till Dooms-day and say afterwards whether he can force any other sence out of them but this ascertained Truth only that a sinner at death is obliged to repent but that he is then only obliged which is to the purpose shall never be proved I 'll deal ingeniously and help the Doctor Reginald seems to say more then what this Empty English Quotation sets down His words are Omnium communis sententia est tempus in quo peccator conteri tenetur intellige per se seu vi specialis Praecepti de contritione a deo dati esse imminentem articulum mortis naturalis vel violentae The common Opinion of all is that the time wherein a sinner is bound to repent understand Per se or by force of a special command given by Almighty God of contrition is the imminent Article of a natural or violent death This Parenthesis intellige Per se which * I say it seems for I cannot assert that Reginald plainly says so much seems exclusive of other special precepts save only at death and would most have been for advantage the Doctor wisely leaves out However with it he shall never make his assertion good viz. that Reginald holds a sinner is not obliged to repent but only in the hour of death and I speak of an Obligation per se not of accidental cases as if one makes a vow to have contrition or to come to the Sacraments c. My reason is that although there be no special command given by Almighty God for contrition but only in that Article yet the very Law of Nature and the Charity that a long inveterate sinner owes to his own Soul both may and doth oblige him sometimes in life to convert himself to his Maker by hearty repentance whereof more hereafter Reginaldus further observes out of St. Austin That he who lives thus impenitent incurs not only the danger of transgressing anew but deeply hazards his Salvation which hazard intrincical to the state of such an inveterate Criminal calls loud upon him yes and obliges him sometimes in life to repentance or the Love of God Had the Doctor considered the counsel given us in Scripture Eccles 5. Ne tardes converti ad Dominum ne differas de die in diem Do not delay this conversion c. And how Zealously both Divines in Schools and Preachers in their Pulpits inculcate this wholesome Doctrine and lay open the danger of delaying sinners He would never have blamed Reginald who only rigoriously examins what men are obliged to under mortal sin Ex vi specialis praecepti de contritione a deo dati where every particle is restrictive and little warrants the Doctors charge on him in the general No repentance but in the Article of death only The Doctor cites other words of Reginald mangled and weighed out of their circumstances Let that pass among lesser faults Now one word of his new Learning He saith then pag. 76. that a sinner ought to repent presently after his sin I ask him whether he hath any precept for this assertion in Scripture and mind him of his own Quotation 'T is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not Scripture Here we may have plain dealing if he please Either he can give Scripture for a sinners present repentence after sin or no if he cannot he hath a devilish spirit imposing on poor Souls a Divine command not proved by Scripture if he warrants this precept by Scripture without gloss and interpretation of his own I will proclaim to the whole World that Dr. Taylor is one of the most profound Divines we have now in Europe But this he shall never do Therefore I am afraid the other Lot will fall on him I will be plain Most harsh and an intolerable Doctrine it is to say that a sinner under new mortal sin is obliged to repent presently especially in the Doctors Opinion who makes no distinction between sins mortal and venial in their own Nature Observe I beseech you Put case that one commits a Murther this day and continues in the sin for Months and Years it followeth evidently that for every Moment of these Months and Years if he reflects on his Homicide be sins a new unless he repents Why The command of God is that he repent presently after his Fact This command he Transgresses and therefore sins a new the next Moment Hour or day the same severe Command of God obliging to repentance leaves him not he sins still on and consequently for as many Moments as he lives let it be for Years he heaps sin upon sin and multiplies them without number for the command of God obliging all this while to repentance is grieviously transgressed and to transgress that Law makes so often with our Doctor so many sins Is not here a sad and deplorable story to use the Phrase of our Doctor Is it not much better to say with Reginald that it is a lesser evil for a man to continue under one sin for a time though such a condition is deplorable then to have sins multiplyed hourly and daily almost numberless Now if the Negative precept as Reginald holds forbids not the perseverance in sin at least for some time these whole Troops of transgressions which according to the Doctor intervene between the first sin committed and final repentance are avoided Here is mercy to a poor sinner The Doctor mercilesly without Scripture without Authority at all saith what God never spake and drives him to desparation Page 77. he shews himself more then strangely ignorant And first I do not touch upon what he saith That the Church hath been more severe then God tying a sinner by collateral positive Laws to repent at Easter nor secondly of the seeming contradiction which follows that the Church Ordains but the means the exterior solemnity of it that is confession c. These I wave and wish the Reader to reflect on the last words in that