interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
Truth Will out OR A Discovery of some Untruths Smoothly told by Dr. IEREMY TAYLOR In his DISSWASIVE From POPERY With an Answer to such Arguments as deserve ANSVVER By his Friendly Adversary Ed Worsley Ergo inimicus vobis factus sum verum dicens vobis Gal. 4. 16. Printed in the Year 1665. THE EPISTLE To the READER WE say all is not Gold that Glisters and that Most worth lyes not ever hid under a fair Outside A Comet seems sometimes as glorious as a Star a Parelion like the Sun and Falshood got under a handsome Visard well trim'd up may take with many and pass Disguised for current Truth But such slight Beauty beguiles not long True Worth undoes it The Suns lasting Glory the Stars constant Brightness enough Dislustres both Parelion and Comet And Truth though perhaps it may not here quite vanquish Falshood for Some will Defend it to the Worlds end is able at least to pull of it's Gaudy Visard and put it out of Countenance A World of this Counterfeit Lustre we have now a days in Books set forth as is pretended to Beautifie the Heaven of Christianity and Englighten a People that sit in Darkness One I have met with 't is the Disswasive from Popery that Parelion like in a Triple Cloud is as I am told Gloriously out in three Editions and lately appeared in the two Kingdoms of England and Ireland More I believe have been Gazing on it then well discovered the faulty Lustre Real Worth I cannot mention for what find we I beseech you considerable in this Book but a useless Repetition of old defeated Objections which have now for a whole Age run through a few Vulgar worn-out Controversies and in Rigor require only a Return of the Old Answers given a hundred times by Catholick Writers new Arguments which one might have expected from so Great a Doctor seldom appear You have moreover more then a few Mistakes relating to Catholick Doctrine Want enough of Divinity A seeming Zeal 't is true but ill season'd with Jeers and harsher Language Calumnies vented Talk and no Proof Here is what I think the Doctor must own the Inside and best substance of his Disswasive The Flash therefore and fair Lustre of his Book lies neither in the choice of Matter nor manner of handling it but in specious Quotations that flourish in the Margents These set down in the ensuing Treatise I have carefully examined Read with my own Eyes in the Original Authors not one have I taken on trust and after a diligent search must profess with all Candor not one worth notice have I found but 't is either wholly impertinent to what he would Prove or strangely wrested to a sinister Sence or not found at all in the Original nor a Word like it Or finally which is most usual and to be pittied in a Doctor unpardonably corrupted To insist on every less valuable Authority or on such as shew themselves Profless even Read in the Disswasive would be Time mispent and weary a Reader These I offer to your View are of the grosser Sort and Numerous enough to Evidence that the Doctors pretended Faultless Book is Proved Faulty and no more powerful to Disswade from Popery then Error is to draw men from Truth Far am I off from the Doctors Humour in Judging this small Treatise Faultless I willingly acknowledge many Faults but know not how to mend Them One is no little want of English but this I hope dear Reader you will easily Pardon I am sure you would did you but know how long I have been a Stranger to my Country An other is too tedious a length sometimes in Latin Sentences The Fault if any is unavoydable For while the Charge is laid on ill Quotations the Right ones must appear and in their proper Terms To give an Authors Meaning only and Wave his Words seems Forceless And in stead of laying Difficulties may Raise up more Where it most Imports I have done my best to English the Latin faithfully Ad pedem literae the Translation therefore cannot but look Rugged yet that is better then to have the Genuine Sence miscarry in smoother Language Lastly a harsher Word may perhaps through hast or unawares have casually fallen from me if so I here unsay it and Humbly crave Pardon And were my Papers now out of my reach in my Hands again I would in this Correct whatever might justly seem offensive If Doctor Taylor shall please to warn me of greater Faults I 'll thank him for his Charity And if he thinks it worth his Pains to take notice of my Exceptions against his Book my earnest Request is that he mispend not Time in Trifles nor weigh only lesser Matters while he hath greater charged on him that justly require Satisfaction For Example I have plainly tax'd him of wrong done to Sixtus Senensis to the Expurgatory Index to Petrus Lombardus Otho Erisingensis and others in the beginning of my Treatise let him as plainly Purge himself in these Particulars and shew me my Error for most certainly I have either wronged him or he these Authors I