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-Self-love could not do it more clearly than by attributing Nature and its motions and the definition of self-Self-love unto Charity and self-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
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
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
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-self-love He mixes it with self-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
to the laziness and lusts of men and not to their conscience which it destroys by procuring to it a false repose which causes it to sleep securely in misery and death Finally he pretends that we are not obliged to love God in any higher degree than the Creatures Amicus saith the same thing and brings the same reason for it 3 Quod nimirum semper homo debeat esse onx us an intensiori actu amaverit Deum quà m ullam creaturam Amicus tom 4 disp 29. scot 2. num 15. pag. 388. That a man would be always in trouble to know whether he bore love towards God in a higher degree than towards any creature It seems these people have taken for their task not to teach men their duty and to carry them on to the performance of what they ought but rather to dispense with them therein when they find any trouble or difficulty to perform it Which thing they do in the greatest part of the most important Precepts of Christianity For men believing them to be too perfect and difficult for them look for nothing but to be dispensed with in their obligation unto them instead of representing unto God their inability and to pray him to give them force and grace to bear themselves therein as they ought Amicus enlarges himself yet farther on this reason For speaking of two ways of loving God above all things to wit by loving him as much as we can by his common assistance or by loving him indeed at the least more than any creature 4 Uterque modus reddit praeceprum servatum moraliter impossibile semper dubium relinquit operantem de ejus impletione Ibid. The one and the other manner saith he make the Precept of loving God morally impossible and leaves him who labours to fulfil it always in doubt whether he have accomplished it or not If it be impossible to love God as much as we can or more than any creature as this Jesuit pretends it is impossible to love him with all our heart and all our might and to love him as much as can be above all things and to love him more than any creature is but the same thing He would say then that it is impossible to keep the first Commandment of God in the manner God himself hath injoyned us to observe it Which is not only simply to destroy it but to reduce it as we may say below nothing by maintaining that it is not so much as possible since God cannot command that which is impossible as he himself cannot do it We are not to wonder if presupposing that it is impossible to love God as he hath commanded as he conclude that we are not at all obliged thereunto But he draws also from this same Principle many other Conclusions whereof he makes so many Maxims and Rules of Christian life 1. 1 Secunda sententia docec Deum diligendum esse super omnia tantum appretiativè seu praelative non autem intensivè quae ver◠est sequenda Ibid. n. 15. Talis dilectio appretistiva seu praelativa effentialiter comparativa est◠quia praesert Drum in amor◠omnibus aliis amabilibus Ibid. num 16. He saith that it is sufficient to love God appretiatively by way of Valuatien more than all other things that is to say as he expounds himself to prefer God and his love before every Creature and its love 2. 2 Quoniam possumus ralem aestimationem de Deo habere ut propter increatam suam bonitatem praeserendus sit in amore rebus omnibus creatis tamen nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendere Quod tolis dilectio esse possit etiamsi in gradu remississima sit constat ex jactis principlis Ibid. num 20. That unto this it is not only not needful to have more love for God than for the Creatures but that it is sufficient to have one single degree of love to God how small soever it may be 3. 3 4. Quod autem vi hujus praecepti ad nullam certam dilectionis intensionem teneamur constat ex dictis cum nec uspiam sit nec ex aliquo revelatoideducatur Ibid. n. 21. Unde negandum est certam intensionem in actu dilectionis esse sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio Ibid. n. 22. 1 Intensio dilectionis non est sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio 2 Sola dilectio appretiativa super omnia sufficit ad implendum praeceptum charitatis erga Deum etiamsi remississima sti num 19. Etiamsi nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendat That God commands us no more when he commands us to love him above all things 4. 3 4. Quod autem vi hujus praecepti ad nullam certam dilectionis intensionem teneamur constat ex dictis cum nec uspiam sit nec ex aliquo revelatoideducatur Ibid. n. 21. Unde negandum est certam intensionem in actu dilectionis esse sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio Ibid. n 22. 