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
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
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
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
Christ in the 7. of S. Matthew and 6. of S. Luke Do unto men whatsoever ye would they should do unto you As if Jesus Christ commanding us to do good unto our neighbour did dispense with us from loving him from the bottom of our hearts or as if he had not commanded the one as well as the other and yet more expresly to love him than to do him good as it may appear in many places of the Gospel as in the 13. of S. John 3 Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi ves Joan. 13. v. 34. I give you a new Commandment that you love one another as I have loved you And in the following verse 4 In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem Ibid. v. 35. All the world shall know that you are my Disciples if you love one another And without alledging other passages of Scripture upon this point that alone which this Jesuit abuses to shew that God commands us only to serve and not to love our neighbour doth absolutely prove our obligation unto both For as there is none who desires not to be relieved in his necessities so there is none who desires not to be beloved and to be served with affection and there are many who had rather not be served at all than without affection and with regret or with indifference When God then commands men and saith 5 Quaecunque vultis ut faciant vobis homines vos facite illis Do ye unto men whatsoever ye would they should do unto you he commands as well to love as to serve because there is none that desires not you should do to him the one as well as the other He proves his opinion also by this reason 6 Probatur autem haec sententia primo vi hujus praecepti non tenemur diligere proximum aliter vel plus quam nos ipsos Atqui nos ipsos non tenemur diligere actu interno charitatis Ergo nec proximum Ibid. num 15. We are not obliged by this Precept to love our neighbour otherwise or more than our selves Now so it is we are not obliged to love our selves with a love and internal act of Charity And by consequence we are not obliged neither unto our neighbour in that manner He alledges another Reason and Argument in this manner 7 A fortiori candem sententiam docent qui actum internum charitatis negant esse necessarium in implendo praecepto de diligendo Dâ—o super omnia num 14. Those who deny that to accomplish the Command to love God above all things it is needful to exercise any act of love and charity towards him by stronger reason may hold this other opinion Finally his last reason is 8 Multi damnarentur ex eo quod hujusmodi actum internum charitatis erga omnes homines non elicuerint quod est argumentum ab absurdo improbabili Ibid. num 18. That if we were obliged to love our neighbour multitudes of the world would be damned for never exercising this inward act of Charity towards all men which is a very severe point and not at all probable It suffices that a point appears difficult for it to be rejected of them who profess a complacent Divinity and an easie devotion how clear and evident soever it be in the Gospel and the same reason serves them to hold it for a thing indifferent or an advice only whatsoever is contrary to the senses and which gives them any trouble though it be expresly commanded I stand not any longer upon this last reason no more than upon the two former because I have spoken sufficiently thereof before It suffices to observe that this Jesuit establishes here one errour upon two others and that he pretends with his Brethren that we are not obliged to love our neighbour because we are not obliged to love our selves any more than to love God by any Command and by consequence that he and his Companions by their own confession destroy and abolish entirely the two Commandments of Charity and the love of God in the second degree which regardeth our neighbour as well as in the first which respects God himself IV. POINT That the Jesuits allow of Magick and Witcheraft IT would never be believed if we did not read it in their Books Tambourin saith 1 Homo audita conventione cum daemone utitur sigho opposicolicitâ— quia non fule nisi contrarlum signum arponâ—re quo posito daemon promisit non amplus thesaurum enstedire Tambur num 12. sect 2 cap 6. lib. 2. primae partis Decalogi That he who knows another hath made a Covenant with the Devil to hide a treasure may make a sign opposite to that which hath been made to commit this treasure to the Devils custody that the Devil may keep it no longer As if the Devil had not still what he demands whether the treasure be committed to him to keep or he be hindred from keeping it whilst the marks and superstitious Ceremonies whereof he is the Author are observed It is not the treasure put into his custody that he demands but the heart and soul of him who believes