may be ignorant that fornication is a sin without being guilty b Septimo quaero an dari possit ignorantia invincibilis fornicationis Respondeo posse dari Filliut mor. q. tom 2. tr 30. c. 2. n. 50. p. 389 It may be demanded saith Filliutius if a man may be invincibly ignorant that fornication is a sin And he adds immediately after I answer that one may Azor having taught the same thing before him putting into the number of things which a man may be invincibly ignorant of c Ad scortum accedere Azor. tom 1. l. 1. c. 13. p. 34. to go to a Whore Whence it follows according to them that one may in this estate of ignorance commit fornication without sin It is true that they are constrained to acknowledge that it is hard to find this invincible ignorance amongst Christians but then they return presently to their general proposition d Dari potest ignorantia inviacibilis fornicationis Multi enim vulgares bomines sunt qui nesciunt distinguere inter peccata permissa vèl non prohibita quoad poenam ut exâ—o quod non punitur fornicatione simplex sed impuné permittuntur meretrices putant etiam non esse peccdtum ad eas accedere quod etiam in civitatibus alioquin bene institutis in fide religione persaepe locum habet ut ii qui confessiones excipiunt ritè norunt Filliut ibid. n. 51. That for all this it is not impossible that one may be invincibly ignorant even amongst Christians that fornication is a sin for there are many persons amongst the Common people who know not how to discern amongst certain sins those which are tolerated or not forbidden which though they be not punished yet their disorders are not approved as in regard that simple fornication is not punished or that common women are tollerated they think also that it is no sin to go to them Which thing happens even in Cities where great pains are taken to instruct the people in the matters of Faith and Religion as they know very well who hear their Confessions And by consequence those persons may by the favour of their ignorance innocently commit fornication and particularly with common women Men of ingenuity and understanding may also enjoy the same priviledge with these ignorants when they are not in a condition to make use of their knowledge and wit For Filliutius gives them his liberty to commit the acts not only of fornication but also of adultery of incest and of all other crimes or at least he wil excuse those that they have committed in that estate and if after they come to remember what they have done he permits them to take pleasure and to rejoyce as if they had done the most honest and most lawfull actions e Quaro quinto on delectatio de re mortali ratione somni ebrietatis amentiae vel ignorantiae excusetur Filliut ib. tr 21. c. 5. n. 290 p. 34. I demand saith he whether fleep drunkennesse madnesse or ignorance frees from sin the pleasure that one takes in a criminal action which one committed in that estate He relates on this matter two contrary opinions of which the first condemns this pleasure of sin the second frees it therefrom He in the following discourse decides this controversie and concludes in these terms f Delectationes illae etiamsi malae non essent tamen indicant imperfectum affectum ad castitotem Ibid. n. 291. I say first that the former opinion is probable and that it is good to advise according thereto as the more assured for them who aspire unto perfection and to those who have made vows of Chastity or who are much in love with this vertue for though this kind of pleasure were not ill yet it is a mark that Chastity is but imperfectly loved But as for common persons and such as lead an ordinary course of life in the world he establisheth for them this other conclusion a Dico 2. secundam sententiam videri probabilem absolutè tutam quia non est dilectatio de opere malo sed ex indifferenti Ibid. The second opinion seems to me more probable than the former and absolutely one may follow it with confidence The reason is because this pleasure hath not for its object any evil action but an indifferent one Which he repeats also a little while after answering the principal reason of the contrary opinion which was that it is not lawfull to take pleasure in an evil action b Unde ad rationem oppositam respondetur factum de se non esse mortale quia hoc ipso quo sit absque libertate res quaedam est indifferens sicut occisio ammal is concubit no brutorum inter se Ibid. 293. I answer saith he to the reason alledged against this opinion that this action is not a mortal sin in it self because being done without liberty it follows that it is indifferent as the killing of a beast or the coupling of beasts He makes great use of this comparison to this purpose in imitation of the Holy Scripture which compares those who are addicted to fleshly pleasure to Horses and Mules but he conceives amisse of the sense of the Scripture for in that he so boldly justifies these infamous persons he must condemn it which condemns them c Hi nempe qui conjugium ita suscipiunt ut Deum Ã
he thinks and which he demands who examines him but to that which he pretends he ought to ask him and to the thought which he thinks he ought to have in examining him And this thought which he imagines that he who examines him ought to have is his own and that which he forms in his own minde to deceive and elude the question of him who examines him So that he speaks truth in lying and swears false without perjury because although he answers contrarily to what he was questioned and to what he hath promised to answer even with an oath notwithstanding he answers conformably to his own intention and to the secret thought which he hath formed in his mind which is that which he ought to have following his own judgement not that of him who examines him which makes his answer to be true Illa responsio juxta debitam ejus mentem vera est So when one is urged by his Father his Superior or by his Confessor to tell something which he would not discover unto them he needs onely to form a thought different from theirs and to imagine that they ought to have it and answering unto them comformably to this thought he shall be covered from lying and falshood Illa responsio juxta debitam ejus mentem vera est The last counsel which Sanchez gives for securing and sacilitating equivocation is this a At oportet ut utens quacunque ex dictis amphibologiis intendat sâ—nsâ—m quem verba vera possunt habere sic opus est ut sciat se aliquo vero sensu posse dâ—cere quamviâ— in spâ—cie illum ignoret Ibid. n. 46. p. 31. It behoves him who will make use of any of these equivocations which we are about to speak of to have an intention to give unto his words the sence which they may truely receive and by consequence he must know that he may speak them in any sence which is true though he know not in particular what that sence is That is to say that a man speaking a falshood so evident that he himself sees no means to excuse or cover it under any equivocation which might give it onely some colour of truth he may nevertheless speak it and for to put his conscience in surety it is sufficient for him to believe that which he saith may absolutely be capable of some true sence though he knows it not By this rare Doctrine all deceivers and lyars have gained their cause and this Jesuit hath given them more than ever they durst hope for for according to this Doctrine they may not onely deceive without punishment and without being discovered which is that which they pretend to but whatsoever deceit lye or perjury they use they lye not nor forswear themselves at all though they may believe themselves that they do seeing clearly that that which they say is not true and being not able so much as to see how it can be true provided onely that they suppose and that they believe in general that it may be so absolutely in some sence which they do not know Sanchez attributes this expedient unto Suarez But to keep always his advantage even above his Fraternity and to hold the rank of a Master in this matter he proposes also another invention or at least he stretches that of Suarez and he expounds it yet more easily b At sat erit ut intendat sensum quem doctus vir illi consulit aut intelligit Ibid. It suffices saith he that he hath an intention to give that sence to his words which a learned man hath counselled him to give it or might understand it in He wills therefore that he should not trouble himself so much as to know whether the evident falsity which he speaks and which he sees himself may be covered by any ordinary or easie equivocation and he believes that it behoves him onely to have an intention to speak in such a sence as a learned man who is experienced in equivocations can give him though it be altogether unknown from common people So important a matter is it to have the counsel of a man who knows all the slights of this mystery and who hath proper ones for all sorts of affairs For we may not onely make use of his counsels when he is present and when we have time to consult him but also in his absence when we make our reference unto him in all sorts of difficulties which we meet with in this matter and make use of his counsel and direction to deceive all men without seeing him or speaking to him purposing onely in our selves to do that which he would do or counsel us supposing that he would finde out some means by his contrivance to justifie the lye and perjury which we are about to fall into although we see not any way at all how this which we are about to speak and to swear can be true in any sence or warranted from lying and perjury according to any rules of Truth and Justice The last ARTICLE A general proof that the Jesuitical Authors favour and nourish the lust of men in all things and the common principle from which they draw all that they say in favour of it BEyond all which we have spoken hitherto it may be known clearly by a general proof that the Jesuits nourish and favour as much as they can the lusts of men by considering what they say to the disadvantage of charity For as charity and lust are two contrary motions and loves which divide our heart in such manner that it is allways possessed and moved by the one or the other and it hath so much more of lust as it hath less of harity lust cannot be favoured more nor established more forcibly in the heart of man to cause it to reign continually through his whole life and all his actions then by chasing charity away from thence for to reduce it to such a streight as that it cannot be more diminished nor have lesse extent without being entirly destroyed And for this reason the Jesuits carry themselves so in this particular and with such a consent of their Authors that it seems that a general conspiracy and resolution hath been taken about in in so general assembly of all their Society There are some who pretend that a man is never obliged upon any occasion nor at any determinate time to love God in all the course of his life nay nor even at death The more religious reduce this great and first commandment to a certain time and certain occasions which are very rare and distant c Quonam tempore per se obligat praeceptum charitatis ad Deum Escob tr 5. exam 4. n. 8. p. 624. At what time inquires Escobar doth the precept of loving God oblige a man in it self He rehearses divers opinions and expresses his own in these terms d Mitto sententiam Azorii octo tempora assignantis Sanchez unicum I
in talem actum tendere Ibid. n. 20. It is manifest saith he following the principles which I have established that this love of God may be had though it be weak in the lowest degree because we may have such an opinion and esteem of God whereupon we may judge him because of his uncreated goodness to deserve to be loved more than all his creatures and nevertheless be but slenderly moved to the exercise of this act If this be to love God to judge that he merits to be beloved the greatest sinners Infidels and Devils themselves be capable of this love and if to love as he commands it be sufficient to be moved but slenderly and to have for him an affection weak to the lowest degree We must raze out or correct the commandment which requires that we love him with all our strength and with all our heart Thus these Divines destroying the love of God in the hearts of men cause the love of the world to reign there and reducing the love which is commanded us to the utmost point and lowest degree that it can be in they give all liberty to lust and leave it all the extent of the heart and of the affections We need not therefore wonder if they strongly maintain that it is lawful to love temporal good things as riches honor and pleasure k Licet gloriam famam ob bonum sinem optare quantum quisque meretur Escobar tr 2. ex 2. cap. 8. n. 92. p. 303. It is no evil to desire glory and reputation for a good end as much as one deserves saith Escobar after Tolet. But Tolet expounds himself better than Escobar in the place which he cites where after he had said l Differt vana gloria à superbia Superbia enim appetit excellentiam vana autem gloria manifestationem excellentiae praecipue apud alios The difference which is betwixt Pride and vaine Glory is this that Pride transports men with a desire and love of their own excellency and vain Glory hath a desire to manifest his own proper excellency particularly before others He adds in favour of vain glory that m to desire it is not a thing bad in it self but indifferent as to desire money They cannot better justifie vanity then by avarice by approving them at the same time and in two words And that which they say is most repugnant to the judgement of Saint Paul writing to Timothy n Qui voluns divites fieri incidunt in tentationem in laqueum diaboli 1. ad Timoth. 6. v. 9. That those who would be rich fall in to temptations and the snares of the Devil And to that of Saint John who speaking generally of the world and of the love of temporal goods which are in this world gives this advice or rather command from God o Nolite diligere mundum neque ea quae sunt in mando Si quis diligit mundum non est charitas Patris in eo 1. Joan. c. 2. v. 15. Love not the world nor the things that are in the world for if any love the world the love of God is not in him This language of the Holy Ghost is sufficiently different from that of the Jesuits Yet they cease not to pretend that what they say that one may love the goods of this world is supported by the authority of the Saints and their examples and even of JESUS CHRIST himself Saint Chrysostome in his VII Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews saith that a secular person ought in all things to live like a Monk save that he may cohabite with his wise if he be marryed p Num secularis homo debet aliquid amplius habere monacho quà m cum uxore habitare tantum hic enim habet veniam in aliis autem nequaquam sed omnia aequaliter sicut monachi debet agere S. Chrys hom 7. in Ep. ad Hebraeos Thesecular saith he ought he to pretend that more is lawful to him then to a Monastick excepting only cohabitation with his wife It is true that in this point he hath a particular power but not in other things in all other things he is obliged to live as the Monasticks Celot alledging these words of Saint Chrysostome expounds them or rather corrects them in this sort q Cum uxoris co-habitationem concedit laico scribit Antistes educationem liberorum reique familiaris curam moderatum dignitatis secularis honoris desiderium liberum suae voluntatis usum quaesluosos labores uno verbo eâ—que hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes iili permissas admonet Celot p. 573. When this Prelate writes that it is lawful for a secular to cohabite with his wife he would say that it is lawful for him to bring up his children to take care of the affairs of his Family to desire dignities with moderation and the honours of the world to follow his own free inclinations to take pains to hoard no wealth and to close up all in a word but which is an hierarchique and a Holy one to lead his life altogether divided and distinct disparting his affections and thoughts to many different objects Saint Chrysostom saith absolutely that a secular hath no licence more then a Monk except that he may co-habite with his wife And Celot saith that he may love and desire the things of the world though this be not allowed a Monk God permits to seculars saith this Jesuit a moderate desire of dignities and honours of the world That is to say in most clear terms that God hath allowed him ambition and vanity so it be not excessive he hath permitted him to follow his own proper will which cannot be done without he be delivered from the dependence which he hath on him and dispensing with him from saying with all Saints They will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven so that instead of this he permits them to demand that their own will may be fulfilled This estate of free disposing of our wills was that of Adam before he sinned but now it is that of sinners and of the damned and God hath not a greater judgement to inflict on a man in this world then to give him up unto himself and to let him do what he will For this cause Celot hath happened to speak better then he intended when he said that God had left to the people of this world and to the lovers of this world in savour of whom he speaks the free disposal of their wills liberum suae voluntatis usum But this permission is not as he pretends a permission of approbation or dispensation which gives them right but a permission of judgement and of renunciation which imports and implyes punishment and vengeance He saith also that God permits secular persons to labour to gather wealth quaestuosos labores which is the very consequence of his discourse and opinion For as the servants of God do labour to
