or the Commandment to love God is some evil or unreasonable thing if he could not command us it since it is certain that God may command every thing that is not evil unjust and unreasonable To so many remarkable corruptions of divers passages of Scripture he adds also one to justifie the rest For amongst many objections which he propounds and makes to himself drawn for the most part out of the Scripture which in joyns us to do all things for the love of God if we expect any recompence from him for them he relates this taken out of S. Matth. cap. 10. vers 41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet and a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive therefore the reward due unto a Prophet and to a righteous man Also he that giveth a glass of cold water to the meanest Disciple of Jesus Christ shall not lose his reward provided he give it to him as a Disciple of Jesus Christ That is to say for respect unto Jesus Christ and for his love as these words do signifie sufficiently of themselves and as the Holy Fathers and Interpreters dounderstand it See here his objection which he resolves magisterially and by an interrogation as it were for instruction rather than answer I agree it saith he tr 3. pag. 71. 72. But what is it think you to treat a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God as a Prophet a righteous man and a Disciple of the Son of God It is to honour him invite him do him good and give him entertainment whether it be to receive some instruction from him or to imitate his good example or to learn his Oracles or for other good considerations of which yet not one is so heightned as to reach the purity of the love of God He afterward makes this his opinion and answer more clear by an example and by a comparison I would gladly know of these Interpreters saith he he speaks of those who say that to receive a Disciple in the name of a Disciple is to receive him for love of Jesus Christ whether a man who is prosecuted by his Creditor and who seeing one of his Agents coming to demand payment of the debt goes to meet him invites him makes much of him that he might win him over to him and obtain some forbearance I would gladly know whether this Debtor receive this Sollicitor as coming to him on the behalf of his Creditor and whether the good entertainment he makes for him comes from a good heart and pure love which he hath for him who sent him pag. 73. Without doubt he hath reason to say that a poor man who seeth a Sollicitor or a Serjeant coming to him to demand money of him on the behalf of his Creditor goes readily out to meet him and receives him as coming on the behalf of his Creditor for otherwise he would not have regarded him at all he hath also reason to say that if he invite him use him kindly and make any entertainment for him this proceeds not from any good will but rather as from force and constraint and that he doth not this for the love of the Sollicitor nor for his sake who employed him but for love of himself and respect to his own interest to try to gain the Sollicitor and win him by his means He could not have exprest his opinion better and I should have been troubled to find a more apposite comparison and clearer words to express the excess thereof than those whereof he himself makes use He would have us say then that when Jesus Christ saith in S. Matthew c. 10. 1 Qui recipit Prophetam in nomine Prophetae mercedem Prophetae accipiet qui recipit justum in nomine justi mercedem justi accipiet quicunque potum dederit uni ex minimis istis calicem aquae frigidae tantum in nomine discipuli Amen dico vobis non perdet mercedem suam Matth. 10. v. 41. That he who receives a Prophet in the quality of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receives a righteous man in the quality of a righteous man shall receive a righteous mans reward and whosoever shall give only a cup of cold water unto the least Disciple in the quality of a Disciple verily he shall not lose his reward he intends to say no other thing but that we should receive Prophets righteous men and Disciples and all those who come on his behalf in such manner as a poor man receives Serjeants Pursevants and Sollicitors who come to demand money on the behalf of his Creditors Finally he concludes his answer in these words Some for want of a right understanding have taken these words and such like from the mouth of our Lord in the Gospel in nomine meo propter me as if they could signifie no other thing in our tongue than for the love of me and to please me What an absurdity is this how can they take them in that sense in the 16. of S. Mark where it is said In nomine meo daemonia ejicient In my Name shall they cast out devils and in the 5. of S. Matthew where the words run thus Mentientes propter me Lying for my sake It is our Lord who speaks Since it is our Saviour who speaks he ought to have heard him with more respect and if he did not understand his words he should at least not have made him speak the quite contrary to what he saith But he wants yet more humility than understanding For if he had never so little submissiveness and docility we might send him to the Holy Fathers and Interpreters of Scripture to learn the sense of this passage But there were cause to fear that seeing they all take it in that manner which he condemns and hold that this which our Lord saith in nomine meo propter me signifieth that which he doth for the love of God and to please him his zeal would transport him against so many Saints and great Personages and make him exclaim What absurdity is this or as he doth elsewhere This is a meer vision For these are his common answers when he hath no better So expunging out of Gods Law all command and obligation to love him he reduces all Religion to this to serve him in keeping the other Commandments and doing good Works outwardly But Lessius will not have Christians obliged to external good works themselves nor unto those which are the principal and most recommended in the Scripture to wit the works of mercy And perceiving this strange Doctrine to be condemned by the mouth of Jesus Christ himself who in the 25. of S. Matthew brings no other reason for the sentence of life or death eternal which he will pronounce at the end of the world upon the Elect and Reprobates than the accomplishment or omission of these works he chose rather to
in talem actum tendere Ibid. n. 20. It is manifest saith he following the principles which I have established that this love of God may be had though it be weak in the lowest degree because we may have such an opinion and esteem of God whereupon we may judge him because of his uncreated goodness to deserve to be loved more than all his creatures and nevertheless be but slenderly moved to the exercise of this act If this be to love God to judge that he merits to be beloved the greatest sinners Infidels and Devils themselves be capable of this love and if to love as he commands it be sufficient to be moved but slenderly and to have for him an affection weak to the lowest degree We must raze out or correct the commandment which requires that we love him with all our strength and with all our heart Thus these Divines destroying the love of God in the hearts of men cause the love of the world to reign there and reducing the love which is commanded us to the utmost point and lowest degree that it can be in they give all liberty to lust and leave it all the extent of the heart and of the affections We need not therefore wonder if they strongly maintain that it is lawful to love temporal good things as riches honor and pleasure k Licet gloriam famam ob bonum sinem optare quantum quisque meretur Escobar tr 2. ex 2. cap. 8. n. 92. p. 303. It is no evil to desire glory and reputation for a good end as much as one deserves saith Escobar after Tolet. But Tolet expounds himself better than Escobar in the place which he cites where after he had said l Differt vana gloria à superbia Superbia enim appetit excellentiam vana autem gloria manifestationem excellentiae praecipue apud alios The difference which is betwixt Pride and vaine Glory is this that Pride transports men with a desire and love of their own excellency and vain Glory hath a desire to manifest his own proper excellency particularly before others He adds in favour of vain glory that m to desire it is not a thing bad in it self but indifferent as to desire money They cannot better justifie vanity then by avarice by approving them at the same time and in two words And that which they say is most repugnant to the judgement of Saint Paul writing to Timothy n Qui voluns divites fieri incidunt in tentationem in laqueum diaboli 1. ad Timoth. 