The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 9 · Section 1 – Section 2
SECT. 1.
I Proceed to thoſe ſins which they will have to be no ſins, but need not ſtay long here, having given a large account of thoſe which they make Venial; ſince betwixt theſe, and no ſins, there is little difference in their Doctrine, and none in their practice. I need not ſtay to ſhew, how it is no ſin with them to vilifie the Scriptures (the written Word of God), or to rob him of the ſole glory of his Mediation, and to give much thereof to others, in all its parts and ſpecialities, merit, ſatisfaction, interceſſion; or to put their truſt in others beſides God, for things which he alone can give, and for which he only is to be relyed on; and this not only in Saints and Angels, but their Images, and their imaginary Reliques. And how it is no ſin in their account to abide in ignorance, unbelief, impenitency, or to live without the love and fear of God, and the exerciſing of other graces: by what is already premiſed, this is ſufficiently manifeſted.
(*)Si tamen contingat ſpeciales inſpirationes dari a'Deo, quando ſe off…rt occaſio frangendi aliquod praeceptum, & homo reſiſtens inſpirationibus praeceptum tranſgrediatur; nullo modo ſpeciale peccatum committit, quia reſiſtit inſpirationi, Jo. Sanc. ſelect. diſp. 7. n. 11. p. 36.To reſiſt the inſpirations of God, drawing us to the obſervance of his commands, or withdrawing us from wickedneſs, is no ſpecial ſin, i. e. we contract no other kind of guilt thereby, than if we had ſinned, without any ſuch inſpirations to with-hold us from it. Thus it will be no fault at all to quench the motions of Gods ſpirit, inducing us to turn to him, to love him, to repent, &c. or diſwading us from Blaſphemy, Perjury, Adultery, Murder, or any other crime. And yet if a man be ready to commit any wickedneſs, it will be no ſin for another to invite him to do it. Thus far men may promote all ſin in others, & reſiſt the ſpirit of God, moving againſt it. As for evil Spirits, they conclude it no ſin, (a)Sylveſt. Sum. v. adjurat. n. 2.for good men, by ſpecial inſtinct or revelation to make uſe of the miniſtry of Devils: they tell us that to apply themſelves to Devils (b)Si quis eos adjuret—ad aliquid ab ijs ſciendum, aut ad aliquod obſequium per eos conſequendum, eſt illicitum 1. quia hoc pertinet ad quandam ſocietatem, vel familiaritatem cum ipſis, Sylveſt. Sum. v. adjura. n. 2. Licite adjuramus in omnibus ut de corpore expellatur, utputa, quod ſuum nomen fateatur—ſimiliter ut dicat cauſam vexandi hominem—licet non credamus, &c.to know, or obtain any thing of them, is to have ſome familiarity and ſociety with thoſe damned Spirits (unleſs it be the better to expel them out of the poſſeſſed) yet they teach it is no ſin to inquire of the Devil in a poſſeſſed perſon; what his name is, and wherefore he vexes that perſon, and what Devils are his aſſociates, and the like. But he muſt not believe the Devil, though he tell him (c)Quod ſi ei crederet, ut necromantici, credo eſſe mortale, quia pertinet ad amicitiam, ibid. n. 3.for this would be as bad as Necromancy): yet if he believe him not, none can tell how the Devils anſwering him in thoſe inquiries can contribute any thing to his expulſion. They declare alſo (d)Hac etiam ratione non ſolum licet adjurare Daemones non obſidentes, ne adjuvent obſidentes: ſed etiam ſuperiores, ut expellant inferiores, id. ibid.that it is lawful to uſe adjurations to the Devils, who poſſeſs no perſon, not to aſſiſt thoſe that do, or to apply themſelves to the great Devils, to caſt out the leſs.
