it unnecessary to love God either living or dying For though they pretend that there is a time some or other when the Precept for it is obliging and make a shew as if then unavoidably he that will be saved must have an act of love for God in his heart yet when ever that time comes in life or death to which their several fancies have determined it they discover to them many ways whereby the Precept may be satisfied without any act of love that it requires and those which have a mind to be deceived with hopes of Heaven without ever loving God while they live may have their choice which way they will be deluded for they present them with variety First a natural love will serve the turn such as a graceless man may have k Non est impossibile hoc praeceptum observare quod est de actu charitatis quia homo potest se dispanere ad charitatem habendam quando habuerit eam potest ea uti 1. 2. q. 100. art 10. Corp. For Aquinas determines after others that he that hath no love to God may observe the Precept of loving him actually by disposing himself to receive this grace and whereas some think that this great Precept of loving God since Adams sin cannot be fulfilled but in the state of grace l Contra quod tamen facit quod homo sola virtute naturali etiam existens in peccato mortali potest concipere imo concipit partim Deum esse super omnia diligibilem finem omnium ultimum consequenter eum ut talem diligere potest Deinde quod datur dilectio Dei super omnia sine gratia ut probat Cajetanus Praeterea quod ipsemet S. Thomas affirmat posse quem sine gratia implere praeceptum diligendi Deum quoad substantiam actus licet non quoad meritum beatitudinis cap. 11. n. 7. V. Soto de just jur l. 2. q. 3. art 10. p. 44. Col. 2. Navar asserts the contrary both upon Reason and authority because a man by his natural power remaining also in mortal sin may and doth conceive God to be amiable above all and the last end of all and consequently can love him as such as also because there may be a love for God above all without grace as Cajetane proves moreover because St. Thomas affirmes that one may without grace fulfil the command of Loving God as to the substance of the act though not as to the meriting of blessedness Elsewhere he affirms (m) Universa ista 10. praecepta alia omnia possunt impleri ab illo qui est in peccato mortali quoad substantiam actus praecepti effectum evitandi novum peccatum quod incurreret si non adimpleret illud juxta definitionem Aquinatis communiter recepti quod Conc. Trindentinum sensit c. ibid. n. 17. that all the Ten Commandements and all other Precepts may be fulfilled by him who is in mortal sin as to the substance of the act so as to avoid all sin that would be incurred if they were not fulfilled and this according to the judgment of Aquinas commonly (*) Deum ab homine posse diligi super omnia viâ—ibus propriis sine auxiâ—io gratiae dicunt Scotus Cajetan Nominales Petr. Alliaco Ocham Almain Major Durandus apud Vasq in 1. 2. disp 194. cap. 1. followed and the sense of the Council of Trent They assign we see two ways whereby the divine Precept may be fulfilled One as to the substance of the act so as sin is avoided and the other as to the end of the Law-giver so as to deserve Heaven And they teach that any Precept may be accomplished the former way by such as are destitute of grace Now to observe the Command of loving God so far as not to sin against it is all that is required if Bellarmins arguing be good (n) Si non pecco ex sententia S. Thomae si amem Deum nisi uno gradu amoris câ—…e non teneor in rigore amplius amare ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amoplâ—… quam teneor De Monach. l. 2. c. 13. p. 1162. If I sin not fiath he when I love God without degree of Love in the judgment of St. Thomas certainly I am not bound in strictness to love him more therefore if I add another degree I love him more than I am bound to do So that an unsanctified man loving God in such a degree as not to sin against the Precept of love hath all the affection for God that it requires and none will be obliged to any love but such as is natural and may be found in a graceless heart Secondly an inferiour degree of love will satisfie the Command such as is far short of what it enjoyns (o) Non est trausgressor praecepti qui non attingit ad medios perfectionis gradus durmodo attingat ad infimum 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. ad secundum He is no transgressour saith the Oracle of their Schools who attains not the intermediate degrees toward perfection if he reach but the very lowest of all To (p) Sufficit autem quilibet charitatis gradus ut quis servet verbum i. e. praecepta Domini De Purgat l. 2. c. 3. p. 1381. keep the divine Precepts saith Bellarmine any degree of love whatsoever is sufficient (q) Quemlibet actum charitatis quantumlibet remissum sufficere ad implendum omniâ— praecepta neque ullam determinatam intensionem requiri ut aliquis in hac vita adiâ—pleat praeceptum dilectionis Dei in 2. 2. q. 44. art 5. Dilectionis mandatum in quolibet gradu intentionis impleatur for this Jo. San. alledges Aquinas and near 20. more of their Divines besides Jesuites Disp 1. n. 21. Any act of Love saith Bannes how remiss soever is sufficient to fulfil all the Commands of God neither is there any certain intenseness requisite that one in this life may accomplish the Precept of Love to God The Lord requires that we love him with all our hearts i. e. with all the affection our hearts can contain they say that any the smallest degree will suffice He injoyns us to love him with all our might i. e. as much as we can They say it is enough to love him â—… little as we can we need not love him as much as we might if we would no more is commanded but as little as is possible The lowest degree of all will serve and if we advance but another step we supererogate and God is beholding to us for more than is due Their gross mistake about the perfection of obedience in this life intangles them in a necessity to maintain this and other impious absurdities For if every just person perfectly observes the Law the least degree must be sufficient for such an observance and when this command declared with such circumstance of loving God with all our hearts mind and strength doth
consequendi praescribit pars 4. relect de paenit p. 871. for if the end of the precept be love saith Canus we are not forthwith bound to observe all the commands out of love The reason is premised for in the opinion of Aquinas and the most grave Authours we are not bound to observe the end or intention of the Law-giver i. e. of Christ but the means which the Law prescribes in order to it Soto discourseth this at large and concludes (l) Actus charitatis consideratur ut est universalis conditio modus omnium virtutum Modus talis cha itatis non cadit sub praecepto quod est dicere in hoc praecepto Honora patrem matrem non includitur ut sint parentes ex Dei charitate honorandi sed quod exhibeatur eis exterior reverentia De just jur l. 2. q. 3. art 10. p. 44. Love being considered as the universal condition and mode of acting all vertues and performing all obedience such a mode of acting out of love is not commanded as when we are enjoyned to honour Parents the precept binds us not to honour them out of love to God This he delivers as the Doctrine of Aquinas and finds but (m) Dionysius Cisterciensis one Doctor amongst them of opinion that we are bound to do all out of love to God but (n) Haec autem opinio non solum falsa verum errori quam proxima est Trid. Synodo Can. 7. adversus Lutheranos damnata nempe cuncta opera quae extra Dei gratiam fiunt esse peccata ibid. condemns this as false and very near the Lutheran error condemned by the Council of Trent because then all acts done without grace would be sins So we must believe if we will not venture to fall under the condemnation of their Council that it is no sin not to obey God out of love to him that all acts of vertue and obedience whatsoever may be performed without sin though they be done without love to God that any man Baptized may be saved though he never act out of love to God no not so much as once while he lives though he perform not one act of a true Christian while he is on earth He can never perish for want of love to God in any or all the acts of his life for he will never be damned but for sin and to act without love to God is no sin Thus their chief Doctors determine and this they must all do in conformity to the decrees of their infallible Council and be deluded infallibly in a matter of no less consequence than the way to Heaven believing that they may arrive there without acts of love filial obedience or ingenuous observance of God in any thing that he hath commanded without ever acting as and so without being at all true Christians Sect. 3. But though they do not transgress other commands when they observe them without Love yet they may violate that special command which requires inward acts of Love if at that time when this obligeth they do not act out of Love Some of them seem to say this and we shall see what they make of it in the next place The nature and proper issue of Love is its internal act when the heart being possessed with a principle of divine Love to God in Christ actually loves him above all If this actual Love the inward act of it be not necessary as there will be no need of the habit that being but in order to acts so there will be no place for the Imperate Acts for those who would have us sometimes observe other commands out of Love yet never think this requisite but when the precept obligeth us to actual Love (o) Neque hoc praeceptum universum obligat ad suum ipsius modum sed quando occurrit articulus interne diligendi Soto ibid. Tenemur secundum Bonaventur pro loco tempore quum viz. tenemur exire in actum charitatis Angeli sum v. voluntas n. 6. hoc si habemus Charitatem Si autem non habemus non tenemur ad hoc sed ad aequivalens quoniam tenemur facere quod in nobis est ut eam habeamus ibid. Now whether there be any command for this act of Love or whether it oblige or when they are not agreed only in the issue they conspire to make the Commandement of no effect Some of them determine that the command to Love God with all our mind is not obliging which is all one as if they should say there is no command for it at all thus Stapleton one of the greatest Divines amongst them in his time (p) Hoc praeceptum diligendi Deum ex tota mente doctrinale est non obligatorium De Justific l. 6. t. 10. The precept of loving God with all our mind is dectrinal and not binding To the same effect others conclude there is no special precept of Love to God So Joh. Samcius (q) Disp 1. n 21. There is no special command in the Law of God for this but general says he By which he would have us understand that there is no Precept in particular for loving God none besides those Commands that require other things which if they be done we are discharged from any act of Love or inward Affection to him Aquinas is vouched for this and much alledged out of him (r) 2. 2. q 44. art 1. ad 3. art 4. ad 2. art 6. ad 2. 484. art 3. ad 2. to shew he was of this perswasion If there be any special Precept for this affection to God it is that which requires us to Love him with all the heart and soul and strength But this as Cardinal Cajetan (s) Comment in Deut. 16. in Catherin adv Cajet p. 268. declares does not oblige to the love of Charity And Bannez (t) Sanctus ibid. teaches that for natural Love there is no special command and so amongst them they leave no such command for any sort of Love to God at all The command to God with all our hearts Maldonat (u) Respondâ—o illud non speciale sed generale praeceptum esse in Luc. 17. 10. Dr. Smith against Pet. Martyr so understands it And Sancta Clara quoting him approves it as being agreeable to the Sentiment of his great Master Scotus Probl. 12. p. 68. will have to be a general no special Precept Others of them confess there is a special command obliging us to Love God actually but they put such a construction upon it that it signifies little or nothing more than if there were no such thing They say it is requisite that we should Love God one time or other but what time this is needful you will never learn of them what period one fixeth another unfixeth and while they find no certain time for it in the end they leave no place for it They all agree in this that we are