Paragraph So that sinners saith he are still left to their liberties c. even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for a little while even during our short mortal Life only we must be sure to repent at last Mark well Even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for our mortal life What! a Doctor of Divinity and speak thus why there is none but knows that the taking of content or satisfaction in the pleasure of a sin past is another hidious sin forbidden by Almighty God and execrated by all Doctors A sin once committed remains habitually misery enough until it be retracted by penance but to take pleasure in it afterwards is another guilt distinct from the former unto which it seems our Doctors Divinity reaches not CHAP. XII Of the Doctors cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors THe Doctor in his 78. pag. has nothing but talk without substance
Unregenerate as Infidels and those who want Faith I see not why they are not Damnable also in the Regenerate for these by reason of the great knowledge they have of Christian Profession seem more obliged upon that very account to avoid venial sins then Infidels or the Unregenerate 2. I Argue thus Doctor Taylor is we 'll suppose it a man who loves God we 'll suppose also what he saith page 95. is true That no man lives without the intromission of venial sins daily from whence it follows that Doctor Taylor hath such a heap of evils in his Soul which though he loves God of their own Nature and the rigor of Gods Justice may damn him for ever If so I ask why Gods Justice overcome as it were by Mercy is less severe to these sins then to others which we call great and Mortal No Reason can be given but that those lesser sins are venial pardonable in their own Nature these greater deserve the severity of his Justice Pardonable I say they are and little antecedently to Gods Justice and Mercy and therefore mercy makes them not so but finds them pardonable because little Hence it follows that no heap of venial sins considered as venial can equalize the gravity of one Mortal offence for though the growth and numerous augmentation of them add more misery to a Soul yet their increase is as Divines speak in inferiori ordine in a lower Degree of Malice and reach no more to the enormity of a mortal sin which make us enemies to God then a thousand idle words reach the indignity of high Treason against a Prince or Soveraign I say considered as venial for if the careless multiplying of venial sins drive us on to the next step or danger of offending mortally the case is altered Qui amat periculum peribit in eo He that loves danger shall perish in it The Doctor adds pag. 107 That this Doctrine of sins venial gives rest to mens consciences and that concerning such sins we are bidden to be quiet I answer His mistake is notorious We inculcate God knows the danger of those lesser evils we lay open their Malice and say That for every idle word an account must be given before a severe Judge O but saies he 'T is impossible to tell in a thousand cases which are and which are not venial sins And pag. 108 If a Confessor says that 's venial which is mortal your Soul is betrayed Why so good Doctor I answer then The penitents duty is not perfectly to know what is and what is not venial but to have hearty sorrow for his sins committed whether great or little For no man saith I grieve for my sins as little or only venial but most securely thus I am sorry for them all as God knows them offensive to his Divine Majesty And answerable to this sorrow the Confessor gives absolution therefore though his knowledge may in some cases fail and not rightly distinguish between sins mortal and venial yet his absolution is good for he absolves from all whereof the Penitent humbly contrite accuseth himself guilty CHAP. XVI Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion Of the Doctors exceptions against it Of his mistakes THe Doctor pag. 110. Sect. 7. lays about him to undo our Leading men concerning the Doctrine they hold of a probable Opinion Briefly The Judgment of Divines is this That if an Opinion well examined by learned men be not contrary to known received Doctrine or any decision of the Church it may be safely followed in practice and this though one grave Doctor says it Provided I say that his Judgment be not opposite to the general received Doctrine of others The ground of this assertion is Innumerable difficulties dayly occur in a Moral life relating to the practice of Vertue to the shunning of sin to the doing of Justice In fine to a Christian mans Obligation in a thousand cases which difficulties can with no evidence be decided either by Scripture or definition of the Church Divines therefore who are supposed both rational and best versed in the Principles of Christian Religion unavoydably must when evidence cannot be had opinatively Judge and give a probable decision to the doubts proposed and this I think neither our Doctor nor any Protestant living can deny For If a Judge comes to Doctor Taylor and tells him Sir this very day I am to pronounce Sentence against a supposed Delinquent or must free him To give sentence against him I have Accusers enough and plenty of Witnesses None can except against them their proofs will make him guilty yet I know most certainly by my private knowledge that the man is innocent my difficulty now is whether as a publick person and Judge I may condemn him as guilty upon the attestation of these publick Witnesses or quit him though to my prejudice on the certain knowledge I have of his innocency What will the Doctor