6. v. 9. That those who would be rich fall in to temptations and the snares of the Devil And to that of Saint John who speaking generally of the world and of the love of temporal goods which are in this world gives this advice or rather command from God o Nolite diligere mundum neque ea quae sunt in mando Si quis diligit mundum non est charitas Patris in eo 1. Joan. c. 2. v. 15. Love not the world nor the things that are in the world for if any love the world the love of God is not in him This language of the Holy Ghost is sufficiently different from that of the Jesuits Yet they cease not to pretend that what they say that one may love the goods of this world is supported by the authority of the Saints and their examples and even of JESUS CHRIST himself Saint Chrysostome in his VII Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews saith that a secular person ought in all things to live like a Monk save that he may cohabite with his wise if he be marryed p Num secularis homo debet aliquid amplius habere monacho quà m cum uxore habitare tantum hic enim habet veniam in aliis autem nequaquam sed omnia aequaliter sicut monachi debet agere S. Chrys hom 7. in Ep. ad Hebraeos Thesecular saith he ought he to pretend that more is lawful to him then to a Monastick excepting only cohabitation with his wife It is true that in this point he hath a particular power but not in other things in all other things he is obliged to live as the Monasticks Celot alledging these words of Saint Chrysostome expounds them or rather corrects them in this sort q Cum uxoris co-habitationem concedit laico scribit Antistes educationem liberorum reique familiaris curam moderatum dignitatis secularis honoris desiderium liberum suae voluntatis usum quaesluosos labores uno verbo eâ—que hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes iili permissas admonet Celot p. 573. When this Prelate writes that it is lawful for a secular to cohabite with his wife he would say that it is lawful for him to bring up his children to take care of the affairs of his Family to desire dignities with moderation and the honours of the world to follow his own free inclinations to take pains to hoard no wealth and to close up all in a word but which is an hierarchique and a Holy one to lead his life altogether divided and distinct disparting his affections and thoughts to many different objects Saint Chrysostom saith absolutely that a secular hath no licence more then a Monk except that he may co-habite with his wife And Celot saith that he may love and desire the things of the world though this be not allowed a Monk God permits to seculars saith this Jesuit a moderate desire of dignities and honours of the world That is to say in most clear terms that God hath allowed him ambition and vanity so it be not excessive he hath permitted him to follow his own proper will which cannot be done without he be delivered from the dependence which he hath on him and dispensing with him from saying with all Saints They will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven so that instead of this he permits them to demand that their own will may be fulfilled This estate of free disposing of our wills was that of Adam before he sinned but now it is that of sinners and of the damned and God hath not a greater judgement to inflict on a man in this world then to give him up unto himself and to let him do what he will For this cause Celot hath happened to speak better then he intended when he said that God had left to the people of this world and to the lovers of this world in savour of whom he speaks the free disposal of their wills liberum suae voluntatis usum But this permission is not as he pretends a permission of approbation or dispensation which gives them right but a permission of judgement and of renunciation which imports and implyes punishment and vengeance He saith also that God permits secular persons to labour to gather wealth quaestuosos labores which is the very consequence of his discourse and opinion For as the servants of God do labour to
first of the Commandments which God gave in the old Law and which he hath repeated in the new is 1 Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex to to corde tuo Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart And Father Sirmond is not afraid to maintain that we are not obliged by this Commandment to love God For God saith he tr 2. p. 16. commanding us to love him is satisfied in the main that we obey him in his other Commandments And as he saith also pag. 28. A God so loving and lovely commanding us to love him is satisfied that we obey him without loving him It is easie to destroy all the Commandments by this Method there being none more important nor more clearly explained nor oftner repeated in the Old or New Testament than this When God saith Thou shalt love me with all thy heart if it be lawful to say that he intends something else than what he saith and that he would not oblige us to love him though he saith it with an expression so clear and strong there can be nothing certain in the whole Word of God and we may in this manner clude all the Commandments pretending that he desires not that of us which he demands or that he would not oblige us in good earnest to that which he testifies to be his desire But the reason of this Father why God would not have us to love him is excellent because he is loving and lovely as if love desired any thing so much as reciprocal love or could be otherwise acknowledged and satisfied than by this love He ought also at least to consider that God is not only amiable and loving but also a great lover of truth and sincerity and that so there can be no apparent ground to make him a lyar or dissembler in commanding men to love him without desiring to oblige them thereunto This Jesuit corrupts also this same passage and Commandment in another manner saying Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. signifies no other thing than thou shalt love him if thou wilt without being obliged thereto because the Commandment to love God is a Command of pleasure in respect of affective love but a Command of rigour in respect of effective love and the execution p. 21. He would say that God by this Commandment demands the outward actions and not the affection that he commands us to produce the effects of love without obliging us to have this love and that he is content provided we do the things which he commands though they be done without loving him or thinking of him No wise man would be served in this manner of his children or of his friends nor of his slaves themselves and who would not scorn such services He hath also invented a third gloss which is no other than a consequence of the former saying Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart signifies thou shalt love him freely and without any obligation For God saith he the God of love will be loved freely and without any obligation and if he threaten it is that he may be obeyed But if we love not them freely whom we love of duty and upon obligation we must say that a Son loves not his Father freely because he is obliged to love him by the Law of God and Nature and if that which is done of duty be not freely done it follows that the Religious Orders keep not their vows freely nor the Faithful any of the Commandments of God because they are thereunto obliged But if he threatens saith he it is that he may be obeyed and not that he may be beloved We must believe then that there are no penalties nor threats against them that never love God Which neither agrees with what S. Paui saith He that loves not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be accursed 1 Cor. 16. nor with that which S. John saith Qui non diligit manet in morte 1 John 3. He that loveth not abideth in death The one threatning them with death and the other with a curse who love not Jesus Christ There remains yet his last corruption of this very word of God of Jesus Christ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart That is to say thou shalt not hate him at all For albeit his sacred love be not kindled in our hearts saith he Pag. 19. though we love him not at all and the motive of Charity do not incline us to do that which he commands us yet we cease not for all that to obey the Commandment of Love in as much as we do the works of Love So that herein we may see the goodness of God he hath not so much commanded us to love him as not to hate him either formally by an actual hate which were indeed devillish or materially by the transgression of his Law This excess is visible enough of it self and needs not be represented more particularly and it might easily be apprehended to be the extreamest that can be committed on this subject if there were not found another yet greater in this little Book which is as it were the foundation of all the rest For he talks of the love of God as a thing odious and servile and he represents the Commandment of loving God as a yoke and servitude unsupportable attributing it to the particular favour and grace of Jesus Christ that he hath delivered us as he pretends from the obligation of serving God in love that our services might be pleasing to him and meritorious unto eternal life And to justifie this his imagination which scents strong of impiety he abuses these words of Jesus Christ 1 Si vos Filius liberaverit vere liberi critis Joh. 8. v 36. If the Son make you free you shall be free indeed which speak manifestly of freedom from sin as appears by what goes before See here how he expounds this passage If the Son make you free saith he himself in S. John you shall be free indeed Yea I hope we shall by his own proper testimony yea even from that very strait obligation wherewith some would charge us which is to love God in every point which hath any reference unto merit Tr. 3. p. 60. He pretends then that Jesus Christ hath not only delivered us from sin as is formerly affirmed in this place but also from the obligation even of loving God himself and of serving him in love which appears unto him too rigorous Which hath reference to what he saith tr 2. p. 24. that God neither could nor ought command us to love him but only to serve him See here saith he how God hath right and might command us his sacred love he hath right to command us so far as concerns the effect but not in what concerns the inward affection It must needs be therefore that according to the opinion of this man the love of God
