justly be allowed in any Academicall Act or Commencement albeit the Answerer or Defendant were furnished with no other grounds or occasions of his Theses besides that usually avouched Distinction between the Act and Obliquitie of the Act specially if the Distinction were applyed unto the First Sin of our First Parents In that sin whether we refer it to our Father Adam or to our Mother Eve the Act and the Obliquitie are altogether as unseparably annexed as Rotunditie or roundnes is with a Sphere or moulded Bullet And to imagine there should be one Cause of the Act and another of the Obliquitie or sinfulness of the Act would be as gross a Soloecisme as to assigne or seek after any other Cause of the Rotunditie or roundnesse of a Sphere or Bullet besides him that frames the one or moulds the other or as it would be to enquire any other Cause of the equality between two bodies before unequall besides him that makes the quantity to be of one and the same-size or scantling or of the similitude between the Fleece of a black sheepe and of a white sheep perfectly dyed black besides the Dyer Now the similitude betwixt that which is perfectly dyed black and that which is black by nature doth inevitably result from the Dyer without the intervention of any other Cause imaginable Easie it were to produce a volume of like instances in the workes of nature or of mens works and practises upon them all of them concludently enforcing the resolution of the former Probleme to be allowable in Schooles by most perfect and absolute Induction if Arts or Sciences were once so happy as to have none but true and accurate Artists to be their Judges As indeed they are the sole competent Judges in like Cases and Judges they are within these precincts as Competent as the Reverend Judges of this or any other Land are in Causes Civil Municipal or Criminal 2. Admit then a man were found guilty of murther by a Jury of his honest Neighbours upon the Authentick Testimonies of two or three witnesses which had seen him run his Neighbour through the body in some vitall part or to cleave his head in two and a Philosopher or Physitian should undertake to arrest the Judgement or make Remonstrance to the Judge that the Delinquent arraigned and convicted by the Jurie was not the true or immediate Cause of the others death upon these or the like allegations out of his own facultie That death properly consists in the dissolution of naturall heate and moysture whereas the party arraigned did never intend to make any such dissolution or to terminate his Action to the point of death but onely to thrust his sword through him or to knock him in the head which Actions can have no direct Terme besides the Vbi or Terme of locall motion Can we imagine that any Judge could be so milde as not to censure such an Apologizer for a saucy Artificiall Foole or a Crack'd-brained Sophister And yet this Apologie is not cannot be in vulgar judgments so Censurable of Artificiall folly as the former Apologie for salving the Escapes Errors or ill Expressions of some Learned and Pious Men by nice distinctions betwixt the Act and the Sinfulnesse of it in our First Parents Case was For there is not so immediate or so absolute or necessary connexion between death and the deadliest wound that can be given to any man as there is between Acts peremptorily forbidden by the Law of God and the Obliquitie or sinfulnesse of them For there is not neither is it possible there should be any minute of time or which is less then the least part of a minute any moment of time betwixt such Acts and the Obliquitie resulting from them Both of them come together both in respect of order of time and of nature by absolute indispensable Necessity Whereas between death and wounds given meritorious of Capital punishment there usually is a distance of time and oftentimes no absolute or unpreventable necessity that the one should follow within a year and a day of the other 3. But the best Method to convince such as Invented or used the former Distinction of gross error and somewhat more then so will be to retort their own Illustrations or justifications of it upon themselves as I have learned by successefull Experience upon some learned Ingenuous students which have revoked their own opinions and reclaimed others upon the reading of my meditations upon this argument in another Dialect In solenni Lectione One of the most usuall Illustrations or intended corroborations of the former distinction is borrowed from a Man that rides a Lame or halting horse Such a rider say they especially if he ride with switch and spur is the Cause why the horse goes or runs as fast as he can but not the Cause of his lamenesse or of his halting Of his lamenesse supposed he was lam'd before the Rider I confess is no Cause yet of his actuall halting down-right or of the increase of the lameness which will follow upon the unseasonable riding or over-riding he is the only Cause For if the poor Beast might have rested his bones when he was enforced to trot or gallop he would not have halted at all at that time nor would he have been so grievously lame as by such unseasonable usage he is But this instance or Illustration suppose it were not much amisse in respect of men now living can no way sute or fit the Question concerning the sin of our First Parents For Adam at his creation was no way lame or defective either in soul or body before he tasted of the forbidden Fruit. Now if the Almighty Creator had been the cause of this Act he had been as true a Cause of the First sin or of Adams halting in his service as he that bestrides a sound and lusty horse and runs him upon the spur in a rugged and stony ground or in a deep way is of the lamenesse of the death or any disease which ensues such desperate riding 4. Many commit more gross Idolatry with their own fancies then the Heathen did with their Idols To imagin that God should deal so hardly with the First Adam as to give him a Law which he intended to make him break and yet to punish him with death for the breach of it Or that the Second Adam the wisdom of God should send wise men and Prophets to Jerusalem to the intent or End that She should stone or put them to death or for this purpose that their bloud should in later dayes be required of Her as some in our times have publickly taught is an Imagination in it self much worse and more dangerous then the erection of Images though Roman-wise in Reformed Churches A greater Abomination then any Idol of the Heathens For Images or Idols are but the External Objects of or enticements unto grosse Idolatry Nor was it the Carpenter or Statuary that did make the Heathen gods
