The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 9 · Section 18
Sect. 18. This is abundantly ſufficient, to make it apparent, that the Popiſh Doctrine is deſtructive to holineſs of life: ſince they have warranty thereby, not only to neglect the proper acts and exerciſes of holineſs; but to give up themſelves to practices of all ſorts, which are directly oppoſite thereto. 'Tis true they do not acknowledge thoſe practices to be ſins or dangerous; but they may with as good reaſon juſtifie ſuch acts, which they cannot but condemn for crimes, as they go about to excuſe theſe from being criminal. A ſon of Belial, that has liv'd in the neglect of holineſs, and in the practice of ungodlineſs and unrighteouſneſs all his time, will ſcarce paſs at the day of Judgment, for one that is holy, or innocent; becauſe he has had the confidence to think ſo, or has found out ſome ſhift to ſupport his preſumption; or becauſe others like himſelf, were of the ſame mind; nor is he like to eſcape, becauſe he had wit enough to cozen his Conſcience, or boldneſs to ſtifle it, or warineſs to keep out the light, which would have inform'd it, or ſelf-love to believe thoſe who flatter'd him, in what his corrupt inclination led him to; or facilneſs to follow thoſe blindfold who had no mind to ſee. Thoſe devices which they have found out to juſtifie innumerable Tranſgreſſions of the Divine Law (and may ſerve as well to juſtifie them all): have no countenance from Scripture, nor from Antiquity faithfully following it. This is not only acknowledged, but charged home by ſome of the French Romaniſts, upon a ſuppoſition, that theſe pernicious Artifices are peculiarly the Jeſuits: but ſince it is apparent that the Divines and Caſuiſts of all Orders, and thoſe of Univerſal repute, are no more excuſable; the charge is juſtly fixed upon their Church, and practical Doctrine in general. Nor is their acknowledgment needful, it is plain in the Writings of thoſe, who have the conduct of their Conſciences, that they conſult not with Scripture in theſe determinations, no more than with ancient Writers: you ſhall find them very rarely meddle with either. An allegation out of their Canon Law, is an authentick Authority that paſſes for the Text, a Schoolman or Caſuiſt of note, that went before them, is a ſufficient conduct; if there be a concurrence of Five or Six, it is then the common opinion, and they are as ſecure in it as if they marched with a Caravan; but if they have a mind to be ſingular, and have but ſomthing like a reaſon for it; they Supererogate, though the reaſon be ſuch, that the next who examines it, puffs it away as a trifle. Such are the foundations of their practical Divinity; the Maſters of it (the Caſuiſts) are follow'd by the Prieſts and Confeſſors, and the Prieſts are follow'd by the people: and ſo the blind follow the blind; and thoſe that ſee not, thoſe that will not ſee. But it may be, there was leſs need to be ſo long and particular, in ſhewing how unneceſſary it is with them to forſake ſin. It is manifeſt enough by their Doctrine of Repentance, before inſiſted on, that there's no neceſſity they ſhould break off their ſins, till they be obliged to be contrite: and their Doctors cannot agree upon any time for this (though ſome of them ſpecifie the point of death, though then indeed they do not account it indiſpenſably neceſſary): the people may think themſelves excuſed, if they do not reſolve to leave their ſins till their Teachers agree, that they muſt do ſo; and ſo live in them, till they can live no longer. If any particular Doctor fix a more early period, and bring ſome reaſon for it (though they may if they pleaſe, yet) they are not obliged to believe him, for no reaſon is brought by any of them; for a more timely turning from ſin, but is confuted and rejected by ſome or other among them, as ſlight and inſufficient: and 'tis no ſin not to believe him, who propoſes to them upon frivolous reaſons; yea it would be an act of imprudence to do it, as (p)Quando articuli fidei non modo debito proponuntur, ut rationibus frivolis—tunc enim credere eſset actus imprudentiae, ſecundum D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. art. 4. Deus. Nat. Gr. Probl. 15. p. 87.Sancta Clara aſſures us, out of Aquinas and Victoria, ſo they may hereupon go on in their ſins, till the approach of death, and he, whom they worſhip as a Saint, and Reverence as the Angel of their Schools, may incourage them herein: ſince he declares, (q)Permanentiam in peccato uſ que ad mortem, non eſſe ſpeciale peccatum, ſed quandam peccati circumſtantiam. Aquinas. 2. 2. q. 14 a. 2.that continuance in ſin unto death, is not a ſpecial ſin, but only a circumſtance of ſin. Nor need they be affraid of this circumſtance, as though it would make their caſe worſe; for by their Doctrine, to ſin (and ſo to continue in ſin) upon confidence, that they ſhall have pardon by Confeſſion, is ſo far from aggravating ſin, that it extenuates it. So Cajetan and Navar (r)Peccans ob fiduciam, quod poſtea pro confeſſionem veniam obtinebit, non tenetur d… neceſſitate id confiteri: quia non eſt circumſtantia adeo peccatum aggravans; imo potius minuit, ut inquit Cajetanus in 2. 2. q. 21. art. 2. Nav. cap. 6. n. 3. p. 98.after him. And that nothing may diſcourage them from continuing in wickedneſs, the Council of Trent declares (without excepting the ſinners perſeverance in ſin unto death) that if he be attrite, the Sacrament of Confeſſion will ſecure him; though attrition is confeſſed, not to import ſo much, as any pious or ingenuous purpoſe to forſake ſin.