felicity If not that is to say though we never have the felicity to love him actually provided we do not otherwise offend him he will not damn us Whence we must conclude according to these Principles and Reasonings that there is not absolutely any true Command which obliges us to love God since that which he hath given us himself contains neither threat nor penalty at the least no grievous one against them who fail therein if you will believe in him rather than S. John S. Paul and the Son of God himself who say the contrary in so many places of Scripture SECTION II. That according to Father Sirmond the Gospel speaks hardly any thing at all of Divine Love and Charity and that Jesus Christ hath not much recommended it AFter Father Sirmond had reduced this great and first Command of God to a simple advice and no more this advice is also of so little consequence in his Judgment and according to the mind of Jesus Christ himself if you will believe this Jesuit that he hath scarcely mentioned it in the whole Gospel You will be troubled to find saith he pag. 162. tr 2. that he hath spoken manifestly of this divine practice if it be not at the conversion of Magdalen and in his Sermon at his last Supper where he exhorts us to love him In these two places which he observes as those alone wherein our Lord hath spoken of the practice of the love of God he will not have him therein to recommend it as necessary but only that he commends it and exhorts us to it as a good thing that is to say that he advises but commands it not And in this he testifies that he hath read the whole Gospel very exactly and that he hath very well dived into the sense of the words of Jesus Christ saying to his Apostles at the last Supper 1 Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem Joan. 15. v. 12. The commandment which I give you is that you love one another He discovers also by his discourse that he understands perfectly well what the Gospel and new Law is which according to the Divines after S. Thomas is no other thing than the Law of love and love it self So that when he saith that love is scarcely spoken of through the whole Gospel it is as if he should say that the new Law is not spoken of in the new Law nor the Gospel in the Gospel But to shew that he speaks not hereof without having considered it well he observes that of 32 Parables which is the most frequent manner of Christs discourse he applies but one for the recommendation of the love of our neighbour in the person of that distressed poor man abused by thieves betwixt Jericho and Jerusalem pag. 121. After he hath read the Gospel so exactly as to number the Parables contained therein as he hath observed only two places wherein our Lord speaks of divine love so he hath found but one wherein he speaks of the love of our neighbour So that S. Paul had no reason to say writing to the Romans 2 Plenitudo legis est dilectio qui diligit proximum legem implevit Rom. 13. v. 10. That love is the fulfilling of the law and that he who loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law For if love be the accomplishment and fulfilling of the Law it will follow that love is extended through the whole Law otherwise it could not fulfil nor comprehend it all And so it would neither be the fulfilling nor accomplishment of it and if the love of our neighbour fulfil and accomplish the Law the love of our neighbour must contain and be contained in all the Law as the Soul fills and contains and is filled and contained by the body which caused S. Austin to say 3 Non praecipit Scriptura nisi charitatem nec culpat nist cupiditatem to modo informat mores dominus That the whole Scripture old and new is and commends nothing but charity If we will not submit to the Authority of S. Austin and S. Paul we should at least give way to that of Jesus Christ and acknowledge his errour or raze out of the Gospel so many passages wherein he recommends so expresly and clearly the love of God above all things and that of our neighbour by making thereof an express Commandment which he calls his and the Commandment proper to the new Law as when he saith in the 13. of S. John 4 Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos Joan. 13. v 34. A new commandment give I unto you that you love one another as I have loved you And in Chap. 15. 5 Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem Joan. 15. v. 12. This is my commandment that you love one another And a little after 6 Hoc mando vobis ut diligatis invicem Ibid. v. 17. I command you to love one another and many other places there are wherein he speaks of charity and of the command to love God and our neighbour as a Commandment which is not only proper to the new Law but which contains also the whole Law new and old as he expresly declares in S. Matthew where speaking of the double Commandment to love God above all things and our neighbour as our selves he saith 7 In his duobus mandatis úniversa lex pendet Prophetae Matt. 22. v. 40. That all the Law and Prophets depend on these two Commandments SECTION III. The mixture and agreement of Self-love with the Charity invented by Father Sirmond the Jesuit IT soffices not Father Sirmond to have taken away and dasht Charity as much as he could out of the Law of God the sacred Scriptures and the heart of man he sets upon it in its own nature and he seems to desire to drive it from it self first in mingling it with and secondly in changing it into self-love He mixes it with self-love when he saith tr 2. pag. 47. The more that charity possesseth it the less doth the Soul think of any other thing than to love and the more it takes to heart the interests of God the less it cares for its own peculiar but all this is accidental unto charity whereof the highest perfection may subsist in a heart altogether inclined to and concerned to the utmost for it self without falling short of what it owes unto the principal object of its affection as it comes to pass among the Blessed who eschewing all sorts of evil provide for all that which concerns them and yet are not the less belonging to God If it be true that to lay to heart the interests of God and to care for them more than our own be accidental unto charity as this Jesuit pretends S. Paul understood not what charity was and he hath spoken very improperly of it in 1 Cor. 13. where making the most express and exact description of
pass by the opinion of Azor who alleadges eight times or eight occasions and that of Sanchez who acknowledges but one alone wherein this precept obliges he leaves the one as too large and the other as too severe and too exact e Sequor autem Henriquez tria ad hoc praeceptum tempora assignantem Primum quidem est morale principium rationis Secundum mortis articulus Tertium tempus vitae intermedium saltem singulis quinque annis Addo ex Filliutio probabile esse won quinquennis singulis rigorose obligare sed sapientum arbitrio Ibid. But I follow Henriquez who observes three times in which this precept obliges The first is when a man begins to have the use of reason the second is upon the point of death the third is all the time of a mans life between those two at the least from five years to five years But I say farther following Filliutius that it is probable that this precept doth not oblige in rigour every five years but at the discretion and judgement of wise persons If a man be obliged to love God but upon one occasion as Sanchez would have it or at the beginning of his use of reason and at death and now and then during his life as Henriquez believes or from five to five years and even less as Escobar adds or at most upon eight occasions onely which may happen during a mans whole life according to Azor all the rest of his time that is to say almost all the life of a man shall be for lust and one may employ it to love any other thing besides God that is to say to love the creatures temporal things the goods of this world without being obliged to turn away his minde and his heart from them to love God it being certain that the heart of man cannot be without some love and that that of the world and of the creatures doth occupy all that which the love of God doth not possess Amicus not daring to oppose himself absolutely to the opinion of Divines who hold that to satisfie the precept of loving God we are obliged to have actually more love for him than for the Creature expounds this opinion in such sort that he doth indeed defend it f Secunda sententia docet Deum esse diligendum super omnia tantùm appretiative seu praelative Est communis Thelogorum opinio quae vera sequenda Amic tom 4. disp 29. sect 2. n. 15. p. 388. The second opinion holds saith he that it behoves to love God above all things in preferring him above them and esteeming him more but not in loving him with more tenderness This is the common judgement of Divines which is true and which ought to be followed And for to expound this more clearly he addeth g Omnis appretiatio nascitur ex judicio comparativo unius prae alio Ex eo enim quod judico unum esse melius perfectius alio Ibid num 18. All preference comes from a judgement by which after we have compared two things we choose the one and leave the other For because I judge that the one thing is worth more than the other I preferr that which I judge to be the better He distinguishes here two acts the one is that by which we compare two things together and the other that by which we give the preference to that which we judge the better And he puts apprecicative love in the latter of these two acts which is for all that an act of judgement and of understanding as well as the former So that to love God more than all the creatures appretiatively or by preference according to him is no other thing then to Judge that God is better and