serve him and to gain eternal wealth which he hath promised to those that serve him even so the people of the world serve the world and labour for advancement in the world and to get temporal wealth Finally he saith r Uno verbo coque hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes illi permissas admonet that to conclude all in one word but which is hierarchique and holy God hath permitted them to lead a life divided and distracted parting their minds and thoughts towards a multitude of different objects I am not astonished at all that he declares so openly that he who is no profest Religious may divide his minde and life betwixt God and the world that is to say that he may love the world as well as God This saying is worthy him but not holy nor hierarchique as he assures us This is rather a profane speech and unworthy of a Christian and opposite to the hierarchy being it is contrary to the order and commandment of God who ordaines us a Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo Nolite diligere mundum neque ea quae in mundo sunt 1. Joan. 2. v. 15. to love him with all our heart and forbids us to love the world and all that is in the world Nevertheless he forbears not to take Saint Chrysostome for warrant of this saying as if he could cover an errour by an imposture He makes this great Saint to say or rather he saith for him against his will and contrary to his thoughts and expresse words that it is lawful for a secular person to lead a life wholly divided and severed parting his affections and thoughts on many different objects Which agrees not with what he himself hath related of this Saint that a Christian who liveth in the world is obliged to the same things with a professed Religious excepting the usage of marriage Omnia aequaliter sicut Monachi agere debet unless he pretends that it is lawful also for the Monks and Religious as well as seculars to part their lives betwixt God and the world After he had thus abused the authority of the Saints he abuseth also their example to support his false principle and to establish ambition usury and the love of this world and the goods of this world amongst Ecclesiastiques and the Ministers of Jesus Christ as well as amongst the seculars For he is bold to assure us that the greatest personages of antiquity as Saint Basil have suffered themselves to breake out into passions like those he allows the people of the world and have appeared vehemently concerned in occasions so important as are the elections and ordinations of the Pastors of the Church See how he discourses b Magnis etiam viris humanas rationes scimus non rarò ejusmodi parentum aut amicorum ordinationes persuasisse Et à Sancto Basilio Ecclesiastiâ—ae narrat historia Zazinis vili ac despecto oppido erectam Episcopatus Sedem ut in ea constitutus Gregorius Nazianz nus amici sui partes adversus Anthemium secundae Cappadaciae Metropolitanum tueretur Quo in facto si unicam Dei spectasset gloriam neque terreni desiderii quidquam admiscuisset facilius sine dubio cessisset Basilio Gregorius Celot p. 947. We know that humane reasons have often transported the greatest persons to seek to advance their kindred and their friends to the orders and charges of the Church and the Ecclesiastical History relates that Saint Basil erected an Episcopali Seat at Zazime which was but a despicable and poor Town that he might establish Gregory Nazianzen there to the end he might make use of him as his friend against Anthemius Metropolitan of the second Province of Cappadocia In which if he had considered the glory of God alone and had not mingled therewith some Earthly desire St. Gregory had more readily and with lesse resistance yielded himself to the will of Saint Basil He is not contented unjustly to condemn Saint Basil he makes Saint Gregory to condemn him also supposing falsely that he had opposed him because he discovered some worldly desire in his design But by this rule we must say that all the Saints who at the first resisted other Saints or the Church or God himself when they were called to Ecclesiastique Offices and sometimes by miracle have observed some humane and terrestrial concern in the conduct and vocation of the Church the Saints and God himself upon which they grounded their refusal and resistance After that Celot had imposed this infirmity and defect upon Saint Basil he makes application thereof to his design which is to authorize Lust by the example of so great a Saint drawing thence this consequence c Potuit ergo S. Basilius ut Ecclesiae suae Metropolitanae dignitatem ampliflcaret novos Episcopos sibi subditos quos suffraganeos appellamus constituere Saint Basil then might create and establish under him new Bishops whom they call Suffragans to augment the dignity and authority of his Metropolitan Church d Non poterit Sanctus alius simili ex causa veteri Episcopatui fratrem consanguineum suum aut amicum fidelissimum praesicere Ibid. May not another Saint upon like occasion give unto his Brother his Kinsman his faithful Friend the conduct of an ancient Bishoprick 1. We may observe in this discourse first of all the rashness wherewith he imposes upon Saint Basil without any ground to have acted humanely and to have been carried by interest and a carnal desire to make St. Gregory a Bishop 2. The consequence he draws from this supposed fact saying that by the example of Saint Basil others may choose their kindred and friends for interest and humane consideration to succeed them in their charges of their Churches 3. The conclusion and end of this reasoning and this example which is onely to make use of it to authorize and justify the love of the world and the goods of this world and consequently to let loose the reins to lust and to give men the liberty to follow it without difficulty and without remorse of conscience Poza proceeds farther unto a greater excesse in this same subject attributing even to Jesus Christ himself this manner of acting altogether humane and altogether from flesh and blood in two the most Holy and Divine functions which he hath exercized which are the distribution of his grace and vocation to an Apostleship For in that Saint John Baptist was sanctified from the wombe of his Mother he argues that by stronger reason Jesus Christ hath done the same favour to Saint Joachim and Saint Anne Because that Saint Joachim and Saint Anne were his Grandfather and Grand-mother whereas Saint John was but his cousin See here his words speaking of Jesus Christ * Ut Mariae adblandtretur absque originaria macula concipiendae illius parentem adhuc velocius quà m Joannem à macula haereditaria liberavit Neque video quare
not do it should be chastised more severely The third reason is contained in these two words nec ratio id dictat which signifie that reason doth no more oblige us to conform our will in all things to the will of God then the Divine command As if the light of reason did not testifie sufficiently that we ought asways to follow the Soveraign Reason and wisdom which is in God and which is not distinguished from his will And as the light of nature shews sufficiently that we are to follow at all times this Soveraign Reason as the rule of all our actions and all our thoughts it shews also clearly that we are not to follow our own wills unless we will pretend to be more reasonable and more wise then wisdom it self who hath established it for a fundamental rule of all our lives p Post concupiscâ—ntias tuas ne cas à voluntate tua avertere Ecclesiasticl 18. ver 30. that we should not follow our desire and that we ought to turn away from our own wills The fourth reason is q Quia Deus omnia quae vult ex charitate vult nos antem non tenemur omnia ex charitate velle Filliutius Ibid. because all that God wills he wills of charity but we are not obliged to will all of charity It seems that he would say that God wills and doth all things in the World for charity that is for love of us and our good but that we are not obliged reciprocally to do all for charity that is for the love of God and his honor whence it will follow that we may at least do one part of our actions for the world and for our selves for other mens and for our own satisfaction But after he had maintained that there is no obligation upon us to conform our wills to God in all things he adds that he would counsel us notwithstanding to do it as far as we can alledging for reason r Quia bona pars felicitatis nostrae consistit in concordia nostrae voluntatis cum Divina Ibid. because a good part of our happiness consists in the conformity of our will to that of God's Presupposing that another part of our happiness consiâ—…s in doing what we will our selves or in doing what God hath commanded us in such manner as we please Celot expounding this same thing in other terms and speaking of them that live in the world and of the priviledge which he pretends God hath given them above the Monastiques he makes it to be said by a great Saint expressely against his intention f Antistes une verbo eoque hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes illi permissas admonet Celot pag. 573. that God hath permitted them to live a life divided and parted in giving one part of their life to God and the other to the world or affairs and pleasure of it If it be permitted to lead in this world two sorts of lives different and divided dividuas distinctasque vitas it must needs be that one of these lives be for God and the other not for him else they could not be two lives nor would they be parted and divided if both these ways belonged unto God and had relation to him as to their end It must needs be therefore that one of these two ways which are not for God should be for the world For there is but God and the World the love of God and of the World that can divide our heart and our life So that according to this Doctrine we may divide our hearts and lives betwixt God and the World and do one part of our actions for the love of God and another part for the love of the World and of our selves These two disorders are in effect but one and are both contained in this principle of Filliutius of which we have spoken That we are excused from conforming our whole will to that of God in willing all that he wills and commands and in willing it in such manner as he wills it There is none who may not see how this principle overthrows the dependance which man ought to have upon God at least in that which concerns the inward part For provided that he do that outwardly which God hath commanded he is little or nothing concerned in what manner and upon what motive he do it they leave this to his liberty and pretend that God hath given no commandment therein and even reason it self demands it not of him If they would absolutely part betwixt God and Man they should at least make a more just and more reasonable partition attributing to God that which is the better and the more noble to wit the heart and the intention instead of giving it to man and leaving unto God nothing properly but the outside as if he were not the God of the spirit but onely of the body ARTICLE II. That according to the Divinity of the Jesuits we sin not if we have not an intention to sin IT is one general maxime in the Divinity of the Jesuits that to sin it is not sufficient to do the evil that is forbidden or not to do that which is commanded by the Law of God Nature or the Church But it behoves also to have a knowledge of the evil that we do and an intention to do it By this rule they excuse the greatest sins under a pretence that they have a good intention in committing them which commonly is but imaginary or that we have no evil intention though commonly we have so without knowing it Bauny makes use of this pretence of an imaginary good intention to justifie the hatred of our Neighbour and the good aversion we have from him so far as to wish him evil and even death it self Bauny in his Summe chap. 6. conc 4. pag. 73. We may saith he wish evil to our Neighbour without sin when we are induced thereto by some good motive Which he endeavours to confirm by reason and by the authority of the â—asuists So Bonacina upon the first commandment d. 3 q. 4. n. 7. exempts from all fault the Mother that desires the death of her Daughters because for want of beauty or portion she cannot match them according to her desire or perhaps because by occasion of them she is ill treated by her Husband or injured For she doth not properly detest her Daughters through dislike of them but from an abhorrence to her own evils The good intention which induces this Mother to desire the death of her Daughters is no other thing then ambition and a desire to marry them more advantagiously then she is able or her impatience which permits her not to bear the evil usage and injuries of her Husband which seem unto her more unsupportable then the death of her own children Neverthelesse a good intention of this sort is sufficient with Bauny to excuse from all fault this Mother who desires the death of her