1 Intensio dilectionis non est sub praecepto sed tantum sub consilio 2 Sola dilectio appretiativa super omnia sufficit ad implendum praeceptum charitatis erga Deum etiamsi remississima sti num 19. Etiamsi nonnisi remisse in talem actum tendat That This is sufficient in effect to enable us to say that we love God above all things and that we are ready to quit and lose all things rather than offend him and therefore to accomplish the first and great Command of Divine love And that to love God more is an advice and not a command and by consequence no man is obliged thereto I undertake not to examine here these Maxims and Arguments because I have already said something of them in another place I represent them here only to discover according to the design of this Chapter that the Jesuits have taken in hand to blot out of the Gospel the principal and greatest Commandment which obligeth us to love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our might and they say on the contrary that we cannot love God so little as not to satisfie this Commandment God declares that he will be loved with all our heart that is with all the extent of our affections with all our might that is to say as much as we are able Amicus on the contrary pretends that he ought to be content that we love him as little as we please because to love him more 1 and to a certain degree is only an advice It sufficeth that we love him much under what we could if we would 2 because the least degree of love is enough for him and for to satisfie this Commandment If this Jesuit had resolved to make a Party against God and to contradict and contend with him openly he could not speak with more violence and evidence and unless he would quite abolish
pass by the opinion of Azor who alleadges eight times or eight occasions and that of Sanchez who acknowledges but one alone wherein this precept obliges he leaves the one as too large and the other as too severe and too exact e Sequor autem Henriquez tria ad hoc praeceptum tempora assignantem Primum quidem est morale principium rationis Secundum mortis articulus Tertium tempus vitae intermedium saltem singulis quinque annis Addo ex Filliutio probabile esse won quinquennis singulis rigorose obligare sed sapientum arbitrio Ibid. But I follow Henriquez who observes three times in which this precept obliges The first is when a man begins to have the use of reason the second is upon the point of death the third is all the time of a mans life between those two at the least from five years to five years But I say farther following Filliutius that it is probable that this precept doth not oblige in rigour every five years but at the discretion and judgement of wise persons If a man be obliged to love God but upon one occasion as Sanchez would have it or at the beginning of his use of reason and at death and now and then during his life as Henriquez believes or from five to five years and even less as Escobar adds or at most upon eight occasions onely which may happen during a mans whole life according to Azor all the rest of his time that is to say almost all the life of a man shall be for lust and one may employ it to love any other thing besides God that is to say to love the creatures temporal things the goods of this world without being obliged to turn away his minde and his heart from them to love God it being certain that the heart of man cannot be without some love and that that of the world and of the creatures doth occupy all that which the love of God doth not possess Amicus not daring to oppose himself absolutely to the opinion of Divines who hold that to satisfie the precept of loving God we are obliged to have actually more love for him than for the Creature expounds this opinion in such sort that he doth indeed defend it f Secunda sententia docet Deum esse diligendum super omnia tantùm appretiative seu praelative Est communis Thelogorum opinio quae vera sequenda Amic tom 4. disp 29. sect 2. n. 15. p. 388. The second opinion holds saith he that it behoves to love God above all things in preferring him above them and esteeming him more but not in loving him with more tenderness This is the common judgement of Divines which is true and which ought to be followed And for to expound this more clearly he addeth g Omnis appretiatio nascitur ex judicio comparativo unius prae alio Ex eo enim quod judico unum esse melius perfectius alio Ibid num 18. All preference comes from a judgement by which after we have compared two things we choose the one and leave the other For because I judge that the one thing is worth more than the other I preferr that which I judge to be the better He distinguishes here two acts the one is that by which we compare two things together and the other that by which we give the preference to that which we judge the better And he puts apprecicative love in the latter of these two acts which is for all that an act of judgement and of understanding as well as the former So that to love God more than all the creatures appretiatively or by preference according to him is no other thing then to Judge that God is better and more perfect then all the Creatures But this may be done by the greatest Sinner as well as by the greatest Saint this judgement being more in the head than in the heart and proceeding more from knowledge and light of minde than from affection Also it is clear