in him and who makes use of his superstitions to oblige him or prohibite him to keep a treasure The same Father puts a question whether it be lawful to undo one Charm by another He answers 2 Quod si absolute peram ut dissolvat sciens ipsum posse dissolvere cum miltsicio possei fine malchcio â—utans tamen imo certo sciens ipsum cum nevo malcficio diffeluturum dico esse saltem probabde tutum licite posse petere Ibid. n. 7. That if I demand absolutely that he who hath set the Spell should take it off knowing that he can either with or without a new Charm yet believing or knowing certainly that he will do it with one I answer saith he that it is at least probable and safe in conscience that it may be lawfully demanded This is as it were to send a Messenger or a Deputy to the Devil and to cause him to be requested for what we dare not demand our selves and to make use of another mans Magick as ones own since we know certainly that he can do nothing without the help of the Devil He saith after Sanchez 3 Colligit Sanchez non esss superstitiosos qui per qua dam scriptures five ex psalmis five ex aliis orationibus confectas curant infirmos qui suo tactu ves orationibus etiam incurabiles motbos pati modo sanant hos salvatores vocant Ibid. num 30. sect 1. That they are not superstitious who heal the sick by Charms composed of Psalms and other Prayers and who by stroking and prayers heal them of incurable diseases They call these persons Saviours saith he These diseases being incurable it is clear that they who heal
they had introduced into Christian Morality and having reduced them unto certain heads with a very neat and pure order which may be worthy to have the name of the particular Character of his Spirit But God permitted that when he had finished this so important Work he delivered it into the hands of a Doctor one of his Friends that he might communicate it unto others who were of known Learning and Zeal This Doctor acquitted himself faithfully in this Commission but those to whom he committed this Book that they might examine it being diverted therefrom by a multitude of affairs returned no answer unto him of a long time so that the Author continuing sick saw himself nigh unto death without knowing in a manner what was become of his Book and only understood that they judged it most worthy to be printed and that the Church might draw therefrom very great advantages if it pleased God to give it his blessing As therefore he proposed unto himself in this Work no other thing than to serve the Church this answer sufficed to banish out of his mind all the disquiet which he could have had thereabouts and he very easily and without farther trouble did wholly commit the care of it to Divine providence to which he had been always most submissive This submission notwithstanding hindred not but that some time before his death he recommended it unto another of his friends whom he knew to be very greatly concerned for every thing whereunto he had relation But this Friend being not able to address himself to any other save that Doctor who had not the Book any longer in his own hands and who could not himself learn thereof any news at all saw himself speedily after out of condition to serve both the Church and his Friend in such manner as he earnestly desired Some years past over in this uncertainty of what was become of this so precious a Work at which time God who had reserved unto himself the disposal thereof caused it to fall happily into the hands of a person who had no correspondence with its Author but seeing that it might be profitable to the Church thought himself obliged to contribute all his credit and power to its publication Here you have what was thought meet for the Readers to know concerning the History of this Book It were to be desired that we might speak here more openly concerning its Author but the Society of the Jesuits have accustomed themselves so to use those who endeavour to serve them by discovering unto them the excesses wherein they engage themselves and such is the implacable fury with which they pretend to have right according to their Maxims to persecute them as will not permit us to render unto his name the glory he hath therein deserved All that we can say therein to the end we may not leave those who come after us without knowing at least something of a person to whose zeal they will esteem themselves so much obliged is only this that he seemed to have been raised to combate and confound the Errours of these Fathers He had a mind facile clear and solid a sweetness and moderation in all respects charming an humility ingenuous beyond all that can be imagined stealing away the splendour of his other vertues from the eyes even of his most intimate Friends His education was admirable and contributed not a little to the beauty of his Spirit the purity of his Learning and the innocence of his Manners For he was born of a Father who had a