not bound to Love God always actually for say they the Precept for it is affirmative and such Precepts bind not at all times But since we are not obliged to Love God at all times at what determined time is this required of us Are we to Love him after we are fallen into sin is that the Article of Necessity No Canus (x) Pars. 4. relect de paenit p. 863. supposeth that this will be generally denyed that a man is obliged to Love God soon after he hath sinned Are we to Love Him when he vouchsafes some special favour when he discovers his infinite goodness and amiableness and makes the most lovely representations of himself to us one would think then if any time at all we should be obliged to Love him actually No saith the same Bishop (y) Nec peccat mortaliter qui non diligit Deum quantumcunque divina bonitas proponatur omne dilectione dignissima nisi necessitatis articulus intercedat idem de praecepto fidei spei videre licet Melch. Canus ibid. and he no Jesuite or late Casuist he sins not mortally i. e. he transgresseth no Command of God who loves him not how much so ever he discovers his divine goodness and most inamoring loveliness unless it be when it is necessary to love him And when shall we ever meet with the time when it is necessary if not in such circumstances as these if it be not needful to Love him either when we disoblige him or when he most obligeth us to acts of Love if neither when he is angry with us nor when he is well pleased when will when can it ever be needful (y) Idem affirmat unumquemque quoties insigne aliquod beneficium a Deo consequitur tenâ—ri ad illud explendum quod tamen nulla lege neque ratione efficaci evinci posse videtur ita non est asserendum Navar. c. 11. n. 7. Let us see if any others amongst them can nick this Article of time when this Love will be necessary Are we bound to put forth an act of Love on Holy-dayes so Scotus thought The time saith he for observing this Command is on Holy-days then we are to recollect our selves and ascend in mind unto God He would have had this Love to be a Holy-day habit at least if not fit for every days wearing But this is too much say others nor do they find any reason why this imagination should come in the subtle Doctors head Canus saith (s) Libere possum sine omni dubitatione negare ibid. p. 871. Dura videtur Scoti sententia a quo recedit Adrianus nempe nos omnibus festivis diebus teneri ad illud quia nulâ—us est textus nec ulla ratio quae id necessario concludat ita non videtur asserendum Nav. c. 11. n. 7. Sententia negans necessitatem hujus actus in die festo vera communis est sumitur ex D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 122. act 4. quatenus ait per praeceptum de observatione sabbati non fuisse mandatum cultum initâ—…uâ— per orationem vel devotionem internam nam eadem est ratio de amore ut Cajetan Navar. Soto caeteri communiter Suar. l. 2. de fest c. 16. n. 13. Aquinas 2. 2 q. 122. art 4. Bellarm. de cult Storum lib. 3. c. 10. p. 1609. Graff l. 2. c. 33. n. 8. Covarruvias l. 4. varia resol c. 19. n. 6. Soto de iust jure l. 2. q. 4. art 4. without all doubt it is to be rejected and so they do Scotus herein is borne down by the full torrent of their Doctors I find none now that will have us obliged to Love God so often But since they think it too much to Love God every Holy-day are we bound to Love him upon his own day No not once a week neither (t) Quamvis finis Ecclesiae obligantis nos interesse sacris fuerit ut superna animo meditantes immortali Deo tum ob infinitam suam divinitatem laudes dicamus tum de sua in nos beneficentia habeamus gratias tamen finis praecepti non cadit sub praecepto Nat. gr l. 1. c. 22. p. 57. For though the Church oblige them to be present at his Worship to mind things above to praise his infinite Divinity and to give thanks for his bounty towards them yet in all this they are not bound to any act of Love and Soto gives this reason for it The end of the Commandement which is Love is not commanded The assertion is hardly so absurd as the reason given for it that the end which is the principal in moral actions should not be commanded This is to say that the Law do's not require to be fulfilled for Love which is the end of the Commandement is by the Apostle expresly said to be the fulfilling of the Law But notwithstanding all this in this Maxim which is one of their chief Engines whereby they demolish Christianity in the practice of those who profess it make voyd the Commandements of God depriving them of their life and spirit and leave nothing of the whole body of Religion but the meer superficies (u) Theologi consentienter agnoscunt cum S. Thoma ibid. c. 22. p. 54. Their Divines he tells us unanimously agree with Aquinas So that it seems the worship of God may be sufficiently discharged without any love to him We may serve him well enough as far as the Command for his Service will have us without any affection In all acts of worship there needs not any act of Love by their doctrine in any part or any of the times of worship either their own Holy-days or the Lords They have no more respect to his than theirs nor for him in either but serve them and him all alike and think they hallow them and honour him enough without any motion of love in their hearts when if ever it were needful in their account it should be most in motion Certainly those that think not this Love due to God in his worship think it not due to him at all But if it be more than needs to love God (*) Vid. Suarez Tom. 3. disp 63. Sect. 3. p. 801. in 3. Thomae once a week are they obliged at least to love him once a year if not at ordinary times yet upon extraordinary or special occasions such as more particularly seem to call for some act of Love When they are to partake of some Sacrament when they come to the Eucharist or to the Sacrament of Pennance as they are to do once yearly by their Church orders No it is not then necessary neither (a) Eadem ratione teneremur implere hoc mandatum quotiescunque aliquod Sacramentum recipimus quod falsum est satis enim est ut non simus in mortali peccato aut probabiliter id credamus quamvis hujusmodi adeo excelsum amorem actualem animo non concipiamus Navar. c. 11.
especially puzzle them they are concerned either to deny its obligation as some of them do or to interpret it so as to make it signifie that which is next to nothing as others All of them are obliged to deface it one way or other that it may not appear to confound them But to go on If we are not bound to love God save in the lowest degree yet that degree sure should exceed our affection to all other things No not so neither for they tell us commonly We are not obliged to love God more intensely than other things So Cardinal Tolet (r) Quantum ad intentionem vero non tenemur sub praecepto illum plus diligere imo aliquando ferventius amamus res sensibiles creaturas Instr l. 4. c. 9. p. 614. Yea saith he sometimes we more fervently love things sensible and the Creatures (s) Cap. 11. n. 6. cap. 1. n. 4. p. 57. Gabriel Major Jo. Medina Domin Sotus Navar. Sylvester Paludanus in Vasquez in 1. 2. tom 1. disp 194. cap. 3. n. 13. Navarre after Aquinas and their Divines ancient and modern concur herein It s true they say God should be loved appreciatively as to valuaation and in esteem above all but then by All they understand not simply all things but the worst things of all In those the worst of evils he is to have the preheminence but the Creatures are not such evils and they may be preferred before God in most cases By their doctrine we may preser the judgement of others or our own before the advice of God in all matters of meere Counsel and to this they have reduced the greatest part of Christian duties and we may follow our own wills or the will of others rather than Gods continually and make this the constant practice of our lives in all those innumerable evils which they count venial And so in the most instances by far we may love and esteem our selves and others more than God and yet love him enough and not transgress the Precept We need not love him more than all Creatures we may love any Creature more than him even in way of valuation only he is to have this honour and this will be enough to love him more than deadly crimes such as declare open hostility against God this is all the import of that great precept which concerns us in this life as it is expressed after Aquinas by (t) Nihil divinae amicitiae contrarium admittat juxta Evangelicam vocem ex toto cordâ— c. contrarium inquam quoniam venialia non obstant dilectioni Dei super omnia De nar grat l. 1. c. 22. p. 56. Ex toto corde idem sit quod nihil charitati adversum mentis assensu concipere idem de just jur l. 7. q. 5. art 1. p. 244. Ut transgressionis delictum quis evitet satis est ut nihil contrarium charitati ejusqâ—e praeceptis committat idem ibid. p. 242. Non tamen peccamus dummodo nihil divinae dilectioni contrarium agamus Sylvest v. Charitas n 3. Vid. Bonaventur 3. dist 27. n. 58. Graff l. 1. c. 3. n. 9. Sta. Clar. Probl. 12. p. 67. Soto and others Yea to admit mortal sin and so to love the Creature more than God in that respect in which alone they say he is more to be loved is not against this Precept So Navar informs us (u) Admonemus item indirecte diligere câ—eaturam amplius quam Deum non esse contra hâ—… praeceptum quoniam quicunque peccat mortaliter indirecte plus diligi aliud quem Deumattamen hujusmodi delinquens non ideo peccat contra istud praecepâ—um quoniam directe non facit contra ipsum neque aliquid operatur quod secundum se suam naturam separet a Deo sed secundum accidens juxra S. Thom. Scotum Cap. 11. n. 19. Indirectly saith he to love the Creature more than God is not against this Command of Love because whoever sins mortally indirectly loves something more than God yet such a Delinquent doth not therefore sin against the Precept because directly he doth nothing against it nor acts what in it self and in its own nature separates from God but by accident according to Aquinas and Scotus So that to love the Creature more than God and to shew it in a way which themselves say is most repugnant to the love of God is no transgression of this Command To say he doth nothing against it directly is no salvo when that he doth is all which they count if they count any thing inconsistent with the Love commanded He tells us further (*) Licet diligere Deum comparative minus quam illum vel aeque ac illum sit maluâ— diligere tamen eum absolute aeque vel minus absque ulla comparatione non est maluâ— c. 11. n. 10. n. 18. cap. 1. 8. Ut facile colligat quis ex dicto Conc. Trident. Lopez Cap. 40. p. 217. and Lopez after him That absolutely to love God but so much or not so much as other things without making any comparison is not evil So that if God have some affection from us though we love him less than other things it is no sin no transgression of the Precept and if this be not transgressed in the instant when it calls for performance it is fulfilled Thirdly it will suffice if nothing be done against Love as we heard before out of Aquinas So that when the Precept of love obligeth if we then do nothing contrary to that love we may be excused from the act it self or from acting any thing out of Love For that which they count contrary to it may be avoided out of fear or other considerations forrain to Love and so the Command may be satisfied at the instant when if ever it requires actual Love without any act either of love or from it Fourthly External acts may satisfie The precept of Love saith Soto (a) Praeceptum dilectionis non praecise ad internum affectum obligat sed certe ad externum opus De just jur l. 2. q. 3. art 10. p. 44. Col. 2. Cum vero dicitur diliges non tam exigitur dilectio affectus quam charitas operis Molanus Theol. pract Tract 3. c. 16. n. 5. doth not oblige precisely to inward affection but certainly to some outward act so elsewhere he explains this loving God above all by doing his (b) Diligere Deum super omnia est omnia in ipsum referre puta omnia praecepta ejus facere De nat grat l. 1. c. 22. p. 57. Commandements to the same purpose (c) In Luc. 17. 10. p. 305. d Vid. S. Clara. Probl. 12. p. 68. So Bannes concludes that the Praecept for Love is fulfilled by receiving the Eucharist once a year Absque scrupulo credi potest quod qui digne sumit Eucharistiam semel in anno adimplet simul speciale praeceptum charitatis in 22. q.
