Immagini della pagina

nions, and with good reason-meritò. Hurtado de Mendoza states, that we are under an obligation to love God once in a year, and that we are kindly treated in not being obliged to it more frequently:' but Father Coninck that we are under an obligation to do so once in three or four years :'-Henriquez, every five years:'-and Filliutius says, it is probable that we are not rigorously obliged to it every five years.' What then? This question he refers to a wise man's own judgment.'-Father Escobar.

'St. Thomas says ' we are under obligation to love God as soon as we acquire the use of reason;' but that is a little too soon. Scotus mentions every Sunday; but on what authority? others, in seasons of grievous temptation: right, in case this is the only way of avoiding temptation. Scotus states, that when some great benefit has been conferred by God, it is well to thank him for it. Others speak of the hour of death; that is too little. Nor do I believe it to be necessary on every sacramental occasion: attrition will suffice with confession, if it be convenient. Suarez says that we are obliged to love God some time: but at what time? You are to be the judge of that; he professes to know nothing about it. But if such a doctor as this does not know, I am at a loss to conceive who does.'-Father Sismond.

'We are not so much commanded to love God, as not to hate him.'-Father Sismond.

'Contrition, i. e. sorrow for sin, excited by supreme love to God, is not necessary to the receiving of the principal effect of the two Sacraments of Bap

tism and Penitence: on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle.'-Father Valentia.

'The evangelical law is more mild than the law of Moses, inasmuch as it takes away the obligation which existed under that dispensation to have contrition, or sorrow for our sins, animated with the love of God; a thing which is in no small degree difficult.' -Father Merat.

As the law of the New Testament is a law of grace, made for children, and not for slaves, is it not proper that it should demand less on their part, and that God on his part should give more? It is not therefore without reason that he has cancelled the hard and grievous obligation of the law of rigour to perform an act of perfect contrition in order to our justification.'-Father Pinthereau.

'If perfect contrition,' such as implies a love of God above all things, were required in the Sacrament, our condition would be worse than was that of the Jews before the coming of Christ. Now, who will venture to assert that slaves are treated with more lenity and tendernsss than children?'-Father Fabri.



'If attrition,' sorrow for sin excited only by the fear of hell, were not sufficient, the way of salvation would in this particular be more difficult under the law of grace than it was under the law of Moses, or under the law of Nature.'-Father Salton.

'We are not obliged to love God on the holidays, nor at the time of our death, nor when God has bestowed upon us some particular favour, nor when

we wish to receive baptism, nor when it becomes necessary to perform an act of contrition, nor when we have attained to the use of our reason, nor when we are called to suffer martyrdom; for in these cases attrition is sufficient.'-Father Lesseau.

According to the Jesuits, the obligation to love God would be a heavy yoke on the necks of Christians, too heavy for them to bear. Besides, as Father Sismond has observed, Jesus Christ has by a particular act of grace delivered them from this odious servitude. Upon the words of our Saviour, " If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." this thorough-paced Jesuit makes the following blasphemous comment :-" YES, WE SHALL, I TRUST, AGREEABLY TO HIS OWN TESTIMONY; BE FREE FROM THE INTOLERABLE YOKE, WITH WHICH SOME

WOULD LOAD US, OF LOVING GOD.'!!! How awfully do those words of Jesus apply to the Society of Jesus, "I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you." (John v. 42.)


As the Jesuits explain away "the first and great commandment," and assert that to love God is not obligatory on Christians, we need not be surprised that they do away with "the second" which is "like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Let us attend to their maxims on this head.

'As it is certain that we are required to love our neighbour, agreeably to the words of Christ by St. Matthew, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,

so to me it appears to be equally certain that we are not bound to love him by any internal act directed expressly to him.'-Father Tambourin.

It appears from this that we are to love our neighbour, but not to love him really; we are to love him, but not inwardly!

We are not bound by this precept to love our neighbour otherwise, or more than ourselves. Now as it is not required of us to love ourselves in a sense implying any internal act, consequently we are not enjoined to love our neighbour in any such manner.' -Father Lamy.

'If it were our duty to love our neighbour thus, a large proportion of us would stand condemned for not having exercised this internal act of charity towards all men; a supposition which would be improbable and absurd.'-Father Lamy.

'St. John, in declaring that he who loveth not his brother abideth in death, does not speak of any formal and explicit love, but merely intends to exclude the HATING OF OUR NEIGHBOUR.' (!)-Le Roux, Professor of Theology at Rheims, a Romish Priest, an admirer of the Jesuits.

'Bonacina exempts from all blame a mother, who wishes the death of her daughters, because, since they are neither beautiful nor rich, she has no prospect of their marrying so advantageously as she could desire.' -Father Bauny.

'I desire the death of my father, wishing not evil to him but good to myself, or because my own advantage will be the result, since by his death I shall

[ocr errors]

become possessed of his inheritance.'-Father Tambourin.

A person may kill an enemy secretly, and when this can be done, so as to get clear out of the affair, it is far better than fighting a duel; because by this means he avoids every evil consequence; on the one hand, the exposure of his own life to hazard, and on the other, partaking of the crime of his enemy, which he must do in a duel.'-Father Sanchez.

'It may be called killing treacherously, when a man slays another, who had no reason to suspect him. Hence he who slays an enemy, cannot be said to kill him treacherously, though he perpetrated the deed by lying in wait, or stabbing him behind.'-Father Escobar.

'Whoever kills his enemy after a reconciliation and under a promise no more to attempt his life, is not said absolutely to kill him in a treacherous manner, as there had been no very strict friendship subsisting between them.'-Father Escobar.

It is allowable to kill a person who gives you a box on the ear, though he run away; provided you can divest yourself of hatred and revenge, and do not prepare the way for murders in excessive numbers and injurious to the state.'-Father Henriquez, quoted by Escobar.

'Is it allowable for a man of honour to kill the person who intends to give him a blow or a stroke with his cane? Some say, No; and assign as a reason, that a neighbour's life is more important than personal honour; besides that, it is cruel to kill a

« IndietroContinua »