care altogether peculiar to him to fortifie happily his Children against popular Errours to inspire into them the most pure Maxims of the Gospel and to enlarge their minds with the fairest speculations This so sage and so Christian conduct helped very much to augment the inclination which he had unto piety so that he had no sooner finished his course in Philosophy than he proceeded of himself to the study of Divinity to which he applyed himself with so great success that being received into the Colledge and Society of Sorbonne he performed all his acts with universal applause and thereupon received there the Doctors Cap. The only thing he had to combate with in this his laudable enterprise was the passionate affection which he had for the Mathematicks For as this Science is the most assured of all humane Sciences and almost the only one in which may be found any certainty capable to satisfie a Spirit which loves the truth the love which he had even to this truth it self wrought in him so violent an inclination to this Science that he could not withhold himself from applying and busying his thoughts therein for the inventing some or other new machine But at length the Holy Spirit which did conduct his Studies made him overcome in a little time the propension he had to these innocent inquiries and curiosities and he thought that it was not sufficient for a Divine to despise the divertisements of the world but that he ought also to deprive himself of those of his mind and he did only search after the truth where it was to be found that is to say in the Holy Scripture and in the Books of the holy Fathers So that we may well say of him what S. Gregory Nazianzene said in commendations of his Brother Caesarius who had greatly loved Astrology and the Mathematicks that he had the ingenuity to draw out of these sorts of Sciences all that was profitable therein learning thence to admire the invisible greatnesses of God which were resplendent in his works and knew to defend himself from that which was pernicious in them which is the adherence they have who apply themselves thereunto to their conjectures and to those truths which they pretend to discover therein This generous disengaging himself from all other things advantaged him not a little in the progress which he made in Ecclesiastical knowledge and in that part of Divinity which they call Scholastick which conducts Reason by the light of Faith and Tradition This his progress appeared more especially in the troubles which agitated the Faculty of Divinity of Paris in the year 1656. for he there defended the truth with so great moderation that he did not render it odious but on the contrary he did astonish and surprize his enemies The zeal he had for it was ardent but this ardour was tempered by his prudence and his knowledge was not less modest than his sweetness was couragious that there might be seen equally lightning in his discourse the regard which he had not to disoblige any person and the inflexible firmity which God had given him for the defence of his truth The wounds which that renowned Body received then in its Discipline entred very deep into his heart and the grief which he received therefrom increased by the consideration of the mischiefs which the Church was threatned with and which it resents unto this day began to alter his health
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
began to drink though he had formerly often fallen therein when he was drunk d Ea adhibita diligentia etsi postea eveniant minime imputabuntur Ibid. Non teneri ebrios praecavere Ibid. num 43. But if one think of these incoveniences and hath foreseen them they pretend that he is quit thereof provided that he bestow onely some little precaution though to no purpose whatsoever evil may happen thereupon and that one is not at all obliged even unto this precaution when one is urged to these disorders by others e Quippe tempore ebrietatis talia in communi hominum aestimatione non reputantur contumeliosa sed tanquam facetiae admutuntur ibid. n. 44. Nisi grave malum corporis sequatur Escobar tr 2. exam 2. n. 72. p. 302. modo non obsit valetudini Ibid. n. 102. p. 304. Quando vero damnum proximo inforunt imputabuntur si praevideantur Sanch. supra As to the injuries or follies and insolences which are committed against our Neighbours in drunkenness they count them as nothing and let them pass for divertisements as well as blasphemies and impieties against God because they provoke laughter for the most part as well as other excesses of drunkards In a word they permit all things unto drunkards whilst they are drunk provided that they do not notably prejudice their own health nor quite lose their reason and that they do not cause some temporal damage unto men Gluttony of it self is with them but a venial sin and they believe that it becomes a mortal sin but onely in some certain cases and with circumstances very rare f Quando