precept But are we bound to love our Brother when there is necessity No not when he is in such necessity as is extream and consequently never for though it be requisite that we help him in that condition yet we sin not if we do not help him out of Christian love it is enough to avoid sin if we relieve him out of natural affection Thus Navarre (b) Putamus non peccaturum eum qui hunc amorem charitativum non conciperet ergâ— eum qui eam pateretur extremam necessitatem vitae corporeae si modo alio amore naturaâ— inferiore diâ—ino ei opitularetur Navar. cap. 14. n. 9. Lopez cap. 53. p. 274. And this holds not only in the external necessities of others but also in those that are spiritual only he saith that it very rarely falls out that one can relieve spiritual necessities without this Christian love but he tells us also (c) Cap. 24. n. 9. Raro tamen ejusmodi necessitatem patitur Christianus quum pâ— contritionem absque alia ope salvari possit That a Christian is rarely in such necessity So that though it cannot be done without Christian love but very seldome that will not make such love a duty at any time because the external act needs not be done but seldome Yea if the external act also whereby we should relieve the Soul of our Brother be neglected it 's with them no great matter For as Cajetane determines (d) Pusillanimitas quando retrahit ex alijs utilibus proximo praecipue saluti animâ—rum licet veniale sit grave tamen est Sum. v. pusillan p. 485. That weakness of mind which witholds us from those things which are profitable to our Neighbour especially for the Salvation of Souls though it be grievous it is but a venial fault In short what ever be the circumstances of our Brother yet we may be excused from loving him indeed if we do but think we do it For Navarre (*) Lopez cap. 53. p. 275. Satisfacit praecepto de diligendo proximum qui extâ—… statum gratiae putans se verisimiliter in eo statu gratiae esse and others tell us that he who honestly thinks himself to be in the state of grace when he is not may satisfie this command for Christian love by some other kind of affection so that it is enough to think that we have this love when we have it not and this is confirmed by a Reason (e) Videtur nobis non peccare neve il'um qui bona side credens se esse in statu gratiae cum tamen non sit adimplet praeceptum de diligendo Deum ex charitate quando ad id est obligatus ita a fortiori satisfacere videtur praecepto de diligendo proximo ex charitate qui extra statum gratiae illud implet putans verisimiliter se in co esse Navar. ibid. a fortiori because it is so in our obligation to love God Thus one dangerous errour is grounded upon another and by such arts we are discharged from all Christian affection to God or Men. But we need not stay longer here All necessity of this love they quite take away by making it needless to love God the connexion between these being indissoluble by their own account (f) Amor supernaturalis divinus seu charitativus vel charitas infusa qua proximum amamus est ejusdem generis naturae cujus est amor Dei charitativus seu charitas secundum S. Thom. Nam licet objectum materiale amoris charitativi proximi sit idem proximus objectum tamen formale sive ratio vel causa amoris est ipsa divina infinita bonitas quae nihil aliud est quam ipse Deus ut idem S. Thom. explicatus ibi a Cajetano Idem ibid. n. 6. Charitas est dilectio qua diligitur Deus propter se proximus propter Deum vel in Deo Pet. Lombard dist 27. Dilectio proximi nihil aliud est quam quidam Dei amor Soto de Just l. 7. q. 5. a. 1. p. 242. vid. Suar. tom 3. disp 81. Sect. 8. p. 1078. If any will not rely upon consequences Cajetan tells them (1) Catherin annot adv Cajet p. 268. that the command to love our Neighbour as our self obliges not to a love of charity i. e. to that special love which was alwayes thought till the Roman Doctors taught otherwise to be the great duty required of all Christians by the Gospel By the Doctrine of Aquinas (2) 2. 2. q. 15. a 8. Quodl 4. art 24. ad 1. The precept requires no special act of love to our Brethren no formal or (3) Suar. de Charitate disp 5. Sect. 4. n. 4. Jo. Sanc. disp 1. n. 21. internal act at all nor any exterior that will signifie more than the want of hatred This is the common Doctrine amongst his devoutest followers the Dominicans (4) Vid. Acacium de Velasco in Guinen p. 139. Others express it thus (5) Vid Vasquez in 3. tom 3. q. 90. art 1. dub 40. dilectionis proximi ex cbaritate cujus praecepti affirmativi ego nullum tempus video Satis est nihil contra ipsum facere vid. Jo. Sanc. disp 1. n. 21. There is no affirmative precept for love to our Neighbour no time for it it is enough that we do nothing against him Thus so great a part of the whole sum of the Law and the Prophets and all the rules of the Gospel leading us to Brotherly love and the special expressions of it are snapt off short and we reach all that they oblige us to do by doing nothing we love them well enough though we neither will nor do them good if only we do them no mischief or do no more for them than may be done without inward affection or any Christian Charity Sect. 6. It would be tedious to pursue this in all particular vertues The generals which they acknowledge will serve for the rest They confess (g) Cognitio apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem Bellarm. that knowledge must go before faith and that faith is (h) Fides est fundamentum spei charitatis Idem Fides generat spem spes charitatem Aquinas 1. 2. q. 65. art 4. the foundation of Charity and that charity or love to God which hath its rise and being from faith (i) Charitas est forma radix omnium virtutum Aquinas ibid. q. 62. art 4. is the form and root of all vertues They all agree in it nor is it only evident by their own confession but also by the nature of the things themselves that other vertues depend upon Knowledge Faith and Love for their being or exercise For example without love to God proceeding from faith there can be no delight in God nor desires to enjoy him Delight and desire are but love in several postures Desire is love in its motion and delight is love in its
rest There can be no (k) Spirituale gaudium quod de Deo habetur ex charitatis dilectione oritur Aquin. 2. 2. q. 28. art 1. delight in enjoying that which we love not nor can the enjoyment of it be desirable So also there can be no filial fear without love for love is essential to it and thereby it is distinguished from that which is slavish Ingenuous (l) Timor castus sive amicalis quo timemus ne Sponsus tardet ne discedat ne offendamus ne eo careamus timor iste de amore venit Mag. sentent 3. dist 34. Timor ex amore generatur Bonavent 3. dist 34. n. 83. quanto aliquis plus habet de spiritu amoris tanto plus habet de spiritu timoris Idem ibid. n. 87. vid. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 19. fear springs from love and is nourished by it and increaseth or declines with it It cannot be nor act but when and where love is and is acted So that together with love the fear of God and the acts of it are cashiered even all due Reverence of him and care not to offend him (*) Licet nonnulli existiment dari speciale praeceptum horum timorum ita ut eorum defectu speciale peccatum committatur oppositum tamen docetur communiter longeque est probabilius Pet. S. Joseph de 1 praecepto p. 55. It is their common Doctrine that there is no special command either for servile or filial fear of God so that the want of it need neither be confessed nor repented of So likewise There can be no hatred of sin or sorrow for it as it is an offence or dishonour to God (*) Nulla virtus est vera virtus sine charitate Aquinas nor any true vertue at all without love nor love without faith nor faith without knowledg Now these radical graces being rendred needless by their Doctrine as I have declared before They hereby stubb up all the rest by the Roots so that neither sprigg nor bud thereof can be expected To tell us after this that they count any exercise of Christian vertue needful is as if a man should take the spring out of his watch and then perswade us seriously that he counts it very necessary it should still go and the Wheels be always in regular motion Sect. 7. But let us stay here a little longer and observe how their principles concerning love particularly disingage all from any exercise of vertue and every act that is truly Christian They take notice in vertue of a goodness that is merely Moral such as may be found in Heathens and of a goodness that is Divine and supernatural such as ought to be in Christians This latter they tell us is derived from their end when in the exercise of them they are referred to God as our supernatural end and acted for his sake (m) Vid Navar. cap. 14. n. 7. with an intent to please him They (n) Convenit inter omnes ut opus referri debeat in Deum ut finem supernaturalem si futurum sit meritorium vitae aeternae at opera virtutum caeterarum non referuntur in Deum ut finem supernaturalem nisi a charitate imperentur dirigantur c. Bellarm. de justific l. 5. cap. 15. p. 958. declare further That they cannot be thus referred to God without affection for him nor done with a design to please him unless they be done out of love to him and so must be at least IMPERATE acts of love that they may be Choistian acts and any thing better than nature in the Heathen might reach And yet they conclude as appears before by variety of Testimonies that we are not obliged to observe any command or act any other vertue out of love to God They find no (o) Non obligat pro semper sed certis opportunisque temporibus extra quae ideo tempora non est cur obligemur caetera ex charitate praestare Soto de Just l. 2. q. 3. art 10. time at all when we are obliged to this unless it be when we are bound to have an inward act of love for God but when this is they never agree except in this that it may be never For those who seem to say that it should be sometime though but seldome or but once for all in other words signifie it need not be at all since they assign something else which may serve instead of it when ever it may be thought requisite Thus according to their Rule in indefinite precepts their wise men have determined if their School-Doctors or Casuists or their Council of Trent will pass for wise Now being thus discharged from doing any thing out of love They are thereby exempted from all Christian acts and any other Christianity as to the exercise of vertue their honest Heathenisme It 's true They hold they cannot be saved without meritorious acts and cannot well think them meritorious if they be no better than merely Heathenish they should one would think have some Christian character upon them and this of love (p) Vid. Bellarm. Supra particularly that they may merit Salvation and if they disingage their Catholicks from this they make it not needful for them to be saved But I cannot help that seeing they will have it so If they think there is no necessity their Catholicks should be Christians as they do when they make no Act truly Christian needful for them they conclude it not necessary for them to be saved unless they believe that such as are no Christians can be heirs of salvation Their Church Pope or Council or who-ever it is must provide them some other Heaven since that which is prepared for Christians they need not no one step of the way to it being needful for them All the necessity laid upon them by the Popish profession is not for salvation but for something else they must be Roman Catholicks but they need not be true Christians they must be the Popes subjects but they need not be Christs Disciples and this and the rest because they need not learn of him one Christian act while they live Sect. 8. Moreover all exercise of Virtues so opposite to Acts in their account but venially evil is with them unnecessary And this goeth neer not only to discharge all acts of Virtue which are required of Christians but such also as were found even in Pagans This is grounded upon their doctrine concerning venial sins these with them are not necessarily to be avoyded being either not prohibited by any command as most of them hold or by no command necessary to be observed as some of them had rather express it and therefore no need that the virtuous acts opposite to them should be practised Upon this account no exercise of Virtue will be necessary but what is consistent with the vicious acts contrary thereunto in any degrees of wickedness which they think Venial no acts of Temperance Sincerity Righteousness Truth or