he saith that 7 Dico 2. ejusmodi appretiatio five existimatio non sumitur ex intentione graduali charitatis vel dilectionis Ibid. This appretiation or estimation proceeds not from any high degree of charity or love That is to say that this sorrow needs not be great in it self nor arise from any great charity but it is said to be great by reason the cause of it is great since it is God or which is the same thing because of the excellency of the Motive thereof propter excellentiam motivi or in more clear terms because God who is the Object and Motive thereof is great though it be in it self very weak and small as is also the Charity from whence it proceeds And when he saith that the sorrow for offending God ought to be appretiatively greater than all other grief which we can have for any temporal loss he intends to say no other thing then that it ought to be greater in the thought and esteem of the sinner in such manner that he judge and acknowledge that God is greater than all other things and that by consequence the loss of God is more considerable than all other losses though indeed this sorrow be much less and more feeble in his heart than that which he hath for other losses and evils Whence he draws this consequence which clears up his thoughts yet more 8 Quare poterit dolere magis de mor te parentis aut filii Ib. n 238. This is the reason why he may have more trouble and grief of mind for the loss of his father or of his son then for having offended God For this hinders not but that he may believe that God deserves to be more loved than a father or a son and by consequence to be more resented when he is lost by sin though in effect he have more affection for his father or for his son and he be more moved by the loss of them than by offending God and yet in this disposition according to this Jesuit he ceases not to be in a good estate and to obtain the pardon of his sins how great and in how great number soever they be provided he have the least displeasure that he hath committed them 1 Quia minima gratia est sufficiens ad remissionem omnium peccatorum ad minimam gratiam sufficiens minima contritio tanquam dispositio Because saith he the least grace is sufficient for the remission of all sins and the least contrition is a sufficient disposition for the least grace He demands also concerning the sorrow which is necessary to obtain pardon of sin in the Sacrament of Penance 2 Quaero an hic dolor debeat esse verus realis Respondeo probabile esse dolorem existimatum sufficere Tr. 7. de Confess cap. 6. n. 150. Whether this sorrow ought to be true and real or it be sufficient we are perswaded that it is though it be not at all His Answer is That it is probable that it is sufficient that we believe it to be such That is to say that to obtain pardon of God in Penance it is not necessary to have a true sorrow for offending him so that we believe we have this sorrow Escobar also demands in the same matter 3 Num necessarius sit dolor supernaturalis Sufficit naturalis qui tamen supernaturalis existimetur Escobar tr 7. exam 4. n. 39. p. 805. If it be needful that sorrow be supernatural And he answers That it suffices to be natural so we believe it to be supernatural As if a Creditor were obliged to discharge his Debtor when he had given him Brass money for Gold provided he imagined that he gave him good Gold He speaks yet more clearly upon this Point a little after saying 4 Si quis doleat de peccato propterea quod Deus in poenam illius malum temporale immisit sufficit si autem doleat sine ullo respectu ad Deum non sufficit Ibid. c. 7. n. 91. p. 813. That if a man be touched with remorse for his sin because God to punish him for it hath brouâ—ht on him some temporal evil this remorse is sufficient but if it have no respect unto God it is not sufficient It is clear that this grief is altogether natural and common to good and bad or rather proper unto them that love the world who are so much more touched with regret and displeasure when God takes from them their temporal goods as they love them more whereas good men have little or no resentment thereof because they love them not if their vertue be solid as appears by the Example of Job and many others So that this grief comes properly from the love of the world and the adherence we have to the goods of this world and yet according to the opinion of Hurtado the Jesuit reported by Escobar it is sufficient to blot out sins though it be it self a disorder and a sin But if any object unto him what Amicus doth to himself 5 Qui peccatum detestatur propter poenam plus actu detestatur poenam quam culpam cum poena sit ratio detestandi culpam Amicus tom 8. disp 3. sect 1. n. 5. That he who detesteth sin because of punishment doth indeed detest the punishment more than the sin the punishment being the motive and reason that incites him to detest the sin which is to love himself more than God and to prefer his own interest before the honour of God since he is touched more by the loss which he makes or the temporal punishment that he suffers than the sin which displeaseth and dishonoreth God He will answer without doubt as the same Amicus 6 Nego hujusmodi actum non esse honestum quia non te nemur semper actu plus detestari culpam quam poenam Ibid. That he cannot agree that this act is not good and honest and he will serve himself of this reason That we are not always obliged to detest actually the fault more than the punishment From whence he will conclude as he hath done already 7 Si quis doleat de peccato propterea quod Deus in poenam illius malum temporale immisit sufficit That if a man be touched with remorse for his sin because God to punish him for it hath brought on him some temporal evil this remorse suffices to blot out his sin if it be true as the same Amicus pretends that we are not always obliged to do otherwise and this sorrow be good honest and regular This being so we must say that the world is at this day filled with persons of great vertue and true Penitents since amongst so frequent and common miseries there are hardly any that are not afflicted with loss of their goods their happiness and their repose and who will not easily confess that their sins are the cause So that according to the Rule of these
valid If we consider Baunys discourses he will seem at first to reject this Doctrine For in his Treatise of Confession in his Sum Chap. 42. pag. 674. After he had said in the entrance 3 That by the word Contrition we understand one of the essential parts of the Sacrament which in the propriety of its signification contains two things remorse for sin and a purpose to amend he declares in the following page That to the end this remorse may be such as it ought to be to make it an act of contrition and by consequence an essential part of the Sacrament as he said at first It should incline him to the hatred of sin not for any shame he hath for committing it as the Philosophers did heretofore for this motive is temporal and unprofitable to eternal life as may be seen in Antiochus 2 Maccab chap. 9. nor yet for having lost his goods For to be thus touched with resentments of what is past is one sort of avarice and very shameful avarice not for having deserved by sinning the flames of Hell this sorrow is servile and though it be good though it be religious and holy it takes its original from self-love which edifies the City of Babylon and not of God as S. Augustine in 4. of the City of God chap. 28. and therefore not compatible with this action whereof we now speak Which he confirms in his Chap. 45. pag. 193. saying that attrition respects properly his own interest and the particular good of him that acts it It may seem that he could not speak more strongly nor more clearly against the Maxims of his Fraternity but he will quickly return to them and he hath testified already little constancy in this very passage wherein he falls into a contradiction which manifestly destroys that which he seems to establish and establisheth that which he seemeth to destroy For he declareth That the grief we have for deserving by sin the pains of Hell is not only servile but doth also take its original from self-love which edifies the City of Babylon so that it comes not from God as also it regards him not at all because it regards properly private interest and that of him who acts it Whence it follows evidently that God hath not instituted it as an essential part of the Sacrament of Penance it being impossible that that which comes not from God at all and which respects not God at all should be instituted by God to serve to compose a Sacrament that what edifies the City of the Devil should be proper to edifie the City of God as the Sacraments do and that what takes its rise from self-love should give and produce the love of God and his grace as the Sacraments produce it according to all Catholicks Which is so clear that this Jesuit himself hath concluded That this sorrow is not compatible with this action whereof we speak that is to say with contrition or sorrow which is an essential part of the Sacrament according to his own words But all this hinders not but that he saith at the same time in the same place that this sort of grief which he so much debases and rejects as an instrument of the City of the Devil is good religious and holy without coming from God who is the Spring of all Holiness all Goodness and of all Religion that it may be good holy and religious taking its rise from self-love which is the spring of all sin and vices and finally that it can be good holy and religious edifying not the City of God but Babylon which is the City of the Devil in which there is nothing but confusion corruption and impiety But this is not yet enough for this good Jesuit he will make a more ample reparation to the fear of the pains of Hell after he hath so much dishonoured it He declares in the same Chapter pag. 687. That the grief which hath for its object the deserved pains of Hell is sufficient with the Sacrament for a mans Justification He is not content to make it holy but he makes it sanctifying and justifying and even in the Sacrament which appertains not to many the most excellent and most perfect works So that according to his Divinity the fear of Hell and the sorrow which proceeds from it is one of the most marvellous and most prodigious things in Christianity containing in it so many contrary qualities whereof some debase it to the City of the Devil and to Hell and the other elevate it unto Heaven and give it one of the first ranks in the City of God which is the Church some make it prophane and others make it religious some make it impure and contagious and the others divine and sanctifying He proceeds yet farther on in favour of this sorrow which he hath represented in so monstrous a manner saying that even those who have it not may receive grace in the Sacrament of Penance provided only that they desire it and that they are grieved that they have it not Fourthly saith he in the same Chapter pag. 685. To settle a Soul in peace who apprehends that he hath not the contrition which is necessary to the expiation of his sins he must be told that he may supply that by his will to have it or by the remorse he hath for not possessing such as he desires to have and such as he should have perfectly to satisfie God He hath taken this Maxime from Emanuel Sa who saith 1 Dolor sufficiens est cum Sacramento dolere quod non satis doleas itemque displicentia de peccato cum proposito cavendi et amfi displiceat ob timorem poenae Sa verbo contritio n. 5. That the sorrow which we have for not having sorrow enough is sufficient with the Sacrament as also dislike of sin with a resolution to avoid it for time to come though this dislike come from the fear of punishment Escobar follows him also in this Point as he affirms he asks 2 Num sufficiens cum Sacramento dolor est dolere quod non satis doleas Whether sorrow for not having sorrow enough be sufficient with the Sacrament He answers 3 Sa ex Navarro asserit sufficientem esse Escobar tr 7. exam 4. n. 122. p. 819. Sa following Navarre assures us that it is sufficient Whence it follows that the fear of the pains of Hell and the grief which it produceth is so priviledged and so powerful amongst the Jesuits that though it arise from a corrupt fountain of self-self-love and the confusion of the Devils City yet it cannot only purifie the greatest sinners and conduct them to the City of God and to Heaven but that the wishing only and desire to have it though indeed it be not had hath the same efficacy and produces the same effect not in a feeble and uncertain manner but in the Sacrament of Penance wherein the vertue of the blood of Jesus Christ operates with an advantage
which is not to be found in the most holy exercises and best works He who grieves for his sins for fear of damnation if he love not God at the least he fears him but he that hath not this grief neither testifies that he hath neither love nor fear for him and yet he will have it that in this estate he may be reconciled unto God that is that he may return unto God without any good motion and come to him without making only the first step since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and of a good life Bauny in the same place relates another opinion of some Casuists in these terms 4 Quod si quis in articulo mortis conatur facere quod in se est nihil aliud occurrat quam actus attritionis quo dicit Domine miserere mei cum animo placandi Deum hic justificabitur supplente Deo absolutionis necessitatem If a man being at the point of death endeavours to do what he can and having in his mind only an act of attrition present he saith unto God these words Lord have mercy on me with design to pacifie him he shall be justified God himself supplying the want of absolution This is the true thought of Libertines and debauched persons who are accustomed to say when they are pressed to be converted and to think on death that they need only one good Peccavi to obtain pardon for all their sins It is true that Bauny saith that he approves not this opinion Because it is founded only on the mercy of God and not on any good or solid reason But it is enough to vent it into the world that he proposeth it as being maintained by some Casuists since that he thereby testifies that it is probable and may therefore be followed with a safe conscience according to the Principles of the Divinity of his Society Father Anthony Sirmond hath been yet more bold For he makes no bones to say that attrition alone when more cannot be done sufficeth to deface all sins be it at the point of death or when the Sacrament is to be received or administred There are saith he who refer this to the extremity of life He speaks of the obligation to exercise the love of God Whereunto is opposed the small appearance that so great a Commandment should be given us not to obey but so late Neither am I of opinion to be perswaded that upon every reception or administration of the Sacrament that we ought of necessity excite in our selves that holy flame of love to consume therein the sins of which we are guilty attrition is thereto sufficient with some strong endeavour after contrition or with confession when there is câ—nvenience for it We must not dispute after this whether attrition be sufficient to receive the Grace of the Sacrament of Penance This Jesuit gives no place for this difficulty pretending that attrition alone is sufficient to restore a man unto grace provided only That he endeavour after contrition or that he confess himself when he hath convenience So that for him who hath not this convenience being in mortal sin he maintains that attrition is sufficient and that he may himself all alone blot out his sins be it at the point of death or when he comes to receive some Sacrament And that he may leave no cause to doubt of his opinion nor of the vertue he ascribes to attrition he saith That it alone is sufficient to take away sin For he establisheth as it were two ways to return from sin to grace attrition alone with endeavour for contrition and attrition with confession giving as it were the choice unto the sinner of which he please He will have it then that attrition alone without the help of contrition will suffice to take away sin He believes indeed that confession is good with attrition but it is to him that hath convenience for it He affirms also that a strong endeavour after contrition is commendable but he is not of opinion to believe that we ought of necessity excite in our selves this holy flame of love to consume therein the sin whereof we are guilty He confesses that this is the best expedient the most safe and perfect but he pretends that we may dispense with it and that attrition is sufficient thereto It is remarkable that he speaks of attrition in the self same sense as Father Bauny though it be not entirely in the self same terms For he speaks of attrition which ariseth from self-love and which is without any love of God as his words evidently testifie I am not of opinion to believe that we ought of necessity excite in our selves this holy flame of love to consume therein the sin whereof we are guilty He excludes then the obligation and necessity of exciting in us the love of God to destroy mortal sin So that when he saith that attrition is sufficient he intends that attrition which is without the love of God the attrition and regret for offending God which takes it rise from love of ones self and not of God as Bauny saith Dicastillus extends also the effect of this attrition yet farther For he saith that this alone is sufficient to cause that one may suffer Martyrdom that death and torments undergone not through a Principle of Charity and Love of God but only through fear are capable to justifie and make everlastingly happy the greatest sinners There is not then any remedy more universal than attrition by the opinion of these Fathers since as we have now made appear it hath so many different effects Martyrdom it self not being excepted which we hitherto believed to have been an effect of love and that not of any sort neither but strong and powerful majorem charitatem We must not only say of this fear altogether earthly and servile what the Scripture faith indeed of the most noble Initium sapientiae timor Fear is the beginning of wisdom but we ought also to add Consummatio sapientiae timor Fear is the compleating of wisdom since it causeth us to produce the most Heroick act of Christian Religion and conducts us even into Glory ad conferendam gratiam gloriam and contrary to what the Apostle saith When my body is in the midst of flames if at the same time my heart be not inflamed with this heavenly fire of divine love all these torments are unto me unprofitable Si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam charitatem autem non habeam mihi nihil prodest If I give my body to be burnt and have not charity it profits me nothing This Jesuit would have it that death which the Philosophers call terribilium terribilissmum sufficeth with attrition only that is to say by the motive of fear alone and without any mixture of love it is capable to purge away all blemishes and to bestow glory on the most criminal person of the whole world ad conferendam gratiam