more perfect then all the Creatures But this may be done by the greatest Sinner as well as by the greatest Saint this judgement being more in the head than in the heart and proceeding more from knowledge and light of minde than from affection Also it is clear that one may esteem them much whom he loves not at all and also more than those whom he loves And there is nothing more common then to esteem those for whom one has no true affection at all but an intire indifference So that this esteem and this judgement cannot be named love but improperly he he who sets not his love which is due unto God above all things otherwise then in in this judgement and in this estimation which makes him prefer him above all things as deserving to be beloved above all things doth not at the bottom attribute unto him any true love at all and holds in effect that there is no love due to him at all But if these Doctors who know to give to their own words as well as to those of others such sence as they please even that which they have not and which they cannot have naturally as we have made appear in the former Chapter I say if these Doctors that they may not seem to abolish intirely the commandment of love to God say that although they place this love that is due to God in the esteem which we ought to make of him above all the creatures they exclude not for all this from that preference all sort of affection for God and that they suppose we have always some love for him They reduce elsewhere this love whatsoever it be according to them to so base a degree that they testifie sufficiently that all their explications are rather to disguise their judgement than to expound it clearly and that not daring absolutely to deny the commandment of loving God they diminish and deface as much as they can the love which they suppose to be due unto him h Quod autem sola dilectio appreciativa Dei super omnia sufficiat ad implendum praeceptum charit tis erga Deum etsi remissima sit probatur Ibid. num 19. I will prove unto you saith Amicus that although the love of God appretiative above all things be in a very low degree It sufficeth for to accomplish the precept of love towards God This is to abolish intirely the commandment of loving God by maintaining that we are not obliged to love him as it doth command for God doth demand all our love since he demands all our heart And Amicus saith and attempts to prove that the lowest degree of love suffices to accomplish the precept of love towards God And that he might not leave any place to doubt of his thought upon this point he repeats the same thing in the following number and he speaks thereof as of a truth which follows from his principles i Quod autem talis dilectio possit esse etiamsi in gradu remississimo sit constâ—… ex principiis quoniam possumus talem aestimationem de Deo habere ut propter increatam suam bonitatem praeserendus sit in amore omnibus rebus creatis tumen non nisi remisse
serve him and to gain eternal wealth which he hath promised to those that serve him even so the people of the world serve the world and labour for advancement in the world and to get temporal wealth Finally he saith r Uno verbo coque hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes illi permissas admonet that to conclude all in one word but which is hierarchique and holy God hath permitted them to lead a life divided and distracted parting their minds and thoughts towards a multitude of different objects I am not astonished at all that he declares so openly that he who is no profest Religious may divide his minde and life betwixt God and the world that is to say that he may love the world as well as God This saying is worthy him but not holy nor hierarchique as he assures us This is rather a profane speech and unworthy of a Christian and opposite to the hierarchy being it is contrary to the order and commandment of God who ordaines us a Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo Nolite diligere mundum neque ea quae in mundo sunt 1. Joan. 2. v. 15. to love him with all our heart and forbids us to love the world and all that is in the world Nevertheless he forbears not to take Saint Chrysostome for warrant of this saying as if he could cover an errour by an imposture He makes this great Saint to say or rather he saith for him against his will and contrary to his thoughts and expresse words that it is lawful for a secular person to lead a life wholly divided and severed parting his affections and thoughts on many different objects Which agrees not with what he himself hath related of this Saint that a Christian who liveth in the world is obliged to the same things with a professed Religious excepting the usage of marriage Omnia aequaliter sicut Monachi agere debet unless he pretends that it is lawful also for the Monks and Religious as well as seculars to part their lives betwixt God and the world After he had thus abused the authority of the Saints he abuseth also their example to support his false principle and to establish ambition usury and the love of this world and the goods of this world amongst Ecclesiastiques and the Ministers of Jesus Christ as well as amongst the seculars For he is bold to assure us that the greatest personages of antiquity as Saint Basil have suffered themselves to breake out into passions like those he allows the people of the world and have appeared vehemently concerned in occasions so important as are the elections and ordinations of the Pastors of the Church See how he discourses b Magnis etiam viris humanas rationes scimus non rarò ejusmodi parentum aut amicorum ordinationes persuasisse Et à Sancto Basilio Ecclesiastiâ—ae narrat historia Zazinis vili ac despecto oppido erectam Episcopatus Sedem ut in ea constitutus Gregorius Nazianz nus amici sui partes adversus Anthemium secundae Cappadaciae Metropolitanum tueretur Quo in facto si unicam Dei spectasset gloriam neque terreni desiderii quidquam admiscuisset facilius sine dubio cessisset Basilio Gregorius Celot p. 947. We know that humane reasons have often transported the greatest persons to seek to advance their kindred and their friends to the orders and charges of the Church and the Ecclesiastical History relates that Saint Basil erected an Episcopali Seat at Zazime which was but a despicable and poor Town that he might establish Gregory Nazianzen there to the end he might make use of him as his friend against Anthemius Metropolitan of the second Province of Cappadocia In which if he had considered the glory of God alone and had not mingled therewith some Earthly desire St. Gregory had more readily and with lesse resistance yielded himself to the will of Saint Basil He is not contented unjustly to condemn Saint Basil he makes Saint Gregory to condemn him also supposing falsely that he had opposed him because he discovered some worldly desire in his design But by this rule we must say that all the Saints who at the first resisted other Saints or the Church or God himself when they were called to Ecclesiastique Offices and sometimes by miracle have observed some humane and terrestrial concern in the conduct and vocation of the Church the Saints and God himself upon which they grounded their refusal and resistance After that Celot had imposed this infirmity and defect upon Saint Basil he makes application thereof to his design which is to authorize Lust by the example of so great a Saint drawing thence this consequence c Potuit ergo S. Basilius ut Ecclesiae suae Metropolitanae dignitatem ampliflcaret novos Episcopos sibi subditos quos suffraganeos appellamus constituere Saint Basil then might create and establish under him new Bishops whom they call Suffragans to augment the dignity and authority of his Metropolitan Church d Non poterit Sanctus alius simili ex causa veteri Episcopatui fratrem consanguineum suum aut amicum fidelissimum praesicere Ibid. May not another Saint upon like occasion give unto his Brother his Kinsman his faithful Friend the conduct of an ancient Bishoprick 1. We may observe in this discourse first of all the rashness wherewith he imposes upon Saint Basil without any ground to have acted humanely and to have been carried by interest and a carnal desire to make St. Gregory a Bishop 2. The consequence he draws from this supposed fact saying that by the example of Saint Basil others may choose their kindred and friends for interest and humane consideration to succeed them in their charges of their Churches 3. The conclusion and end of this reasoning and this example which is onely to make use of it to authorize and justify the love of the world and the goods of this world and consequently to let loose the reins to lust and to give men the liberty to follow it without difficulty and without remorse of conscience Poza proceeds farther unto a greater excesse in this same subject attributing even to Jesus Christ himself this manner of acting altogether humane and altogether from flesh and blood in two the most Holy and Divine functions which he hath exercized which are the distribution of his grace and vocation to an Apostleship For in that Saint John Baptist was sanctified from the wombe of his Mother he argues that by stronger reason Jesus Christ hath done the same favour to Saint Joachim and Saint Anne Because that Saint Joachim and Saint Anne were his Grandfather and Grand-mother whereas Saint John was but his cousin See here his words speaking of Jesus Christ * Ut Mariae adblandtretur absque originaria macula concipiendae illius parentem adhuc velocius quà m Joannem à macula haereditaria liberavit Neque video quare