Reverence if they be not taken notice of will be no fault at all if they be deliberate will but be slight ones Not only Reverence and Devotion are accounted needless at this Sacrament but Sobriety and the use of Reason To communicate out of ostentation and vain glory is but a peccadillo And all holy fervor being excluded by voluntary distraction to imploy their Souls vainly or wickedly during the Celebration is no fault at all in reference to the Sacrament Those that communicate unworthily to such a degree as is counted most horridly impious do fully satisfie the precept of their Church for the Communion Sect. 7. to page 52. Their Doctrine doth not more oblige them to Worship God in private Meditation not necessary no not on the holiest seasons or occasions Reading the word of God scarce tolerated in the people and that not so freely as the Stews Sect. 8. 9. to page 53. Private Prayer rarely a duty with some never a duty with others Not at all by their common Doctrine but by accident in the Article of necessity which many never meet with so that many may never pray while they live and yet be innocent Some say there is no Divine precept for Prayer Others who ackowledg a precept will not have it oblige them at such times and occasions when if ever it would oblige Even in their Article of necessity when it comes they have ways to excuse them easily from the obligation and to make it no special sin to neglect this duty all their life Sect. 10. to page 59. Their Church obliges not any to private prayers not to the least or those of most account among them When ever they use private prayer upon any account as required by precept or injoyned for pennance for Prayer passes commonly with them as a punishment or voluntary as a work of Supererogation there is no need by their principles to worship God therein Seeing they are to Worship him no more any where the World may judge what Religion they have since that Worship is as essential to Religion as a Soul to a man Sect. 11. 12. to page 63. CHAP. II. CHristian knowledge is not necessary for Romanists by their Doctrine They need not know what they are to pray for Many of their Priests yea of their Popes understand not their common prayers Sect. 1. to page 66. They need not know what they are to believe The knowledg of all the Articles of the small Creed nor of the Trinity and incarnation of Christ scarce necessary for all Christians Ignorance and errour in points of faith may not only be innocent but meritorious Sect. 2. to page 72. They need not know what they are to do They may merit Heaven by following their Leaders out of the way That 's the most compleat and perfect obedience which is next to bruitish without knowledg and judgment when they obey their Leaders as a Beast doth his owner Sect. 3. to page 76. The knowledg of the Scriptures to which their Doctrine and Worship is confessed to be repugnant unnecessary in a manner for all sorts not only for the People and Monasticks but their Confessors and Preachers Their Bishops afraid to look into the Bible lest it should make them Hereticks Therefore very few of their Bishops in the Council of Trent who decreed so many new Articles of faith had knowledg in Theology Their Popes commonly no Divines many of them understood not Latine though not only their Church-service and Laws but their authentique Edition of the Scripture be confined to that Language The People the further they are from knowledg the more excusable if they take no care nor pains to get it Sect. 4. to page 87. CHAP. III. THeir Doctrine makes it needless to love God There is no command for habitual love to God The acts of this love are as unnecessary The imperate acts thereof not injoyned neither God nor the Church requires any to observe the commands of God out of love to him Sect. 1. 2. to page 91. How needless the Elicite acts of this love are Some hold there is no command for this actual love any inward act of it that binds them or no special command Others who acknowledg a precept will not have it to bind them upon any occasion when if ever it would oblige Not when they have sinn'd against him Not when he expresses his love Not when he discovers his infinite Excellencies to them Not when they are to worship him Not at any Sacrament no not the Eucharist It is too much to love God once a Week or once a Year or once in Four or Five Years One act of love once in a life may be enough yea and more than needs too for when that time comes if ever it come when they will have any obliged to an act of love yet they then assign something else which will serve instead of it and so render it needless still A love which is the issue of nature unsanctified may suffice Or to love God less than other things only more than mortal crimes may be enough Or to do nothing against this love though there be no acts of it or from it may be sufficient Or external acts may satisfie Or if a man believes that he loves God above all though indeed he daes not it may serve the turn Or Attrition which includes something repugnant to this love with their Sacrament of Confession may excuse him from loving of God at the point of death though he never once loved him in his life before How extremely pernicious and ridiculous this their Doctrine is Sect. 3. 4. to page 109. CHAP. IV. BY their Doctrine no faith is necessary but that which is neither justifying nor saving That which they will have necessary for the ignorant is what they call implicit A faith which they may have without actually believing any one Article of the Christian faith And is consistent with the belief of what is quite opposite to the Christian belief And is but such a faith as Jews Turks and Pagans have This was not thought sufficient for Christians till they were thought something like Asses and so expressed by some of their great Saints and Doctors How many ways they have to exempt the people from the obligation of all precepts for any other than this bruitish faith Sect. 1. to page 114. The faith requisite in the more intelligent to justifiethem they call explicit This as described by them in its object includes things uncertain impertinent false impossible and ridiculous as points that must be certainly believed unto justification This of it self as themselves say deserves not the name of a vertue is an idle dead thing may be found in the worst of men and in the Devils too Yet it is with them the Christian the Catholick faith Sect. 2. to page 116. They see no great necessity of faith The Pope the Head of their Church needs it not And the Body may
is (e) Esset enim hoc Christianorum animos irretire in arctissimas angustias conjicere nempe quod tam crebro ad rem tam arduam teneremur ibid. that this would be to ensnare Souls and cast them into grievous straits if so harsh a duty as an act of love to God were injoyned so frequently Another is (f) Ejusmodi praecepta non obligant ad charitatis modum sed possunt quantum ad substantiam operis extra charitatem impleri ibid. that all the commands of God as to the substance of them may be fully accomplished without love to God and therefore this It is good Divinity with them That we are not bound to worship God out of love The Masse saith Navar (g) Nam missa quam in illis diebus praecipimur audire recte audiri potest sine tali amore actu concepto unde raâ—i vel nulli se hujus omissionis accusant Cap. 11. n. 7. fest de vid. Suar. l. 2. c. 16. which we are commanded to hear on those dayes and nothing else may be heard well enough without any such act of love So Bellarmine (h) Non tenemur in dicbus festis ex praecepto peculiari ad non peccandum sive ad actum contritionis vel dilectionis Dei ibid. we are not bound on these dayes by any particular precept not to sin or to have any act of contrition or any act of love to God what not one act of love to God no he will prove it one of his arguments is (i) Ecclesia determinavit tempus modum observandi jus divinum de observatione praeceptorum at Ecclesia nusquam praecipit actus illos interiores Ibid. because the Church hath determined the time and manner how Divine Law is to be observed in keeping this command but the Church no where requires inward acts she thinks it seems that God may be served sufficiently with the Masse without any sense oâ— sin or love to God And thus all those other graces and affections that flow from Repentance or love or necessarily depend thereon as filial fear spiritual desires delight in God c. will be no duty on their Masse-dayes their Masse hath nothing to do with them Confessions of sin there may be well enough without Godly sorrow and Petitions without desires and Praises without complacence or ingenuous gratitude because all is well enough without love to God or grief for offending him and that on all these dayes wherein they are obliged to hear Masse If you would see any thing of the worship of God in the Masse it is as if you look for the life and nature of a man in a Picture and such an one as will not so much as shew you his colour or figure but very rudely The precept for observing Masse-dayes as Sylvester (a) Non est simpliciter de sine i. e. ipsa vacatione circa Deum vel necessario requisitis ad illam sed de abstinentia a servilibus auditione missa v. Dominic n. 8. tells us requires not the end that is waiting upon God nor what is necessarily requisite thereto but the hearing of Masse Not waiting on God but hearing Masse These are distinct things and disjoyned in the sense of the Roman Doctors the one is commanded the other is not so that they may duly hear Masse all their lives and yet not wait on God one moment the former they must do the latter they are not obliged to regard nor any thing that necessarily belongs to it (b) Quamvis finis hujus praecepti sit vt homo Deo vacet ipsoque fruatur in eo quiescat ut docuit S. Thomas quando tamen finis praecepti est aliud a re praecepta tunc non cadit sub praeceptum sicut idem S. Thomas Communiter receptus c. 13. n. 2. p. 198. Navar asserts this and would prove it by reason and the Authority of Aquinas herein generally followed In short if there be any worship required in the Masse it is merely external and that disjoyned from the inward service of the Soul is but a mere shew or vizour of worship as they themselves confess in their lightsomer intervals well but is it worship in any sense is there any thing Religious required of the people herein for this they tell us it is enough if it be an humane act no more is enjoyned (c) Neque tale praeceptum obligat ad alium actum