reason then why the Body of Christ is not or ought not to be often offered is not because all our sinnes were actually remitted by the once offering of it or remitted before they were committed but because the substance or matter of the sacrifice is of the same force at this day to remit sinnes that it was of whilest it was offered For his humane nature was consecrated by death and by his bloody Passion to be a sacrifice of everlasting Vertue to be the continual propitiation for our sinnes 7 If either the actual sinnes of all men Christs Resurrection our baptism needless if sinnes be remitted before they be committed or the sinnes of the Elect in speciall had been so remitted by Christs death as some conceive they were that is absolutely pardoned before they were committed there had been no end or use of Christs Resurrection in respect of us no need of Baptism yet was Baptism from the hour of his resurrection necessarie unto all that did beleive in his death and resurrection The urgent and indispensable necessitie of Baptism especially in respect of actual beleivers is not any where more Emphatically intimated than in St. Peters Answer to the Jewes Whose hearts were pierc't with sorrow that they had been the causes of Christs death They in this stound or sting of Conscience demand Men and brethren what shall we do and Peter answered them Repent and be Baptized Every one of you In the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sinnes And they that gladly received the word were Baptized the same day Acts 2. 37 38 41. These men had been deeply tainted with sin not original onely but with sinnes actual of the worst kind guiltie they were in a high degree of the death of the Son of God yet had they as well their actual as their original sinnes remitted by Baptism It is then an unsound and imperfect Doctrin that sin original onely is taken away or remitted by Baptism for whatsoever sinnes are remitted or taken away by Christs death the same sins are in the same manner remitted and taken away by Baptism into his death actual sinnes are remitted in such as are guiltie of actual sinnes when they are baptized though onely sin Original be actually remitted in those which are not guiltie of actual sinnes as in Infants No mans sinnes are actually remitted before he be actually guilty of them 8. The Question is how either sin original is remitted or how any work of Satan is dissolved by Baptism And this Question in the General is righly resolved by saying They are remitted by faith But this general Resolytion sufficeth not unless we know the Object of our Faith in this particular Now the particular Object of our Faith of that faith by which sinnes whether by Baptism or otherwise are remitted is not our general Belief in Christ even our belief of Christ dying for us in particular will not suffice unlesse it include our Belief of the Everlasting Vertue of his bloudie Sacrifice and of his everlasting Priest-hood for purifying and cleansing our soules No sinnes be truly remitted unless they be remitted by the Office or exercise of his Priest-hood and whilest so remitted they are not remitted by any other Sacrifice then by the sole vertue of his body and bloud which he once offered for all for the sinnes of all It is not the Vertue or Efficacie of the consecrated water in which we were washed but the vertue of his Bloud which was once shed for us and which by Baptism is sprinkled upon us or communicated unto us which immediately cleanseth us from all our sinnes From this everlasting Vertue of this his bloudy Sacrifice Faith by the ministerie of baptism is immediatly gotten in such as had it not before And in such as have Faith before they be baptized the guilt of Actual sinns is remitted by the exercise or Act of Faith as it apprehends the everlasting Efficacy of this sacrifice and by the prayer of faith and supplication unto our High Priest Faith then is as the mouth or appetite by which were receive this food of Life and is a good sign of health but it is the food itself received which must continue health and strengthen spiritual life in us and the food of life is no other then Christs Body and Bloud and it is our High Priest himself which must give us this food Baptism saith St. Peter 1 Pet. 3. 20. doth save us what Baptism doth save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh yet this is the immediate effect of the water in baptism but the answer or stipulation of a good conscience towards God But how doth this kind of Baptism or this concomitant of Baptism save us The Apostle in the same place tells us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ The answer or stipulation of a good conscience includes an illumination of our spirits by the Spirit of God a qualification by which we are made sonnes of Light being before the sonnes of darkness But That by this qualification we become the sonnes of Light That this qualification is by baptism wrought in us That by this qualification however wrought in us we are saved from our sinnes All this is immediately from the vertue of Christs Resurrection That is as you have heard before he was consecrated by the sufferings of death to be an everlasting Priest and by his resurrection from death his body and bloud became an everlasting Propitiation for sinnes an inexhaustible Fountain of Grace by which we are purifyed from the dead works of sinne 9. It is true again that in the Sacrament of Christs Body and Bloud there is a propitiation for our sinnes because He is really present in it who is the propitiation for our sinnes But it no way hence followes that there is any propitiatorie sacrifice for sin in this Sacrament He becomes the propitiation for our sinnes he actually remits our sinnes not directly and immediately by the Elements of Bread and Wine nor by any other kind of Local Presence or Compresence with these Elements than is in Baptism The Orthodoxal Antients use the same Language for expressing his Presence in Baptism and in the Eucharist they stick not to say that Christ is present or Latent in the water as well as in the Elements of Bread and Wine Their meaning is that neither of these Elements or sensible substances can directly cleanse us from our sinnes by any vertue communicated unto them or inherent in them but only as they are pledges or assurances of Christs peculiar presence in them and of our true investiture in Christ by them We are not then to receive the Elements of bread and wine only in remembrance that Christ dyed for us but in remembrance or assurance likewise that his body which was once given for us doth by its everlasting Vertue preserve our bodies and souls unto everlasting Life and that his bloud which was but once shed for us doth
