favour with God As if the commandments of God and the sin of those who violate them depended on the disposition or will of man and as if those who were offended together with God in the same action which was committed against him and against his Law by releasing their interest and remitting the fault which is committed against them could also as speedily take away and blot out that which is against God and against his Law principally when he that hath committed it doth not take the pains to ask him pardon nor to give him satisfaction If it be true as saith Bauny that children sin not mortally in taking the goods of their Fathers and Mothers why say they not also that they should not sin mortally in attempting their lives also For the reason they bring for the one proves it as well of the other His reason is that parents cannot be thought to oblige their children not to attempt upon what is theirs under this pain of mortal sin and eternal damnation and we may as well believe that they are not to be thought to desire to oblige them not to enterprize upon their lives on the same pain it being apparent that if Fathers were true Christians as they suppose them to be they would rather like to see not onely all their goods wasted by their childrens hands but their own lives lost also rather then see their children in disgrace with God or in eternal pains By this same reason by which they go about to excuse the theft of children it will follow that the wicked persecuting honest men Tyrants spilling the blood of Martyrs the Jews in putting to death Jesus Christ sinned not mortally because it is certain that neither Jesus Christ nor the Martyrs nor honest men ever had an intention that those who invaded their goods their honor or their lives should fall into displeasure with God or into eternal damnation On the contrary there is nothing that they would not do and suffer to hinder them there from as may be seen clearly in that the Saints and Martyrs prayed unto God to pardon them that persecuted them following herein the example of Jesus Christ who prayed upon the Crosse for those who put him to death and demanded of his Father that he would not impute unto them the sin of his death CHAP. V. Of the matter of Sin ARTICLE I. That the Jesuits enhanse and debase as they please the goods of this world which are the usual object or matter of sin and so nourish vice and dispense with the Law of God THe object and the matter of sin are temporal things which God having made for man that he might imploy them for his service he turns them into a stumbling block by taking occasion of offending and destroying himself thereby by suffering himself to be surprized by the pleasure which he finds therein or making use of them otherwise then God hath ordained The Jesuits are wont to judge of sin by its object and to measure its greatness by the quantity of the matter and by the value of the things which induce men to commit it I will not examine this principle the defect whereof is easie to be perceived But I am confident that there is none that will not finde it very strange that they having established this rule which ought by consequence be always inviolable amongst them they yet do not follow it themselves but do like those who have two different weights and measures setting what price they please upon temporal goods making them sometimes much and sometimes little worth according to the divers designs they have to gratifie the passions and lusts of men They debase worldly goods to excuse the sins of those who usurpe them unjustly and they enhanse their price and represent them as very considerable for to dispense with the Law of God when we cannot observe it without suffering some losse and some diminution in these very goods It is upon these principles and with this spirit that Bauny in his Summe chap. 7. pag. 80. after he had described envie as a monstrous vice which sits saith he like the Cantharides onely on the fairest flowers after he had said with Saint Cyprian that it is as it were the worm of the soul which makes its own hurt of anothers good and after he had declared universally that the envious man engaged not a little his conscience and honour since against all sorts of prudence by a Metamorphosis altogether vicious he attempts to change good into evil and good and wholesome actions into poison nevertheless he concludes in this sort this sin though Saint Augustin testifies that it is contrary unto charity nevertheless seems not to me to be mortal Although envie be so pernicious and deformed as he represents it though it be like the worm that consumes the soul and ruines the conscience like venim which corrupts good actions and turns good into ill though it be contrary unto charity as Saine Cyprian and Saint Augustin say and as he himself avows with them yet it seems not to him that it is a mortal sin and if we will believe him it ought not be put into the number of the seven mortal sins His reason is because the good which is found in temporal things is so slender and of so little consequence in respect of Heaven that it is of no consideration with God and his Saints By the same reason we