interiorem quam ad illum qui propter exteriorem est necessarius scil vere audire missam ea attentione ut sit actus humanus Soto ibid. p. 51. the precept obligeth not but to hear so that it may be an humane act saith (*) Praeceptum audiendi missam non obligat nisi taliter audire ut sit actus humanus Idem l. 10. q. 5. art 5. p. 341. Soto and (d) Saâ— est quod sit actus humanus Jac. de Graff l. 2. c. 34. n. 8. Satis est sit actus humanus Lopez c. 52. p. 271. others and if it suffice that it be a humane act it needs not be Religious Let it be deliberate that is enough to make it a humane act and then though there be no Religious motion or intention in it the precept is fulfilled Sylvester confirms us herein the precept saith he is given unto men and therefore the work must not be the issue only of the imagination which is common to us with Beasts it must proceed from deliberation which requires some attention (a) Praeceptum datur hominibus ideoque oportet ut non procedat opus ex sola imaginatione quae communis nobis est cum bestiis sed ex deliberatione quae attentionem requirit c. v. hora n. 13. vid. Angelus v. hor. n. 27. So that there is something more required of one that goes to Masse than of a Beast but that is before he comes there if he advance but to it as a man he may be excused even from humane acts when he is at it he needs neither exercise his understanding nor his senses He needs not (b) Nemo teneatur ex praecepto audire minus intelligere verba sacerdotis quia satis est vel ex longinquo missanti adesse Navar. c. 21. n. 8. understand it that is far from being a duty they have made it impossible it 's no sin either for Priests (c) Clerici vel laici qui Divinis intersunt si non intelligunt quae dicunt non peccant Jac. de Graff l. 2. c. 51. n. 12. or people not to know what they do so reasonable is their service The Latin makes it unintelligible enough but if it were in a Language less known if in (d) Si audiret missam Mocaravem compleret Lopez c. 42. Mosarabike or Greek those who are present without any but their Mother-Tongue fulfil the precept As (e) Qui Graecam missam audiret satisfaceret praecepto etiam
without it no man is in the state of grace or favour with God This is the righteousness whereby they are justified and their sins pardoned i. e. abolished for that is pardon with them and their Souls sanctified for justification and sanctification is all one in their reckoning This is it which is the life and spirit of all other graces and vertues say they without which the best of them are dead and unactive things and deserve not the name of vertues (a) Nulla virtus nec ejus actus acceptatur sine charitate quae sola dividit inter silios regni perditionis Sta. Clar. probl 35. p. 244. And though they look not for Heaven unless they deserve it by their own works yet their works they say are of no worth without this (b) Nam opera quantumcunque moraliter bona si siant extra charitatem in statu peceati mortiferi absque dubio pereunt mortua reputantur quantum attinet ad gratiam gloriam promerendam Nav. c. 1. n. 29. Yea their indulgencies will not avail any thing without it (c) Bellarm. de paen tent l. 2. c. 14. p. 95â— So far therefore as love to God is unnecessary so far Regeneration and spiritual life a saving state and reconciliation with God justification pardon all graces and vertues all their own good works or their Churches indulgencies are unnecessary No further need of what either God or themselves have made necessary to salvation One would think if they had any desire of Heaven or fear of Hell or dread of their own Purgatory if they had any design for the salvation of Souls or any regard of what is saving they should be tender in this point above all and not abate any moment of its necessity But what they do herein let us see Indeed they make both the habitual and the actual love of God unnecessary First for habitual love they teach the Lord hath not at all commanded us to have the habit or principle of this love he no where requires that we should love him habitually (d) Certe non praecipit ut diligamus ex habitu infuso leges enim de actibus dantur non de habitibus De grat lib. arbitr l. 6. c. 7. p. 664. certainly saith Bellarmine the Lord hath not commanded that we should love him from an infused habit for Laws do not require habits Add to him one of the most eminent amongst the Dominicans (e) De amâ—citia habituali Dei nullum est praeceptum affirmativum pars 4. relect de paenitent p. 870. there is no affirmative precept for habitual love to God saith Melchior Canus I need alledge no more I find none of them questions it Now in that they do not make this love necessary as a duty they cannot account it necessary as a means For they (f) Aquinas 2. 2. q. 3. art 223. Ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem cadere sub praecepto Canus ibid. p. 857. Ea omnia quae necessaria sunt necessitate medij censentur necessaria necessitate praecepti licet non quaecunque necessaria sunt necessitate praecepti sint etiam necessaria necessitate medij Bellarm. de paenit l. 2. c. 8. p. 935. Suarez l. 1. de Orat. c. 29. n. 2. ex D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. art 5. q. 3 art 2. 3. q. 68. a. 1. hold that all means necessary to salvation are commanded So that the habitual love of God by their Doctrine is no way necessary And this they teach not only of the habit of love but of all other graces the (g) Praeceptiones legis non sunt de habitibus non enim jubemur persolvere debita ex habitu justitiae aut liberalitatis sed tantum persolvere ad justum Nat. Grat. l. 1. c. 2â— p. 57. precepts of the Law are not for habits saith Soto we are not as he adds to pay what we owe from a habit of justice or liberality (h) Cum praecipit Deus ut juste sobrieque vivamus non imperat ut ista faciamus ex habitu sed tantum ut faciamus De grat lib. arb l. 6. c. 7. p. 664. When we are injoyned to live soberly and righteously we are not required to do so out of habit but only to do it saith Bellarmine and these instances they bring to shew that we are not obliged to do any thing out of a habit or principle of love to God Sect. 2. Secondly for actual love how can they account the acts of it needful when they make the habits or principle from whence the acts must flow to be unnecessary But let us view their Doctrine about this more distinctly The acts of love are either more forrain and remote which they call Imperate or native and proper which they call Elicite acts For the former all acts of Religion and Righteousness that they may be truly Christians such as the Gospel requires in order to Salvation that they may have a real tincture of Divine and supernatural goodness and be advanced above the pitch at which Heathen or graceless persons may arrive they must proceed from love to God and be ordered and directed by it This they sometimes not only confess but assert And yet notwithstanding they teach (*) Utrum tenemur conformare voluntatem in modo volendi cum Deo Resp secundum Alexand. Lombard in 1 dist 48. quod non absolute quoniam si homo honorat patrem suum non ex charitate sed ex benevolentia non peccat sed tenetur conditionaliter scil si vult mereâ—i vitam aeternam Angel sum v. voluntas n. 6. that it is not needful to perform any such acts or to observe any commands of God out of love to him (i) Praecepta Dâ—i non obligant ut perficiantur in charitate non enim peccat nec a Deo punitur qui debitum honorem impendit parentibus quamvis non habeat habitum pietatis ergo multo minus ecclesia obligat quenquam ut illud impleat in charitate Decis Aur. pars 2. l. 3. c. 17. n 10. p. 176. Non tamen tenemur semper operari ex charitate sed satis est operari ex aliqua honestate morali Suarez l. 1. de orat c. 30. n. 3. The commands of God saith de Graffijs doe not oblige us to perform them in love he clears his meaning by an instance For he sins not nor is punished of God who gives due honour to his Parents although he have not the habit of piety and so though he do it not out of such a principal much less adds he doth the Church oblige any one to observe the command in love (k) Non enim si finis praecepti charitas est tenemur proâ—inus omnia praecepta legis implere ex charitate Ex D. Thomae graviorum autorum sententia ad finem legislatoris minime teneamur sed ad media quae lex finis gratia
n. 9. Non tamen ad id tenemur quoties administramus aut accipimus Sacramenta quia non tenemur tunc habere contritionem ibid. n. 8. it is false saith Navarre that we are bound to fulfil this Command when we receive any Sacrament for it is enough that we be not in mortal sin or that we probably believe so although no such actual Love be conceived in the heart We are not bound to that Love saith he when we minister or receive the Sacraments because we are not then bound to have contrition Those that make such hard shifts to discharge themselves from the obligation of loving God when ever occasion is offered will scarce think it needful to love him upon no occasion and what occasion can we think of upon which it will be counted requisite if not on these already specified if not after sin if not upon the receipt of mercy if not on any day of worship if not in any part of worship if these be not occasions for it who can hope they will ever meet with any if an act of Love be not requisite once a week or once a year on such an account as would make it so if any imaginable could do it it will not be a duty in any week or any year in a whole life those that discharge themselves of it in such circumstances do plainly enough discharge it for ever But since they would make a shew of finding some time for it though their determinations all along are pregnant with a denyal of any let us proceed with them a little further If an act of Love be not due to God once a year yet may it be a duty once in four or five years Soto and Ledesma in Filliutius ventur'd to think it may be requisite once in five years and he gives this reason for it (b) Quia cum determinatum tempus non sit relinquitur arbitrio sapientum Sic autem sapientes theologi arbitrati sunt ut Soto Ledesma c. tr 22. l. 9. n. 290. aliqui pâ—tant satisfieri praecepto si semel in anno eliciatur actus amoris Dei alij si tertio quoque anno alij si non differatur ultra quinquennium Petr. a S. Joseph Sum. de 1. praecept art 4. Because the time is not determined but left to the judgment of the wise but saith he thus wise Divines have thought Thus Love to God the greatest duty that we owe the Divine Majesty and that which is the sum of all the rest is left to mens arbitrement and if two or three reputed wise shall judge that God is to have no love at all or but one act of Love in a whole life that must be the rule God and man must be determined by it Man will owe no more and the Lord must have no more Those of their Divines have had the repute of wise who thought it enough to love God once in a life time as well as such who conceive it probable that he should have an act of love once in five years or once in seven for thither it may be adjourned by our Authors leave The Jansenists charge this opinion upon the late Jesuits and would have all the odium cast upon them but they go about to lead us into a mistake if they would have us believe that these and other horrid conceits concerning an actual love to God are confined to that Society they are too common amongst those Doctors who are of greatest repute and judged free from extravagancies in their morality and more tenacious of what they would have accounted the genuine doctrine