indeed any other Cause of Actual or Habitual sins Praeter Diabolum seducentem Hominent liberè consentientem that is besides the Devil who still laboureth to seduce or tempt us and mans Free consent or voluntary yielding to his temptations 2. Adam First Sin did pollute our Nature Our Actual Sins pollute our Persons Between Sin Original which is the Effect and the sin of the First man which was the Cause of it ‖ Vid. Locorum Theologicorum Compendium Pro Scholis Wraâ—islaviensibus concinnatum some have acutely observed This Distinction That the Person of the First man by his sin corrupted our Nature and our Nature being corrupted by him corrupts all our Persons that come by Natural Descent from him Unto which they adde that Every one of us by committing Actual sin doth corrupt or pollute his Person But whether any Person besides our Father Adam do or may by frequent Commission of Actual sins without any Necessity derivable either from our First Parents sin or from the Effect of it which is Sin Original corrupt or pollute the Nature of such Persons as lineally descend from him is a point capable of Question and worthy of more accurate discussion then my Abilities afford or my years will permit me to bestow any long or serious studies in Such as are or shall be disposed to handle this or any of the former Questions proposed more exquisitely must make their entrance into this Search by the same plain way which I intend to follow that is to guesse at the Cause by the Effect or at the Nature or Essence of Sin Original by the known Properties or Symptomes of it And in this plain Search an Observant Student shall hardly find such fair hints or good helps from the School-men The pregnant testimonies of Heathens Poets Naturalists c. concerning sin Original Ancient or Modern as he may from some School-Boyes or at least from some Good Books which they usually read and better remember then the School-men do 3. As for the Substance or Realty of that which we call Original Sin though unknown to them by that name and of our Natural Servitude to sin a serious Divine may find more solid and lively * Terence Andr. Act. 1. Sc. 1. Ingenium est Omnium HominuÌ„ à labore proclive ad libidinem Hor. Serm. l. 1. Sat. 3. Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum Dividat ut bona diversis fugienda petendis Ovid. Metam l. 7. Me trahit invitam nova vis aliudque Cupido Mens aliud suadet Video meliora probôque Deteriora Sequor Hor. Epist. 8. lib. 1. Quae nocuere sequar fugiaÌ„ quae profore credaÌ„ Parallel to that of S. Paul Rom. 7. 21 22 23. Ovid. Alibi Nitimur in vetituÌ„ semper cupimúsque negata Sic interdictis imminet Aeger aquis c. Parallel to Rom. 7. 8 9. Mans servitude to sin is well set down by Horace Serm. Lib. 2. Sat. 7. and in Persius Sat. 5. v. 75 c. consonant to John 8. 34. And that in Pers 2. Sat. v. 60. O curvae in terris animae caelestium inanes Quid juvat hoc TeÌ„plis nostros immittere mores Et bona Diis ex hac scelerata ducere pulpa Is parallel to Psal 50. 21. Thou Thoughiest wickedly that I was such an One as thy self Expressions in some Heathenish Naturalists or in the Romane Orator or Ancient Latine Poets then he can do in the great Master of the Sentences in Aquinas though Sainted as much for Learning as for sanctity by the Romish Church or in their Followers or such as Comment upon their Writings And no marvel if so it be seeing the Naturalist as his profession leads him hunts after the Truth upon a Fresh-unfoyled Sent alwayes insisting upon those which we call the First Notions whereas the School-men the Later especially have been delighted to draw all Doubts or Quaeries about the most solid Points in Divinity or matters most capable of Philosophical Expressions into second Notions or Termes of Art or Artificial Fabricks of words as if they meant to rend or resolve strong and well woven Stuffe into small and raveled threds to intangle themselves and their Readers in perpetuall Fallacies A rebus ad voces Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata was a Good Lesson which the Facilo Romane Poet had not learned by Heare-say or got by Rote but had got it by Heart from a good instructor as willing and ready to teach us as him that is from undoubted Experience of his own or other mens dispositions or affections This good Poet with some other of his profession Isaiah 1. 3. and other Heathen Orators or Philosophers have excellently observed that The nature of man was farther out of Tune or Frame Jer 8. 