press him afterward with undeniable Authorities of most Ancient Fathers both for the Use and Worship of Holy Images His express Answer is herein required also chiefly to St. Basil and St. Iohn Damascen I have told him of his Forging strange Doctrines and Fathering them on Tolet Suarez Bellarmin Emanuel Sa and others If he be injured he can Right himself and shew where Sa affirms That if a man lies with his intended Wife before Marriage it is no sin or a light one Whether the true Sence of Bellarmin in his Quotation pag. 167. be not wholly perverted If the Pope should Err by Commanding c. These for an Essay only more you will have and of greater Concernment hereafter May it please the Doctor to clear himself by a solid Answer he 'll hearten me to Reply Or if he can produce against me but one Quotation so fowly amiss as that one Charg'd on Emanuel Sa to say nothing of many worse I do here profess a Readiness and will comply with it to publish my Fault to the Whole World O would he Encourage himself to proceed with like Candor and unsay only what his own Conscience knows Faulty in his Disswasive he might be Eternally Glorious And why should I forbid my self to hope for so Laudable a Retractation Justice requires it Conscience forcibly presses Truth that suffers strongly Pleads for it Christian Humility easily submits And Gods Victorious Grace is now no less Powerful to do this Work on him then once it was to Reclaim a Blessed St. Austin Quare Arripe obsecro te they are the Pious and well meant Words of this Saint Tom. 2. Epist 9. to a Great Doctor and my Submissive Petition to Doctor Taylor Arripe obsecro te ingenuan vere Christianam cum charitate severitatem ad illud tuum opus corrigendum atque emandandum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
many difficulties which our Divines raise in this matter of Indulgences while they speculatively discuss several cases relating to them and because this is done with variety of Opinions the Doctor thinks all undone and that both the sustance and fruit of Indulgences fail's in the Catholick Church A great mistake For are there not innumerable difficulties speculatively examined almost in every Article of Christian belief concerning Baptism and other Sacraments yes concerning the profession of our Faith in certain exigences yet these speculative considerations terrifie none from professing the necessity and benefit both of faith and Sacraments The like with a due proportion we say of Indulgences not so necessary to Salvation as Faith or Baptism though difficulties in such and such particular cases are moved concerning them yet all agree in the general with the Council of Trent that they are useful profitable and beneficial to Christian penitents Having thus discovered the two transcendent mistakes of our Doctor you shall see how unskilfully he combates against Indulgences Page 92. he saith Suppose the Indulgence be for forty years a hundred a thousand yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate you have deserved the Penance of forty thousand years c. Answ A long time indeed but peradventure this peradventure of the Doctors is a mistake at least something is gained besides the merit of the work though we know not how much and better it is to have forty years of Penance taken off then to suffer torment for forty years though not yet quitted of all pain If the damned in Hell could but have forty years of their pain released thsy would deem it a favour Therefore the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is true Usus indulgentiarum est salutaris Again he saith No man can tell the difference when what remains shall be so great as to surmount all the evils of this life Answ Neither is it necessary The duty of a good Christian is to take off what pain he can though he knows not in what measure and if he diminishes but some little the use of Indulgences is both good and profitable I leave that jeer of the Daemoniack with the Doctor and tell him that if one poor soul were possessed with a legion of Deviles and had moral assurance that he is freed of some though he knows not of how many that little releasement would be of comfort Page 93. He goes on doubting It may be your Quadragenes are not carenes c. It may be you have purehased but some lighter thing and then if your demerit arise to so many Carenes and you have purchased but meer Quadragenes you may stay longer in Purgatory then you expected Answ It may be the Doctor is deceived in all he saith here It may be a penitent gets all he expected But admit he doth not something is got he hath at least the merit of his work though he knows not how much The not knowing of his gain doth not lessen it Though the Doctor knows not precisely how pure his Act of Charity is the value of it is so much in the sight of God neither more nor less upon the account of his own not knowing it He saith again It