effusior fuerit beneficentia Christi in Joannem quà m in utrumque avum Joannes erat quidem consobrinus Deiparae at multo minor est necessitudo haec à transversa linea derivata quà m quae recto tramite descendit patrum avorum Joannes fuit praecursor Domini haec tamen dignitas urget minus clementiam Christi quà m illa quae sumitur ex patrio munere per Mariam Poza Elucidarâ—i l. 2. tr 8. c. 3. sect 2. p. 547. For to make himself more complaisant towards Mary who was to be conceived without original sin he delivered her Father and Mother from the original corruption more readily then Saint John And I see not saith he why the liberality of Jesus Christ should be greater towards Saint John then towards his Grand-father and Grand-mother Saint John being Consin unto the Virgin but this proximity being onely in the collateral line it is lesse then that of Fathers and Mothers and other Ancestors who are in the right line Saint John was the fore-runner of our Lord but this dignity is not so proper to presse the bounty of Jesus Christ as that which arises from the quality of Father and Mother in respect of Mary This is a great rashness and a reasoning altogether carnal and grosse to preferre the natural quality of Father and Mother of the Virgin to the Holy and eminent quality of the fore-runner of Jesus Christ by which Saint John surpassed all the greatest Saints and all the Prophets But this is yet a greater temerity and a thought yet more carnal to attribute the grace of God to natural conditions of flesh and blood against the most clear and certain principles of Faith Finally this is a third excesse to maintain Saint Joachim and Saint Anne had so much or more grace and Holyness then Saint John Baptist since it is formally to contradict Jesus Christ who hath declared that amongst all the Saints who were born before John there was none greater then he And the foundation of this imagination is no better then it is it self For he pretends that Jesus Christ entring into the same obligations with his Mother and making them as his own ought to give more grace to those to whom the Virgin was more obliged and more straitly bound according to the order of nature and of birth See here his words e Ut quibus magis secundùm naturam debitum causae tenebatur beata Virgo illis abundantiorem gratiam Christus impertiret L. 3. tr 10 c. 5. p. 617. It was reasonable that Jesus Christ should give grace in more abundance to those to whom his Mother was more obliged by the Laws of nature and by the particular engagements of her condition And speaking of the vocation of the Apostles he saith that Jesus Christ f Hoc carni sangumi dedit ut media fere parte Apostolorum ex cognatis secundum carnem pararetur to satisfie the Laws of Flesh and Blood did choose almost half his Apostles of the number of his kindred according to the flesh He cannot say more openly that Jesus Christ was acted by carnal affection and by humane considerations in the distribution of his Graces and in the vocation of his Apostles to their office which are two actions of his power the most principal and Divine The Pelagians proceeded in their heresie no further than this point to say that God distributed his Grace according to the rules of flesh and blood The Pharisees who looked narrowly into all the actions of Jesus Christ to reprove them never found in all his life the least occasion to reproach him that he acted humanely and with acceptation of persons preferring his kindred before others On the contrary they found always so much indifferency in all his conduct that they publiquely gave this testimony of him Å¿ Non est tibi cura de aliquo non respicis personam hominis Mat. 22. v. 16. You respect no mans person and you have no regard unto men The same Author in the same place pursuing his discourse discovers more openly yet the thought which he hath of our Saviour in this matter and makes it more unexcusable see how he speaks g Ne autem in consanguincos nimius videretur amor ambitioni fraena laxarentur nullum ex illis Apostolorum Principem elegit sed â—x aliena familia vicinae autem patriae Simonem Petrum Lib. 2. tr 10. c. 4. p. 614. But for fear that Jesus Christ should let loose the reins unto ambition and that the love which he had to his kindred might not appear too excessive he chose none of them to make him Prince and Chief of the Apostles but he chose Saint Peter who was of another Family and of another Neighbouring Town So that according to the thoughts of this Author vanity and the consideration of men did a little hold back the ambition of Jesus Christ so that if he had not been afraid to discover and make too much to appear that passion which he had to make great his kindred as he had already advanced many to the Apostleship he had also it may be chosen some one of them to make him head of the Apostles But if Jesus Christ could prefer his kindred before other men to make them Apostles because of their kindred as this Jesuit pretends why could not he by the same reason give them the primacy over the Apostles If it had been too great ambition to do the second as he supposes it had been also ambition according to him though lesse to do the former The extremest point of impiety of the Jews in the time of the Law and of Tyrants since the coming of Christ hath been to set Idols in the Temples and on the Altars consecrated unto God But this is a far greater excess to set lust that is to say the spring of all sins of all disorders of all the evils in the world in God himself and Jesus Christ The Holy Fathers have observed that the Devil never found any artifice or means more efficacious to authorize vice and give it a free course among Pagans then to let them see the examples of it in the actions of the false gods it being easie to carry them on to imitate those whom they adored The Jesuits do the same thing In a manner more criminal attributing to the Saints and even unto Jesus Christ himself humane motions and earthly desires and passions of flesh and blood and perswading men also that they are not evil and that they may follow them in their conduct or rather that they are obliged to do them since the Gospel teaches us to follow Jesus Christ in all things in the conduct of our lives and the regulation of our manners We must avow that it is not possible more to promote lust nor more to debase the Son of God CHAP. II. Of Sins in habit or habitual Sins That there is scarcely any habitual Sins
our Fathers that he might set them in their place If it be true then that we ought to take the ancients for the rule of faith onely and not of works the faith which we receive from them will be dead and barren and if the moderns give us onely the rules of manners without those of Faith our life how good soever it appear would be no other then Heathen And if it be pretended that with the rules of manners they give us also them of faith whether they take them from the ancients or make them themselves as they do those of manners to give them us we are more obliged to them then the ancients or rather we hold all of them without having any need of the ancients we receive good life vertue holiness from those who are no Saints and we hold nothing from the Saints from whom we receive onely a dead faith a Faith of Devils as Saint Augustin speaks according to Scripture And to speak truth the children of the Church receive not their life of the Fathers of the Church and are not their children but of the Fathers of this World and Divines of the last times Celot is not contented to follow Reginaldus in this point but he speaks of himself for novelty against antiquity with a sleightness and contempt unsufferable a Quid agas Sic se habent humana omnia vixerunt moribus suis antiqui nos nostris Utri melius Câ—lot in praef l. 5. p. 240. What shall we do saith he all humane affairs are thus the ancients lived after their rules and we after ours And who shall tell us which are the better He acknowledges that which is too true we now live in a manner quite different from that of the ancients and of the Holy Fathers and this is that which should oblige us to address our selves rather unto them then unto the moderns to learn to regulate our manners and to live Christian-like For as in all sorts of professions we seek the best Masters to instruct us so it is clear that those who have lived holily and who are acknowledged for Saints in the Church are more proper to teach holiness and Christian life then they that are no Saints as all the new Divines are not to say no more of them There is none but Celot who seems not willing to confess that the ancients are better then the moderns in saying that we know not whether their conduct and rules be better then that of the moderns But he should at least have considered that we may well sometimes give the moderns the name of Fathers but not of Saints and that by the Holy Fathers we understand always the ancients so that as well the publick voice of the Church as that of the Society it self suffices to convince the blindness of his Pride But he is not content to equal himself and his to the Holy Fathers and ancient Religious who lived in the primitive times of the Church in a holiness and purity altogether extraordinary he hath also the confidence to preferre himself in these strange terms b Inique de nostro saeculo judicarunt qui nostratum Religiosorum mores ex antiquorum factis expendunt ut quod illi faciendum sibi committendumve censuerunt hoc nos confestim pro vo luntate amplexemur aut fugiamus Plane ut si qu is maturi ae â—i hominem ad pueritâ—…m redire compellat quoniam in illo aetatulae slore vinulum clegantulum nounihil habebat quod matri arrideret Celot Ibid. They do wrong saith he to