7 had greater discord or Contrariety of inclinations within it self then the Nature of any other living thing besides But unto the Nature or Reality of that which Divines call Original sin the Roman Naturalist Plinie I meane in his Proaeme to the seventh book of his Natural History speaks most fully and most appositely The passage is for ought I know well translated into our English Or if ought be amisse the Latine Reader may correct or amend it by the Latin Copie hereto annexed Thus as you see Mundus in eo terrae gentes Maria Insulae insignes Vrbes ad hunc modum se habent Animantium in eodem natura nullius prope partis contemplatione minor est siquidem omnia exequi humanus animus queat Principium jure tribuetur Homint cujus causâ videtur cancta alia genuisse natura magnâ saevâ mercede contra tanta sua munera ut non sit satis aestimare Parens melior Homini an tristior Noverâ—a fuerit Ante omnia unum animantium cunctorum alienis velat Opibus caeteris variè tegumenta tribuit testas cortices coria spinas villos setas pilos plumam pennas squamas vellera Truncos etiam arboresque cortice interdum gemino à frigoribus calore tutata est Hominem tantùm nudum in nuda humo natali die abjicit ad vagitus statim ploratum nullumque tot animalium aliud ad lachrumas has protinus vitae principio At Herculèrisus praecox ille celerimus ante quadragesimum diem nulli datur Ab hoc lucis rudimento quo ne feras quidem inter nos genitas vincula excipiunt omnium membrorum nexus At Homo infoeliciter natus jacet manibus pedibusque devinctis flens animal caeteris imperaturum à suppliciis vitam auspicatur unam tantum ob culpam quia natum est Heu dementiam ab iis initiis existimantium ad superbiam se genitos Primarâ—boris spes primumque temporis munus quadrupedi similem facit Quando Homini incessus Quando vox we have in the former Bookes sufficiently treated of the universal World of the Lands Regions Nations Seas Islands and
Reconciliation of mankind to God the Father there had been no election in Christ So that though it be most True that Christ was Agnus occisus ab origine mundi the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World yet was it not necessary from eternity that this Lamb should be slain For Christs death was no more necessary then Adams death or Transgression was Now no man I hope well advised will affirm that God did destinate Adams Transgression as a necessary Means that Christ should dye for so he should make him the Author of sin in Adam before he became the Fountain of Mercy in Christ The Truth then is That Adam having sinned not of necessity but Freely God out of his Free Mercy and Compassion towards man-kind did destinate the Incarnation the Death and Passion of his only Son as the Only Means of our Redemption and Reconciliation to himself And did likewise Destinate the Consecration of his Son by his death unto his everlasting Priesthood as the only means for the accomplishing of our Redemption that is for making our election sure and Absolute As Christs Priesthood is then most unchangeable and most necessary yet was it not necessary from eternity that he should be made a Priest by the suffering of death So our estate of election in him is most Absolute and necessary after we attain unto it yet was it not necessary from eternity that we should attain unto it not absolutely necessary that any should attain unto it but necessary only upon Supposal of Adams Transgression which was no way necessary but Free and Contingent and of Gods infinite wisdom and mercie in sending Christ Jesus our Lord. 16. If no mans Destination or designment to the Absolute State of election in Christ were absolutely necessary from Eternity but necessary only upon the Supposals last made which were not necessary much less was the Designment of any mans Individual nature or Person to the Absolute State of Reprobation or damnation absolutely necessary from Eternity Damnation as all grant is the end of Sin or rather an endlesse misery into which no man can fall but by sin whence if this endless misery had been absolutely necessary from Eternity or Decreed by God as the Goal of any mans Course of life the means likewise or only way by which men come unto this end or Goal must have been by a like degree of necessity destinated and decreed by God and the only way or means by which men come unto this end is sin So that God by this Opinion or Doctrine should have been as Immediate a Cause of Sin and death as he is of the Punishment of sins or of non-Repentance for sins committed And this is Contrary to the fundamental Principles of Christianity of Religion it self By both which we are taught that God as a Righteous Judge is the sole Author of the Decree or Sentence against impenitent sinners but no Cause at all no Author of their sins or Impenitency and therefore no Cause much lesse any necessary Cause of any mans Falling into the Absolute state of Reprobation Our Saviour Christ as then designed to be the Future Judge of quick and dead did pronounce that Woful Sentence against Judas and against him alone for ought we read It were good for that man if he had never been born Judas not Reprobated from Eternity We may hence safely conclude that Judas from that time was in the Absolute State of Reprobation and had now deserved without hope of Pardon this fearfull Sentence as having now resolved in his heart without Remorse or Compunction to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners He became an Absolute Reprobate by resolving to betray the Son of God he did not resolve to betray the Son of God because he was an Absolute Reprobate from Eternity or from his birth He was not lyable to this wofull Sentence from his birth or in his Infancy for if it had been better for him from his birth or from his calling to the Apostle-ship not to have been born at all or not to have been so called God howsoever most gracious and good in himself had not been good or gracious unto Judas in giving him Being in making him an Apostle seeing it had been much better for him not to have been either a Man or an Apostle if from the time of his Birth or Apostle-ship he had been inevitably designed to the absolute estate of Reprobation to a greater measure of everlasting punishments then other men ordinarily are But the Truth is the greater measure of his punishment did presuppose a greater measure of his unthankfulness the greater measure of his unthankfulness in respect of other men did presuppose a greater measure of Gods Favour and goodness towards him in giving him birth and being in the days of his Sons Incarnation or in calling him to the Fellowship of his Apostles or Ambassadors And thus we come a Thesiad Hypothesin from the general Speculative Truth unto the Particular Use or Application 17. All of us do I am perswaded unfeignedly acknowledge our selves to have been by Naturall birth the Sons of wrath and to be the sons of wrath includes in it some work of Satan wrought not in Adam only but in our Nature Satans work two-fold Sin and Curse which we derive from him and this work of Satan is Twofold Sin Original and the Curse thereunto annexed this Latter Part to wit the Curse must