is not agreed among Doctors whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended beyond the taking off those Penances which were enjoyned by the Confessor Answ Though it be most true that a plenary Indulgence proceeding from lawful Authority granted upon a Just and Pious Cause extends it self to the taking away of all pain if the penitent complys with his duty yet here we will not enter on this Question nor say how sincerely Turrecremata with the others are cited Content we are with that which the Doctor does not deny viz. That Indulgences take off those Penances enjoyned by the Confessor And with this small Pittance of Pardon we conclude that the Council of Trent saith true Usus Indulgentiarum est salutaris The use of Indulgences is wholesome He further tells us page 94. That if a person be not capable of an Indulgence because he is not in the state of Grace he gains nothing Answ No one doubts of this The only wonder is that our Doctor spends his Ink and Paper to no better purpose Soon after he saith that Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again and for it he cites Petrus Suavis Polanus in his History of the Council of Trent to prove just nothing Polanus his words are though his Authority is little with me Pontifex qui ut Theologus c. The Pope who as a Divine had writ of Indulgences before Luther ever handled the matter thought to establish by an Apostolical Decree what he had formerly taught as a private Doctor And what is this Doctrine of Adrian a private Doctor Quando Indulgentia conceditur alicui c. When an Indulgence is granted to any body it may be he doth not the work required to be done so perfectly as to gain the whole Indulgence Now if any thing be wanting to the perfection of the work he gains not the whole Indulgence but a part of it corresponding to the Work less well performed What is here for the Doctors advantage What is here against the Council of Trent Usus Indulgentiarum est salutaris Something is got by Indulgences according to Adrian who only spake as a private Doctor Were any thing amiss as in reason there is not But here I must tyre you with a piece of the Doctors subtilty who saith That if the Indulgence be only given according to the worthiness of the work done then that viz. the work will avail of it felf without any grant from the Church A strong Objection I answer The work will avail of it self to merit and if penal to some satisfaction but not to the releasing of so much temporal pain as the Indulgence takes off in case it be worthily comply'd with The Doctors greater heap of dangers which he sets down from his 6. number of pag. 94. to 98. hath so little danger of an Objection that to read them is to answer them For what sence is there to tell us That we must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence We have all Moral assurance for it and incomparably greater then any one hath in England that his Minister Preaches with Authority to Preach or delivers true Doctrine What sence is there to ask If one has an Indulgence for the Article of death and dies not then whether a new one is to be got for the next sickness As doughty an objection it is that he hath concerning the Gregorian Calendar as likewise his doubt whether a Pope can recal an Indulgence granted by his Predecessor This and a great deal more which the Doctor has concerning this matter is he himself knows it most empty stuff But you 'll ask what I say to the great objection he toucheth on here pag. 96. and proposeth more largely in the beginning of
whoever gives a penny or such a small pittance and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also These two will be equal and the one have as much as the other yet upon other accounts the Poor mans condition will be better Here is all I can find in this Author and it is most blamless Doctrine nothing to the Doctors sence viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot And that in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author he shall have his answer But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals and therefore abuseth a simple Reader who when he sees such a cluster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun thinks our Doctor more Learned then Rabbi Kimki CHAP. 