purity wherewith the Body of Jesus Christ ought to be received in the Communion he saith to prevent this objection 1 Qued si Sancti Patres vineaistur plus exigere incelligendi sunt vel in ordine ad utiliorem magis fructuosam sumptionem vel quoad c nsilium Ibid. num 165. That if the Holy Fathers seem to demand more we must take that which they say as a counsel or as an exhortation to communicate with more fruit and benefit There is nothing more easie than in this manner to defeat all Authorities and all the Ordinances of the Fathers and Councils There is nothing so formal in the Scripture it self which may not be cluded by this distinction making every thing pass for counsel which appears contrary to our sense and too rigorous to the flesh that so we may dispense therewith without scruple He relates amongst others the Council of Trent daring even to pretend that it is for him in this Point 2 Quia ex Scriptura Consiliis tantum colligitur debere eum qui communicat se probare Tridentiâ—um autem sess 13. docet hanc probationem in co consistere ut nullus sibi conscius peccati mortalis absque confessione ad Eucharistiam accedat Ibid. num 164. Because saith he we can collect no other thing from Scripture and from Councils than that he who communicates ought to try himself Now the Council of Trent sess 13. teacheth us that this proof consists in this that no person who believes himself guilty of mortal sin ought to approach unto the Eucharist without being confessed first of all It is indeed true that the Council demands this It ordaineth that they who perceive themselves guilty of any crime should purifie themselves from it by the Sacrament of Penance before they approach to the Communion but it declares beyond this that every man penitent or innocent ought to be informed of the dignity and holiness of this heavenly Sacrament and to take heed 3 Ne absque magna reverentia sanctitate ad percipiendum accedat Conc. Trid. sess 13. cap. 7. not to approach unto it to receive it without profound reverence and great holiness This is not to be in great holiness but simply without great evil to be exempt only from mortal sin and none can say that this is to have a profound reverence for Jesus Christ to offend him voluntarily in receiving And yet though the Council forbids to communicate without very great holiness and profound reverence Filliutius ceases not to pretend that we may communicate worthily in committing venial sins whilst we do communicate and persisting in them voluntarily And to remove all scruple from them who are fallen into crimes and yet have a defire to communicate he puts this question 4 Quaero quanto temporis spatio tenetur communicnem differre qui peccavit mortaliter Ibid. tract 4. cap. 8. n. 214. pag. 94. For how long time ought he to forbear to communicate who hath sinned mortally His answer is 5 Respondco eum qui contritus est confessus posse per se communicare etiamsi praecedente necte vel aliquo spatio ante mortaliter peccaverit Ibid. That he who hath remorse for his sins and who hath confessed them may absolutely communicate though the very night before or even a little before the Communion he have sinned mortally He demands no other interval between the crime and the Communion than that which is necessary unto Confession into whatsoever disorders and abominations we be plunged before pretending that we may pass in an instant from the most enormous sins to the Altar and participation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say from Hell into Paradise and from the estate of a Devil to that of an Angel since he that eats the bread of Angels ought to participate of the estate and purity of Angels He must be both a bad Divine that holds Maxims so opposite to the judgment and perpetual discipline of the Church and a bad Philosopher who imagines that the spirit of a man can so easily pass in an instant from the most violent deordination of passions to the peace and purity of contrary vertues and he must also be a far worse Christian to be so little touched with respect and love to Jesus Christ and his neighbour as to expose the one so rashly to so great contempt and so unworthy usage and the other to so visible a ruine and damnation And if he be not absolutely impious and a Libertine who holds an opinion so horrible he must be at the least more bold and impudent than the impious and Libertines themselves who without doubt dare not maintain publickly what this Jesuit maintains and have not the confidence at any time to talk thus before considerable persons who have any sense of piety but that they know these discourses are found amongst the Books of the Jesuits Mascarenhas proposes the same case with Filliutius but with much greater extent and confidence and clearing of all the difficulties which may arise from his resolution 1 Qui habuit voluntariam mortaliter pâ—ccaminosam pollutionem sive cum complice five sine illo si habeat debitum illum dolorem praemissa confessione poterit in eadem die communicare Mascarenhas tr 4. de Sacr. Euchar. disp 5 cap. 7. pag. 239. He saith he who is fallen into voluntary and mortal pollution be it that he have committed this crime all alone or with some other may communicate the same day confessing himself first of all with necessary grief That is to say with a sorrow natural or supernatural true or held for true though it be not the one or the other being sufficient with the Sacrament according to this Divine as we have made appear when we spoke of Penance and Confession and he holds himself so well assured in his answer that he doubts not but that a man may with this disposition alone communicate worthily 2 Torn difficultas est utrum Confessatius debeat consulere his sic voluntariè mortaliter pollutis util o deà c mmunione se abstineant non ex praecepto quod ut dictum est nullum datur sed ex consilio propter reverentiam debitam tanto Sacramento Ibid. All the difficulty in this case saith he is to know if the Confessor ought to counsel these persons that are thus fallen into mortal and voluntary pollution to abstain from communicating the same day not because of the Precept because there is none that forbids it as we have now shown but by way of advice because of that reverence which is due unto so great a Sacrament He acknowledges 3 Ordinariè respondent authores affirmativè nihilominus tamen mihi magis placet opinio Joannis Sancil in suis selectis disp 23. n. 30. afferentis hoc non esse consulendum imo potius consulendum quod communicent dummodo sint per
all appearance thereof to imagine that the will to dye for God should be necessary unto true Martyrdom This same Jesuit hath corrupted another passage of the 3. Chap. of S. John whereof the Council of Trent makes use to explicate the Nature of meritorious good Works saying they are such because they are wrought in God quia in Deo sunt facta By which words the Holy Fathers and the best Interpreters of the Holy Scripture and of the Council of Trent have understood works done by the motion of Gods Spirit which is that of Charity But he will not endure it and is so far transported as to tax them as weak men and subject to imaginary visions who are of this opinion As to that which some represent saith he tr 3. pag. 45. that the Council doth include herein the motive of Charity because that it demands that they be wrought in God it is a meer imagination It may be he never read the Council or it is likely he took no notice that it expounded it self in saying that good works ought to be wrought by a vertue and grace which Jesus Christ inspires continually into his Members in such manner as the Vine continues life and vigour to its branches 1 Cum enim ipse Jesus Christus tanquam caput in membra tanquam vitis in palmites in ipsos justificatos jugiter virtutem influat quae virtus eorum bona opera semper antecedit concomitatur sequitur c. Sine qua nullo pacto grata meritoria esse possent nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est quoniam minus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo facta sunt divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore si tamen in gratia decefferint consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur Concil Trid. Sess 6. cap. 16. For Jesus Christ saith the Council communicating vigour continually to those who are justified as the head communicates unto its members and the Vine unto its branches and this vigour preceding accompanying and following always their good works which without it could not in any sort whatsoever be pleasing unto God and meritorious we must believe that there is now nothing more wanting unto persons justified which might hinder us from judging reasonably that the works which are thus wrought in God have satisfied his Law so far as the condition of this present life may permit and that they have merited eternal life which they shall in due time receive provided they dye in this estate of Grace It is clear that this vertue and this vigour which the Council saith that Jesus Christ communicates incessantly to those who do good works is not an habitual vertue or a simple habitude as this Jesuit pretends but that it is actual and it is a motion by which he applies unto them and causes them to act For it is actual Grace as is manifest by the expression of the Council saying that it prevents accompanies and follows all good works which is properly the description of actual Grace according to the Scripture the Judgment of the Fathers and even of the School-Divines themselves and appertains not to a habit which prevents not good works but leaves the will in an indifference to the production of them and it must be the will which prevents and applies this habit in such manner that without this the other cannot move of it self and abides always without acting And so the Council agrees very well with S. Paul the one saying that our good works should be done in Charity and the other that they ought to be wrought in God that is to say in the Spirit and by the Spirit of God who is no other than the Spirit of Love and Charity and the words of the one expound the words of the other But I see no means to reconcile them to this Jesuit for he can no longer pretend that the Council and S. Paul require only habitual Charity with an exemption only from all mortal sin The terms of the Council by which it expounds it self may also serve for exposition unto S. Paul being so clear that it is impossible to obscure them He corrupts also a third passage which is in the second to the Corinthians whereof the Apostle speaks in these words 2 Id enim quod in praesenti est momentaneum leve tribulationis nostrae supro modum in sublimitate aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 2 Cor. 4.17 For the tribulations which we endure in this life being momentary and light produce in us a far more incomparable full solid and eternal glory And Father Sirmond pretends that he calls the tribulations and afflictions of this life light because they have not in them the weight of the love of God to command them That is that they are light then when they are undergone without love by consequent weighty and burthensom when they are born for love to God These words of S. Paul were never thus expounded in the Church and it is to fight with common sense to say that love is a weight and load which makes things heavy and burthensom which are done upon the motion thereof All the Saints and Interpreters who have spoken of this passage have conceived that S. Paul calls these present afflictions light because that the grief they cause is light in comparison of the Joys which they merit as he saith that they endure but a moment in comparison of the Eternity of Glory which is the recompence thereof But that they should be called light when they are born without love as if love did hinder them from being so is that which never entred into the thought of any Interpreter ancient or novel And if it were so the afflictions of S. Paul could not be light or we must say that he suffered them without love The afflictions of the greatest Saints also could not be light but rather they must have been more weighty and burdensom when they have been entertained and supported with most Charity and on the contrary theirs who suffered without love or without thoughts of God and against their wills should be light and easie which doth equally contradict Faith and Reason It is needless to lose time in refuting these Paradoxes and Extravagancies There is no Divine nor prudent man that sees not even by natural reason and experience that on the contrary it is love and the motions of the affection which renders things light easie and even sweet and pleasant though they be in themselves troublesom and difficult Which is yet more true of the love of God than of that of the Creatures that being infinitely exalted above this in vertue and force as well as in dignity This Jesuit contents not himself to abuse the words of S. Paul in this manner but he aspires unto the fountain and attempts to corrupt it also as well as the streams The