be dissolved by Faith as by the Instrument For he that believeth not saith S. John Chap. 3. ver 36. shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him that is It was upon him from his First Being and rests upon him until it be removed by Faith in the Son of God Now in that this work of Satan that is the Curse due to Sin Original is removed by Faith in the Son of God the Son of God is the Principal Cause or Agent which removes it by his Sacerdotal or Princely Blessing upon our Ministerial Act or Function of Baptism It is a Truth unquestionable especially in the Doctrine of the Church of England that as many as are Baptized are from their Baptism and by their Baptism translated from the Estate or Condition of Sons of wrath to the Estate or Priviledge of the Sons of God This Doctrine of our Church is necessarily grounded upon the Saying of our Apostle Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Now it is impossible that any should put on Christ and not receive him And to as many as receive him saith S. John cap. 1. ver 12. to them he gives power Right or Priviledge to become the Sons of God 18. But here some will demand If all that are Baptized become the sons of God do they not all likewise by this new birth become heires with Christ Yes all that are Sons are likewise Heirs but not therefore un-disinheritable because
Doctrine handled First Vnto what Condemnation they were of Old ordained Secondly How or in what manner they were ordained unto it 2. There is An English Note upon this Place A very strange One yet gathered as it seems from some good Writers vvho did not so clearly express themselves in their Comments upon this Place as might have been desired See the 1. note at the end of this Chapter and yet are farre vvorse understood by many of their Follovvers then they meant The English Note seems to imply that these men were Ordained to trouble the Church or to follow those lewd Opinions or Practises whereby the Church was troubled and the Faith of many brought into manifest hazard Yet to say that any man is ordained by God to this or the like end will be very harsh to any Christian eares and was I am perswaded either a branch of their Heresy which are here said to be ordained to Condemnation or a Branch of the same Root worse then any Heresy God ordains no man to sin which they maintained And yet to say That men are ordained to trouble the Church to be ungodly and to deny Christ is but the Necessary Consequent of their Opinion who hold That all things every Action of Man even sinfull Actions are so ordained and determined by God that they cannot come to pass otherwise then they do in the Individual either for the Matter Substance or for the circumstance of the action Thus to write thus to speak some are emboldened because nothing can fall out without Gods Foresight yea without his Co-operation For in him all things living do live all things endued with motion do move and have their being And in that nothing can be done without him in that he is Omnipotent and supporteth the world by the Word of his Power they do not collect amisse that they cannot lay a load too heavy upon him But they should consider God is no lesse holy and just then powerful that seeing he is Holy and Just no lesse Holy and Just then he is Powerfull they may lay that upon him which is a great deal too foul for him to bear The foulest Aspersion that can be cast upon his Holiness is to make him the Author of sinful Actions To say or think he did Ordain men to trouble the Church or to be as these men were ungodly Persons denyers of Christ 3. To avouch in plain Terms That God is the Author of sin is as most confesse a dangerous Heresy a sign of a darkned mind in spiritual knowledge And yet the blindnesse or ignorance would be more gross if any man should grant the Antecedent and deny the Consequent That is if one should grant that God did ordain any man to persecute the Church to turn his Grace into wantonness and yet withall deny that God in thus doing should be the cause and Author of Sin See the 6. Chapter He that is the Author or Cause of any Action which is Essentially evill or universally inseparable from evill is the Author and Cause of all the evill which is inseparable from the Action even in that he is the Cause of the Action For that which they call the Obliquity of the Action or Malum Formale Formally Evill can have no other cause at all then that which is the Cause of the Action from which this Formal evill is unseparable So that if Gods Ordinance be the Necessary Cause of such an Action to wit of Troubling the Church the same Ordinance must be the cause of the Obliquity or evill which is annexed unto it Satan and wicked men should be but Causes Instrumental at most that is such a cause as the sword is of the murther which a man commits with it So that the Case is clear that if to trouble the Church with lewd Opinions be a sinfull Action then God who is no Author of Sin did never ordain men unto that action For whatsoever God doth ordain or decree God is Author of that which be ordaineth he is the Author of it These Inferences will admit no Plea or Traverse amongst such as are instructed in the Fundamentall Rules of Art or Nature For all do grant that which they call Obliquity or Formal Evil to be a Relation that is such an entity or Being unto which no Action can be immediatly terminated it hath its Being only by Concomitance or resultance from some other Effect which hath a direct and Immediate Cause Of this Nature are Equality or Inequality of bodies Similitude or Dissimilitude Now it is impossible that man or Angel or any Cause whatsoever should produce an Equality between two bodies formally unequal by any other means then by altering the Quantity of one or both or to make one body dislike unto another but by altering their Qualities Altogether as Impossible it is to produce an Obliquity or Crookedness in mens wayes by any other means then by producing those Actions which are in their Nature Perverse and crooked He which is the Cause of such Actions in the Individual is the Cause of that crookedness or Obliquity which is inseparably annext unto them 4. That God is not the Cause not the Author of such Actions or that such Actions are not necessary