may say that theft slander and even homicide it self are no mortal sins because that the goods which are withheld from our Neighbour by theft the honour we violate by slander and his very life which we cause him lose by homicide are all temporals in which the good that is found is so small and of so little consequence in respect to Heaven that it is of no consideration with God and his Saints and by consequence could not be matter of mortal sin according to the Divinity of this Father nor a sufficient subject to put man out of favour with God See here how this Author debases the price and estimation of temporal goods to excuse sin But when he hath in hand to dispense with men for their duty and the Law of God then he enhanseth their price to cause that lust may prevail with us above the Law of God on those occasions wherein to obey and keep it we must suffer some losse in these goods In the 46. Chap. of his Summe pag. 711 after he had established the conditions necessary to a penitent to be in an estate to receive absolution he proposes many questions whereof see here the first From these principles saith he it will be easie to answer the questions which follow The first those who in their commerce their traffick their discourse their resort are obliged to see to speak to treat with maidens and women whose sight and meeting makes them oftentimes fall into sin If they I say are capable in this perpetual danger of being in
Gentlewoman of good quality not to refuse a man to enter into her house with whom she hath offended God if she cannot so do it but that the world wil talk thereof a maid-servant not to depart from the house of her Master who abuseth her if he will not pay her her wages a servant not to quit the service of his Master who imployes him in his debauches if he receive or hope therefrom any good recompence These are the consequences which the Jesuits themselves draw from this principle with many other which we shall see in their Casuists Sanchez who is the principal author of this maxim after he hath established it upon divers soundations which he proposeth amongst many Conclusions which he drawes therefrom puts this same for the fifth a Quinto deducâ—…ur posse famulos sternere equum herum comitari expectare quando non custodiae causa de quo numcro sequenti dicemus quamvis norâ—nt ipsum ad fornicandum abire Sanchez op mor. l. 1. c. 7. n. 22. p. 23. It follows from this principle that a servant may saddle the horse of his Master accompany and attend him if it be not to defend him or stand centry for him of which we speak in the next following numbers although he well know that he goes to visit debauched women And to expound what he intends by that restriction quando non custodiae causa comitantur He adds in the sequel b Si enim comitantur ut rivales illius mulier is in vadant cum eis pugâ—aturi nulla ratione licet quòd sit intrinsece malum Si autem ut à rivalibus aggredientrbiu horum tueantur vel ut admoneant herum advenience aliquo qui ipsum offendere possit ut sic incolumis evadat adhuc rarissime erit licitum urgentissima necessitate concurrenti Ibid. n. 23. For if they go with their Master with a design to assault and combat his Corrivals that is not lawfull because it is an action evil of it self but if they go only to defend their Master against those who shall assail him or to give him notice of any come to offend him to the end that he may save himself without receiving any hurt it is lawfull though this very rarely and only upon great necessity It is therefore true according to Sanchez that a servant may be innocent in all these occurrences because that he pretends that all these offices he doth for his Master c Quia etsi hae actiones indifferentes sint utpote qâ—ae bono malo usui possunt deservâ—re ideo posse aliquando licitas esse affirmo Ibid. n. 23. p. 24. are things of themselves indifferent and which may be well or ill used This is his general principle and his principal reason whereby he maintains that these things are lawfull for servants only he wills that they be done rarely and upon great extremities because he avows that they are dangerous and easie to be abused the servants who are imployed on these occasions having commonly more courage than discretion and moderation So that instead of contenting themselves to defend their Master as is lawfull for them they are easily transported to assault and outrage those who would interrupt their dishonest pleasures For this cause he is wise and considers that he shall not give warranty to their excessive heat if he be content to maintain that all this is permitted because it is lawfull and indifferent in it self and it is only needfull to consider the ill use that may be made thereof and the danger that therein may occurre d Quia famuli hi manifesto se non solius defâ—nfionis sed pugnae ineundae periculo exponunt atque herus ea severitate animosior ad peccandum redditur ac majorl libidine peccat Ibid. because the servants that are imployed on these occasions expose themselves to the danger not only of barely defending their Masters but also of fighting and assayling which makes their Masters more bold and