The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 3

The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive · Discourse · Chapter 3

p. 87CHAP. III. Their Doctrine makes it needleſs to love God.

LOve of God, or (as they had rather call it) Charity is in their account, as they ſeem ſometimes to expreſs themſelves of greateſt moment. Regeneration and ſpiritual life (they ſay) conſiſts in it; 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 p. 88things, and deſerve not the name of vertues. (a)(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)(b)Nam opera quantumcun que moraliter bona, ſi ſiant extra charitatem in ſtatu peceati mortiferi, abſ que 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)(c)Bellarm. de paen tent. l. 2. c. 14. p. 95….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)(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)(e)De am…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 p. 89account it neceſſary as a means. For they (f)(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 quaecun que 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)(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. 2…. 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)(h)Cum praecipit Deus ut juſte, ſobrie que 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 mere…i vitam aeternam. Angel. ſum. v. voluntas n. 6.that it is p. 90not needful to perform any ſuch acts, or to obſerve any commands of God out of love to him. (i)(i)Praecepta D…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)(k)Non enim ſi finis praecepti charitas eſt, tenemur pro…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 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)(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)(m)Dionyſius Ciſtercienſis.one Doctor amongſt them of opinion, that we are bound to do all out of love to God; but (n)(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 p. 91to 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)(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.

p. 92Some 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)(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)(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)(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)(s)Comment in Deut. 16. in Catherin adv. Cajet. p. 268.Deut 16declares) does not oblige to the love of Charity. And Bannez (t)(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)(u)Reſpond…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.Luke 17:10will 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.

p. 93They 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)(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)(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)(y)Idem affirmat, unumquemque quoties inſigne aliquod beneficium a Deo conſequitur, ten… 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 p. 94imagination ſhould come in the ſubtle Doctors head, Canus ſaith, (s)(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 nul…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 init…u… 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)(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)(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 p. 95will 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)(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. 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, p. 96if 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)(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 p… 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 p. 97was but in its Infancy, who held it enough to love God actually but once in a life time. One act of love (d)(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)(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; p. 98it 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 deſigna…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 a…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 ſupple…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)(f)Plerique aiunt, tempus hujus praecepti, illud maxime eſſe, quod eſt articulus mortis. ibid. quando jam nullum ſupereſt tempus bene merendi de Deo. ibid. B…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. & …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 p. 99Love. 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)(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)(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 p. 100only excepted, clearly delivers this doctrine, (i)(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 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 p. 101hath 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.Col 2Navar 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)(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, vi…ibus propriis, ſine auxi…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 p. 102be good. (n)(n)Si non pecco, ex ſententia S. Thomae, ſi amem Deum, niſi uno gradu amoris, c…e non teneor in rigore amplius amare:—ergo ſi addam alterum gradum amoris, amopl… 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)(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)(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)(q)Quemlibet actum charitatis quantumlibet remiſſum, ſufficere ad implendum omni… praecepta: neque ullam determinatam intenſionem requiri, ut aliquis in hac vita adi… 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 … 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. p. 103For 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 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)(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)(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.

Its 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 p. 104as 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)(t)Nihil divinae amicitiae contrarium admittat juxta Evangelicam vocem ex toto cord…, &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 ejuſq…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)(u)Admonemus item indirecte diligere c…eaturam amplius quam Deum non eſſe contra h…. praeceptum, quoniam quicunque peccat mortaliter, indirecte plus diligi aliud quem Deumattamen hujuſmodi delinquens, non ideo peccat contra iſtud praecep…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 malu…: diligere tamen eum abſolute, aeque vel minus abſque ulla comparatione, non eſt malu…. 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 p. 105Precept; 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)(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.Col 2doth 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)(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)(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. 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.Luke 17:10Maldonate 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)(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 p. 106to 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)(e)…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 ve…itate non ſit hujuſmodi, n…q…e ſit in codem ſtatu; nihilominus tamen adimplere hoc praeceptum, quoad effectum evitandi no…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 …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)(f)Peccat mortaliter, qui eo tempore Deum amare negligit, quo ſub peccati mortalis reatu t…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)(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 p. 107to their common principles, by the moſt learned, and the moſt pious of their Caſuiſts, as (h)(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)(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 p. 108(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 po…eſt …ratia, non est de neceſſitate ſalu…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? p. 109nay, 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.