or the Commandment to love God is some evil or unreasonable thing if he could not command us it since it is certain that God may command every thing that is not evil unjust and unreasonable To so many remarkable corruptions of divers passages of Scripture he adds also one to justifie the rest For amongst many objections which he propounds and makes to himself drawn for the most part out of the Scripture which in joyns us to do all things for the love of God if we expect any recompence from him for them he relates this taken out of S. Matth. cap. 10. vers 41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet and a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive therefore the reward due unto a Prophet and to a righteous man Also he that giveth a glass of cold water to the meanest Disciple of Jesus Christ shall not lose his reward provided he give it to him as a Disciple of Jesus Christ That is to say for respect unto Jesus Christ and for his love as these words do signifie sufficiently of themselves and as the Holy Fathers and Interpreters dounderstand it See here his objection which he resolves magisterially and by an interrogation as it were for instruction rather than answer I agree it saith he tr 3. pag. 71. 72. But what is it think you to treat a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God as a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God It is to honour him invite him do him good and give him entertainment whether it be to receive some instruction from him or to imitate his good example or to learn his Oracles or for other good considerations of which yet not one is so heightned as to reach the purity of the love of God He afterward makes this his opinion and answer more clear by an example and by a comparison I would gladly know of these Interpreters saith he he speaks of those who say that to receive a Disciple in the name of a Disciple is to receive him for love of Jesus Christ whether a man who is prosecuted by his Creditor and who seeing one of his Agents coming to demand payment of the debt goes to meet him invites him makes much of him that he might win him over to him and obtain some forbearance I would gladly know whether this Debtor receive this Sollicitor as coming to him on the behalf of his Creditor and whether the good entertainment he makes for him comes from a good heart and pure love which he hath for him who sent him pag. 73. Without doubt he hath reason to say that a poor man who seeth a Sollicitor or a Serjeant coming to him to demand money of him on the behalf of his Creditor goes readily out to meet him and receives him as coming on the behalf of his Creditor for otherwise he would not have regarded him at all he hath also reason to say that if he invite him use him kindly and make any entertainment for him this proceeds not from any good will but rather as from force and constraint and that he doth not this for the love of the Sollicitor nor for his sake who employed him but for love of himself and respect to his own interest to try to gain the Sollicitor and win him by his means He could not have exprest his opinion better and I should have been troubled to find a more apposite comparison and clearer words to express the excess thereof than those whereof he himself makes use He would have us say then that when Jesus Christ saith in S. Matthew c. 10. 1 Qui recipit Prophetam in nomine Prophetae mercedem Prophetae accipiet qui recipit justum in nomine justi mercedem justi accipiet quicunque potum dederit uni ex minimis istis calicem aquae frigidae tantum in nomine discipuli Amen dico vobis non perdet mercedem suam Matth. 10. v. 41. That he who receives a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receives a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive a righteous mans reward and whosoever shall give only a cup of cold water unto the least Disciple in the quality of a Disciple verily he shall not lose his reward he intends to say no other thing but that we should receive Prophets righteous men and Disciples and all those who come on his behalf in such manner as a poor man receives Serjeants Pursevants and Sollicitors who come to demand money on the behalf of his Creditors Finally he concludes his answer in these words Some for want of a right understanding have taken these words and such like from the mouth of our Lord in the Gospel in nomine meo propter me as if they could signifie no other thing in our tongue than for the love of me and to please me What an absurdity is this how can they take them in that sense in the 16. of S. Mark where it is said In nomine meo daemonia ejicient In my Name shall they cast out devils and in the 5. of S. Matthew where the words run thus Mentientes propter me Lying for my sake It is our Lord who speaks Since it is our Saviour who speaks he ought to have heard him with more respect and if he did not understand his words he should at least not have made him speak the quite contrary to what he saith But he wants yet more humility than understanding For if he had never so little submissiveness and docility we might send him to the Holy Fathers and Interpreters of Scripture to learn the sense of this passage But there were cause to fear that seeing they all take it in that manner which he condemns and hold that this which our Lord saith in nomine meo propter me signifieth that which he doth for the love of God and to please him his zeal would transport him against so many Saints and great Personages and make him exclaim What absurdity is this or as he doth elsewhere This is a meer vision For these are his common answers when he hath no better So expunging out of Gods Law all command and obligation to love him he reduces all Religion to this to serve him in keeping the other Commandments and doing good Works outwardly But Lessius will not have Christians obliged to external good works themselves nor unto those which are the principal and most recommended in the Scripture to wit the works of mercy And perceiving this strange Doctrine to be condemned by the mouth of Jesus Christ himself who in the 25. of S. Matthew brings no other reason for the sentence of life or death eternal which he will pronounce at the end of the world upon the Elect and Reprobates than the accomplishment or omission of these works he chose rather to
contradict and clude this last and dreadful sentence than by correcting his errour to submit himself thereunto for he is not ashamed to say that the reason which Jesus Christ alledges and whereupon he grounds his judgment is not true and takes not place in the matter wherein he alledges it that is to say in the last Judgment It is not to purpose 1 Nec refert quod Dominus Matth. 25. formam judicii describens meminerit potius operum misericordiae quam aliorum Id enim fecit ut homines praesertim plebeios qui ad majora spiritualia parum sunt comparati in hec vita ad ea excitaret haec autem ratio cessat in extremo judicio quia tunc homines non erunt amplius ad optra misericordiae exciâ—tandi Lessim de perfect divin lib. 13. tract 22. pag. 142. saith he to alledge that our Lord in the 25. of S. Matthew representing unto us the form of the last Judgment speaks of the works of mercy rather than others For he doth it only to stir up men and especially the common people who are not capable of comprehending spiritual things to exercise these works in this life Now this reason cannot take place at the last Judgment because then there will be no need to excite men unto works of mercy I will not stay here to examine this excess which will appear strange enough of it self to them who are not void of the common resentments of Christianity because it will be more proper to do it elsewhere We will only observe in this place that one Jesuit hath undertaken to fight and destroy Gods first Commandment and another his last Judgment They who can have the patience to behold a multitude of Expositions of Scripture Councils and Holy Fathers false extravagant unheard of and many times impious need only read Poza's Book which he entituled Elucidarium Deiparae A Volume as big as his would be needful to represent all his excesses I have related some of them in the Chapter of Novelty and elsewhere which I repeat not here to avoid tediousness Father Adam hath surpassed all his Brethren in the same excess For he destroys not only the letter and the sense of Scripture he fights with the Authors themselves whom God hath made use of to impart them to us He decrys them and deprives them of all that authority and credit which is due unto sacred Writers and who were no other than the hand and tongue of the Holy Ghost by attributing unto them weaknesses and extravagancies and affirming by an horrible impiety that following their own imaginations and passions they are sometimes transported beyond truth and have written things otherwise than they were and that they did neither conceive nor believe them themselves in their consciences It will not easily be imagined that this conceit could ever come into the mind of a Monk I will not say but of a Christian who had not entirely renounced the Faith and Church if this Father had not written it in manifest terms and more forcibly than I can represent it in a Book whereto he gives this Title Calvin defeated by himself In the third Part of this Book Chap. 7. he saith That it is not only in criminal matters that zeal and hate inflame a Soul and transport it unto excest and violence but that the Saints themselves acknowledge that they are not exempt from this infirmity And flagrant passions sometimes push them on to actions so strange and ways of expressing themselves so far removed from truth that those who have written their lives have called them holy extravagancies innocent errours and Hyperboles more elevated than their apprehensions and which expressed more than they intended to say He adds also in the same Chapter and in the progress of the same discourse That this infirmity is not so criminal but that God did tolerate it in the person of those Authors whom he inspired and whom we call Canonical whom he left to the sway of their own judgments and the temper of their own spirits He compares the Saints and Fathers of the Church to persons full of passions and violence he excepts not the Canonical Authors themselves and he makes them all subject to the same infirmities and the Canonical Authors also to the greater and more inexcusable For if they be vicious in others they are yet more in these in whom the least faults and the least removes from the truth which in ordinary persons were but marks of infirmity would be as notorious and criminal as the greatest because they would be imputed unto God whose words the Canonical Authors have only rehearsed and it is as unworthy of God contrary to his nature and power to depart a little as much from the truth It is therefore manifest that what this Jesuit saith tends directly to destroy all Holy Scripture Faith and Religion For if the Canonical Writers could exceed and depart a little from the truth in one single point they were subject to do it in all the rest So their discourse is not of divine Authority neither are their Books the Books or Word of God because God is always equally infallible and can never go beyond or depart from the truth in the least whether he speaks himself or by the mouth of his Prophets CHAPTER II. Of the Commandments of God ARTICLE I. Of the first Commandment which is that of Love and Charity THis first Commandment of Love contains in it and requires of us three things to wit that we love God above all Creatures our selves for God and our neighbour as our selves These three coming from one and the same trunk and root shall make three Articles of this Chapter and I will handle all three severally that I may more distinctly represent the Jesuits opinions upon every obligation of the first Commandment and to make it evidently appear that they destroy it in every part I. POINT Of the Command to love God I will relate nothing here save only from Father Anthony Sirmond because he seems particularly to have undertaken to destroy this Precept and because he hath said upon this Subject alone all that may be found in the worst Books of his Fraternity 1. That he abolishes the Command of loving God and reduces it to a simple counsel 2. That according to him the Scripture hardly speaks at all of divine Love and Charity and that our Lord hath very little recommended it 3. That he declares that the love of God may very well consist and agree with the love of our selves 4. And that it is nothing else but self-love SECTION I. That there is no Command to love God according to the Maxims of the Jesuits Divinity OUr Lord speaking of the double Commandment of Love saith That all the Law and the Prophets do depend thereon In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet Prophetae Matth. 22. He saith not that the command to love God doth depend on and is
contained in the rest he saith on the contrary that other Precepts are contained in this of love and depend on it He saith not that to love God is to serve him and do what he commands in any sort though it be without love he testifies rather that to love him with all our heart is to serve him and fulfil all his Commandments because the desire to discharge our duty which is contained in love supplies the place of all outward services which we cannot but would perform if we were able The Jesuits on the contrary teach that the Command to love God depends on is comprised in and confounded with the rest They say that to love God so much as we are or can be obliged by God himself is only to obey him in his other Commands though it be done without love That it is sufficient love of God to do nothing against him That to discharge our duty and what the Holy Scripture ordains in this point it suffices not to hate him As to what remains it is left to every ones liberty in particular to love him if he list and when he pleases so that no person in the whole course of his life can ever be obliged by the Precept of loving God above all things so that he should not sin at all against this Commandment who never put forth any inward act of love as Father Sirmond affirms in his Book of the Defence of Vertue tr 2. pag. 15. So that though indeed it would be a happiness to love God actually more than all things yet provided we offend him not he will not damn us pag. 16. And finally that it is in this manner that God might and ought command us his holy love pag. 24. These passages and many others besides which I have related in the former Chapter which treats of the Corrupting of Holy Scripture by the Jesuit-Authors are so clear that there needs no explication for understanding them They are so express and formal that without drawing any consequences from them which they do contain they that read or hear them only may easily perceive that they tend directly to abolish the Command of loving God Nevertheless because we have to do with a people who pretend to measure all by and attribute very much to their own reason I will also make use of it as they do and I will imploy their own against them or rather with them that I may the better detect their opinions upon this Point and make appear more clearly the false Principles whereupon they teach that there is no absolute Command to love God The first Discourse of Father Anthony Sirmond is this If there be a Command to love it obligeth to the observation thereof by its own Authority I mean it obligeth us to love God Now during the whole life of man there is neither time nor occasion wherein we are obliged to love God because as he saith pag. 16. God commanding us to love him contents himself as to the main that we should obey him in his other Commands and that because God hath not obliged us absolutely to testifie our affection to him otherwise than by yielding obedience unto him pag. 18. And because though we have no love for him effectually we cease not for all that to fulfil in rigour the command of love by doing good works so that we may see here the goodness of God He hath not commanded us so much to love him as not to hate him pag. 19. And because a God so loving and lovely commanding us to love him is finally content that we obey him pag. 28. And by consequent according to this Jesuit there is no absolute Commandment to love God since we are not bound to the observation of it by any Authority of its own as he pretends Another Argument taken also out of Father Sirmond is this Every Command carries some threatning with it to keep them in their duty to whom it is made and then some penalty or punishment against those who violate it Now the Commandment which God gave us to love him contains neither threat nor punishment at least no grievous one And by consequence we cannot say that this is a Commandment truly so called The first Proposition of this Syllogism is certain and evident of it self But beyond this you shall find also in Father Sirmond tr 2. pag. 20. 