our age who would judge of the life of the Religious of our times by that of the ancients in such sort that what the ancients have believed themselves to be obliged to do or to avoid we ought also to command or forbid Without other reason then because the ancients have ordained it this is as it were to desire them to return to their infancy who are at maturity of age because that in their first years they had somewhat of pleasant and pretty which flattered the eyes of their Mother He could not have discovered himself more nor testifyed more contempt of these great Saints and first Religious then to compare the moderns to men grown ripe and perfect and the ancients to infants who have nothing at all of solid but onely a prettiness proper to content the easiness and foolish affection of women Whence it follows we are no more to consider the ancient Fathers then as children in regard of the moderns who must be the venerable Fathers of the Fathers themselves and by consequence they can be no longer their disciples since it belongs to perfect men to instruct children and not children to instruct men It seems that it is in this same sence that Celot speaking of Saint Paul the first Eremite of Saint Anthony and many other Saints who imitated them in flying the corruption of the world and retiring into the Desart to serve God there he saith that the Church hath rather tolerated then approved those great personages and their manner of life altogether Holy and Evangelical c Alios tulit potius quam expresse probavit Ecclesia homines seculi fastidio amore Dei incitatos statim cursu in solitudinem se abdentes ut sanctum Paulum ut in primis annis sanctum Antonium alios ab Augustino memoratos Celor l. 5. c. 4. p. 257. The Church saith he rather tolerated then approved formally those who being pressed on by the love of God and contempt of the World retired as it were in haste and went to hide themselves in the wildernesse as Saint Paul and Saint Anthony in the first ages and others of whom Saint Augustin speaks We tolerate onely that which is evil or disorderly which comes always from evil or weaknesse This Jesuit therefore must accuse these great Saints of the one or the other and that their actions which were all holy passe in bis mind for disorders or defects if it be true that the Church did tolerate them onely as he saith and not approve them But she could not give them a greater approbation then by Canonizing them and declaring them Saints for that Angelical and admirable life which they led in the Wilderness as also the Church testifies at this day publickly in its office and its mysteries and all the great personages of the Church the Holy Bishops the Popes and the Doctors have published their praises out-vying as it were one another through all ages of Christianity and Celot perhaps is the first amongst Catholicks that hath had the boldness to debase and dispraise them But this contempt and insolence will appear yet more unworthy and unsufferable when he compares them to those who lived in the first ages of the world of whom the Poets speak as of savages and beasts living without Laws without politie and without conduct in such manner that those who came after being formed and regulated by the
negat Petrus Aurelius actum vult intelligi I say that the Apostle in this place demands only the habit of Charity Petrus Aurelius on the contrary holds that it ought to be extended unto the act And a little after 3 Actum profecto laudant suadent omnibus praeserunt Scripturae at habitum charitatis tanquam rem semper necessariam expetunt Celot lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 125. It is true that the Scripture commends the act of Charity that it directs and advises us to it and prefers it before all other things but it commands the habit as being continually necessary If S. Paul speak in this place only of the habit of Charity he requires it in vain of the Corinthians seeing they had it as he himself supposes calling them just and holy it is in vain that he exhorts that he advertises them that when they suffer any persecution when they give alms when they perform any other good work they should do it of Charity since they having the habit of Charity could not act otherwise than by Charity this habit having necessary influence upon all their actions as Celot pretends Coninck speaks also more clearly to this Point For he saith that to be a Martyr it is not necessary to have an actual will nor so much as a virtual one but that it sufficeth to have an interpretative and habitual one according to the language of the Schools And he explains this term of an interpretative and virtual one by these Examples 1 Qualis est in eo primo qui fugiens tyrannum à quo compellitur ad impia in fuga subito occiditur Secundo in eo qui sollicitatur ad defectionem fidei quia banc recusavit dormiens occiditur Coninck 3. p. q. 66. de baptis a. 12. n. 136. p. 80. Such an one as that of a person flying from a Tyrant who would force him to some impiety is slain unexpectedly in his flight or at least of him who being sollicited to renounce the faith is killed in his sleep because he refused to do it And because it may be said that these persons had a will to maintain the faith and to dye for it since the one fled for fear to lose it and the other refused to renounce it and so they are faithful in their will to dye for the faith he declares that neither is this at all necessary and that 2 Imo videtur sufficere ut in odium fidei occidatur eâ—si de confessione fidei nihil prius cogitaveriâ—… v.c. si subito hostium incursu deprehendatur dormiens in odium fidei occidatur Ibid. it sufficeth that they be killed out of hatred to the faith though they had not formerly so much as a thought of confessing it as it happens when in sudden Eruptions of Barbarians one is killed in his sleep through hatred of faith So that he believes that one may be a Martyr and merit the reward of Martyrdom not only without any act of Charity but also without any act of Faith and without so much as any natural and reasonable act dying without any apprehension and without any thought had before-hand of dying for the Faith Perhaps it may be imagined that he grounds himself on the preparation of the heart of this man believing that God regards the good disposition which he had unto Martyrdom But neither doth he demand so much as that And he presupposeth on the contrary that if it had been put to his choice either to dye or renounce God and Jesus Christ he would rather have been ready and in more danger to abandon the Faith 3 Nic refert quod talis forte fi ei mors proponeretur prae timore negaret Deum quia haec conditionolis propositio nihil ponit in re atque ita nihil obest Idem pag. 139. It matters not saith he though if death had been proposed unto this man the fear it would have brought on him would possibly have forced him to forget God because this conditional supposition produces no real thing in this man and so it cannot hurt him He believes then that to be a Martyr it is not at all necessary to have so much as a conditional will to dye for God if occasions were presented that the contrary disposition rather to forsake God than to lose his life on this occasion cannot hurt him and by consequence that it is not bad nor hinders a man from being in an estate to receive the Crown of Martyrdom if he dye without ever thinking of it in this disposition by the hand of a Tyrant But he discovers the ground of this Doctrine when he saith 4 Potest quis magis eligere mori quam negare Christum impulius solo metu gehennae Idem d. 1. num 118. pag. 77. That a man may resolve with himself in this case to dye rather than forsake Jesus Christ by fear of Hell only That is to say that without charity or love of God the fear of the pains of Hell only may make a true Martyr contrary to S. Paul and contrary to the consent of all the Saints Scripture and Church who declare publickly when the Feasts of the Martyrs are celebrated 5 Eâ— quia pro ejus amore sanguinem suum fuderune ideo cum Christo exultant sine fine That it is because they shed their blood for the love of God and Jesus Christ that they rejoyce eternally with him And by consequence that he who sheds not his blood for the love of God shall have no part in the joy of Jesus Christ and loseth his labour as S. Paul saith 6 Si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam charitatem autem non habutro nihil mihi prodest 1 Cor. cap. 15. Father Anthony Sirmond in a Treatise of the defence of Vertue part 3. pag 54. Though I give my body to be burnt and have not charity it profits me nothing The Father Anthony Sirmond eludes also these very words of the Apostle by maintaining that he means only to say that if a man be in mortal sin all these things that is to say Faith Alms and Martyrdom are of no benefit Whence he concludes That S. Paul requires not nor could require any thing but habitual charity only exempt from all mortal sin 3 part p. 51. of the Treatise of the Defence of Vertue He is not content to say that S. Paul requires no other disposition to Martyrdom than to be exempt from mortal sin though there be no motion of charity nor any will to dye for God but he adds also that the Apostle could not require any other thing And as if to require any other thing were rigour or unreasonable injustice he concludes with this exclamation What! would you oblige the Martyrs going unto Martyrdom unto some act of Charity That is to say that according unto him it is a thing not only far off from justice and reason but also without