say to this case will he plead ignorance He cannot for both in his Books and Sermons he takes upon him to decide the greatest Controversies in Faith and therefore of necessary must here answer a difficulty in practice let him say what he pleaseth he can do no more but follow a probable Opinion for if he counsels the Judge to free this supposed delinquent he hath a whole Army of School-men against him if to condemn him he hath as many contrary none of these Doctors can be supposed to speak against the evidence of truth therefore they only deliver their probable Opinions and so must our Doctor do likewise if he speaks with either one side or other A thousand such cases are almost endlesly proposed where the Wit of man must rest upon probability without reaching to evidence in every particular case only this reflex evidence we have that none can sin who follows the dictamen of Prudence But he that adheres to a probable Opinion follows Prudence when evidence cannot be had therefore he is blamless and sins not yet One word more with our Doctor who pag. 79. talks of something Their Writers have often proved in their Sermons and Books of Conscience I ask him therefore seeing they have such books whether there Writers resolve every particular case of conscience upon certain undoubted Principles of Faith if he says no then they have probable Opinions among them also If yes This very saying is at most no more then probable and will be upon solid Reasons contradicted by a hundred as Learned Schollers as the Doctor is therefore he must decide the case upon a prudent Opinion and probability only Yet more Can the Doctor perswade himself that all he saith in his Book runs on with such evidence that a judicious Reader must hold it demonstrative No. The most he can think is that he discourseth probably and yet by this meer probability he hopes to disswade the World from Popery I say the most he can think for I profess and I have thousands will
Where to find it no man knows nor whether it relates to quaest 7. or the Extravag Next follows Extravag de Bigamis There is nothing de bigamis in the Extravag in decret tit 21. There is de bigamis non ordinandis cap. 5. yet nothing to this purpose and I dare boldly affirm that in all the Canon Law he shall not find either that Doctrine he attributes to Albertus Pighius or That Fornication is more Lawful then Marriage in any I wonder why the Doctor when he cites Campegius and Pighius for that filthy Doctrine of a Priests living more holily with a Concubine then he that 's Married places directly against it in his Margent the Canon Law distinct 82. can Praesbiter in glossa as if the Doctrine were allowed of In a word there is no such thing but expresly the contrary The words are thus Cap. 5. Presbiter Si Fornicationem feceret quanquam secundum canones Apostolorum debeat deponi tamen juxta Authoritatem Beati Papae silvestri si in vitio non perduraverit sed sua sponte confessus adjecit ut resurgat decem annis in hunc modum paeniteat tribus quidem mensibus privato loco a caeteris remotus pane aqua a vespera in vesperam utatur A Priest if he commits Fornication although by the Canon of the Apostles he is to be deposed yet according to St. Sylvesters appointment if he persever not in that state of sinning but having confessed willingly amends his life he is to do Penance for ten years in this manner For the first three Months he is to live a part from others and from Evening to Evening have only Bread and Water c. And still that Chapter goes on prescribing further and most severe Penances to such a Delinquent Read I beseech you the whole Chapter and never leave off to admire our mistaken Doctor Page 113. he cites Durandus Sent. lib. 4. distinct 33. but gives you not the Question under the Distinction Well he means quaest 2. towards the end Durandus his words are Quod autem quidam dicant quod est peccatum mortale de se nempe Fornicatio exclusâ omni lege positivâ Divinâ humanâ non bene intelligo But for what some say that Fornication by it self is a mortal sin excluding all positive Law Divine and humane I well understand not Thus Durandus And though his non bene intelligo be not assertive yet he saith too much and is therefore contradicted by the generality of most Learned Doctors His Opinion then according to the Rule given above is not probable One Swallow makes no Summer nor one Divine against the general received Doctrine of others makes no probable Opinion Next he cites Martinus de Magistris asserting that it is not Heretical to believe simple Fornication to be no sin Answ I have not now that Author by me but yet believe that the Doctor wrongs him If he held such a Tenet I say it is Heretical and consequently no probable Opinion Perhaps he may favour Durands Error too much and that 's all I little regard what Daniel Tilenus saies he was an Heretick and Writ a Book that the Pope of Rome is magnus ille proprie dictus Antichristus I think the Doctor will not say so Next the Doctor cites Cardinal Tolet. Instruct sacerd lib. 5. cap. 6. num 15. Saying That if a Noble man be set upon and may escape by going away he is not tyed to it but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick Answ The Doctor mangles Tolets Doctrine and wrongs him exceedingly whose words are Ex quo fit ut si nobilis invasus possit vitam salvare fugiendo non tenetur si inde infamian contrahit fugere sed occidere hostem potest si aliter vitam cum honore tutari non potest Whence it follows that if a Noble man set on might save his life by running away he is not obliged to it if he gets infamy by his