that one may esteem them much whom he loves not at all and also more than those whom he loves And there is nothing more common then to esteem those for whom one has no true affection at all but an intire indifference So that this esteem and this judgement cannot be named love but improperly he he who sets not his love which is due unto God above all things otherwise then in in this judgement and in this estimation which makes him prefer him above all things as deserving to be beloved above all things doth not at the bottom attribute unto him any true love at all and holds in effect that there is no love due to him at all But if these Doctors who know to give to their own words as well as to those of others such sence as they please even that which they have not and which they cannot have naturally as we have made appear in the former Chapter I say if these Doctors that they may not seem to abolish intirely the commandment of love to God say that although they place this love that is due to God in the esteem which we ought to make of him above all the creatures they exclude not for all this from that preference all sort of affection for God and that they suppose we have always some love for him They reduce elsewhere this love whatsoever it be according to them to so base a degree that they testifie sufficiently that all their explications are rather to disguise their judgement than to expound it clearly and that not daring absolutely to deny the commandment of loving God they diminish and deface as much as they can the love which they suppose to be due unto him h Quod autem sola dilectio appreciativa Dei super omnia sufficiat ad implendum praeceptum charit tis erga Deum etsi remissima sit probatur Ibid. num 19. I will prove unto you saith Amicus that although the love of God appretiative above all things be in a very low degree It sufficeth for to accomplish the precept of love towards God This is to abolish intirely the commandment of loving God by maintaining that we are not obliged to love him as it doth command for God doth demand all our love since he demands all our heart And Amicus saith and attempts to prove that the lowest degree of love suffices to accomplish the precept of love towards God And that he might not leave any place to doubt of his thought upon this point he repeats the same thing in the following number and he speaks thereof as of a truth which follows from his principles i Quod autem talis dilectio possit esse etiamsi in gradu remississimo sit constâ—… ex principiis quoniam possumus talem aestimationem de Deo habere ut propter increatam suam bonitatem praeserendus sit in amore omnibus rebus creatis tumen non nisi remisse
and proper for this matter Amicus compriseth in one sole passage all that can be said against the Grace of Jesus Christ in not acknowledging the wounds and weaknesses which original sin hath brought on us without which this Grace is unprofitable and superfluous For comparing our Nature such as it is now corrupted with sin with the same as it would have been if God had created it without grace in its purely natural condition He speaks in these terms 1 Vires naturae sunt nunc quae fuissent tunc quia per peccatum originale quod natura lapsa supra puram naturam addit nihil virium naturalium sublatum est in homine sed tantum sublatae sunt vires supernaturales gratiae quibus natura facilius exerculsset suos actus honestos naturales quos tamen non facilius exercuisset tuno fine peccato originali quà m illos exerceat nunc cum codem peccato originali quia peccatum originale nec diminuit vires naturales ut dictum est cùm illae integrae manserint etiam post peccatum nec ponat in natura positivam aliquam inclinationem ad malum quam homo non habuisset in pura natura Amicus tom 6. disp 5. sect 6. n. 253. p. 33. The powers of Nature are now the same that they would have been then because that original sin which is now in fallen Nature and had not been in pure and simple Nature hath not at all diminished the natural powers of man but hath only taken from them the supernatural powers of grace by means whereof nature might more easily have exercised those honest actions which would have been natural unto them though in that estate where he supposeth that it had been pure that is to say without grace and without sin it had not had greater facility to exercise these same natural actions which it hath at present with original sin because original sin hath not diminished the powers of Nature as hath been said already but they remain sound and entire from sin and it hath not introduced into Nature any inclination unto ill which man should not have had in the estate of pure Nature It is clear that if nature be not hurt by sin as this Jesuit saith it hath no need of the Grace of Jesus Christ since as Jesus Christ himself saith they that are not sick have no need of the Physitian nor of his Grace and the prayers of the Saints and of the whole Church which demand of God incessantly by Jesus Christ to deliver them from their evils and infirmities would be false and unprofitable and so they should be no more prayers but crys and mockeries and and deridings of God Amicus doth not absolutely deny that we have inclinations unto evil and