in respect of his Decree Christianity it self or the Rule of Catholick Faith binds us to believe as firmly as that there is a God who is the Author or Fountain of Goodnesse Hence saith St. James Cap. 1. ver 13. Let no man say when he is tempted he is tempted of God for God cannot be tempted with evill neither tempteth he any man unto evil but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and inticed And unto this inconvenience of being tempted by his own lust man was not subject untill he was beguiled by Satan nor could this great tempter work evill in man immediatly or directly but only by tempting or inticing him to that Action to which evill was unseparably annexed that is to tast of the fruit which God had forbidden The Tempter knew that if he could intice our first Parents unto this Action there was no possibility of shedding the Obliquity or Formal evil from it which was essentially annext unto it Now if God had ordained man to this Individuall Action or to the condemnation which was due to this Action without possibility of avoiding it His Ordination had been a more true Cause of the first mans sin and of his death and ours then Satan was For Satan had no power either naturall or permitted him by God to make any ordinance or decree for man no power either given or permitted to lay a necessity of sinning upon our first Parents All that he was able or permitted to do was only by way of temptation or inticement Adam as all grant had a Freedom of Will in respect of Satan or any inticement that he could propose unto him But Freedom of Will he
from sin that is Albeit he was not from his Creation either by nature or by supernaturall endowment utterly impeccable yet by the assistance and benignity of his Gratious Creator he might have attained unto such a perpetuall estate or immunity from falling into sin 4. The question about merit of works no way concerns the First man in his primaeval Estate Suppose he had preserved or imployed the Talent concredited unto him at his first creation aright should the superaddition or crowning of his First Estate with perseverance have been a meer gift of grace or rather a kinde of merit This is a Question not very pertinently moved by some Schoole-men and the Contradictory to their determination more inconsiderately maintained by some modern Disputants or Logical Criticks For seeing Adam received that great Talent concredited to him in his creation not absolutely or to use it as he pleased but at his perill or under express penalty that if he misimployed it or contemned his Commandement which bestowed it upon him he should dye the death it is no way improbable that if he had improved his Talent for some competent time that the state wherein he was created should have been hereditary to him and his not by such free Grace as is bestowed upon us under the Gospell but by way of Merit de congruo though not according to Commutative yet to Distributive Justice rather then by meere Mercy or benignity But this opinion I vent not with any intention to move or abett disputes or controversies already moved about this curious Question but rather to perswade the Reader that all questions concerning the Merits of works or of perseverance in that Grace by which all good works are wrought must be reduced or confined to the estate or condition of mankinde since Adams Fall Of which Question thus stated or limited I shall I hope be able to give the Reader or any that will soberly dispute or conferr with me in it better satisfaction Vivâ voce then this Treatise without digression will permit me to do The principall Points in it or which I had in my thoughts either to prosecute or propose The First man was neither necessitated to continue good nor to become Evil. are these following First That albeit the First man were by vertue of Creation righteous and just yet were neither his perseverance or non-perseverance in this righteousnesse absolutely necessary both of them possible That both were possible hath been declared at Large before in the sixth book of Commentaries upon the Creed In the 2 Part 2 Sect. Chap. 13. c. of the Attributes unto which I referr the Ingenuous Reader where he may finde this proposition as I take it demonstrated That to decree or appoint a mutual or reciprocal Possibility between our First Parents perseverance or non-perseverance was Facible to the Omnipotent Creator because it neither implies nor presupposeth any Contradiction in Terminis And whatsoever effect or praenotion answerable unto it implies no Contradiction either in it self or to the Goodnesse of the Divine Nature or Deity is Facible by Power Omnipotent that is The Almighty Creator might have decreed or yet may decree it when he pleaseth The Second Principle or supposition in this place to be handled is Whether the Almighty Creator did de Facto decree or ordain that neither the Perseverance or non-perseverance of the First Man or of our First Parents should be absolutely Necessary but contingent Or in other terms thus That the Estate or condition wherein they were created might have continued to this day for them and their successors undefeatable That their Perseverance or the perseverance of their Posterity in the state of Righteousnesse wherein they were created was not necessary by any Divine Ordinance or decree is clear from the Event because the First man and the First woman did fall de Facto from that Estate wherein they were created which neither of them could have done if their First Estate had been by vertue of the Almighties Decree or any ordinance from him Immutable or absolutely Necessary But can it be as strongly proved That the fall of our first Parents or their eating of the Forbidden Fruit did not proceed from any necessitating Decree or undefeatable contrivance of the Almightie Creators Wisdom To perswade men which have not their senses exercised in points of Logical or Scholastick disputes that the Fall of our First Parents was not necessary no not in respect of the Divine Decree or ordinance would be a harder task then to prove that their Perseverance was not in respect of that Decree necessary That our First Parents did fall from their Estate is a Question of Fact of which every honest good man may be a competent Judge at