21. where he distinguishes of two sorts of commands the one of indulgence which requires something without strict obligation thereto the other of rigour which absolutely obligeth to what it hath ordained And to express himself more fully he adds afterwards that he commands as much as is possible but without threats without adding any penalty at least any grievous one to him who disobeys His command is all honey and sweetness or to speak more properly this is only an advice when he adds a penalty or commination of death then it is given in rigour The second Proposition is his also and more expresly than the former in the 14. page of the same Treatise where after he had said by way of inquiry If there be any command to love God it must oblige by its own Authority to its observation He puts this Question And some one may demand And to what is he obliged by his transgression Sins he mortally against this Precept who never exercises this inward act of love And he answers thereupon in these terms I dare neither affirm nor deny it of my self Indeed the answer he was about to give to this question was too impious to proceed from the Mouth or Pen of a Jesuit He had need to use or rather to abuse the Authority of some great Saint to cover it and to make him say by force and against his judgment what he durst not propound of himself S. Thomas saith he 22. q. 44. a. 6. seems to answer no and to be content for avoiding damnation that we do nothing otherwise against sacred love though we never in this life produce any formal act thereof S. Thomas speaks not of this in the place he quotes but speaks rather the contrary And how could S. Thomas say that no man is ever obliged to love God at all in his whole life since the whole world knows that he held That all men are obliged to turn unto God and to love him as soon as they begin to have the use of reason Notwithstanding this he forbears not to repeat the same thing and to confirm it also in these terms speaking of Charity and the Love of God He commands us not as we have said if S. Thomas may warrant us to love God under pain of damnation It is sufficient for him to save us that we habitually cherish it in us by the observation of his other Laws pag. 77. and in the 24. pag. God would be loved freely if he threats it is that he may be obeyed And also pag. 16. To love God actually more than all O the
this divine vertue that we have in the Scripture he places this amongst its qualities and properties as the Centre and Principle of all the rest and as the heart of this divine vertue that it seeks not its own interests non quaerit quae sua sunt And this Jesuit pretends on the contrary that the highest perfection of charity may subsist in a heart attentive to all its own affairs that is to say in a heart whose affections are fastned to the things of this world as he expounds himself sufficiently by the words following and concerned to the utmost for himself by referring to himself and his private interest whatsoever he loveth in the world and even in Religion it self in the exercises of piety and good works which he may do Our Lord saith 1 Qui amat animam suam perdet eam Joan. 12. v. 25. That he who loveth himself shall lose himself S. John forbids us on Gods behalf 2 Nolite diligere mundum neque ea quae in mundo sunt 1 Joan. 2. v. 15. to love the world or any thing that is in the world and he declares openly 3 Qui diligit mundum non est charitas Patris in co Ibid. That the love of God is not in him who loves the world And Father Sirmond maintains on the contrary that all this agrees well together and that charity in its bighest perfection may subsist in a heart and person who is chiefly concerned for himself and that this person may have his heart inclined to all his own concerns that is to say affectionately addicted to all worldly affairs without failing in what he owes to the principal object of his affection He expounds this conceit by the example of the Blessed As it comes to pass saith he to the Blessed who declining every sort of evil provide for all their own concerns and yet are not the less appertaining to God That is to say that the Blessed have great care of their interests taking heed that no evil betide them and that the good they enjoy escape not from them and all this without diminishing their love to God Our Lord would not have us careful of any thing in this life but to serve God leaving unto him the care of our selves all that concerns us and even that which is most necessary for us 4 Nolite solliciti esse dicentes Quid manducâ—bimus Quid b bemus Aut quo operiemut Haec enim omnia gentes inquirunt Scit â—nim Pater vester qula his omnibus indigetis Quaerite ergo primum regnum Dei justitiam ejus haec omnia adjiclentur vobis Matth. 6. v. 31. Be not sollicitous saith he in S. Matthew saying What shall we eat what shall we drink wherewith shall we be cleathed For the Heathen inquire after all these things and your Father knows that they are necessary for you Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and its Righteousness and all this shall be given unto you as an advantage And Father Sirmond on the contrary will have the Blessed themselves in Heaven to be careful of their interests putting from them all sorts of evil and providing for all that concerns them And yet he pretends that they serve God never the worse because they may be all at once for God and themselves so that according to him Charity at the highest point of perfection such as it is in the Blessed may subsist in a heart which is most deeply concerned for it self SECTION IV. The changing and transforming of Charity into self-Self-love by Father Sirmond WE have now made appear that Father Sirmond mingles and confounds Self-love with Charity in the hearts of the Blessed themselves we must now see how he changes and transforms also love of God into self-love and acknowledges no other Charity but that of Self-love He makes as it were a Party upon this Point for which he doth not at first declare himself but propounds its reasons and foundations 1. He makes a person who desires to love God but fears to mistake by loving himself instead of God to speak in this manner I fear that having made me for his own sake I only love him for my self tr 2. pag. 83. In his following Discourse he encounâ—… this fear saying that when we desire God we desire not God for Gods sake but we desire God to and for our selves From whence he taketh occasion to say unto this person as it were in drollery But say you do desire him for his own sake do you not desire him for your self Truly if you reject this consideration I by your leave shall not do the same pag. 84. And this person replying that he doth not reject it neither that he desires God indeed but that he doth desire him that he may be his and refer all to him because he is his Creature and a participation of his Being that he would be his that he might be more obedient and entirely dependent on him he answers him as it were to disabuse him Consider that to be of God and to depend on him seems not a motive proper to incline you to desire the enjoyment of him pag. 85. That is to say that they who love God with an hope to enjoy him one day as all good people in this world do lovehim or those who already do enjoy him by loving him as the Blessed in Heaven love him not nor desire him that they may depend on him and be his but to the end that he may be theirs and after a sort refer himself unto them He confirms and establisheth this Principle by another like it which is that none can love any thing besides his own proper good and that whosoever loves hath necessarily a regard to himself pag. 86. And a little after he grounds his Principle on another Argument which he puts into the mouth of those who are of the Faction of Self-love against Charity making them to say that as good is the object of love even so the private good of every one is that which the love of every one regards Whence he infers without interrupting his discourse that if I can desire nothing but under the appearance of good so no more can I do it without appearance of my own good I of mine and you of yours pag. 87. And for fear we should stop him in his Career representing unto him that all this is well in Self-love which the Philosophers call Love of Concupiscence and Love of Interest but that this cannot be said of Love of Friendship by which a friend respects and desires the good of his friend whom he loves without interest or at least that it is impossible that this should take place in the love of God and Charity of which S. Paul saith in express terms 1 Non quaerit quae sua sunt 2 Cor. 13. That it seeketh not its own he prevents this objection and cuts up by the root this difficulty by saying or making
them of the Faction of Self-love which he maintains to say that it is Nature that doth this and that Charity which elevates and perfects it without destroying it ought to keep close to it pag. 88. That 〈◊〉 to say that Charity ought to follow the motions of Nature corrupted as it is at this day and stay there For it is Nature that inclines us always to love our selves and for our selves and that so Charity gives the same inclination and works the same motion in the heart it filleth so that in charitable love as in natural the private good of every one is that which every ones love regards so that no person in any sort whatsoever can desire any thing which is without appearance of some private good to himself in particular that it is Nature which doth cause this which being immutable in its Laws which are confirmed and not destroyed by Grace Charity is to be kept within those bounds It is true that Father Sirmond hath propounded these things in the name of another but this is only to conceal himself having not the confidence to appear as the first Author of such strange things but he was not able to contain himself to the end For after he had made others speak and say all that he had in his mind he declares that he approves all their opinions I am content saith he pag 90. that all they maintain take place even in Charity that it cannot be inclined towards any object without observing and seeking therein the proper good of him whose heart is inflamed therewith He that would undertake to change and transform Charity into Self-love could not do it more clearly than by attributing Nature and its motions and the definition of Self-love unto Charity and Self-love cannot be more naturally set forth than by saying with this Jesuit that it is a weight or motion of the Soul which cannot be inclined to any object without observing and seeking therein the private good of him whose heart is therewith inflamed So that when he saith that he is content that this should take place in Charity he avows that Charity and Self-love are one and the same thing After this we have less cause to be aftonished that he hath said as we have seen above that God neither ought nor could command the love of Charity and that Jesus Christ is come from Heaven to Earth to set us free and deliver us from it as a slavery and yoke unsupportable For indeed God could not command Self-love and Jesus Christ is come into the world only to fight with and destroy it In this the consequence and connexion of the Principles of the Jesuits Divinity is very observable and we may observe the opposition also which they have to Faith and Christian Piety since they destroy and entirely abolish Charity which is the foundation and top-stone the Soul and Spirit of Religion II. POINT That the Jesuits by destroying the Charity which man oweth unto God destroy also that which he owes himself AS to love any one is to desire his good so to love ones self is to desire good to ones self Whence it follows that God being the only true good of man which can render him content and happy in this and the other life no man doth truly love himself but after the proportion of his love to God the force and motion of the love which he hath to God inclines him to desire seek him and do all he can to find and unite himself to him as his end wherein at length he finds his repose and happiness So that to make appear that the Jesuits destroy the true love that a man owes to himself I need only to continue to shew that they destroy that which he owes to God adding unto what I have already reported from Father Sirmond upon this Point some opinions of other Authors of the Society If it seems to the Jesuits that Father Sirmond may find his justification in the conformity of his opinions with those of his Fraternity we shall also find therein what we pretend that is to make appear that his opinions upon this subject are not peculiar unto himself and that all that he hath said against Charity is taken from the grounds of the Societies Divinity Dicastillus the Jesuit speaks in the same manner of the love which God obliges us to bear towards him 1 Dilectio quam Deus exigit à nobis proprie voluntas est implendi ejus mandatâ— quatenus hoc bonum illi gratum est Dicastill de paenit tr 8. disp 2. dub 5. num 135. The love which God exacts of us is saith he properly a will to accomplish his Commandments And Tambourin relying upon the same foundations reasons thus about the love we owe unto our neighbour 1 Sicut autem certum est noâ— obligari ad proximum diligendum juxia illud Marth 22. Dillges proximum tuum sicut reipsum ita lbi certum videtur non adesse obligaâ—ionem diligendi per aliquem actum internum expresse tendentem in ipsum prâ—ximum S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 26. a. 8. in c. Suar. c. 5. d. 1. s 4. n. 4. Coninck d. 24. d. 4. Sa is enim superque est si ames Deum ejusque voluntatem velis exequi c. As it is certain that we ought to love our neighbour according to the Commandment of the Gospel in S. Marth chap. 22. You shall love your neighbours as your selves so it seems to me also assured that there is no obligation to love him by an internal act of the will which is expresly terminated on him For it is enough that you love God and that you desire to accomplish his will wherein the love of our neighbour is comprised Whence it is that if you hate him not and observe for his sake the outward works of good will you love him sufficiently See here the very consequences of Father Sirmond drawn from the same Principles Filliutius expounding in what manner we are obliged to love God that we may love him above all things saith that this ought not to be extended in such manner as that we ought to have in our hearts a greater and more strong love for God than for the Creatures His reason is because if this were so we should be greatly troubled and scruple oftentimes to know whether we loved God as we ought By this way saith he 2 Rectius consulitur conscientiis piorum hominum qui semper alicqui dubitarent de sua dilectione si deberet esse intentior amore cujusvis creaturae Fillius tom 2. mor. qq tr 22. cap. 9. num 283. pag. 92. we may better provide for the repose of the consciences of pious persons who without this would be always in doubt of their love they bear unto God if it ought to be in a higher degree than the love of any creature whatsoever He had spoken truer if he had said that this opinion is favourable