in this he testifies himself to be a man but in denying that this inclination comes from original sin he neither speaks as a Monk nor a Christian If it come not from original sin but from the foundation of nature as he pretends in as much as he saith that it had been in the estate of nature if it had been created without sin Peccatum originale non posuit in natura aliquam positivam inclinationem ad malum quam homo non habuisset in pura natura it must come from God who is the Author of Nature and by consequence God should be the Author of evil and of sin and this inclination unto evil should have been in Jesus Christ because he took our nature with all its natural properties for whatsoever is not contrary to God as Creator neither is it contrary to him as Redeemer and nothing of that which comes immediately from the hand of God alone is unworthy of Jesus Christ So this Jesuit destroys with one dash of his Pen Original sin the Incarnation and Grace of Jesus Christ But he doth it no less openly when he saith a little before that 1 Potuisset homo in pura natura conditus condignè pro suis venialibus satis facere Amicus ibid. n. 249. p. 52. man created in the estate of pure nature that is to say simply without sin had been able to satisfie simply and in rigour of Justice for venial sins by one act of natural love 1 Et quidem perfectius quam nunc and that he had done it more perfectly then now To make his comparison hold he must presuppose that a man may at present satisfie fully and in rigour of justice for venial sins without grace as he saith he might have done in the estate of pure nature in which he had had no grace or else he ought to pretend that in this estate of pure nature a man might have been able to satisfie God more perfectly without the help of grace then he can at present with grace which is not only false and erroneous but also extravagant He dishonours it also when he saith that 2 Potuisset Deus conferre gratiam gloriam hominibus dependenter ab actionibus honestis virtutum naturalium qui nullam ex se connexionem habent cum gratia gloria ordinis supernaturalis Amicus de Incar disp 13. n. 16. p. 201. God might give grace and glory unto men because of the honest actions of natural vertues though they had not of themselves any relation to grace or glory which are of a supernatural order That is to say that God could save men by actions purely natural and so that man could deliver himself from sin and misery without having need of Jesus Christ and that by consequence his labours and death were superfluous and exacted from him without any necessity And as S. Paul saith that if Justification might have been by the Law Jesus Christ had dyed in vain we may also say that if man might be justified and made happy without Jesus Christ and have grace and glory by his own powers and by natural actions and vertues Jesus Christ hath dyed in vain He declares yet more openly his thoughts upon this Point in the Treatise which he made of Merit where speaking of the Pagans morally honest actions he maintains that they were pleasing unto God and true dispositions unto saith 1 Nam est difficultas de hujusmodi operibus factis à gentili sine ulla fide tamactuali quam habituali nihilominus juxta ea quae supra diximus dicendum est ejusmodi opera à gentili facta placere Deo tanquam dispositiones remotas ad fidem Amicus tom 3. disp 35. sect 4. n. 107. The difficulty is greater saith he when these actions are done by a Pagan who hath neither actual nor habitual faith yet we must answer according to what I have said already that these actions done by a Gentile are pleasing unto God in that they are remote dispositions unto faith He is not content to say that these natural actions of Heathens are remote dispositions unto faith but he affirms that they may also be the next dispositions unto
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
statim confiteri Respondetur negative Ita Lugo num 150. est communis sententia quia Concllium solum loquitur de co qui ob urgentem necessitatem sine consessione celebrat Dicastill tract 4. de Euch. d. 9. d. 9. num 155. That it obligeth only Priests who have said Mass in some great and urgent necessity If then he say Mass being in mortal sin without necessity he shall not be obliged yea though he also did it maliciously he should not be obliged ex mera malitia And they find so little irreverence and so little evil in administring the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice in this manner that they even permit the Faithful to exact of them these Functions without any necessity although they also know that they are in an estate of sin 1 Licet cuicunque petere recipere Sacramentum Sicerdote existente in mortali etiam non Paroche nec parato allas ipsum conserre si perenti ea receprio futura sit commodior vel utillor quam si ab alio peteretur Idem tract 1. de Sacram. d. 3. d. 13. num 296. It is lawful for every one saith Dicastillus to demand and receive the Sacraments of a Priest who is in the estate of mortal sin though he be not his Parish-Priest nor be designed for it nor so much as disposed to administer them unto him if he find it more for his convenience and benefit than to demand it of others It is as casie