Sect. 2. So far we ſee (and further) they may deal with the Devil; how they may deal with God we ſaw before; though the whole body of Popery be corrupt, yet there is nothing more leprous than their worſhip; they think it not needful that it ſhould be conformed to the divine (*)Ex ſententia Cajetani & Navar. in Vaſquez, Opuſc. moral. dub. 3. p. 24.rule in any thing, either as to the End, or Manner, or Matter, or Object; yet it is tranſcendently good in their own eyes, no ſin in it, even when there is nothing elſe. For what fordid and wicked ends they think it fit to worſhip God, we have diſcovered already, and alſo in what an irreligious manner. To this latter let me add, what I meet with in Angelus, (e)Quod attentionem vel devotionem Quaeritur utrum peccent mortaliter non dicen… officium devote & ſtudioſe? Reſp. Gloſſa tenet, quod ſufficit dicere ore, licet non corde, & cum ea concurrunt multi Canoniſtae in c. dolentes. Angel. Sum. v. horae. n. 27. Similiter non peccat mortaliter qui verba quidem dicit, ſed ad illa non attendit: quoniam cum praeceptum de dicendo horas ſit de jure poſitivo, non refertur niſi ad ea, quae ſub judicio humano cadere poſſunt: & iſta ſunt quae exercentur per actus exteriores, non autem interiores—Et hoc idem videtur voluiſſe Scotus in 4.—Hoſtienſis etiam—Idem. Pet. de Palud. Sum. Roſel. v. Horae.when he is inquiring, whether attention, or devotion be neceſſary in their divine ſervice (a ſtrange queſtion it might ſeem among any called Chriſtians, if their divine Service were the worſhip of God) he tells us their Gloſs maintains that it is ſufficient to ſay it (their Service) with the mouth, though not with the heart, and that many other Canoniſts agree therein. Thus it ſeems they underſtand the Pope's Law for divine worſhip; ſo as to approve that in plain terms which Chriſt expreſly, and the Prophets before him, condemns; ſo as to declare to the world, that the Church of Rome makes no other worſhip neceſſary, than what Chriſt hath openly branded as vain, falſe, and hypocritical, Iſa. 29. 14. and Matthew 15. 7, 8, 9.
The ſenſe of their Divines agrees ſo well with the Canoniſts, and as little with Chriſt (though it be expreſſed in other terms): that the contradiction to him, is not ſo open, though it be as full. (f)Verb. horae. n. 27. ſupra.Angelus himſelf, and (g)Evagatio autem advertentis ſecundum actum interiorem ſolum, licet ſit temeraria & gravis forte, non tamen eſt mortale, niſi propter contemptum, Sylv. v. horae. n. 13. Roſella. v. horae. ſecundum, Petr. Paludan.Sylveſter after him, with others, determine that wandring in one that obſerves it, when it is but as to the inward act, though it be temerarious and grievous, is not mortal, unleſs it be out of contempt; the plain Engliſh of which, is this, the departing of the mind and heart from God in worſhip, willingly and wittingly, how great ſoever it be, is a ſmall fault, if any, unleſs to this neglect of God, a greater contempt be added; whereas the contempt of God herein is very great: his reaſon is, that which others give, (h)Quia Eccleſia non habet judicare de actibus interioribus mere, Uterque, ibid.becauſe the Church is not to judge of mere inward acts; and therefore (i)Propter quod Miniſter Eccleſiae, licet dicendo officium aliud cogitet; non videtur tranſgreſſor praecepti ex natura fact…, Angelus, ibid. Roſella. ibid.if a Miniſter of the Church, when he is at Service, mind ſomething elſe, he ſeems to be no tranſgreſſor of the Precept by that act.
He tells us out of Aquinas (what we ſaw the reſt of them do before) that they need not continue actually attentive in worſhip, but only vertually; id eſt (k)Tunc videtur manere ſecundum virtutem, quum accedit ad orationem cum intentione aliquid impetrandi, vel Deo debitum obſequium reddendi: etiamſi in proſecutione mens ad alia rapiatur, idem. ibid. Adverte tamen quod intentio debita & actualis, ſi adſit in principio vocalis orationis licet poſtea mens evagetur (niſi talis evagatio interrumpat primam intentionem per contrariam intention…m) ſic eſt meritoria & impetrativa oratio vocalis ſine attentione per virtutem primae intentionis, idem. v. oratio. n. 10. Roſella, v. hora. Scotus, ibid.if they intend to perform Service when they are going about it, that will make them paſs for attentive enough all the while, though their minds be carryed away after other things, when they are at it, and never heed the worſhip in hand. This is the common ſenſe of their Authors, as if they ſhould gravely tell us, that a man who goes into company with ſome intent (actual or vertual) to be ſober, but preſently falls to his Cups, is overcome and continues Drunk divers hours; yet he may be ſaid to be Sober all the while he is Drunk, by vertue of his firſt intention. And ſo we ſhould wrong the Romaniſts, if we did not think they would have as much of true Worſhip and Religion in their Service, as that man has of Sobriety, all the time he is dead Drunk.