of their Church c Tr. 6. n. 208. There were many in the time of the Council of Trent when Jesuitisme was but in its Infancy who held it enough to love God actually but once in a life time One act of love (d) Semel in vita quod quidam satis arbitrantur de nat grat l. 1. c. 22. p. 58. once in a life which some count enough saith Soto and these some he tells us afterwards were very many In the time of Francis de Victoria who lived till the Council of Trent had sate a year this was the common doctrine that a man is but obliged to love God once in his life For upon the question when the Precept for love obligeth he says Nec videtur sufficiens solutio communis quod tenetur semel in vita Relect. part 3. n. 11. The common answer that one is bound to it once in a life seems not sufficient he speaks modestly as one loth to dissent from the common doctrine that Council who if it had been concerned for God and mens souls as it was for other things would have appear'd in all its thunder against such an error mends this as it did other matters by establishing a doctrine which makes it needless to love God so much as once in a life of which hereafter But when is that once They leave us at liberty for the time so it be but before we dye Suarez was not alone in this as he wants not followers so he had many that went before him in this conclusion and those not Jesuits only for it is grounded upon the notion which the Romish Doctors have of affirmative precepts when the time for their accomplishment is not expressed They teach that such divine commands divers of them are fulfilled and have sufficient observance if they be but obeyed semel in vita once in a life-time Those that are very cautious express it with a saltem once at least in a whole life intimating that though more may be better yet once is as much as is precisely needful and this they extend to such things as by the Lords constitution are means necessary to salvation (e) Alia vero praecepta sunt sine determinatione temporis quae videlicet nos obligant ut aliquando impleantur saltem semel in vita ut sunt media ad salutem necessaria pars 4. relect de paenit p. 968. There are Precepts saith Canus without determination of time which oblige us to observe them some times at least once in our life such as are the means necessary to salvation But in what part of our life must it be that the Lord must have this act of Love from us which is enough once in the whole Why since neither the Scripture nor the Church say they hath determined the time there is no reason for one time more than another it is left to a mans own discretion (*) Sed quaeras tandem quodnam sit tempus illud quo divina charitas obligat ante mortem ad babendam Dei dilectionem hoc est enim quod oppositum sentientes maxime movet nos etiam plurimum torquet quia non possumus tempus hoc in particulari certo definite designaâ—e Illud vero tempus si non sit positiva lege praescriptum prudenti arbitrio ipsius hominis vel
alterius qui ejus conscientia cognita possit auxilium praestare committendum est Neque aliquam regulam certiorem aut magis particularem assignare possum tam in hoc praecepto quam in aliis affirmativis praesertim circa actus qui ad Deum ordinantur sola aâ—…uda ratione naturali perspectis Suarez tom 4. disp 15. Sect. 6. n. 20. to love God when he thinks fit let him but doe it before he dye and he may take his own time so some leave it But Vasquez would not leave it at such uncertainty so he fixeth the period and that is the period of a mans life he determins (*) Merito ergo diximus esse praeceptum dilectionis solum extrema necessitate obligare sicut praeceptum contritionis sed non quemcunque sed tantum existentem in mortali non suppleâ—tem suam justificationem per Sacramentum in 3. Th. tom 3. q. 90. art 1. dub 4 n. 40. So that the Command to Love God does not oblige any but at the point of death nor any then who are justified nor any other in the state of sin unless they cannot have the Sacrament the time for loving God is when a man is at the point of death Nor is this the doctrine of a Jesuite only for before his time and before the Society was founded it was the common opinion of the Romish Doctors so Dominicus Soto informs us (f) Plerique aiunt tempus hujus praecepti illud maxime esse quod est articulus mortis ibid. quando jam nullum superest tempus bene merendi de Deo ibid. Bâ—sides these many in Soto others determine with Vasquez that Love to God is never a duty but at the point of death So Jo. Sancius haec videtur verior sententia disp 1. n. 21. â—n Antonin Dian. alij velint solum obligare in articulo mortis Verb. Charitas And before them others in Bonacina alij dicunt obligare solum tempore mortis 1 praecept d. 3. q. 4. p. 2. n. 1. And we must take it to be the Opinion of all who hold that this Precept obliges not but when we are bound to an act of Contrition and they commonly maintain that none are obliged to this before the approach of death nor any that are in the state of grace then no nor any that are in mortal sin if they will use those other expedients which their general Council or other Doctors have devised to discharge them from the obligation of a duty to which not only the Gospel but the law of nature binds all rational Creatures eternally very many hold that the time for the observing of this Command is at the point of death that is as he explains it when there is not any time left for deserving ought of God Now every act of Love being meritorious with them either they contradict themselves or by this opinion they are not bound to love God actually till there be no time left for any acts of Love We are not by this doctrine obliged to love God till we can live no longer and are past acting at all But are we then bound to love him is it then necessary may not a man be saved who hath continued without Love to God all his life if he love him not actually neither when he is a dying For this observe what Aquinas tells us (g) Qui in via hoc praeceptum non implet viz. pefecte Nihil contra divinam dilectionem agens 22. q. 44. art 6. ad 2dum non peccat mortaliter That we do not break this Command but fulfil it so as to be free from all mortal guilt if we do nothing against the Love of God that is if we run not into mortal sin and so hate him as a Souldier satisfies his Captains command who though he get not the Victory yet doth nothing against Military discipline or as Bonaventure explains it (h) In 3. dist 27. n. 58. Per exclusionem affectus contrarij by the exclusion of the contrary affection as if it were sufficient that he do not hate him (*) Marsilius vir profecto inter theologos egregie doctus l. 2. q. 18. tenet lege hac dilectionis obligari homines servare gratiam amicitiam Dei perditam recuperare Soto De nat Grat. l. 1. c. 22. p. 57. Marsilius of great renown for learning amongst their Divines will have that which the command for love enjoyns to be the keeping of Grace and Friendship with God and the recovering of it when lost So that it doth not oblige to actual love but only to the avoiding of habitual enmity and hatred of God But what if he hate God and persist therein is it not absolutely necessary that he should beware of that it seems not for saith one of their Doctors There is no Precept that a Sinner should not persevere in enmity against God there is no negative Command which forbids him to persist in such hatred It may be you do not read this no more than I could without some horrour and trembling and I confess when I found Reginaldus quoted for this I was ready to think it was but the extravagancy of some singularly bold Jesuite but upon further enquiry I find it asserted by such whose writings have the greatest approbation of the Romish Church Melchior Canus a Dominican a Bishop cryed up as a most elegant Judicious and cautious Writer too and inferior to none of that Order their Angelical Doctor only excepted clearly delivers this doctrine (i) At ne simus inimici Dei secundum reatum nullo negativo praecepto simus astricti Sicut enim de amicitia habituali nullum praeceptum affirmativum est sic de inimicitia quae secundum reatum est quasi habitualis nullum est negativum pars 4. relect de paenit p. 870. We are not bound by any negative Precept that we should not be Enemies of God in respect of guilt He adds for as there is no affirmative Precept requiring habitual friendship with God so for habitual enmity against God in respect of guilt there is no negative Precept that forbids it So that to persist in Enmity and Hatred against God by their approved doctrine is no sin it is against no Command We need not alledge the words of any other since this is the plain and necessary consequent of their common doctrine and we must take it to be the judgment of all who hold that it is no sin to delay contrition i. e. Repentance and turning to God in which both their Antienter School Doctors and modern Divines agree For while it is no duty to turn to God habitual enmity and hatred of him will be no sin Now contrition and so conversion to God they say may be deferred till death Indeed by their doctrine it will never be a duty for even at death the last Attrition with their Sacrament of confession is all that is needful Sect. 4. However they make
44. art Yet as we saw before it is their common doctrine that the Eucharist may be worthily received without any act of love or other grace or any actual disposition that is gracious Maldonate and others Now if the precept of Love may be fulfilled by external acts or by endeavours to observe the other commands of God then it requires not the exercise of the inward act of love to him and so there will be no command for that at all nor will it be a duty and all these other commands may be satisfied without any act of love to God in the heart and we shall love him enough though we never conceive any actual love for him in our souls Fifthly It will satisfie the precept if a man believe that he loves God above all though indeed he do not So Lopez (d) Satis est ad evitandum peccatum omissionis hujus praecepti probabiliter quis credat se illud implere tempore quo occurrit ejus obligatio cap. 40. p. 217. It is enough to avoyd the sin of neglecting this Precept for one to believe probably that be fulfils it at the time when its Obligation occurrs Navar had concluded this before him (e) â—…de eum qui diligit Deum probabiliter cred ns se esse in statu gratiae subindeque suum amorem esse amorem Dei super omne aliud quamvis in rei veâ—itate non sit hujusmodi nâ—qâ—e sit in codem statu nihilominus tamen adimplere hoc praeceptum quoad effectum evitandi noâ—um peccalum quod admitteretur ob omissionem implementi ejus quoniam sine speciali revelatione scire non potest quis quando est in statu gratiae ut definit Conc. Trident. Et â—…a nisi hoc teneamus nequiremus scire quando hoc praeceptum impleremus Cap. 11. n. 10. He that believes God probably believing that he is in the state of Grace and that his Love is a love of God above all although in Truth it is no such thing nor he in such a state nevertheless the Precept is fulfilled by him so far that he is not then guilty of no sin for omitting the observance of it he adds this reason for it Because without special revelation no man can know when he is in the state of Grace as the Councel of Trent determines and so unless we maintain this we cannot know when we fulfil the Precept Thus though his determination seem strange and desperate yet the ground he proceeds on is a principle of their Faith and obligeth all to be of his perswasion who submit to that Council He declares himself further to this purpose (f) Peccat mortaliter qui eo tempore Deum amare negligit quo sub peccati mortalis reatu tâ—netur veluti quando mórtis periculum vel necessitas recipiendi vel administrandi aliquod Sacramentum se obtulit nisi probabiliter crederet se gratiam vel charitatem habere idem ibid. n. 20. He sins mortally who loves not God at that time when he is bound to do it under the pain of mortal sin that is when there is danger of death or necessity of receiving or administring a Sacrament unless he probably believe that he hath Grace or Charity For then he would have us believe it is not sin as his limitation shews Here we have the times specified wherein the Precept of loving God obligeth and these are but two and the latter of them himself expungeth concluding it false that we are bound to love God at a Sacrament (g) Ibid. n. 8. 