4. The question is of both sides concerning a consumptive sacrifice, the destruction of a town there, of a whole kingdom here, but differing in the circumstance of place whence they would fetch their fire. The apostles would have had it from heaven, but these men's conversation was not there. nátwler, ' things from beneath,' from an artificial hell, but breathed from the natural and proper, were in all their thoughts. 5. The example, which is the last particular, I fear I must leave quite qut; and when you have considered all, perhaps you will look for no example.

First of the persons; they were disciples of Christ and apostles : “ But when James and John saw this.” When first I considered they were apostles, I wondered they should be so intemperately angry; but when I perceived they were so angry, I wondered not that they sinned. Not the privilege of an apostolical spirit, not the nature of angels, not the condition of immortality, can guard from the danger of sin ; but if we be overruled by passion, we almost subject ourselves to its necessity. It was not, therefore, without reason altogether, that the Stoics affirmed wise men to be void of passions ; for sure I am, the inordination of any passion is the first step to folly. And although of them, as of waters of a muddy residence, we may make good use, and quench our thirst, if we do not trouble them; yet upon any ungentle disturbance we drink down mud instead of a clear stream, and the issues of sin and sorrow, certain consequences of temerarious or inordinate anger. And, therefore, when the apostle had given us leave to be angry,' as knowing the condition of human nature, he quickly enters a caveat that ' we sin not;' he knew sin was very likely to be hand-maid where anger did domineer, and this was the reason why St. James and St. John are the men here pointed at; for the Scripture notes them for · Boanerges,' 'sons of thunder, men of an angry temper, " et quid mirum est filios tonitru fulgurâsse voluisse ?” said St. Ambrose. But there was more in it than thus. Their spirits of themselves hot enough, yet met with their education under the law, whose first tradition was in fire and thunder, whose precepts were just, but not so merciful; and this inflamed their distemper to the height of a revenge.

It is the doctrine of St. Jeromec and Titus

• Epist. ad Algas.

Bostrensis ", - the law had been their schoolmaster, and taught them the rules of justice, both punitive and vindictive; but Christ was the first that taught it to be a sin to retaliate evil with evil; it was a doctrine they could not read in the killing letter of the law. There they might meet with precedents of revenge and anger of a high severity,' an eye for an eye,' and ' a tooth for a tooth,' and let him be cut off from his people:' but forgiving injuries, praying for our persecutors, loving our enemies, and relieving them, were doctrines of such high and absolute integrity, as were to be reserved for the best and most perfect lawgiver, the bringer of the best promises, to which the most perfect actions have the best proportion, and this was to be when Shiloh came. Now then the spirit of Elias is out of date,

Jam ferrea primum Desinit, ac toto sorgit gens aurea mundo. And, therefore, our blessed Master reproveth them of ignorance, not of the law, but of his Spirit, which had they but known or could but have guessed at the end of his coming, they had not been such abecedarii in the school of mercy .

And now we shall not need to look far for persons, disciples professing at least in Christ's school, yet as great strangers to the merciful spirit of our Saviour, as if they had been sons of the law, or foster-brothers to Romulus, and sucked a wolf; and they are Romanists too: this day's solemnity presents them to us, πηλός αίματι πεφυρμένος; and yet were that washed off, underneath they write Christian and Jesuit.

One would have expected that such men, set forth to the world's acceptance with so merciful a' cognomentum,' should have put a hand to support the ruinous fabric of the world's charity, and not have pulled the frame of heaven and earth about our ears. But yet—Ne credite, Teucri! Give me leave first to make an inquisition after this antichristian pravity, and try who is of our side, and who loves the king, by pointing at those whose sermons do blast loyalty, breathing forth treason, slaughters, and cruelty, the greatest imaginable, contrary to the spirit and doctrine of our dear Master. So we shall quickly find out more than a pareil for St. James and St. John, the Boanerges of my text.

d In Lueam.

• Sueton. Tib. 57. B. Crus. t. i. p. 454.

" It is an act of faith, by faith to conquer the enemies of God and holy church,” saith Sanders, our countryman'. Hitherto nothing but well; if James and John had offered to do no more than what they could have done with the sword of the Spirit, and the shield of faith,' they might have been inculpable, and so had' he if he had said no more; but the blood boils higher, the manner spoils all. “ For it is not well done, unless a warlike captain be appointed by Christ's vicar to bear a crusade in a field of blood.” And if the other apostles did not proceed such an angry way as James and John, it was only discretion that detained them, not religion. “ For so they might, and it were no way unlawful for them to bear arms to propagate religion, had they not wanted an opportunity;" if you believe the same author : “ for fighting is proper for St. Peter and his successors, therefore, because Christ gave him commission to feed his Lambs.” A strange reason!

I had thought Christ would have his lambs fed with the sincere milk of his word, not like to cannibals,

solitisqne cruentum Lac potare Getis, et pocula tingere vevis,

To mingle blood in their sacrifices (as Herod to the Galileans), and quaff it off for an auspicium' to the propagation of the Christian faith. Methinks here is already too much clashing of armour, and effusion of blood, for a Christian cause; but this were not altogether so unchristian-like, if the sheep, though with blood, yet were not to be fed with the blood of their shepherd Cyrus, I mean their princes. But I find many such ‘nutritii' in the nurseries of Rome, driving their lambs from their folds, unless they will be taught to worry the lion.

