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 answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley.

CHAP. XV. (Book 15)

Of the Doctors weak Argument against one satisfy∣ing 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 satis∣fie 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 limitati∣ons 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 Confes∣sor

causelesly laies them on another, nor makes his purse the penitent; No, it is a slander to say that in∣joyned satisfaction is thus bought off with mo∣ney.

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 sa∣tisfaction done by another; for if Christ satisfied for all, (in the Doctors sence) the Penitents own satisfacti∣on (who is one amongst all) is vain and fruitless, which is not here in question. Again, our good Doctor gain∣saies 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 pri∣mitive Christians? it was done to their hands by Christ, their Penances therefore were superflu∣ous.

2. He blames us for saying, The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was con∣tracted. 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 sin∣ing 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 Con∣trition, 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 Con∣trition, 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 ha∣bits.

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 ha∣bit of erring brought forth this assertion; it is high∣ly 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 account∣ed. 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 imme∣diately, 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 extraordi∣nary; be it so, it implies no impossibility, and therefore laies open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious im∣piety 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, in∣advertency or unavoydable infirmity, shall not be imputed to those who love God. Answ. First, if these sins be dam∣nable in the Unregenerate, as Infidels and those who want Faith; I see not why they are not Damnable al∣so 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 Na∣ture; these greater deserve the severity of his Ju∣stice. Pardonable I say they are, and little, ante∣cedently to Gods Justice and Mercy, and therefore mer∣cy makes them not so, but finds them pardonable, be∣cause little.

Hence it follows, that no heap of venial sins consi∣dered as venial, can equalize the gravity of one Mortal offence; for though the growth and numerous augmen∣tation 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 e∣normity 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 of∣fending mortally; the case is altered; Qui amat pericu∣lum 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, 'Tis 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 veni∣al; 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 absoluti∣on; 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.