in ea ultimus fiuis bominis collocatur Escobar supra n. 58. p. 298. as when a man makes it his last end saith Escobar It is true that this excess is very great and notwithstanding it seems that this word escaped him or that he did not consider well what he said himself a little after g An comedere bibere usque ad satietatem absque necessitate ob solam voluptatem sit peccatum Cum Sanctione negativè respondee Ibid. n. 103. p. 204. It is some sin but venial to eat and drink as much as one will for pleasure onely without proposing to ones self any other end of which he renders this reason h Quia licite potest appetitus naturalis suis actibus frui Ibid. That the natural appetite may be suffered to go according to its own proper motions and to enjoy the pleasure it finds therein For according to the common language of Philosophie as well as of the Holy Scripture i Frui animo meo mihi bonum est Frui corpore mihi bonum est to love a thing to desire it to look after it and to rejoyce in it for love of it self and for it self is no other thing than to establish it for his last end The Holy Fathers have spoken very earnestly against the Stoicks for their impiety in saying that their happiness consisted in the enjoyment of their own spirits and against the Epicures who placed theirs in the enjoyment of their own bodies They condemned these two kinds of Philosophie as making their spirit and their body their God What judgement then would they have made of those who say at this day and teach it to libertines k Edere bibere usque ad satietatem propter solam voluptatem Frui actibus mei appetitus naturalis mihi bonum est that to eat and drink to ones fill for the pleasure onely which they take therein and to give themselves up to their natural appetites and to enjoy the pleasure which they sind therein is their contentment and their happiness It is clear that these Saints following the rule of the Church would have condemned them as they did condemn the Stoicks and the Epicures of making their God of their bodies and of the pleasure which they have in eating and drinking and in the actions of their sences and in doing this they had followed the judgement which Saint Paul had pronounced on persons which appeared yet less criminal than those whom the Jesuits maintain as innocent whom notwithstanding the Apostle Paul calls Dogs and saith expressely l Quorum Deu◠venter est Ad Philip. 3. v. 19. that they make their God of their bellies ARTICLE V. Of Covetousness I. POINT That the Jesuits authorize all sorts of ways to get wealth and dispense with restitution of what is procured by the most unjust and infamous ways 1. COvetousness consists in loving temporal wealth for its own sake Escobar will not acknowledge this * C'est à dire en s'arrestant à luy au plaisir qu'on y trouve affection for any vice nor for any fault if there occure therein no notable excesse nor any other evil end m Quidnam est avaritia Inordinatus divitiarum amor Escobar tr 2. ex 2. c. 2. n. 29. p. 293. What is Covetousness demands he To which he answers presently that it is a disordered love of riches That is to say that its irregular either in it self because it is excessive or in its end because one refers it to some thing that is evil in it self n Inordinatus quidem amor culpabilis est non ordinatus sive ad rectum finem directus for without this he pretends that it is innocent and lawfull as when one loves wealth for its own sake without too great passion and without any evil design 2. Whatsoever disorder there be in the love of wealth whatsoever passion one can have for riches he holds that it cannot be more than a venial sin If to get them or preserve them he do no point of injustice o Certe in optandis divitiis inordinatio nisi conjunctá sit cum injustitia retinendi vel au serendi alienum invito domino vel cum duritia non tribuendi egeno graviter laboranti solummodo venialis est culpa Ibid. This is certain saith he that the disordered love of riches is but a venial sin if it be not found joyned with injustice and a will to take or retain the goods of another without his consent to whom they pertain or with a hardness of heart unsensible of the miseries of the poor which hinders from relieving them in their great necessities Following this principle not onely covetousness is no mortal sin any longer but also it cannot at all be any of it self and for it to become criminal it behoves that it part from its own proper matter and that it enter upon that of unjustice So then we see the whole crime of Covetousness reduced to injustice but even in this estate and in this extremitie it shall not want protectors amongst these new Divines they find inventions to justifie injustice it self that they might not condemn covetousness with it For it seems that injustice cannot proceed into a greater excess then to sell and buy the honor of women the
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