all appearance thereof to imagine that the will to dye for God should be necessary unto true Martyrdom This same Jesuit hath corrupted another passage of the 3. Chap. of S. John whereof the Council of Trent makes use to explicate the Nature of meritorious good Works saying they are such because they are wrought in God quia in Deo sunt facta By which words the Holy Fathers and the best Interpreters of the Holy Scripture and of the Council of Trent have understood works done by the motion of Gods Spirit which is that of Charity But he will not endure it and is so far transported as to tax them as weak men and subject to imaginary visions who are of this opinion As to that which some represent saith he tr 3. pag. 45. that the Council doth include herein the motive of Charity because that it demands that they be wrought in God it is a meer imagination It may be he never read the Council or it is likely he took no notice that it expounded it self in saying that good works ought to be wrought by a vertue and grace which Jesus Christ inspires continually into his Members in such manner as the Vine continues life and vigour to its branches 1 Cum enim ipse Jesus Christus tanquam caput in membra tanquam vitis in palmites in ipsos justificatos jugiter virtutem influat quae virtus eorum bona opera semper antecedit concomitatur sequitur c. Sine qua nullo pacto grata meritoria esse possent nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est quoniam minus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo facta sunt divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore si tamen in gratia decefferint consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur Concil Trid. Sess 6. cap. 16. For Jesus Christ saith the Council communicating vigour continually to those who are justified as the head communicates unto its members and the Vine unto its branches and this vigour preceding accompanying and following always their good works which without it could not in any sort whatsoever be pleasing unto God and meritorious we must believe that there is now nothing more wanting unto persons justified which might hinder us from judging reasonably that the works which are thus wrought in God have satisfied his Law so far as the condition of this present life may permit and that they have merited eternal life which they shall in due time receive provided they dye in this estate of Grace It is clear that this vertue and this vigour which the Council saith that Jesus Christ communicates incessantly to those who do good works is not an habitual vertue or a simple habitude as this Jesuit pretends but that it is actual and it is a motion by which he applies unto them and causes them to act For it is actual Grace as is manifest by the expression of the Council saying that it prevents accompanies and follows all good works which is properly the description of actual Grace according to the Scripture the Judgment of the Fathers and even of the School-Divines themselves and appertains not to a habit which prevents not good works but leaves the will in an indifference to the production of them and it must be the will which prevents and applies this habit in such manner that without this the other cannot move of it self and abides always without acting And so the Council agrees very well with S. Paul the one saying that our good works should be done in Charity and the other that they ought to be wrought in God that is to say in the Spirit and by the Spirit of God who is no other than the Spirit of Love and Charity and the words of the one expound the words of the other But I see no means to reconcile them to this Jesuit for he can no longer pretend that the Council and S. Paul require only habitual Charity with an exemption only from all mortal sin The terms of the Council by which it expounds it self may also serve for exposition unto S. Paul being so clear that it is impossible to obscure them He corrupts also a third passage which is in the second to the Corinthians whereof the Apostle speaks in these words 2 Id enim quod in praesenti est momentaneum leve tribulationis nostrae supro modum in sublimitate aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis 2 Cor. 4.17 For the tribulations which we endure in this life being momentary and light produce in us a far more incomparable full solid and eternal glory And Father Sirmond pretends that he calls the tribulations and afflictions of this life light because they have not in them the weight of the love of God to command them That is that they are light then when they are undergone without love by consequent weighty and burthensom when they are born for love to God These words of S. Paul were never thus expounded in the Church and it is to fight with common sense to say that love is a weight and load which makes things heavy and burthensom which are done upon the motion thereof All the Saints and Interpreters who have spoken of this passage have conceived that S. Paul calls these present afflictions light because that the grief they cause is light in comparison of the Joys which they merit as he saith that they endure but a moment in comparison of the Eternity of Glory which is the recompence thereof But that they should be called light when they are born without love as if love did hinder them from being so is that which never entred into the thought of any Interpreter ancient or novel And if it were so the afflictions of S. Paul could not be light or we must say that he suffered them without love The afflictions of the greatest Saints also could not be light but rather they must have been more weighty and burdensom when they have been entertained and supported with most Charity and on the contrary theirs who suffered without love or without thoughts of God and against their wills should be light and easie which doth equally contradict Faith and Reason It is needless to lose time in refuting these Paradoxes and Extravagancies There is no Divine nor prudent man that sees not even by natural reason and experience that on the contrary it is love and the motions of the affection which renders things light easie and even sweet and pleasant though they be in themselves troublesom and difficult Which is yet more true of the love of God than of that of the Creatures that being infinitely exalted above this in vertue and force as well as in dignity This Jesuit contents not himself to abuse the words of S. Paul in this manner but he aspires unto the fountain and attempts to corrupt it also as well as the streams The
contradict and clude this last and dreadful sentence than by correcting his errour to submit himself thereunto for he is not ashamed to say that the reason which Jesus Christ alledges and whereupon he grounds his judgment is not true and takes not place in the matter wherein he alledges it that is to say in the last Judgment It is not to purpose 1 Nec refert quod Dominus Matth. 25. formam judicii describens meminerit potius operum misericordiae quam aliorum Id enim fecit ut homines praesertim plebeios qui ad majora spiritualia parum sunt comparati in hec vita ad ea excitaret haec autem ratio cessat in extremo judicio quia tunc homines non erunt amplius ad optra misericordiae exciâ—tandi Lessim de perfect divin lib. 13. tract 22. pag. 142. saith he to alledge that our Lord in the 25. of S. Matthew representing unto us the form of the last Judgment speaks of the works of mercy rather than others For he doth it only to stir up men and especially the common people who are not capable of comprehending spiritual things to exercise these works in this life Now this reason cannot take place at the last Judgment because then there will be no need to excite men unto works of mercy I will not stay here to examine this excess which will appear strange enough of it self to them who are not void of the common resentments of Christianity because it will be more proper to do it elsewhere We will only observe in this place that one Jesuit hath undertaken to fight and destroy Gods first Commandment and another his last Judgment They who can have the patience to behold a multitude of Expositions of Scripture Councils and Holy Fathers false extravagant unheard of and many times impious need only read Poza's Book which he entituled Elucidarium Deiparae A Volume as big as his would be needful to represent all his excesses I have related some of them in the Chapter of Novelty and elsewhere which I repeat not here to avoid tediousness Father Adam hath surpassed all his Brethren in the same excess For he destroys not only the letter and the sense of Scripture he fights with the Authors themselves whom God hath made use of to impart them to us He decrys them and deprives them of all that authority and credit which is due unto sacred Writers and who were no other than the hand and tongue of the Holy Ghost by attributing unto them weaknesses and extravagancies and affirming by an horrible impiety that following their own imaginations and passions they are sometimes transported beyond truth and have written things otherwise than they were and that they did neither conceive nor believe them themselves in their consciences It will not easily be imagined that this conceit could ever come into the mind of a Monk I will not say but of a Christian who had not entirely renounced the Faith and Church if this Father had not written it in manifest terms and more forcibly than I can represent it in a Book whereto he gives this Title Calvin defeated by himself In the third Part of this Book Chap. 7. he saith That it is not only in criminal matters that zeal and hate inflame a Soul and transport it unto excest and violence but that the Saints themselves acknowledge that they