9. supra So that a man is never bound to love God but when he apprehends death approaching no nor at the point of death neither if then he probably believe that he hath Grace and Charity though he have it not for such a presemption will excuse him from sin if he love not God as all his life before so even when he is dying Thus is the case resolved according to their common principles by the most learned and the most pious of their Casuists as (h) Martinus Aspilcaeta Navarrus vir doctissimus Pijssimus De script Eccles p. 313. Bellarmine honours him though he was none of the Society Sixthly attrition with the Sacrament of Pennance will excuse any from loving God actually living or dying and will secure him from perishing eternally though he never entertain an Act of love for God in life or death The Doctrine of their Church obligeth them all to believe this and if any of their Doctors seem to say otherwise they contradict either that or themselves For their Church requires nothing precisely to put a man into the state of Grace and Salvation living or dying how long so ever he hath persisted in enmity against God how highly so ever he hath expressed his hatred of him but only a due partaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and he is sufficiently qualified for such a participation if he be but attrite that is as they explain it if he have but some remorse for sin out of servile fear not out of love to God For (i) In quantum servilis est contrariatur charitati So Aquinas 2. 2. q. 19. art 4. that fear as servile is contrary to the love of God so that for this which they count sufficient to secure his eternal state even at last gasp he needs not any act of love to God and this is not only the opinion of particular Doctors but as I shall shew hereafter the Doctrine of the (*) Sess 14. c. 4. Council of Trent and so not only probable with them but certain If a man at the point of death who never had an act of love for God in all his life do thou ask his Confessor whether such an act be needful for him before he dye if the Priest tell him it is not necessary he may safely give up the Ghost and dye as he lived without any actual affection for God for though he be deluded by his Confessor yet consulting him he has done his endeavour and so his (*) Sum. Rosel v. ignorunt n. 1. Bonacin de peccat disp 2. q. 8. punct 3. p. 16. Sta. Clara. Problem 15. p. 87. Doctores communiter ignorance they say is invincible and will excuse him And the Priest must tell him that it is more than needs if he believe the Council of Trent since there it is declared that the Sacrament with attrition though this include something repugnant to such love is enough to justifie and pass any into a state of grace and consequently is sufficient for Salvation And thus they argue (*) Dicendum quod gratia est sufficiens causa gloriae unde omne illud sine quo obtineri poâ—est â—ratia non est de necessitate saluâ—is Aquinas in 4. dist 9. art 1. Grace is a sufficient cause of glory hence whatever it is without which grace may be obtained that is not necessary to Salvation By which
account no act of love nor of any other grace will be needful for them that they may be saved Thus in fine here 's a Religion which pretends to be Christian but excuseth and disingageth all that profess it from the love of Christ a Doctrine which bereaves Religion of that which themselves count its life and quite stifles all the spirits of Christianity chops off all Christian vertues all gracious acts and qualities in this one neck and leaves nothing but a gastly Carkase For obliging them to neglect love as needless it makes the rest impossible without it there can be no saving faith no godly sorrow no filial fear no delight in God no desire to enjoy him no genuine gratitude When the life of a true Christian should be made up of these they leave it not possible for him to have one act of true Christian vertue for without love they say themselves there cannot be any one true vertue Here is a way to Heaven for those that never loved God in life or death a path that pretends to Heaven but lies quite Cross to the way of Christ and leads directly to outer darkness A Doctrine that incourageth them to live in hatred of God all their dayes and in the end sends them out of the World under the dreadful sentence of the Apostle 1 Cor. 16 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be Anathema Maranatha To conclude this head It is a Doctrine which is damning not only meritoriously but effectually and will certainly ruine eternally all that believe and practise it and hath in it the mortal poyson and malignity of a hundred such speculative Opinions as pass for Heresies And beside the danger and horrible impiety of this Doctrine it is ridiculous to the very highest degree For can any thing be more senseless than to ask how often a man ought to love his best friend and Benefactor whether once in his life be not enough in all Conscience nay whether it be not very fair not to hate him And indeed they state the business all along in such a manner and manage it with such nicety and caution not as if they were afraid lest men should love God too little but as if all the danger lay on the other hand and their great care were that no body should love him too much or love him at all I do not believe that things so palpably impious and ridiculous were ever so solemnly debated by men of any Religion whatsoever CHAP. IV. There is no necessity of saving or justifying faith by the Romish Doctrine Sect. 1. THat no man can be justified or saved without faith is so evident in Scripture that none but an Infidel can question it The Romanists do not express any doubt of it and yet they make no other faith necessary than that which is neither justifying nor saving They have two sorts of faith one for the unlearned and ignorant which they call Implicite The other for the learned and more knowing which they say should be Explicite The former as they describe it is an assent to some general including many particulars with a mind to believe nothing contrary thereunto the general is this That what ever the Roman Church which cannot err believes is true the particulars included are they know not what for they are supposed ignorant Now this we say is no Christian faith and make it apparent that it is no such thing For first it is no belief of any one particular or article of the Christian faith It is only a belief of a general which is no truth at all much less Christian that the Church of Rome cannot err or believe any thing but what is true when the ignorant person neither knows what this Church is nor what she believes nor why he should give her such credit So that the act is a blind conceit unworthy of a Man or a Christian and the object a general error And then as to the particulars which are necessary for Christians to believe this implicite faith doth not actually believe any of them at all if it did it would not be what it is implicite It apprehends them not therefore cannot believe them for as themselves acknowledge (a) Neque enim credi potest quod non cognoscitur Fill. tr 22. n. 39. That cannot be believed which is not known To render this clear to us they thus explain it When (b) Bannes 22. q. 2. art 8. Sect. dubitatur secundo Sum. Rosel verb. fides n. 1. a man is asked whether Christ were born of the Virgin Mary and whether there be one God and three persons and he answers that he knows not but believes touching these things as the Church holds this is to believe implicitely So that a man may have this faith compleatly and yet not believe an article of the Creed and if this be Christian faith a man may have it who believes nothing of Christ They are believers at this rate who have a mind to hold what the Church doth concerning Christ or the Creed though they never know what that is They know not what the Church holds unless the Churches knowing be their knowledge and so believe nothing unless the Churche's believing be their faith and so have no faith to save them unless it be saving faith to believe by an Attorney Secondly as this faith may be without the knowledge and belief of any of the particular Articles which are necessary to be believed by Christians so which is yet more strange it may be with the belief of what is opposite and repugnant to the Christian faith This they acknowledge and clear it to us by instances A man may be disposed to believe what the Church holds and yet may believe that God the Father and God the Son are not equal but one greater and elder than the other or that the persons in the Trinity are locally distant Such is the vertue of implicite faith faith (c) In tantum valet fides implicita quod si quis habens eam falso opinaretur ratione naturali motus Patrem majorem vel priorem Filio vel tres personas localiter distare aâ— simile quid non sit haereticus non peccet dummodo hunc errorem pertinaciter non defendat hoc ipsum credat quia credat ecclesiam sic credere Verb. Credere Sum Rosel v. fides n. 2. After Pope Innocent and Hostiensis Altenstaig that if he who hath it believes these errors or any like them he would be no Heretick he would not sin provided he doth not maintain his error pertinaciously and that he believes because he thinks the Church believes it Or such a Catholick may believe (d) Ut puta vetula credit Trinitatem esse unam Faeminam quoniam credit ecclesiam sic tenere sic credit tamen non est haeretica quia conditionaliter credit si ecclesia sic tenet credit Verb. sides n. 6. that the