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
formal intention to blaspheme God And a little after to assist them herein we think that it is in every respect to good purpose that the Confessor know from his mouth his intention and what moved him to blaspheme and if he answers that he was not touched with any despite against God but against Man or against Beast to whom they had a pique the Confessor shall not repute them to be Blasphemers nor destitute of Grace This man that blasphemeth against God and against Jesus Christ though he doth it through transport of choler against Men or against Beasts though he doth it without passion and in cold blood making use of these blasphemies in common discourse as ornaments of his language yet ought not according to Bauny to be treated in his confession as a blasphemer though the words and blasphemies he uttereth be contumelious opprobrious and dishonourable to the most venerable members of the Son of God if he have not truly had some indignation against God if he was not touched with some despite against God if he have not done it with a formal intent to dishonour God and the Confessor ought to referre himself in all this to what the blasphemer shall say after that he hath been informed of the matter from himself and hath knowledge of it from his own mouth If this be true as this Casuist assures us we must of necessity avouch that there are hardly any blaspemies or that to blaspheme we must have the heart of a Devil or a damned Spirit and hate God with a formal will to displease and dishonour him And when a person is so forlorn as to fall into this miserable estate if he neither resent nor acknowledge it as it easely befals him because of that blindness and hardness which is the ordinary consequence and punishment of these great crimes and pretends not to have this evil intention of dishonouring God by despite and hatred towards him which induceth him to blaspheme his ignorance and freedom from evil intention will be sufficient to every such person to exempt him from crime according to the Divinity of these Jesuits and Bauny will absolve him easily and not repute him for all this for a blasphemer nor as one destitute of grace He speaks after the same manner of cursings in the chap. 6. pag. 47. saying that to make cursing a mortal sin it ought to proceed of a will deliberately bent upon the ill which is desired to fall on others From the same principle treating of scandal in the chap. 46. pag. 719. and speaking of a woman who adorns her self proudly and who pranks and trims up her self to please her Husband or to observe the custom of the country he declares that allbeit the said woman knows well the evil effect which her diligence in adorning her self will work upon the bodyes and souls of those who behold her adorned with rich and precious garments yet she sins not in using them And to give a reason thereof he maintains it as a maxime and general rule that we are not responsible for the evil effects which are adherent to any action nisi fuerint intenti formaliter that is to say as he expounds himself unless we effectually seek will or procure them Filliutius speaking also of scandal proposes the same example and case and explicates it in the same manner e Sexto sâ— famina sciat se turpiter ab aliquo amart non peccat quoties se offert ejus conspectui modo non intendat hunc provocare ad turpem sui amorem Filliutius tom 2. tr 28 c. 10. num 232. pag 331. Though a woman saith he knows that a man loves her dishonestly she sins not how often soever she presents her self before him and in his view so that she have not an intention to stir up the dishonest love which he hath towards her Sanchez having also proposed before this same question namely f An saemina conspectui viri se offerens à quo se turpiter amari no vit peccat mortaliter peccato scandalt quando nullatenus cum ad sui amorem provocare intendit Sanchez op mor. lib. 1. cap 6. num 16. pag 19 whether a woman who presents her self to the view of a man whom she well knows doth love her dishonestly do commit a mortal sin of scandal when she hath no intention to stir him up to love her He reports the common opinion which condemns this action of mortal sin g Communiter cam Doctores peccart mortaliter censent quando nulla necessitate ducitur sed ut sâ—ae voluptati satisfaciat indifferenter hac illac discurrit Ibid. The common opinion saith he of the Doctors is that she sinneth mortally when without any necessity but onely for her own pleasure and satisfaction she gads indifferently into every place In the sequel he propounds the opinion of those who excuse this woman from mortal sin though she go abroad without necessity and know the evil which she must cause by her coming abroad h Aliis tamen placet hanc non peccare mortaliter quod ea occasio potius ex propria adamantis turpiter malitia sit accepta quam à muliere data quae jure suo ac libertate sibi concessa utitur