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 mistaks and charging on Catholicks what they hold not THe Doctor pag. 103. and 6 Section I think his 5th Section hath suffered ship-wrack in the fourth no great loss of it assaults us many ways First he likes not our Doctrine That one man may satisfie for another and cites Suarez for it by halfs Part. 4. we say Tomo 4. in 3. partem disp 38. Sect. 9. I say by halfs for Suarez holds expresly one cannot satisfie for another unless the Confessor Licenses that way of satisfying for Example if the Confessor injoyns his penitent to fast Certum est saith Suarez It is certain that another mans fasting will not be satisfactory He saith 2. That a Confessor is not to do this without a just and necessary cause perhaps of weakness and infirmity because it is not usual in the Church These limitations our Doctor leaves out and runs on with a jest The Rich man is whip'd upon another mans back and his purse only is the Penitent I answer If the Rich mans back deserves stripes as well as some body does no Confessor causelesly laies them on another nor makes his purse the penitent No it is a slander to say that injoyned satisfaction is thus bought off with money Next comes the Doctors weighty Argument For by this Doctrine saith he viz. that one man may satisfie for another it is not to be said of Christ alone that he was wounded for our transgressions that he only satisfied for our sins I answer If this Argument have force it proves as much against a mans own satisfaction as against satisfaction done by another for if Christ satisfied for all in the Doctors sence the Penitents own satisfaction who is one amongst all is vain and fruitless which is not here in question Again our good Doctor gainsaies all the severity of those ancient Canonical Penances practised in the Church and praised by him for if Christ only hath satisfied for all what need was there of such rigid Penances among the primitive Christians it was done to their hands by Christ their Penances therefore were superfluous 2. He blames us for saying The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was contracted So the Doctor page 104. Answ Here is the most strange Doctrine I ever read Know therefore that Divines distinguish between actual sin habitual sin which is sin past not yet pardoned and the habit of sining generated by frequent acts of vice which makes a man unhappy prone ready and facile to sin again just as the often repeating of a Verse gives facility to say it anew with ease Now to affirm that this habit contracted by former multiplyed acts of sin is a sin seems a piece of new coyned Divinity and proves that no sinner habituated in Vice if he dies immediately after his first act of Contrition or ardent Love of God which justifies him can be saved Why This fervent act of Contrition Roots not quite out the contracted habit of sin no saith our Doctor and truely There is required a longer time and a procedure in the Method of a holy life to do this But this contracted habit of sin is a sin which the most fervent act of Contrition takes not away in a Moment therefore if a sinner dies suddenly after his first Contrition he cannot be saved consequently had St. Mary Magdalen departed this life the next instant after her ardent Charity she had been a lost Soul and so the Doctor must say the good Theif on the Cross is who had little time granted to Root out his bad habits What the Doctor adds that in our Doctrine a man is not bound to interrupt the procedure of his impiety is most unjust dealing for such an one is bound by the Law of God and reason not to sin yes and by Repentance too in case Repentance be the only means to help him The Doctor speaks not well while he insinuates that we are obliged to repent of our habits if Repentance be taken properly Repent we must of our sins and Root out ill habits by contrary acts of Vertue this is our duty Finally he is strangely out in saying As for those sins that come after they are excused if they be produced by a strong habit Answ A strong habit of erring brought forth this assertion it is highly injurious to Catholicks and as far from truth as the Doctor is from honest dealing with us Page 106. he teacheth that every venial sin in its own Nature and the rigor of Divine Iustice is damnable and that in the unregenerate these venial sins are so accounted Answ Most merciless and execrable Doctrine against the very light of Nature For who can say if a spark of Reason lives in him that in case one by special favour pass his whole life without all other sin then once speaking an idle word and dies immediately who I say dare affirm that this man in rigor of Gods Divine Justice is a damned Soul and must for that one little transgression suffer the torments of Hell for eternity Where is your Scripture good Doctor for this desperate Doctrine produce it let us read the place with you but never shall you do it till you prove it by Scripture that a Gnat is as big as a Camel and a Mote in the Sun as great as a House-beam He may say the case now set down is somewhat extraordinary be it so it implies no impossibility and therefore laies open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious impiety of this Doctrine The Doctor goes on and tells us That though venial sins of their own Nature are damnable yet by the Divine Mercy the smaller committed by invincible ignorance inadvertency or unavoydable infirmity shall not be imputed to those who love God Answ First if these sins be damnable in the