confident in their sin He draws also this Conclusion from this Principle e Sexto deducitur licere famulis cibos condire ad mensamque ministrare lectum sternere concubinae heri Ibid. n. 24. That it is lawfull for a servant to make meat ready to wait at the Table and to make the bed for his Masters Concubine And he quotes for this opinion Ledesma and Emanuel Sa whom be makes to say with some others f Fas est ornare beram meretricem Ibid. That it is no fault for one that serves a Whore to help her to dresse her self which is not found so express'd in Emanuel Sa. But the secret passion which Sanchez hath for this affair hath drawn him on to borrow the quill of another to write that which he durst not publish in his own proper name contenting himself with a reason deduced from his principle which is g Quia haec omnia sunt ex se indifferentia valde remote se habent ad peccatum Ibid. n. 24. that all these things are of themselves indifferent and have no reference to sin but from afarre off He finds that to prepare a banquet for debauched men and women to attend them at the table to make their bed are actions farr remote from sin though it follows so close thereupon and therefore they are lawfull to men and maid-fervants and that there needs no other reason to justifie them in these affairs than the service they owe to their Masters and Mistresses That is to say that for a servant to perform all these good offices to his Master without fear of sin it is enough that he be hired to serve him But for a friend or any other person that would do so much it behoves that he have some particular reason as he declares in expresse terms saying h At in non famulis aliqua justa causa desideraretur ibid. that if they are not serwants it behoves that they have some just reason for to do it which thing seems to agree very well with his principle For if these actions in themselves be indifferent as he presupposes they may as well be lawfull for a friend as a servant the quality of a friend giving no lesse liberty to serve a friend than that of a servant a Master So that Hurtado is more reasonable and acknowledging the natural consequence of this principle he gives absolutely the same liberty to a friend a son and to any other as to an houshold servant For after he had said i Famulus potest jussu heri videre quò foemina aliqua eat ubi habitet eique munuscula deferre herumque comitari ad domum concubinae sive causa honoris sive desensionis heri ei pedem sustinere ad ingrediendum per senestram domus concubinae ei picturam concubinae emere ire ad concubinam ei dicere herus meus te vecat eam ad domum heri
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
it in this life which is that I have affirmed to be amongst those points of the Jesuits Divinity which I have undertaken to discover I adde that by destroying Penance he ruines at the same time the whole Gospel which began by Preaching Penance and contains in effect no other thing since the whole life of a Christian is nothing else but a continual Penance according to the Council of Trent and all the Fathers So we see that all the places of the Scripture and of the Fathers which speak of Penance are addressed to the living and it would be very hard to find any directed to the dead and which commands or counsels them to do Penance for their sins the Scripture and the Church having always taught until this time that it is impossible because it is impossible to fast after death to weep to wear Sackcloth and Ashes and to do other like Exercise in which the Scripture it self and the Church it self have established the Penance and satisfaction which we owe unto God for our sins Emandemus in melius quae ignoranter peccavimus nè subito praeoccupati die mortis quaeramus spatium poenitentiae invenire non possimus Let us amend and correct those things in which we have ignorantly offended lest being suddenly surprized by the day of death we seek space for Penance and cannot find it saith the Church at the entrance of Lent which is the time which it proposes to all men sinners and innocent perfect and unperfect great and small to do Penance in this life and for it to be remittable to the other world is to abolish it entirely and ruine together with it the whole Gospel and all life of Christianity ARTICLE V. Rules of Conduct for a Confessor according to the Jesuits THE principal Rules of a Confessor towards a Penitent according to them are 1. To examine him if it be needful 2. To give him necessary advices 3. To sound as much as they can his inward disposition and to see if he be grieved for his sin 4. To ordain wholsome Penance for him 5. To give him Absolution if he be in an estate to receive it From all the maxims of the Jesuits Divinity which we have but now related concerning the Sacrament of Penance and all the parts of it it is easie to judge in what manner they would have a Confessor demean himself in the Administration of this Sacrament and what Rules they ought to observe for discharging every of these Duties I. POINT Rules to examine Penitents according to the Jesuits THOSE that need to be examined are 1. Children 2. Ignorant and Blockish People 3. Great Sinners 1 What is meet to be said to those who in their youth have committed many actions of a vitious nature and which nevertheless they believe not to be such That they are not obliged to speak one word of them when they understand and know their nature and conditions and much less repeat their past Confessions Bauny in his sum Chap. 4. P. 150. For Children the Jesuits would not that they should be scared nor any scruple made about the sins of their youth though they be great and they have never yet confessed them whether it be because they have forgotten them or because they knew not that they were so great as they learnt afterwards For they hold that they are not obliged to confess them even after they have received this instruction 2. 