least able enough to resolve himself But whether it was as possible for them not to have fallen as it was to fall is Questio Juris or more then so a point of Metaphysical or Theological disquisition wherein it would be very hard to find a Grand-Jury of Profest Divines in any one County almost throughout this Kingdom which could be competent Judges or fit Inquisitors Not that they want either skill or industry for interpreting sacred Scripture which is the only true rule of Faith and manners aright but for want of skill or memory in Secular Arts how to examine or determine what Consequences or inferences are consonant or dissonant to the undoubted Rule of Faith or to the unquestionable Maxims contained in it For deciding or waiving such Controversies as are emergent not so much out of the sence of Scriptures as out of such Inferences or Consequences whether negative or affirmative as contentious or unresolved spirits would fasten upon it Recta ratio that is Reason regulated by Rules of unquestionable Arts or Sciences is the most competent Judge That there is but one God and one Lord That the only God is a God of Goodness and willeth no wickednesse are positive points of Faith and Christian Belief Fundamental Maxims in Theologie To dispute or move any question directly about the truth or limitation of these Maxims would be a branch of Infidelity or which perhaps is worse an approach to Blasphemy CHAP. V. Of the Right use of Reason or Rules of Art for determining Controversies in Divinity whereof the Sacred Scripture is the sole Rule 1. Of the use of Arts in discussing Controversies in Theologie BUt admit this Maxim There is but one God and he a God of Goodness no Author or abetter of evil were undoubtedly believed by all Yet this inference or Consequence might be as it hath long time been controversed Whether he that avoucheth This only God to have decreed the Fall of the First Man to have been necessary or inevitable might be demonstratively convinced to make him the Author and Cause the only Cause of the First Mans sin and of all the sins which necessarily issue from it or from the Nature of man corrupted by it
For the full resolution of this Question the Sacred Scriptures are not the sole Competent Judge or Rule Nor doth the determination of it belong to the Cognizance of such as are the best Interpreters of Sacred writ for the true Grammatical or Litteral sence of every proposition contained in it This Case must be reserved to the Schools of Arts or to the certain Rules of true Logick and Philosophy which are the best guides of Reason in all discursive faculties But here I am engaged to do that which in other cases I have endeavoured to avoid that is to make repetition of two great Problems in the Science or Faculty of Theologie heretofore in their several places handled and in some ensuing meditations to be hereafter inculcated The first Problem is In what sense or with what limitations the Scripture is held by all reformed Churches to be the only Rule of Faith The Second In what sense or how far it is true that Recta ratio Reason rectified or rightly managed may be admitted a competent Judge in Controversies belonging to the Faculty of Theologie 2. To the First Problem In what sence the Scripture is held by us to be the sole and competent Rule of Faith and manners I have no more to say for the present then hath been long ago published in the second book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 1. Chap. 11. The summe of all in that place delivered is to my best remembrance This No Christian is bound to admit or receive any Doctrine or proposition as an Article of his Faith unlesse it be contained in the Old or New Testament either Totidem verbis or may be Concludently or Demonstratively deduced from some Sacred Maxim or proposition expresly contained in the Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament Such Maxims as are expresly and plainly contained in Scripture Every Christian Man is bound to believe absolutely But such propositions or Conclusions as may be demonstratively inferred from Canonical unquestionable Maxims they only are bound absolutely to believe which have so much use of Reason or skill in Arts as may enable them clearly to discern the Necessity of the Consequence or concludent Proof of the Deduction The ignorant or illiterate are only bound to believe such Deductions Conditionally See the second Book chap. 2. chap. 4 c. or to practise according to their Teachers instructions with such Reservation or under such Conditions as have been expressed in the second and third Book of these Commentaries 3. But what Propositions though expresly contained in Scriptures be Negative or Affirmative Vniversal Indefinite Particular or Singular Or how any or all of these be Convertible whether Absolutely by Accident or by Contraposition or how to Frame a perfect Syllogism out of them These or the like are points which the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets and other Pen-men of Sacred and Canonical Writ did never undertake or professe to teach The discussion or determination of Questions of this nature must be had from the Rules of Reason sublimated or regulated by good Arts or faculties And for the bettering or Advancing of Natural Reason in this search the most learned or most sanctified Christian this day living should be very unthankful to the only Lord his Redeemer and Sanctifier if he do not acknowledge it as an especial branch of his All-seeing Providence in raising up unto the World such Lights of Nature and Guides of Reason as Aristotle Plato and others of the Ancient Philosophers were True Reason in whomsoever seated Whether in the Natural or Regenerate man unlesse it be advanced and guarded by such Rules of Arts as these Sages of the old World have by Gods Providence invented or bettered can be no fit Judge but being so advanced and guarded is the most Competent Judge of Controversies in Divinity of such Controversies I mean as arise from Consequences or Deductions made by way of use or application out of the uncontroverted Maxims of sacred Writ And if we would sequester Grammatical or Rhetorical Pride and partialitie to the several Professions wherein respectively men glory we might easily