Emanuel Sà, in his Aphorisms, affirms it lawful to kill a king; indeed not every king, but such a one as rules with tyranny; and not then, unless the pope hath sentenced him to death, but then he may, though he be his lawful prince h.

r Sanderos de Clave David, lib. ii. c. 15.

& Ibid. c. 14. h Tyrannicè gubernans justè acquisitum dominium non potest spoliari sine publico judicio. Latâ verò sententia, quisque potest fieri executor, Potest autem à populo etiam qui juravit ei obedientiam, si movitus, non vult corrigi.--Verb. Tyrunnus.

Not the necessitude which the law of nations hath put between prince and people, not the obligation of the oath of allegiance, not the sanctions of God Almighty himself, must reverse the sentence against the king when once passed; but any one of his subjects, of his own sworn subjects, may kill him.

This perfidious treasonable position of Sà is not a single testimony. For 1. it slipped not from his pen by inadvertency; it was not made public until after forty years' deliberation, as himself testifies in his prefacei. 2. After such an avisamente, it is now the ordinary received manual for the fathers confessors of the Jesuits' order.

This doctrine, although — Titulo res digna sepulcri — yet is nothing if compared with Marianak. For 1. he affirms the same doctrine in substance. 2. Then he descends to the very manner of it, ordering how it may be done with the best convenience: he thinks poison to be the best way, but yet that, for the more secrecy, it be cast upon the chairs, saddles, and garments of his prince. It was the old laudable custom of the Moors of Spain'. 3. He adds examples of the business, telling us that this was the devise, to wit, by poisoned boots, that old Henry of Castile was cured of his sickness. 4. Lastly, this may be done, not only if the pope judge the king a tyrant (which was the utmost Emanuel Sà affirmed), but it is sufficient proof of his being a tyrant if learned men, though but few, and those seditious too, do but murmur it, or begin to call him som. I hope this doctrine was long since disclaimed by the whole society, and condemned ad umbras Acherunticas. Perhaps so; but yet these men who use to object to us an infinity of divisions among ourselves, who boast so much of their own union and consonancy in judgment, with whom nothing is more ordinary than to maintain some opinions quite throughout their order, (as if they were informed by some common intellectus agens') should not be divided in a matter of so great moment, so much concerning the monarchy of the see apostolic, to which

i Præsertim cum in hoc opus per annos ferè quadraginta diligentissime incubuerim,

* De Rege et R. Institut, lib. i. c. vi. | Qui est l'artifice dont je trouve que les rois Mores ont scrivent osé, c.7. m Postquam à paucis seditiosis, sed doctis, cæperit tyrannus appellari.

they are vowed liegemen. But I have greater reason to believe them united in this doctrine, than is the greatness of this probability. For 1. There was an apology printed in Italy, 'permissu superiorum,' in the year 1610, that says,

They were all enemies of that holy name of Jesus, that condemned Mariana for any such doctrine.” I understand not why, but sure I am that the Jesuits do, or did think his doctrine innocent: for in their apology put forth in the name of the whole society against the accusations of Anticoton, they deny that the assassin of Henry IV., I mean Ravaillac, was moved to kill the king by reason of Mariana, and are not ashamed to wish that he had read him". Perhaps they mean it might have wrought the same effect upon him, which the sight of a drunkard did upon the youth of Lacedæmon; else I am sure it is not very likely he should have been dissuaded from his purpose by reading in Mariana, that it was lawful to do what he intended. 3. I add, they not only thought it innocent, and without positive hurt, but good and commendable; so that it is apparent that it was not the opinion of Mariana alone, but that the Moors of Spain had more disciples than Mariana. 1. He says it himself; for, commending the young monk that killed Henry III., he says that he did it “having been informed, by several divines, that a tyrant might lawfully be killedo.” 2. The thing itself speaks it, for his book was highly commended by Gretser? and Bonarscius 9, both for style and matter,-higher yet by Petrus de Onna, provincial of Toledo, who was so highly pleased with it, he was sorry he wanted leisure' to read it the second and third time over, and, with this censure prefixed, was licensed to the press. Further yet, for Stephen Hogeda, visitor of the Jesuits for the same province, approved it not only from his own judgment, but as being before approved by grave and learned men of the Jesuits' orders, and so with a special commission from Claudius Aquaviva, their general, with these approbations, and other solemn privileges, it was printed at

u Quodammodo optandum esse ut ille Alastor Marianam legisset.

• Cum cognito à theviogis quos erat sciscitatus, tyrannum jure interiini posse. Cap 6. p Chauvesaurit polit.

9 Amphith. Honoris, lib. i. c. 12. r Iterum et tertio facturus, si per otium et tempus licuisset. * Ut approbatos priùs a viris doctis et gravibus ex eodem nostro ordive.

« ForrigeFortsett »