and destroy the Command which God hath given us to love him with all our heart and all our strength he could not diminish and debase it more than to reduce it to the last extremity saying Ad implendum praeceptum charitatis erga Deum sufficit dilectio etiamsi in gradu remississima sit But he stays not there and as if he had feared that he had granted too much unto God in allowing him the least part of our heart and affection he expounds his thoughts more clearly and to pacific the consciences of pious persons who might fear they had not the love they ought to have unto God if they should be obliged to love him in that very manner the Jesuit speaks of above all things he adds that when God commands that we should love him above all things we must not extend this word all things to the rigour in its utmost extent and aecording to its natural sense so that it should comprehend under it all Creatures but that we must understand by all things only those which are evil contrary unto God and capable to destroy the friendship which we have with him by Grace and Charity that is to say mortal sin only Cum dicitur dilectio Dei ap preâ—iativa super omnia non necessario intelligitur super omnia quae amicitlae Dei adverâ—ontur cujusmodi sunt omnia peccata mortalia Ibid. num 16. So that according to this Maxime no person is obliged to love God more than any Creature since there is no Creature evil nor contrary to friendship with God but rather appointed by the Ordinance of God himself to help us to know and love him And so according to the Jesuits we may love all Creatures more than God and which is more strange without violating the Commandment which appoints us to love God above all things If we believe Amicus then and his Brethren there will be nothing but sin and that mortal sin also above which God ought to prevail in our esteem and affection because that only destroys the friendship we have with him And if God command us any thing in this matter and a kinsman a friend or any whosoever desire the contrary we may according to this new Philosophy refuse God what he desired of us to content a kinsman a friend or other person without offending the friendship we ought to exercise towards God provided that this refusal be not in something expresly commanded and of such consequence that we cannot fail thereof without sinning mortally It is easie to judge whether this be to love God above all things and not rather to love all things above God and whether an Idea more base and unworthy of him can be had than to imagine that we are not obliged to prefer him above any thing besides mortal sin only and that we may love all things more than him without sin After he hath brought the love we owe unto God to this point Filliutius adds that we are not obliged to love him in this manner above three or four moments in our life whereof the first is when we begin to have the use of reason the second at the point of death and the third to love him actually from five years to five years during life The rest of the time he allows us to love God or the World as we please confidering the love of God except at these instants which he hath set down as a work of Supererogation for which God is beholding to his Creatures Pâ—imum est initium moralis discursus secunduâ—r articulus mortis tertium est tempus intermedium vitae saltem quinto quoque anno Villint tom 2. mor. qq tr 22. cap. 9. num 286. 290. pag. 93. This obligation also would be too severe and too hard it would not be sufficiently proportionable to the weakness of our natures Whence Dicastillus concludes that God would have repentance separated from the love of God to make it more casie So that whereas according to S. Paul fear did render the yoke of the old Law unsupportable quam non potuerunt portare patres nostri and love makes the new Law sweet jugum meum suave est onus leve we must say according to the Divinity of these Fathers that the old Law was incomparably more sweet than the Christian because fear reigned in that and love the most difficult of all prae caeteris arduus in this Or to speak conformably to their Principles they are both equally sweet and easie to practise since under the one and the other we are equally dispensed with for the love of God and fear bears sway in both Videtur accommodata fragilitati humanae cum poenitentia etiam ante adventum Christi eslet alligata illi actui qui omnium meximus prae caeâ—eris arduus Dicastill de poenit tr 8. disp 2. dub 4. num 106. Molina quite overthrows the Divinity of the Apostle For after he hath established fear in the place of love in the new Law he substitutes in the old Law love in the place of fear pretending that it is in this that we may truly say thereof quam non potuerunt portare patres nostri and that this is the special priviledge of ours above the old For this cause this obligation to love God only three or four times in our life seems to him also too severe This had been well under the old Law but at present that we are under the Law of Grace we have Sacraments which may supply the want of charity and love to God 1 Ante legem gratiae antequam ex magua Dei misericordis in ca instituerentur Sacramenta quae attritos justificarent ilâ—isque vi Sacramentorum conferretur charitas supeâ—naturalis sicut sine Sacramentis confertur contritis sane longe srequentlus sub lethali culpa tentbantur homines Deum ex charitate supernaturali diligere quam Christiani in nova lege eum ex charitate supernaturali diligere tentantur Molina de just jure tr 5. disp 59. num 5. pag. 3166. Before the Law of Grace saith this Jesuit and before God by a singular mercy had yet instituted Sacraments capable to justifie those who approach unto them with attrition so that they might receive by the vertue of these Sacraments supernatural charity as they do who being contrite do receive the Sacraments men were much more frequently obliged under the pain of mortal sin to love God by the motion of supernatural love than Christians are under the new Law And confessing that under the old Law they were obliged to love God by a love of supernatural charity every time that they found themselves in any danger of death he maintains 2 Non ita frequenter sub reatu lethalis culpae tenemur Deum ex charitate supernaturali diligere ad effectum comparandae aeternaefelicitatis interitumque evadendi sempiternum quoniam satis est nos atteri susciplendo simul
Sacramentum novae legis Ibid. That Christians who live under the Law of Grace are not obliged under the pain of mortal sin to love God so often with a love of supernatural charity to obtain life and avoid death eternal because it is sufficient for them to have attrition receiving at the same time some Sacrament of the new Law Amicus saith the same thing of the Commandment of Contrition for our conversion unto God after sin But I will not stand here to alledge or make reflection on what Molina saith because it is spoken of elsewhere I will only add to clear up the conformity of the Jesuits upon this Point that which Filliutius saith He demands 1 Pro quo tempore urgeat ejus obligatio An statim post pâ—ccatum commissum Secunda sententia negat etiamsi occurrat opportunitas facile fieri possit Respondeo dico 1. tenendum cum secunda sententia Filliut tom 1. qq mor. tr 6. cap. 8. num 198. 199. pag. 157. In what time we are obliged unto contrition and whether it be so soon as we have sinned And after he hath reported two opinions of which the second saith he denies that we are so soon obliged though we have conven ience and that we may easily do it he concludes in these terms I answer and say in the first place that we must follow the second opinion which holds that we are not obliged He descends also yet farther in particular and demands 2 Quibus temporibus per se obliget contritio ex jure naturali Ibid. num 205. Respondeo dico 1 si respiciatur lex justitiae qua homo tenetur satisfacere Deo pro injuria peccati sic non videtur obligari nisi quando adest periculum mortis Ibid. on what occasion the Precept of Contrition obliges by the Law of Nature Whereto he gives three Answers The first is that if we regard the Law of Justice by which a man is obliged to satisfie God for the injury which he hath done unto him by sin in this manner he seems not to be obliged to contrision and sorrow for his sin but only when he finds himself in danger of death His other Answer is 3 Si respiclatur lex charitatis erga Deum jute naturali obligat ante mortem Ibid. num 206. That if we respect the love which is due unto God we are obliged unto it by that Law of Nature before death That is to say that though in rigour and without any injustice a sinner may remain in his sin and aversion from God until his death notwithstanding he ought of charity to prevent that time and to love God sometimes without attending for this extremity if he will not ask him forgiveness as soon as he hath offended him nor even for many years after it is reasonable that at least he pass not above five or seven years before he do it This is the charitable advice which Filliutius gives him in these terms 4 In universum intra annum non videtur obligare quolibet septennio vel quinquennio est probâ—bile 〈◊〉 alibi dicam de charitate Ibid. n. 208. Speaking generally it seems that a man is not obliged thereto within one years time that he should be obliged thereto within five or from seven years to seven is very probable as we shall see elsewhere where I shall speak the same thing of Charity He holds that a sinner after he hath passed five or seven years in his sin and in a voluntary aversion from God and all others in like manner who have passed over so long a time without once thinking of loving God will be obliged the one to ask God pardon and the other to love him at least after so long a time If this be probable as he saith the contrary is also and by consequence of two probable opinions we may follow which we will with a safe conscience according to the Jesuits Divinity a sinner may persist in his sin and in his aversion from God and every other man in his insensibleness without having any motion of love unto God after he hath already past seven years without thinking of him The third Answer of Filliutius is 5 Si respâ—ciatur lex charitatis propriae probabile est obligare etiam extra articulum Ibid. num 206. That if we regard the Law of Charity which every one owes unto himself it is very probable that he is obliged to have contrition and sorrow for sin before the article of death And as if he feared lest this should also torment some consciences and give them too much trouble and scruple he adds 6 Ob authoritatem autem Doctorum quos citavimus in praecedenti quaesito non est improbabile quod non obliget Ibid. For all that because of the Authority of the Doctors whom we have quoted in the former question it is probable that he is not obliged thereto That is to say that a man who is in mortal sin may with a safe conscience according to this probable opinion persist voluntarily all his life in a state of enmity against God and delay his conversion until the point of death demanding only forgiveness of God when he is ready to dye and can offend him no longer without doing herein any thing against the charity he owes to himself any more than against that which he owes unto God I can hardly believe that a Jesuit would approve a Child who should deal with his Father in this manner as he saith we may carry our selves towards God and I know not whether he would counsel any of his Brethren who had a mortal disease to suffer it five or seven years or even until he should see himself nigh unto death without calling for the Physitian and without applying any remedy thereto and whether be believes he may do this without danger of killing the body of his Brother by this delay and his own Soul by so remarkable a negligence especially if he had an assured remedy whereof it was only his own fault if he did not make use I know well at the least that if herein he pretend not to offend against the Laws of Justice and Christian Charity he shall transgress those of the Society who have so well provided for the health of all their Brethren that inftead of delaying to the extremity they have ordained to cause the Physitian to visit them from time to time though there be none of them sick What kind of prudence must this be which hath so great care of the health and life of the body and so little of the Souls Father Celot is not content to say as Filliutius and others that a sinner is not obliged to seek God after he hath offended him but even that God himself preventing and seeking as we may say his friendship by the inspirations and good motions he bestows on him he may refuse and reject them effectually
without herein making himself guilty of any fault He saith also the same thing of them who make profession of living well and of all those who of deliberate purpose reject the inspirations and graces by which God inclines them to do any good work though both the one and the other knew that their Salvation would depend upon these inspirations and that through neglect of receiving them and complying with them they might be lost eternally 1 Fateor certe in hujus acceptatione usuque consilii salutis cardinem non raro versari Quo tempore dicss oportet gravissimo se obstringere peccato qui omittar Ego nullum praecise agnosco Celot lib. 9. cap. sect 7. pag. 816. I acknowledge saith he that Salvation depends many times of this counsel and the use that is made of it you must say he speaks to his Adversary that in this case he that will not follow it commits a great sin But as for me I hold that he commits none at all A man that suffers himself to dye of hunger without being willing to take bread or any other nourishment that is presented unto him when he might easily do it would pass in the judgment of all the world for a self-murderer and he that suffers his Soul to dye or rather who kills it by refusing knowingly and even resolvedly the graces and inspirations sent him by God on which he knows that his eternal life and Salvation depend shall be innocent in the judgment of these Jesuits Quo tempore dicas oportet gravissimo se obstringere peccato ego nullum praecise agnosco THE SUM Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits concerning the Love of Charity which a man owes unto God and to himself THey say that when God commands us to love him he intends only that wâ— should serve him though it be without love that he desires no other thing but that we obey him by doing outwardly that which he injoyns us that he would have us also to keep the other Commandments though in keeping them we love him not that it is sufficient not to hate him to fulfil the Commandment of loving him and by consequence to be saved God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart and all our might that is to say so much as we can The Jesuits say on the contrary that it is lawful to love him as little as we will and much less than we might if we would and that this suffices because according to them the least degree of love may satisfie this Commandment As God loves us always and doth us good without intermission so he would also that our love and acknowledgments should be continual and without bounds But the Jesuits maintain that we may pass over whole years without loving him and that by bethinking our selves thereof once in five or seven years we are quit yea that though we have never actually loved him at all through our whole life it suffices to discharge us from this obligation we have to love him to think thereof at the point of death nay there be some who do hardly acknowledge even this obligation God is not content to be loved in a slight way he will be loved as God and as he deserves above all things The Jesuits say on the contrary that we may love all things more than God because according to their Divinity the least degree of love suffices to acquit us of what we