a Priest so Aquinas in 4. dist 17. q. 3. art 3. or he may have the Eucharist administred to him without a Priest and it is their common doctrine that the Eucharist justifies one that is in mortal sin if he be attrite and thinks but himself contrite yea he may administer it to himself with the same effect in case of necessity divers of all sorts amongst them are of this opinion The Authority of Aquinas is alledged for it 3. q. 82. art 3. and Cajetan in Matth. 26. The example of the Queen of Scots commonly produced who having the Sacrament by her administred it to her self is highly approved by all Thus far Satan has prevailed with them to promote the Damnation of Sinners by hardning them in impenitence even when the interest of their Priests seems a little concerned But what if a Catholick Sinner relying upon such Impostors still neglect true Repentance and death surprize him so suddenly as to render these other devices unpracticable is not his case then desperate No he may have as good hopes of Salvation as other Catholicks have a probable ground for his hope and none must have any certainty Such a ground is the judgement of their Angelical Doctor who declares that if one sick desires pennance and before the Priest comes he dyes or is speechless the Priest may look on him as if he had confessed and may absolve him being dead Opusc 63. de offic Sacerd. Accordingly Clemens 8. Absolved one whom he saw falling from St. Peters Church in Rome Molfes t. 1. tr 7. c. 5. n. 48. So that any may be Absolved i. e. Pardoned and Sanctified for the sense of the Priests Absolvo is I give thee grace which pardons thy sins Impendo tibi gratiam remissivam peccatorum ut communiter Doctores in Jo. Sanc. disp 27. n. 18. even after they are dead if they did but desire confession before Now those amongst themselves who do not desire confession while they live are such only as will not have Salvation if they might upon the most trivial terms and so none need fear Damnation how impenitent soever otherwise they live and dye but such as are worse than any Devil now in Hell And who can accuse them as too rigid if they make true Repentance unavoidably necessary for such as these since this doctrine makes it needful for none besides All these ways any man may be saved without true Repentance if he will believe the Roman Doctors though if we believe Christ he shall certainly perish that repents not what-ever course he takes besides Any of these are probable and may be by their principles having grave Doctors more than enough to authorize them safely followed but that of the Councils prescribing is infallible and will not fail to secure those who practise it if any thing in their Church may have credit nor can fail to ruine those who follow it if the word of God may be trusted Thus while they would increase their party by having it thought that in their way scarce any Roman Catholick will be Damned they take the course in this as in other particulars that none who wâ—ll follow them can be saved unless salvation be for the impenitent Sect. 9. By this it is also manifest that the charge brought against them in the three last Articles for making Saving Faith Love to God and true Repentance needless in life or death is not founded only upon the opinion of their private Doctors or the greatest part of them but hath that which they count the surest ground of all the determination of a general Council confirmed by the Pope For if Attrition be sufficient as that Council declares then true Repentance is not necessary If grief for sin out of slavish fear or shame only without any love to God be enough then Love to God is needless and if Love be not needful then Faith which works by Love and is the only saving Faith is needless till there be no time for it to work But is it credible that they who sometimes seem to lay so great stress upon these graces as necessary to salvation should contradict not only the Scriptures but themselves and make them needless not only all a mans life before but even when he is dying sure they must have some device to supply in pretence at least the want of these if not before yet at the point of death and will substitute something in their stead of supposed equivalence to them Indeed they are fruitful in inventions tending to ruine souls and subvert the doctrine of salvation and one particularly they have in this case and that is what we before mentioned their Sacrament of Pennance When a man is near death if he be Attrite and confess his mortal sins to a Priest and be absolved by vertue thereof he hath remission of sins and together therewith infusion of grace particularly of Faith Hope and Charity Thus they come to have grace in a moment who lived graceless all their days before and had dyed so if such a Rite had not been provided for their relief By vertue of this Sacrament Love is planted in their heart and their Faith in God and sorrow for sin is formed by Love and becomes saving so that if they dye presently in that state their salvation is secured But what if they live must not these habits be afterwards exercised must not there be some act of contrition in those who never had any before No by their doctrine there is no necessity for it though there be no true actual Repentance without it The question is in one of their greatest Divines Whether (u) An etiam in lege gratiae post obtentam justificationem per Sacramentum paenitentiae cum sola attritione maneat haec obligatio habendi contritionem Dicendum est per se loquendo non manere in lege nova obligationem hanc post praedictam justificationem Ita sentiunt omnes qui putant Sacrameneum paenitentiae justificare cum sola attritione cognita Suarez tom 4. disp 15. Sect. 4. n. 12. 13. in the Law of Grace after justification obtained by the Sacrament of Pennance with Attrition alone there remain any obligation to have Contrition and it is resolved that there is no such obligation and that this is the judgment of all those who hold that the Sacrament of pennance doth justifie with Attrition alone known to be so and (x) Aquinas Scotus Paludanus Capreolus Durandus Adrian Antoninus Sylvester Cano ibid. disp 20. Sect. 1. n. 9. Corduba Vega Soto in Vasquoz Corduba docet quod qui justificatus est Sacramento paenitentiae cum contritione tantum existimata non tenetur eorundem peccatuoâ—m contriâ—ionem veram habere eam aperte colligere licet ex Soto ita Vega. in 3. Thom. q. 86. a 2. d. 2. n. 11. these are the most for number and the most considerable for authority in their Church and Schools Aquinas and Scotus both
jactat se habere quod non babet Aquinas ibid. When oâ—… thinks that good he has is from himself When he thinks that what he has from God is for his merits And when he boasts that he hath what he has not If their great Azpilcueâ—a could see none of this most deadly crime amongst Christians having the merit of congruity and condignity before him either his sight fail'd him or his Church was not visible Others with his eyes can see not only mortal pride but as deadly a sin infidelity (q) Credere id viz. predicta in genere est actus infidelitatis Navar. ibid. n. 8. In universali dicere bonum aliquod habere à se non à Deo vel suis meritis hoc pâ—rtinet ad infidelitatem est mortale peccatum infidelitatis Angel sum v. superâ—iâ— where this is part of a Creed To make up one article of two deadly sins must be a sure mark of the only Church Seriously finding so many of their Authors on this head charging the opinion of merit with mortal pride and therein following not only the greatest of their Doctors but the most infallible of their Bishops I have wondred why they did not either make that none of their faith or this no such sin What salâ—… they will find against deadly sin when it is in their faith I know not but if part of their belief had proved arrogance though that founds like the worst of pride they might have come off well enough for arrogance is a Venial sin except in some rare cases It is says Cajetan r Est autem frequenter venialis arrogantia dum absque prejudicio proximi astimat quis se plus scientiae aut bonitatis aut authoritatis habere quam habet Sum. v. arrogantia peccatum est quia contra rectam rationem est Sed mortale non est nisi vel id quod sibi usurpat sit contra divinam reverentiam ut Rex Tyri Ego Deus Sum. aut contra proximum ut tyrannis vel finis ultimus in bujusmodi elatione ponatur Ibid. frequently Venial when without prejudice of others a man values himself as having more knowledg or goodness or authority than he hath and again it is a sin but it is not mortal unless when it usurps against God as the King of Tyre when he said I am God now none are observed to do this except the Pope who has the Law in his own hand or against others by Tyranny which is so odious as all disclaim it and affecting it is no worse than affecting to kill men without consent which with him is (s) Ibid v. vovendi condit not deadly or unless it be made ones ultimate end which none will own Accordingly Angelus determines that (t) Utrum sit mortale peccatum Resp quod sic quum ex tali superbia vel contentione fit quae sit mortalis alias communiter peccatum veniale erit Sum. v. arrogantia arrogancy is commonly a Venial fault unless upon the account of something else that is mortal as when it arises from mortal pride but that as he and others define it we heard before is scarce to be found amongst Christians SECT XVI AMbition was wont to be counted a deadly crime the world and the Church too has reason to judg it so since the most of their miseries and ruins may be imputed to it but the Church of Rome and her Champions are concerned not to think so ill of it stilo curiae in the sense of the Court it may pass for Venial Angelus inquires (u) Utrum ambitio sit peccatum mortale Resp quod non simpliciter sed pro ratione finis vel secundo ratione rei quae appetitu Sum. v. ambitio whether ambition be a mortal sin he answers negatively it is not so simply but may be so in respect of its end and so may any thing in it self lawful be if its end be criminal or it may be so if the thing affected be a crime but that is accidental and still ambitiousness the inordinacy of the affection is excused and may transgress all bounds if the honour and power affected be lawful Thus Cajetan he will yield it more than (x) Non est autem mortale peccatum nisi vel ex parte rei in qua appetitur honor puta si quis vult honorari ob crimen aliquod vel ex parte finis quia vult haheri ut Deus Cajetan v. ambit Venial when one will be honoured for a crime or would be counted a God accordingly it is resolved by Sylvester (y) Sum. v. superbia n. 7. with Navar (z) Quamvis regulariter appetitus inordinatus honoris non excedat metas culpae venialis Cap. 23. n. 15. regularly an inordinate appetite or greediness of Honour exceeds not the bounds of a Venial fault Indeed if pride and ambition had been branded as damnable two Cardinal vertues had been concern'd and which is more the Vatican Throne both in its foundation and supports SECT XVII VAin glory is another capital crime in their account and pregnant with many other they define it to be an inordinate affecting of humane glory and yet determine that an (a) Appetitus eorum etiam inordinatus regulariter est venialis c. Idem ibid. n. 9. inordinate affecting of praise or favour or honour or reverence or glory is but regularly a Venial sin only it may happen to be mortal in some case as when one would inordinately have glory from others for a deadly end or for a mortal sin or that which he makes his last end in all other cases this capital evil is but a slight fault According to their common Doctrine Cajetan will have it to be mortal (b) Solum peccat mortaliter qui gloriatur de aliquo quod est peccatum mortale secundo qui ponit suum finem ultimum in gloria humana Sum. v. glor van then only when one glories in mortal sin but to glory in Venials they count it a small fault or sets his ultimate end in vain glory (c) Colligo ex Alex. in 2. 2. Thom. 2. 2. q. 132. Henr. de Gandavo in quodl 1. q. 24. quod vana gloria de se non dicit aliquid quod sit contra charitatem Dei aut proximi Sum. v. van glor n. 1. Angelus collects out of Alexander and Aquinas that vain glory of it self imports not any thing contrary to the love of God or man Aquinas himself says (d) Inanis gloria non est mortale peccatum uisi charitati perfecte adversatur Aquinas 2. 2. q. 132. art 3. that if love of humane glory though vain be not perfectly repugnant to charity it is not Mortal And Sylvester (e) Intendit ergo S. Tho. quod appetitus vanae gloriae ex suo genere non sit mortale Sum. v. van gl n. 2. delivers this as the sense of their Oracle that the