a matter to receive the Sacraments as to administer them there is no more preparation for the one than for the other And if these Maxims were well grounded we might complain of the rigour and severity of the Jesuits seeing the Sacraments are not yet so frequented as they ought to be since in what estate soever we receive or give them there is so much to gain and nothing to lose THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND BOOK Of the Outward Remedies of SIN That the Divinity of the Jesuits abolishes or corrupts them THE Physitian labours for his Patient when he prescribes what he ought to do as well as when he presents unto him what he ought to take for his Cure Whence it comes that they say commonly that he hath given him a good Remedy when he hath given him good advice how to remove the Disease whereof he is sick So that not only the things which he prescribes but the prescriptions themselves are remedies but with this difference that what he prescribes as Purges and Medicines are the inward remedies because they act upon the disease it self and have an internal vertue proper to destroy it when they are taken effectually but the prescriptions are as it were external remedies because they act not immediately upon the disease but only upon the mind of the discased by the knowledge they give him of his disease and of what he ought to do for his cure We must say the same thing holding the Rules of Proportion of our Souls diseases and remedies We have already observed that Grace Penance good Works and the Sacraments are the internal remedies of sin because they have a divine and internal vertue which the Spirit of God hath impressed upon them to expel sin from the Soul or to prevent its entrance thereinto And we say here that the holy Scripture the Commandments of God and those of the Church are the external remedies of the same sin because though they act not immediately upon sin they act upon the mind of the sinner and if they change not his will internally they touch his mind and conscience externally by the knowledge they give him of sin and by the fear which they impress upon him of the punishments with which God hath threatned those who commit them We have seen in the former Part of this second Book that the Jesuits destroy the internal remedies of sin we shall see here in this how they abolish or corrupt the external and so it will appear that they favour and cherish sin as much as they can This second Part shall have three Chapters The first shall be of the Corruption of Scripture The second of the Commandments of God And the third of the Commandments of the Church CHAPTER I. Of the Corruption of Scripture That the Jesuits corrupt the Scriptures divers ways THere are only three things to be considered in the holy Scripture the Letter the Sense and the Authority And accordingly we may distinguish three different manners of corrupting holy Scripture 1. In the Letter by adding taking away or changing something in the sacred Text. 2. In the Sense by false Expositions 3. In the Authority by debasing the Author and diminishing the belief that is due unto him Now let us see in what manner the Jesuits have corrupted and yet do every day corrupt the holy Scripture We might compose great Volumes of Passages which they have altered by false Interpretations yea may be of all places wherein Canonical Writers and Jesus Christ himself have spoken with any vehemence and vigour concerning the Holiness of our Mysteries the Duties of a Christian and the narrow way to Salvation we should be troubled to find one whereunto they have not given some blow haling them from their natural sense by Expositions false and contrary to the general Consent of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church that they might accommodate them to the relish and lusts of worldly men I will relate only some few to serve for Example S. Paul saith writing to the Corinthians 1 Si habutro omnem fidem Ita ut montes transferam charitatem autem non habuero nihil sum Et si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardesm charitatem autem non habuero nihil mihi prodest 1 Cor. cap. 15. Though I had faith to remove mountains and had not charity I were nothing And though I should distribute all my goods to the relief of the poor and though I should give my body to be burnt if I had not charity it would avail me nothing But Father Celot being resolved to maintain the contrary saying that we may suffer Martyrdom profitably and do those other works whereof the Apostle speaks like a Christian without any motion from Charity to defend himself from this passage so strong and so manifest he corrupts and subverts it in this manner He saith that this must be extended to the habit and not to the act and motion of Charity meaning that the actions of which S. Paul speaks may be meritorious holy and perfect though they be done without love to God and though we never think of him provided we be in an estate of Grace So that he maintains that a man who is in the estate of Grace cannot act otherwise than by this Charity whereof the Apostle speaks See his words 2 Eo loco habitum charitatis postulari ab Apostolo aio ego 3
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