Ibid. n. 17. There are others saith he who hold that she sins not mortally because he that loveth her dishonestly doth rather take this oocasion of offence and from his own malice then she gives it him by the use of her own right and liberty Finally after he hath considered these two opinions and the reasons on which they found them he concludes for this latter in favour of this woman whom he declares innocent i Et ideo quamvis priorem opinionem probabilem credam existimo veriorem esse hanc posteriorem ut non ob id teneatur faemina sua se egrediendi domo standi ad ostium domus vel fonestram discurrondi per civitatem libertate privare Ibid. And for that saith he though I also believe the first opinion to be probable but I esteem notwithstanding the latter to be more true which is that this woman is not obliged to deprive her self of this liberty which she hath of going abroad from her house to stand at her door or window or to walk in the Town He demands no other thing of her k ut nullatenus cum ad sui amorem provocare intendat but that she have no intention to cause him to sin who loves her And after this he justifies the offence which she gives him out of a frolick and without necessity and which she might easily avoid if she pleased So that although this woman knows that she is about to destroy a man by an action which is altogether free and which she may easily eschew she shall not be at all guilty for his death according to the Jesuits if she had not a formal design to kill him If any should
he came This man was condemned by his Confessor to make restitution He is resolved thereon He is upon the point of doing it He had already taken the money which was necessary thereto and was in his way to carry it back to him to whom it appertained A novel Casuist of the Society hindred him See the fruit of this obliging Divinity And Celot pretends that this fruit was so great and the happiness so rare for this sinner to have met this Book which hindred him from making restitution that he fears not to take it for a principal effect of his eternal Predestination saying k Casu quidem sed qui in Deo providentia in Angelo custodia in viro Praedestinationis effectus est It is true that this happened to him by accident but this accident was no other than the providence of God the protection of his Guardian Angel and the effect of the eternal Predestination of this man l Auream salutiâ— catonam jam indo ab aeterno non ex illis centum mille sed ex boc uno pendere voluit Deus Nisi soriberet hic non salvaretur ille Ibid. God would saith he that the golden chain of his salvation should be formed not of those eleven hundred links of Gold of which the Poets speak but of this single occurrent which he happened on in this Book If this Author had not written this Reader had not been saved And addressing himself to his adversary by a jollity worthy of this Divinity m Amabo te Petre Aureli tu qui dives es nullius eges ne per Christi viscera pauperibus invide librum noum quem ipsis aeterna Dei electio sanguis Christi comparavit Ibid. I pray you saith he and conjure you by the bowels of Jesus Christ being rich as you are and needing nothing envy not unto the poor a Book which was prepared for them from all eternity by the love which God had to them and which was purchased for them with the blood of Jesus Christ. He testifies that this person who went to make restitution by the order of his Confessor went to damn himself eternally if he had not been diverted by this new Casuist of the Society that this was a trace altogether extraordinary of the providence of God a particular protection of his good Angel and an effect of his Predestination that he fell upon this Casuist who recovered him into the way of heaven by withdrawing him from the obedience of his Confessor and the resolution he had taken by his advice to make restitution that he had been a lost man if the Jesuit had not written and caused his Book to be imprinted nisi scriberet hic non salvaretur ille That he had no less obligation unto God for having caused him to meet this Book than for having loved him from all eternity and for giving him his Son Jesus Christ because indeed this Book is one mark of the eternal love of God towards him and a particular gift thereof and finally that Jesus Christ had bought this Book for him at the price of his blood as a necessary means unto his salvation Quem aeterna Dei dilectio sanguis Christi comparavit These whimsies and extravagancies would seem incredible if they had not been printed and represented in the Authors own proper words and it is certain that if this discourse were reported whosoever should hear it being only sound in his wits without discovering unto him the Author he would quickly say and with just reason that this was neither the discourse of a Monk nor a Christian and that he must be under extreme ignorance or contempt of God of Religion and of the light of