owe him And when God saith that he will be loved above all things they hold that he would say only above all things that are evil and contrary to his friendship that is to say above all sorts of mortal sins which only can overturn and destroy the friendship which men have with God As man cannot find his bliss but in God so he loves not himself truly but so far as he loves God seeks adheres and is united to him by love but the Jesuits dispense with him for this genuine love which he owes himself by discharging him of that which he is obliged to bear towards God They say moreover that being departed from God he may continue in that estate without troubling himself about returning to God and himself and that when God seeks him first by his inspirations he may refuse and reject them and abide in this estate of enmity and voluntary aversion from God until the point of death and so expose himself to the danger of perishing eternally without making himself by this guilty of any fault and without being deficient in the love he owes himself any more than in that he owes God III. POINT Of the Command to love our Neighbour that the Jesuits utterly destroy it FAther Bauny in his Sum Chap. 7. pag. 81. expounds the Command to love our Neighbour in these terms By Charity we are obliged to testifie unto him who may have offended us that we retain no animosity against him and according to the convenience of times and persons give him proofs of the love we bear him He quotes some Divines from whom he hath taken what he saith and he adds reason grounded on the Example and Authority of the holy Fathers For love saith he which we bear towards our brethren ought to resemble that which the members have one towards another as writes S. Austin in the 15. of his 50 Homilies Si enim sic nos amare voluerimus quomodo se invicem amant membr nostri corporis perfecta in nobis charitas potest oustodiri And making application of this Example taken out of S. Austin and which S. Austin took out of S. Paul Let us see then saith he what it is the members of the body do naturally one for another They love and agree mutually and sympathize with one another in misery Quando sanum est caput congaudent omnia membra placent sibi de singulis caetera membra c. See here the duties of Charity towards our Neighbour which he acknowledgeth with the Divines and holy Fathers and then he establisheth the command and obligation It is even hereunto that God and Nature obligeth us saith S. Ambrose in the first Book of his Offices Chap. 28. And therefore Secundum Dei voluntatem naturae copulam invicem nobis auxilio esseâ—debemus certare officiis velut in medio omnes utilitates ponere adjumentum ferre alter alteri vel studio vel officio vel pecunia vel alio quolibet modo ut inter nos societatis augeatur gratia Perhaps it will be wondred at at first that I having undertaken to represent only the Errours of the Jesuits have rehearsed these places of Father Bauny as if I had something to reply against them But I do not pretend to reprove him for producing the opinion of the holy Fathers with those of the School-Divines that he might establish one of the principal points of Christian Morality I have no other design than to make him see clearly the excess wherewith he is
the Jesuits absolutely overthrow this Commandment and authorize all sorts of Murthers THere is it may be nothing in all the Morals wherein the Jesuits are so transported as in this same The excesses they have committed therein are so great that as it is enough to raise an horrour against them only to understand them so we should have found it hard to believe them had we learnt them from others than themselves and if they after they had taught them in their Schools had not also published them every where by their Books 1. 1 Cum autem hujus legis vim Dominus explicaret in eo duo continere ostendit Alterum ne occidamus quod à nobis fieri vecitum est alterunt quod sacere jubemur ut concordi amicitia charitateque inimicos complectamur pacem habeamus cum omnibus cuncta denique incommoda patienter feramus Catech. ad Parâ—…hos This Precept contains in it two things according to the explication which our Lord gives thereof as the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes The one is forbidden us to wit Murther and the other is commanded us to wit love and charity towards our enemies peace with all the world and patience to suffer all sorts of evils The Jesuits destroy these two parts of this divine Precept by the pernicious Maxims of their Divinity For as to the second they are so far from believing that God hath commanded the love of enemies that they believe not so much as that there is any true Command to love our Neighbour in general nor God himself as we have seen whilst we spoke of the first Commandment of the Decalogue And for the first part which is the Command not to kill they overthrow it by infinite decisions which are contrary thereunto For they generally allow to kill in defence of honour life and goods not only when a man sees himself in a near and evident danger of losing them but when it is far off and uncertain They would not have you stay till a man smite you it is enough that he threatens you it is enough that you see him come afar off it is enough that he offends you with his words or that you know that he hath a design upon your life honour or goods for you to prevent and kill him with a good conscience The allowance they make herein is general and without exception They grant it to Clergy-men and to Fryars as well as Secular persons And to give the greater liberty to the use of it they make it pass for a right of nature of which they pretend that any whosoever may make use against any other whomsoever even a Servant against his Master a Son against his Father a Monk against his Superior leaving them at their choice to employ all means whatsoever they please and which they judge most proper for their design whether it be by open force or by surprize and making use of secret ways and by service of other persons interposed if they will not or dare not themselves attempt to kill those who do or would do them some hurt as we shall see by and by The matter is too large to be comprised under one single title wherefore I will divide this Article into five Points in each of which I will represent the Opinions of divers Authors of the Society beginning with Lessius I. POINT Lessius his Opinion concerning Murder SECTION I. How far he enlargeth the permission of Killing in defence of his own life that he holds that a Priest at the Altar may break off the Sacrifice to kill him who assails him LEssius proposes this Question concerning Murder If it be lawful to kill a man in defence of my own life Utrum liceat alterum occidere in vitae suae defensionem Lessiui de just jur lib. 2. cap. 9. dub 8. num 41. p. 83. And then he relates many cases in which he maintains that this is lawful The first case 1 Si reipsa me ferias armis de hoc nullum est dubium Ibid. num 42. saith he is if I be struck with a weapon and in this point there is no doubt at all The second is 2 Si accedas ad feriendum nec possim evadere nisi vel sugiam vel te praeveniam num 44. if you draw near unto me to strike me and I cannot avoid it unless I flye or prevent your blow The third is 3 Si nondum accedis tamen instructus es ad invadendum nec possum evadere nisi praeveniam Tuac enim possum praevenire num 45. when you do not yet approach but you are ready to invade me and I cannot avoid you but by preventing you I may in this case prevent you The fourth case 4 Si per samulum vel sicarium me statueris occidere num 46. when you have a design to cause me to be slain by a Servant or Assasin The fifth 5 Si falsis criminationibus testibusque subornatis v. c. imponendo sacrilegium vel crimen infandum vitam meam impetas in judicio num 47. when you fall upon me by way of justice to cause me to dye by false witnesses who accuse me of crimes which I have not committed imposing upon me for example some Sacriledge or other detestable crime It appears then that according to Lessius it is not necessary that you may with a good conscience prevent and kill a man for you to stay till he smite you it is sufficient that he draws near to smite you Si accedas ad feriendum It is enough that he is disposed to do it though he be far off from you Si nondum accedas sed tamen instructus es ad invadendum It suffices that he hath a will or hath given commission to another to do it Si per famulum aut sicarium me statueris occidere It is sufficient that he hath wrongfully accused you of some crime for which you may lose your life Si falsis criminationibus c. If you enquire unto whom it is lawful to kill in all these cases Molina will answer that the permission is general and for all sorts of persons 6 Dicendum est ad dubium propositum fas universim esse interficere eum qui nos interficere decrevit quando aliter non patet via evadendi mortem aut grande periculum mortis quod nequitia illius ex eo decreto nobis imminet Molina de just jur tom 4. tract 4. disp 13. num 2. pag. 1760 To answer saith he to the question proposed we must say that it is generally lawful to kill him who is resolved to kill you when there is no other means to avoid death or imminent danger of death whereunto you are reduced by the resolution he hath maliciously taken to cause you to dye That is to say that a prudent man according to Molina will not expect to use means for assuring his life till
5. tract 6. cap. 4. num 9. Vnless it be so that this peril and next occasion of sinning mortally cannot be removed without undergoing some notable incommodity in body reputation or goods For in this case there is an advice but no command to forgo the lesser for the greater good and to make less account of our temporal commodity than of the security and Salvation of our Souls There is no person how engaged soever he be in the next and most dangerous occasions of sin who may not always take for pretence to abide therein some one of these reasons and therefore none will ever believe himself obliged to avoid them Lessius speaking of lewd Discourses saith that it is only a venial sin to hear or utter them 3 Si solum fiat ob voluptatem quae praecise ex ipsa narratione capitur absque ulteriore intentione est peccarum veniale Lessius de just lib. 4. cap. 3. dub 8. num 63. pag. 688. though we take pleasure in them provided we have some other intention besides the pleasure we take therein He might say as much of an idle word or of an inconsiderate discourse spoken at random And a little after speaking of the pleasure which comes by the imagination and thinking of dishonest things he saith also the same thing in another manner He distinguisheth of two sorts of pleasure or rather of two ways of taking pleasure in dishonest things The first is when the pleasure comes from the dishonest thought the second is when it comes from the object or thing it self or the dishonest action whereon we think and wherewith we entertain our selves He declares then that in the first sort of pleasure there is no sin at all And his reason is 1 Si priore modo delectatio percipitur non est per se peccatum quia delectatio sequitur conditionem operis ex quo naseltur Talls enim est delectatio quale est opus ex quo nascitur juxta Aristotelem 10. Eth. cap. 4. Est enim quiddam necessario ex operatione nobis congrua resultans Atqui opus ex quo nascitur non est malum sed bonum vel quid indifferens nimirum notitia veritatis vel rei rarae aut admirandae visio quam notitiam visionem homines magni aestimant etiamsi objectum circa quod versatur maxime execrenâ—ur Ibid. dub 15. num 108. pag. 698. Because the pleasure is of the same nature with the action from whence it proceedeth For it is like unto this action as saith Aristotle in the 10. of his Ethicks cap. 4. and it is a necessary consequent of every operation which is agreeable unto us Now the operation from whence this pleasure issues is not bad but good or at least indifferent to wit the knowledge of the truth or the view of any rare and admirable thing which men esteem very much though they abhor the object of this knowledge and view 2 Hoc modo delectantur homines lectione vel natratione praeliorum duellorum reruth admirandarum quae per artem magicam fiunt vel corum quae percinent ad opus generationis conceptum prolis Ibid. The things the knowledge whereof men so much esteem and which they take so much pleasure to behold or to entertain themselves with are as he saith himself Combats Duels Inchantments of Magicians the Generation of Beasts or men and every thing that belongs to that action So that according to him the thoughts of all these things though a man entertain himself with them voluntarily and with pleasure and even for the pleasures sake which he relishes therein will be no sin For he concludes all his Argumentation in these words 3 Ergo talis delectario non est de se mala This pleasure is not evil in it self He might have said more and infer from the Principle which he saith is Aristotles that this sensual pleasure not only is no sin but it is also commendable and honest since the object he hath given it is good and honest namely the knowledge of the truth Nempe notitia veritatis The only condition then which he demands that we may entertain our selves innocently with the thoughts of these things is that we stay not at the pleasure alone which arises from these thoughts and that we think not of what may come from the thing or the wicked and dishonest action we think on I will not stay to examine this imaginary condition in moral matters any more than the Metaphysical distinction and abstraction whereupon it is grounded I will only say that to declare unto any person that he may take pleasure in any filthy thought provided that he respect not the filthy object that this thought represents unto him or that he be not touched with the pleasure which comes from it naturally is as if one should say that one may stand before a fire provided he be not heated and pass through the dirt provided he be not defiled Common sense only and continual experience shew sufficiently that it is as it were impossible to behold those things which we love and to which we have an inclination as men have naturally to the objects of fleshly concupiscence without exclting love and the motions of that propension we have to them as it is impossible to behold and consider the things which we hate without conceiving an hatred and aversation yet more great against them As for Kisses Lessius propounds a Question in this manner 4 Dissicultes est de osculo quatenus ipsum per se est actus delectabilis carni remote disponens ad seminationem utrum fi quis hac ratione illo uraturs non intendende ulteriorem voluptatem pâ—cces mortaliter Ibid. dab 8. num 58. pag. 687. There is some difficulty about Kisses being considered as actions in themselves agreeable to the flesh and disposing though afar off unto pollution to wit whether in using them in this manner without having an intention to pass any farther in sensual pleasure we sin mortally He answers first according to the opinion which is as he saith himself the more common in the Schools that there is mortal sin in Kisses which are taken in this manner and he testifies that he doth approve it 1 Cômmunis sententia est in istis esse peccatum mortiferum quae mihi probatur tum quia communior tum quia tutius est ut omnia ista quam maxime vitentur tum quia saepe periculum est ulterioris consensus vel morosae delectationis vel etiam pollutionis ratione temperamenti aut peculiaris dispositionis corporis Quam ob causam expedit in hujusmodi non esse laxum Unde etiam inter sponsos censeo plane esse dissuadenda si causa voluptatis fiant First because this opinion is the more common In the second place because it is the safer course to remove our selves as far as we can from these things In the third