are not exempt from this infirmity And flagrant passions sometimes push them on to actions so strange and ways of expressing themselves so far removed from truth that those who have written their lives have called them holy extravagancies innocent errours and Hyperboles more elevated than their apprehensions and which expressed more than they intended to say He adds also in the same Chapter and in the progress of the same discourse That this infirmity is not so criminal but that God did tolerate it in the person of those Authors whom he inspired and whom we call Canonical whom he left to the sway of their own judgments and the temper of their own spirits He compares the Saints and Fathers of the Church to persons full of passions and violence he excepts not the Canonical Authors themselves and he makes them all subject to the same infirmities and the Canonical Authors also to the greater and more inexcusable For if they be vicious in others they are yet more in these in whom the least faults and the least removes from the truth which in ordinary persons were but marks of infirmity would be as notorious and criminal as the greatest because they would be imputed unto God whose words the Canonical Authors have only rehearsed and it is as unworthy of God contrary to his nature and power to depart a little as much from the truth It is therefore manifest that what this Jesuit saith tends directly to destroy all Holy Scripture Faith and Religion For if the Canonical Writers could exceed and depart a little from the truth in one single point they were subject to do it in all the rest So their discourse is not of divine Authority neither are their Books the Books or Word of God because God is always equally infallible and can never go beyond or depart from the truth in the least whether he speaks himself or by the mouth of his Prophets CHAPTER II. Of the Commandments of God ARTICLE I. Of the first Commandment which is that of Love and Charity THis first Commandment of Love contains in it and requires of us three things to wit that we love God above all Creatures our selves for God and our neighbour as our selves These three coming from one and the same trunk and root shall make three Articles of this Chapter and I will handle all three severally that I may more distinctly represent the Jesuits opinions upon every obligation of the first Commandment and to make it evidently appear that they destroy it in every part I. POINT Of the Command to love God I will relate nothing here save only from Father Anthony Sirmond because he seems particularly to have undertaken to destroy this Precept and because he hath said upon this Subject alone all that may be found in the worst Books of his Fraternity 1. That he abolishes the Command of loving God and reduces it to a simple counsel 2. That according to him the Scripture hardly speaks at all of divine Love and Charity and that our Lord hath very little recommended it 3. That he declares that the love of God may very well consist and agree with the love of our selves 4. And that it is nothing else but self-love SECTION I. That there is no Command to love God according to the Maxims of the Jesuits Divinity OUr Lord speaking of the double Commandment of Love saith That all the Law and the Prophets do depend thereon In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet Prophetae Matth. 22. He saith not that the command to love God doth depend on and is
the Jesuits absolutely overthrow this Commandment and authorize all sorts of Murthers THere is it may be nothing in all the Morals wherein the Jesuits are so transported as in this same The excesses they have committed therein are so great that as it is enough to raise an horrour against them only to understand them so we should have found it hard to believe them had we learnt them from others than themselves and if they after they had taught them in their Schools had not also published them every where by their Books 1. 1 Cum autem hujus legis vim Dominus explicaret in eo duo continere ostendit Alterum ne occidamus quod à nobis fieri vecitum est alterunt quod sacere jubemur ut concordi amicitia charitateque inimicos complectamur pacem habeamus cum omnibus cuncta denique incommoda patienter feramus Catech. ad Parâ—…hos This Precept contains in it two things according to the explication which our Lord gives thereof as the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes The one is forbidden us to wit Murther and the other is commanded us to wit love and charity towards our enemies peace with all the world and patience to suffer all sorts of evils The Jesuits destroy these two parts of this divine Precept by the pernicious Maxims of their Divinity For as to the second they are so far from believing that God hath commanded the love of enemies that they believe not so much as that there is any true Command to love our Neighbour in general nor God himself as we have seen whilst we spoke of the first Commandment of the Decalogue And for the first part which is the Command not to kill they overthrow it by infinite decisions which are contrary thereunto For they generally allow to kill in defence of honour life and goods not only when a man sees himself in a near and evident danger of losing them but when it is far off and uncertain They would not have you stay till a man smite you it is enough that he threatens you it is enough that you see him come afar off it is enough that he offends you with his words or that you know that he hath a design upon your life honour or goods for you to prevent and kill him with a good conscience The allowance they make herein is general and without exception They grant it to Clergy-men and to Fryars as well as Secular persons And to give the greater liberty to the use of it they make it pass for a right of nature of which they pretend that any whosoever may make use against any other whomsoever even a Servant against his Master a Son against his Father a Monk against his Superior leaving them at their choice to employ all means whatsoever they please and which they judge most proper for their design whether it be by open force or by surprize and making use of secret ways and by service of other persons interposed if they will not or dare not themselves attempt to kill those who do or would do them some hurt as we shall see by and by The matter is too large to be comprised under one single title wherefore I will divide this Article into five Points in each of which I will represent the Opinions of divers Authors of the Society beginning with Lessius I. POINT Lessius his Opinion concerning Murder SECTION I. How far he enlargeth the permission of Killing in defence of his own life that he holds that a Priest at the Altar may break off the Sacrifice to kill him who assails him LEssius proposes this Question concerning Murder If it be lawful to kill a man in defence of my own life Utrum liceat alterum occidere in vitae suae defensionem Lessiui de just jur lib. 2. cap. 9. dub 8. num 41. p. 83. And then he relates many cases in which he maintains that this is lawful The first case 1 Si reipsa me ferias armis de hoc nullum est dubium Ibid. num 42. saith he is if I be struck with a weapon and in this point there is no doubt at all The second is 2 Si accedas ad feriendum nec possim evadere nisi vel sugiam vel te praeveniam num 44. if you draw near unto me to strike me and I cannot avoid it unless I flye or prevent your blow The third is 3 Si nondum accedis tamen instructus es ad invadendum nec possum evadere nisi praeveniam Tuac enim possum praevenire num 45. when you do not yet approach but you are ready to invade me and I cannot avoid you but by preventing you I may in this case prevent you The fourth case 4 Si per samulum vel sicarium me statueris occidere num 46. when you have a design to cause me to be slain by a Servant or Assasin The fifth 5 Si falsis criminationibus testibusque subornatis v. c. imponendo sacrilegium vel crimen infandum vitam meam impetas in judicio num 47. when you fall upon me by way of justice to cause me to dye by false witnesses who accuse me of crimes which I have not committed imposing upon me for example some Sacriledge or other detestable crime It appears then that according to Lessius it is not necessary that you may with a good conscience prevent and kill a man for you to stay till he smite you it is sufficient that he draws near to smite you Si accedas ad feriendum It is enough that he is disposed to do it though he be far off from you Si nondum accedas sed tamen instructus es ad invadendum It suffices that he hath a will or hath given commission to another to do it Si per famulum aut sicarium me statueris occidere It is sufficient that he hath wrongfully accused you of some crime for which you may lose your life Si falsis criminationibus c. If you enquire unto whom it is lawful to kill in all these cases Molina will answer that the permission is general and for all sorts of persons 6 Dicendum est ad dubium propositum fas universim esse interficere eum qui nos interficere decrevit quando aliter non patet via evadendi mortem aut grande periculum mortis quod nequitia illius ex eo decreto nobis imminet Molina de just jur tom 4. tract 4. disp 13. num 2. pag. 1760 To answer saith he to the question proposed we must say that it is generally lawful to kill him who is resolved to kill you when there is no other means to avoid death or imminent danger of death whereunto you are reduced by the resolution he hath maliciously taken to cause you to dye That is to say that a prudent man according to Molina will not expect to use means for assuring his life till