2 That if any by ignorance or simplicity have not confessed himself of his faults but only in gross without determining any one in particular it is not needful to draw out of his mouth the repetition of those faults if it cannot be done conveniently because we are pressed by Penitents which give not leisure for it Bauny in his Sum Chap. 4. pag. 150. Licèt ignorantia sit culpabilis mortaliter non est necessitas repetendi confessionem ac proinde valida est Filliutius tom 1. mor. qq tract 7. cap. 6 num 132. pag. 185. Henriq Fagund addunt rusticos omnes qui confitentur aliquando sine explicatione numeri diligentia cogendos non esse repetere confessiones factas antea cum indoctis Confessariis Dicastillus tract 8. de poenit d. 9. d. 2. num 57. Poenitens qui priorem confessionem fecit informem non tenetur repetere ...... certissimum absque controversia est ipsum consequi per posteriorem absolutionem gratiam Idem tractat 2. de bapt d. 1. d. 8. n. 203. If a Peasant or a grosly Ignorant Person knowing not how to confess himself say that he hath never accused himself but in gross without noting out any sins in particular the Jesuits will not that he should be made to repeat his Confessions and accuse himself anew by unfolding his sins by parcels especially when they have other persons to confess who give them not leisure though the ignorance which hinders them from knowing and confessing their sins be criminal and renders them guilty of mortal sin or the ignorance of the Confessor himself be the cause Likewise they teach generally that when the Penitent hath made an imperfect Confession he is not obliged to repeat it and he fails not for all that to receive the Grace of the Sacrament by vertue of the following Absolution and Confession 3. 3 Levius minus exactè interrogandus est circa singula qui plura habet peccata quam qui pauciora quia cum solum requiratur diligentia examen humanum hec autem sit illud quod non generat ex se faslidium taedium hujus Sacramenti consequens est ut minus distincta notitia requiratur ab eo qui vel propter peccatorum multitudinem vel aliam ob causam difficilius posset exactam notitiam reddere Tambur lib. 3. method confess cap. 9. sect 5. num 11. Commisi furtum mortale toties non exprimendo furti quantitatem Escobar in prooem ex 2. num 39. pag. 12. c. 15. It is not needful in Confession to tell the said circumstance of the quantity of the theft it suffices in rigour to cause the Confessor to understand that we have sinned mortally in the matter of theft by taking from another such sum as constitutes that sin Bauny in his Sum Chap. 39. pag. 616. It is not needful for the validity of the Sacrament that the Penitent in his Confession tell the number of vicious desires dishonest thoughts and affections which he hath had or reiterated during the time he hath been addicted to them Sufficit dicere toto mense v. c. amavi Mariam etiamsi possit numerus exprimi Bauny in his Sum Chap. 4. pag. 667. Si utrique parti probabiliter adhaeret non tenetur confiteri Potest enim sequi probabilem partem quam maluerit Dicast tr 8. de poenit d. 9. d. 7. num 277. Si quis probabiliter putet se jam confessum fuisse non tenetur confieri etiamsi certo sciat
or the Commandment to love God is some evil or unreasonable thing if he could not command us it since it is certain that God may command every thing that is not evil unjust and unreasonable To so many remarkable corruptions of divers passages of Scripture he adds also one to justifie the rest For amongst many objections which he propounds and makes to himself drawn for the most part out of the Scripture which in joyns us to do all things for the love of God if we expect any recompence from him for them he relates this taken out of S. Matth. cap. 10. vers 41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet and a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive therefore the reward due unto a Prophet and to a righteous man Also he that giveth a glass of cold water to the meanest Disciple of Jesus Christ shall not lose his reward provided he give it to him as a Disciple of Jesus Christ That is to say for respect unto Jesus Christ and for his love as these words do signifie sufficiently of themselves and as the Holy Fathers and Interpreters dounderstand it See here his objection which he resolves magisterially and by an interrogation as it were for instruction rather than answer I agree it saith he tr 3. pag. 71. 