Christianity who could utter such language which tended only to establish libertinism and impiety Father Causin in a Book which he intituled An Apology for the Religious of the Society of Jesus having undertaken to excuse the unhappy Doctrine which F. Hereau taught in their Colledge of Clermont at Paris He did not consider saith he that there are Doctrines like unto those trees which do no hurt in one Country and spoil all when they are transplanted into another and there are Disputations which it may be would be found good in Italy and in Spain which when they come into this Realm look with clear another face as also certain Maxims that are very good in France which cannot be relished in Spain This proves very sufficiently that which we said that the Doctrine and Spirit of the Jesuits addicts it self entirely to the humours of men and depends on the difference of times and places For he disowns not the pernicious maxims of F. Hereau but only his carriage of them he blames him not for having written contrary to the opinions of the Society when he taught that we might attempt against the lives of all men generally without excepting Princes and cause Children yet unborn to dye in the wombs of their Mothers as we shall make appear in its place but only to have wanted discretion and to have offended against that rule of the Society which F. Celot relates n Quae opinienes cujuscunque Autoris sint in aliqua Provincia aut Academia Catholica graviter offendere scientur eas ibi non doceant neque defendant Ubi enim nec fidei doctrina nec morum integritas in discrimen addneitur prudens charitas exigit ut nostri se ill us accommodent cum quibus versantur Reg. Prof. Scholast sect 6. When there are opinions of any Author whatsoever that wre not well received in Wome Province or Vniversity and which offend the Spirits of the Catholicks that they be carefull not to teach them nor maintain them in those places For when the Doctrine of Faith is not in question nor the integrity of manners sage and prudent charity wills that ours comply with the humours of those amongst whom they live The same F. Causin answering to that which was objected against the Society that the sum of F. Bauny censured at Rome and many other like Books of his Fraternity teaching pernicious maxims were again after the censure of the Holy Chair imprinted with permission of their Superiors and approbation of the principal of the Society he saith That the Books of their Writers fall sometimes into the hands of some easie Fathers who out of the high fore-stalled opinion they have of the capacity of their Authors suffer their Works to pass with great facility Indeed it were not reasonable to expect that they who are so gentle and complacent towards Strangers should be less towards their Brethren For as for justice fidelity and truth towards our Neighbour or the Publick they are not accustomed to put themselves to much trouble in what concerns them and to cover their interests and lusts with the name of charity and sweetness and a complacency which is in the bottom altogether humane and interested But he gives also more power unto
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
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
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-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-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
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
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
without making use of a Perjurer this is to give great liberty or rather a great and dangerous temptation to all Agents Proctors and Sollicitors of Affairs The other Example is of a man who hath need of a Knight of the Post to reform a Contract and make it valid 8 Insuper potest deservire hoc juramentum confirmando contractui qui alià s infirmus erit Ibid. Moreover saith Sanchez this oath may be made use of to fortifie and make valid a Contract which without it would be null This is to make good penny-worths of conscience and our neighbours Souls to abandon it in this manner and to help him even to cast himself into perdition and the power of the Devil to secure a debt or to avoid the reproach or suspicion of being negligent in the conduct of an affair Escobar puts also this Question about an Oath 9 Num liceat per faisos Deos ad jurandum inducere Determinate inducere mortale crimen est petere vero juramentum ab eo qui per falsos Deos est juraurus per se malum non est Escob tr 1. exam 3. num 57. pag. 79. Whether it be lawful to induce one to swear by false gods The Answer is 10 That to engage him expresly thereto is a mortal sin but to demand an oath of him who will swear by false gods is no evil thing in it self He holds then that it is no evil in it self to take such an oath of an Infidel but it would be to demand it that it may be demanded but not expresly that we may sollicite an Infidel and engage him to