An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

SECT. II. Answer to what is Objected a∣gainst R. Catholick's Practical or Moral Divinity.

OUr Adversary condemns our Moral as too large, and giving too much way to the Corruption of Nature. So heretofore the Pharisees condemned the Moral of CHRIST, because he, who came to Save what had perished, conversed with Sinners, and Cured them on the Sabbath. If among us arise some Children of Ini∣quity who with the subtilness of their wit endea∣vour to elude, and betray the simplicity of the Law, they, as unfaithful Stewards, are removed from the care of Souls, and their dogmes branded with shame, a sign to the Faithful, that their wild Opinions are to be avoided as poysonous Herbs to the Sheep of CHRIST. Thus you see their ex∣travagancy in their Sentiments brings no blot on the Moral of the R. Catholick Religion.

Another aspersion he endeavours to fix upon our Moral, by a way of speaking, he saies, he heard among Catholicks, viz. That Men of wit do not Sin. Their Reason is, saies he, that every Sin, for example, Adultery may be considered as a na∣tural Act, and as an Act unjust: If you consent to it as a natural Act, you incur no Sin, if as to an Act unjust, you Sin.

To this I Answer. First, There is no Man so dull in Spirit or obdur'd in Conscience, who does

not see he incur's the Guilt of Adultery, when he consents to do the natural Act with knowledge of Injustice, viz. in that circumstance of another Man's Wife, inseparably adhearing to it.

For otherwaies, not only every Adultery would not be a Sin, but 'twould be also impossible to commit a Sin in Adultery. Which I show thus: I cannot in that imaginary Opinion commit a Sin in Adultery, unless I will the Act of Adultery as un∣just, but this I cannot do, because to will the unjust as unjust, resting there, is to will malum qua malum, or evil as it is evil, which is not the ob∣ject of Prosecution, or of the will seeking, but only of flight or of the will abhorring and avoid∣ing. Now if these familiars of our opponent avow it impossible to commit a Sin in Adultery, one may think 'twere more likely to meet with them in Bedlame then in an University.

In fine, I press him further, and ask, if, what he utters in general, was not apply'd by the speaker to the matter of Usery in particular, if so, I avow that the Ignorant sometimes may Sin in that mat∣ter, where the knowing Man would not Sin. As when the Ignorant really suffering damage by the lending of his Money intends, and takes Sinfully something more then what he lent, purely for the use of it, as Userers are wont to do. Which, if he had been a knowing Man, he might have Lawfully taken for his suffering damage in the lending of his Money, or some other Lawful title unknown to the Ignorant, but known to him.

Nay, That I may Charitably suspend the Cen∣suring of our Adversary as the Relater of an Un∣truth, I give yet this sense to his saying, witty Men Sin not. That is to say, when Actions indifferent as to their Object, have the same Phisical Effect,

whither I do them with a Good or Ill Intention, for Example, a Cup of Wine equally strengthens my Body, whither I drink it meerly out of sen∣suality, which is a Sin, or because it pleases God I refresh my Body with it to be more able to serve him, which is a vertuous Action, the truly witty Man, who is ordinarily mov'd by Eternal Reasons. chuses to please God by the latter intention and ab∣hors to Sin by the formet.