running away but may kill the aggressor if otherwise he cannot defend his life with Honour Now comes the stick Similiter si non potest fugere injuriam notabilem inferendam ut ligni percussionem paratam potest etiam tunc occidere inimicum In like manner if this Noble man cannot avoid a notable injury ready for him as is a Bastinado or a stroke with a Cudgel he may then kill his Enemy Compare these words of Tolet with those of the Doctor and you 'll see a difference Tolet saith again lib. 4. cap. 13. saith the Doctor That if a man without advertency speaks a blasphemy in a strong passion not considering what he says sins not Answ Yet he adds Nisi cum homo esset assuetus Blasphemare nec vult emendationem talis enim peccaret mortaliter tunc quia est in culpâ praecedenti quia non abstulit occasionem peccati Unless such a man were accustomed to Blaspheme and will not amend for then he would sin mortally in the precedent fault and because he took not away the occasion of sin These words the Doctor omits to make Tolets Doctrine odious which yet is grounded in this certain Principle that as sin is a free act so it must arise from a knowledge or advertency of that evil the will voluntary embraseth Hence you may solve that other Quotation out of Tolet lib. 5. cap. 10. viz. If a man be beastly drunk and then commits Fornication Fornication is no sin solve it I say for the use of Reason is requisite to every sin here is no use of Reason Ergo no sin And pray you will the Doctor say that Lot sinned mortally when so drunk as he was he committed Incest with his Daughters Or will he hang a meer natural Sot in England who hath not Reason to know good from evil for stealing thirteen pence half-penny I would have this case plainly resolved by the Doctor if he holds that Lot sinned mortally and his resolution brought to a clear and certain Principle for if he gives not evidence in the decision of the case against Tolet he can not by his own Rule make use of a probable Opinion Once more Tolet is cited page 114. for saying lib. 5. cap. 13. If a man desires Carnal polution that he may be eased of his Carnal temptations or for his health it were no sin Answ He highly abuseth Tolet who speaks of no Lascivious or Carnal desire so far is he from this that he saith if one takes complacency in it Ob delectationem for the delight had he sinneth mortally and then adds Dico ob delectationem quia complacere ob sanitatem vel ut carnales tentationes non sint ita vehementes non esset peccatum I say for delight for to be glad of it for health or that carnal tentations be not so violent it is no sin The end or motive is here far different but to desire or delight in that filthy act is ever a sin
What is this but to say in plain English that the Oration is Spurious and though it were as bad as some Adversaries make it yet it may be without difficulty Explicated Our Doctor page 171. having done with his Dissuasive ends with an Vse of Exhortation to Persuade and Exhort all as they desire to be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus to decline from these horrid Doctrines those he means which he charges on us And so do I good Reader also without half the stirr the Doctor has made about them for they are all Monsters of his own making Horrid it is and Monstrous to Assert as he doth That we are Enemies to Monarchy that we profess not a due Obedience to Princes that the whole Order of Jesuites owns the Pope Lord of the World c. Ignorance begot these Doctrines Fancy mishaped them in some bodies Brain Passion brought them forth out they are as you see in print ugly and ill-favoured We utterly dis-own them and say they are false The naked Truth I have declared and therefore exhort all that love Christ Jesus ro decline from the Doctors horrid mistakes After the rest of his wordy paraenesis not worth taking notice of for a farwel he closes up all with a Behold we set before you Life and Death Blessing and Cursing Safety and Danger c. I answer He hath done so indeed but the danger God knows lies where he least thinks in his own unpardonable Errors mis-leading simple Souls to Perdition God prevent that he does not too late bewail his inconsiderate venting of them I need not preach to the Doctor he believes I hope already that Death and that Eternal will be the miserable portion of all those Seducers who do not timely repent and make themselves Members of the Catholick Church God give the Doctor grace to consider of this seriously and suddenly Into this House of God as I have heard he was once ready to enter but neglecting the Grace that call'd him he is now as you see so unfortunate as to diswade others from entering also With what sting of Conscience he hath done this evil God only knows done it is and I suspect the worst But the great Day of our Lord Jesus when both he and I must be heard to justifie our selves without farther dispute will lay open Whether he hath wrong'd his Conscience in writing this Dissuasive or I without cause have accused him of Errors To this Impartial Judge and most just Tribunal I appeal for Sentence And shall in the Interim earnestly pray as behoves a Christian and friendly Adversary for Doctor Taylor 's Conversion FINIS THE CONTENTS QVotations faulty in D. Taylors Preface to the Reader Chap. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded Discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles of Faith page 8 II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis page 15 III. The Doctors Quotations not right prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory page 22 IV. The Doctors Quotations still amiss S. Austin and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him page 27 V. The Doctors Cavils against Transubstantiation His false quotations His Impertinent questions and weak Arguments page 37 VI. Of the Doctors weak Arguments against Communion under one kind Of his slight impugning prayer in an unknown language Of his ill quotations page 43 VII Of the Doctors Cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill quotations page 47 VIII Of the Drs confus'd quotations Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross Of picturing the sacred Trinity p. 54 IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors Cavils against it Of his false quotations page 62 X. Of S. Gregory ' s refusing the Title of Vniversal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor Of the Doctors faulty quotations page 72 XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy Repentance after Sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors page 83 XII Of the Doctors Cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors page 89 XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered page 100 XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Drs. mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh doctrine page 106 XV. Of the Doctors weak argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistakes and charging on Catholicks what they hold not page 114 XVI Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion Of the Doctors exceptions against it Of his mistakes page 119 XVII How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholick Authours Of his quotations unworthily corrupted page 123 XVIII Of attention necessary in prayer One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer The Doctor quotes amiss and abuseth Suarez page 137 XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His errors are discovered page 142 XX. Of recourse had by the living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities S. Austin warrants this practice S. Gregory Nissen approves it Of Miracles done in our Age. page 147 XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his mistake concerning the multitude of Holy dayes page 154 XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the Ancient Church and Authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms page 158 XXIII Objections against Exorcisms solved Of the Doctors mistaken quotations page 166 XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of miracles done by holy Water No proof against it page 172 XXV Of the Doctors dark Divinity His doctrine concerning the charging of Catholicks with Idolatry weigh'd by Mr. Thorndikes just Weights The Doctor is prov'd a Schismatick by the Measure Mr. Thorndike makes of one Of the Doctors want of Charity towards his Ancestors and all Catholicks page 177 XXVI The Doctors wrongful charge on Catholick Drs His weak exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His faults and mistakes page 184 XXVII The Doctors strange way of arguing against the Exemption of Clergy-men His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa in charging him with this saying the Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason His unworthy slighting the Seal of Confession page 191 XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies against Catholicks charging them with Horrid doctrines against Kings and Monarchy which they disown and abominate The known carriages of Catholicks towards Princes compared with the rebellious practices of Protestants The Catholicks have ever been found most Loyal and Obedient to their Kings Of his unjust quotations page 196 XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blamless A word of his Conclusion page 207 Advertisement THe Edition of the Dissuasive made use of in this Treatise is that Reprinted at London for Thomas Johnson at the Key in Pauls Church-yard 1664. in Quarto There may seem a defect in this Treatise by reason of a mistake of the Printer who using two Presses began with one in the later part of the Copy and not computing right how many sheets the fore part of the Copy would make the numbers affix'd to the Pages follow not in due order but after page 130. immediately follows page 137. However the Reader may please to take notice that the Treatise is in â—e Faults Escaped Thus Amended In the Epistle emandandum Read emendandum unluckily read unlucky PAge 8. Line 1. Tough REad Though p. 9. l. 3. Authority r. antiquity p. 11. l. 33. blot out 5. p. 17. l. 19. their r. this p. 21. l. 33. Cluadius r. Claudius p. 34. l. 10. living l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. sining r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 7. Com. r. Tom. p. 42. l. 25. doubty r. Doughty p. 45. l. 5. p. 46. l. 28. rights bl in r. rites p. 47. l. 8. rights r. rites p. 50. marg Athanius l. 15. adorabant r. Athanasius r. adorabat p. 61. l. 11. delating r. relating p. 65. l. 26. said l. 29. more point said p. more p. 67. l. 10. S. G. p. 68. l. 15. leaves r. S. C. r. leave p. 68. l. 10. was p. 70. l. 9. their l. 24. damnable p. was r. there r. damageable p. 71. l. 27. primative p. 74. l. 5. the. ibid. then r. primat r. thy r. thou p. 88. l. 27. fin p. 95. l. 7. supar r. sin r. supra p. 102. l. 17. thsy p. 107. l. 29. another r. they po Another p. 127. l. 4. feceret p. 138. l. 18. even r. secerit r. ever p. 141. l. ult 68. p. 162. l. 30. increduty r. 67. r. incredulity p. 171. l. 15. saying 〈◊〉 l. 3. unhollow p. saying r. unhallow p. 174. l. 24. raging r. rageing p. 209. l. 19. inandita r. inaudita