swear provided we tell him not in express terms that he shall swear by his false gods though we be assured that he will not swear otherwise not acknowledging the true God Who sees not that this is to deride God and men to treat of matters of Religion and Salvation in a manner so unhandsom and gross that common sense only is sufficient to perceive the excess and baseness of it Escobar cites Filliutius upon this Point and he saith in effect the same thing with him and in the same terms 1 Petere juramentum ab co quem constat esse juraturum per falses Deos non est per se malum Filliutius tom 2. mor. qq tr 21. cap. 11. num 339. pag. 265. To demand saith he an oath of him who wâ—…are assured will swear by his false god is not a thing evil in it self This is also the Judgment of Sanchez who with his Brethren acknowledging that it is to contribute to an action of Idolatry or at the least to give occasion of it also with them that it may not be done without some reason for it But instead of what the others say generally that we ought to be engaged thereto by some necessity or utility he saith more that it cannot be so little as not be sufficient thereunto 2 Vel modica utilitas satis est ad excusandum ab hoc praecepto vitandae hujus occasionis Sanch. ut supra num 23. pag. 37. The least benefit or interest sufficeth saith he to dispense with the Precept which obliges us to avoid this occasion And it is in a manner upon this reason that he gives a solution to another difficulty which he propounds a little after 3 Secunda difficultas est quale peccatum fit exigere hoc juramentum ad Infideli parato ad jurandum per falsos Deos quando defuit necessitas aut utilitas excusans Ibid. num 22. Quam difficultatem in terminis non enodant Authores Quia generale charitatis preximl ac correctionis fraternae praeceptum obligat quemlibet sub mortâ—li ad vitandum lethale alterius peccatum quando commode absque suo damno id potest What sin is it to require an oath of an Infidel who is ready to swear by false gods without necessity or utility which might serve for excuse He answers 1. That none have declared nor explicated this Question in the terms he hath proposed it And after he acknowledges that some condemn this action of mortal sin because it is entirely against the Charity which we owe to our Neighbour which obliges us to hinder and much more not to tempt him to offend God mortally at least when we can do it conveniently and without any loss This so weighty a consideration startles him a little but it is not capable to make him to quit his opinion and yield unto the truth 4 Quamvis autem hoc probabilius esse credam quia ratio adducta fortiter urget at probabile est culpam solum venialem admitti Though I believe saith he that this opinion is more probable because the reason of these Authors which I now related is very urgent it is very probable that it is but a venial sin His reason is that since there needs so small a matter to be able without sin to prevail against the Precept forbidding us to demand an oath of an Infidel this is a sign that this Command is not so rigorous as to oblige under mortal sin though we should violate it expresly and without any particular reason 5 Quia ut vidimus n. 2. seq vel modica utilitas satis est ad excusandum ab hoc praecepto vitandae hujus occasionis at à praeceptis sub mortali obligantibus non tam levis causa excusare solet Ibid. Because saith he the least consideration of benefit sufficeth to exempt us from the Precept which obligeth to avoid this occasion and it is not ordinary for so slight an occasion to dispense with Commands which oblige under mortal sin This manner of arguing is very ordinary with the Jesuits to establish one Errour by another and to make use of one disorder which they have already introduced to make way for a second by drawing consequences from the one to the other Because they give liberty without sin to demand an oath of an Idolater when we have any small pretext for it they infer from thence that when we demand it without any reason it cannot be any great evil Thus it is that they take from themselves authority to dispense with the Commandments of God and abolish them as they please and that they make use of their own dispensations to give them liberty to violate them freely or at least without any great sin ARTICLE III. Of the Commandment of God HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER THis Commandment obligeth Children to their Fathers and Mothers in four principal things as the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes to love reverence obedience and assistance These are also the four Duties in which the Jesuits undertake to dispense with them 1. For what concerns love Dieastilius saith 1 Defiderare filium v. g. parentis mortem aut de illa gaudere ob haereditatem eldem provenientem non ita certum est esse licitum quamvis de
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