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

CHAP. I. Of our Speculative and Moral, or Practical Divinity.

SECT. I. Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity.

I Find our School Divinity is tax'd by our Adver∣sary of a double Sacriledge, which is, that it both hinders Devotion and enervats Faith. But this is a false surmise, for how can it be pos∣sible that She, which alone among all our Sciences makes it Her task to propose to us, explain, and confirm the Object of Faith and Devotion. I mean first God, and his Divine Attributs, and next how we should Honour Him, and behave our selves with his Majesty in our Worship to him; should not promote but hinder Faith and Devotion? Is it credible, say I, that this Science with all the en∣deavour and afforded Light should not help, but rather remove us from our end? If some short∣fighted People think She moves more doubts, then

She satisfies with Her Solutions; The fault is in their weak sight, or tainted understanding, not in Divinity. As when in some, the Ill affected Pallate loaths Meats, which otherwaies are most whole∣some.

Many things, altho' most certain to R. Catho∣licks, are discussed in this Science and brought by Reason to a rigid Tryal, by which means doubts, which do, or may arise to the Enemies of our Faith, find a clear Solution. Thus Reason then over∣••ome by the very Arms of Reason does not only captivate Her self to obey Faith, but moreover freely yields and joynes with Her against the Ene∣mies of our Religion.

So against the Iews we demand if it was possi∣ble that God should become Man: Against those who deny the veracity of Scripture, if God can lie. Against those who hold the Decree of Reprobati∣on in God afore any foreseen Demerit either of Adam or his Posterity,

This Question is moved, whether a Soul allto∣gether Innocent may be by an infinite Goodness designed to the Eternal Pains of Hell? Against Athiests this Querie is made whether or no, by the light of Nature one may demonstrate the exi∣stence of a God? Thus different Questions are made concerning the possibility of different things. Be cause the Enemies of our Faith, as they easily pass from the denyal of the possible to the denyal of the actual existance of a thing, so from the conviction of a possibility they are more easily drawn to a∣vow the actual existence of a reveal'd Object. Nei∣ther is this the work, as our Adversary deems, of idle Men, unless he thinks them to do nothing, who make it all their Labour to bring forth in Men a noble Sentiment of God, and free them from all scruple in their way of serving him.

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.