72. But what is it think you to treat a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God as a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God It is to honour him invite him do him good and give him entertainment whether it be to receive some instruction from him or to imitate his good example or to learn his Oracles or for other good considerations of which yet not one is so heightned as to reach the purity of the love of God He afterward makes this his opinion and answer more clear by an example and by a comparison I would gladly know of these Interpreters saith he he speaks of those who say that to receive a Disciple in the name of a Disciple is to receive him for love of Jesus Christ whether a man who is prosecuted by his Creditor and who seeing one of his Agents coming to demand payment of the debt goes to meet him invites him makes much of him that he might win him over to him and obtain some forbearance I would gladly know whether this Debtor receive this Sollicitor as coming to him on the behalf of his Creditor and whether the good entertainment he makes for him comes from a good heart and pure love which he hath for him who sent him pag. 73. Without doubt he hath reason to say that a poor man who seeth a Sollicitor or a Serjeant coming to him to demand money of him on the behalf of his Creditor goes readily out to meet him and receives him as coming on the behalf of his Creditor for otherwise he would not have regarded him at all he hath also reason to say that if he invite him use him kindly and make any entertainment for him this proceeds not from any good will but rather as from force and constraint and that he doth not this for the love of the Sollicitor nor for his sake who employed him but for love of himself and respect to his own interest to try to gain the Sollicitor and win him by his means He could not have exprest his opinion better and I should have been troubled to find a more apposite comparison and clearer words to express the excess thereof than those whereof he himself makes use He would have us say then that when Jesus Christ saith in S. Matthew c. 10. 1 Qui recipit Prophetam in nomine Prophetae mercedem Prophetae accipiet qui recipit justum in nomine justi mercedem justi accipiet quicunque potum dederit uni ex minimis istis calicem aquae frigidae tantum in nomine discipuli Amen dico vobis non perdet mercedem suam Matth. 10. v. 41. That he who receives a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receives a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive a righteous mans reward and whosoever shall give only a cup of cold water unto the least Disciple in the quality of a Disciple verily he shall not lose his reward he intends to say no other thing but that we should receive Prophets righteous men and Disciples and all those who come on his behalf in such manner as a poor man receives Serjeants Pursevants and Sollicitors who come to demand money on the behalf of his Creditors Finally he concludes his answer in these words Some for want of a right understanding have taken these words and such like from the mouth of our Lord in the Gospel in nomine meo propter me as if they could signifie no other thing in our tongue than for the love of me and to please me What an absurdity is this how can they take them in that sense in the 16. of S. Mark where it is said In nomine meo daemonia ejicient In my Name shall they cast out devils and in the 5. of S. Matthew where the words run thus Mentientes propter me Lying for my sake It is our Lord who speaks Since it is our Saviour who speaks he ought to have heard him with more respect and if he did not understand his words he should at least not have made him speak the quite contrary to what he saith But he wants yet more humility than understanding For if he had never so little submissiveness and docility we might send him to the Holy Fathers and Interpreters of Scripture to learn the sense of this passage But there were cause to fear that seeing they all take it in that manner which he condemns and hold that this which our Lord saith in nomine meo propter me signifieth that which he doth for the love of God and to please him his zeal would transport him against so many Saints and great Personages and make him exclaim What absurdity is this or as he doth elsewhere This is a meer vision For these are his common answers when he hath no better So expunging out of Gods Law all command and obligation to love him he reduces all Religion to this to serve him in keeping the other Commandments and doing good Works outwardly But Lessius will not have Christians obliged to external good works themselves nor unto those which are the principal and most recommended in the Scripture to wit the works of mercy And perceiving this strange Doctrine to be condemned by the mouth of Jesus Christ himself who in the 25. of S. Matthew brings no other reason for the sentence of life or death eternal which he will pronounce at the end of the world upon the Elect and Reprobates than the accomplishment or omission of these works he chose rather to
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