discern all or most of those unhappy Controversies which have set the Christian World for these late years in Combustion to have been hatched maintained and nourished by such pretended Favorites of the Spirit as either never had faithfully Learned any true Logick Philosophie or ingenuous Arts or else had utterly forgotten the Rules which they had learned or heard before they begun to handle controversies in Theologie or entertain disputes about them 4. Obliquity can have no other Cause beside that which is the Cause of the Act whence it necessarily results The Hypothesis for whose clearer discussion these last Theses have been premised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the Cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her Actual Eating of the Forbidden Fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like Necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the Obliquities which did accompany the positive Acts or did necessarily result from them This is a Case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tried by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the only perspective Glasses which can help the Eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the Consequence to wit Whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the Cause of our Mother Eves first Longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the Cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Arts which serve as prospective Glasses unto the Eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest Contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no Cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the First man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans confirmity to God or his integrity besides him who was the Cause of his manhood or of his Existence with such qualifications as by his Creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true Cause of that Obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result
or Idols Who then Qui colit ille facit He or they alone turn Images or Pictures into Idols or false Gods Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus which worship or adore them Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit But the former Opinion or imagination whether in respect of God as he was the First mans Creator or of the wisdom of God Martial as he is our Lord and Redeemer is Intrinsecal and Formal Idolatry or Idolatry in the Abstract without any external Object to dote upon or to entice men to bestow worship upon it The Heathens committed Idolatry in their Temples or in their houses but this Idolatry is committed within his Brain that entertains it The Essence of it formally consists in the Reflexion of the Imagination upon it self or in the complacency which men take in such Reflexions if any man happily which I much doubt can be delighted with such imaginations The very height of Heathenish Idolatry as our Apostle instructs us Rom. 1. 23 c. did consist in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things Now if the wisdom of God had sent wise-men and Prophets unto the Jews unto the End that Jerusalem should be destroyed and righteous bloud required of them His weeping over Jerusalem had better resembled or expressed the disposition of a Crocodile then the Nature either of God or any good Man Nor was it greater Idolatry in the Heathen to change the glory of the uncorruptible God into the image or likenesse of a Crocodile as the Egyptians did then it is to ascribe the properties of this noysome beast or any such disposition as the Historical Emblem of the Crocodile doth represent unto the Son of God who came into the world not to destroy or hurt but to save sinners and to be consecrated to be the * Heb. 5. 9. Author of Everlasting Salvation to all that Obey him These Two Branches of Idolatry The One planted in the Egyptian who worshipped the Crocodile for his god The other in such as worship or nourish such sinister imaginations of the Son of God as have been specified differ no more then the way from Athens to Thebes doth from the way from Thebes to Athens 5. The original occasion of the former errors or ill expressions The main head or source original whence all or most of the harsh expressions whether of Reformed writers or of Roman Catholiques whence all the aspersions which both or either of them indirectly or by way of necessary consequence cast upon our Lord Creator and Redeemer naturally issue is that Common or Fundamental Errour That all things the changes and chances of this inferior World not excepted are necessary in respect of God or of his irresistible Decree That nothing not humane Acts can be Contingent save only with reference to Second Causes Now if there be no Contingency in humanc Acts there neither is nor ever was nor ever can be any Free-will in man The original of this common Error That all things are Necessary in respect of the Divine Decree hath been sufficiently discovered in the sixth book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 2. Chap. 12. Where the Reader may find the Truth of this Proposition or Conclusion clearly demonstrated That to Decree a Contingency in some works or Course of Nature in Humane Acts especially was as possible to him unto whom nothing is impossible as it was to decree a Necessity in some others works or Courses of Nature As for instance To Decree or constitute that our Father Adam should have a Free power or Faculty either to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit doth imply no Contradiction and therefore was absolutely possible to the Almighty Creator so to ordain or Decree But many things as the observant Reader will except are possible which are not probable or never are brought into Act. True Yet that the Almighty Creator did de Facto or actually decree a Mutual Possibility of Adams Falling and not Falling or between his Fall and Perseverance hath been in this present Treatise and in some others demonstrated from the Article Concerning The Goodness of God or his Gratious providence by such Demonstration as the Case now in handling is capable of that is by Evident Deduction of the Contradictory Opinion to this Impossibility That God otherwise was the only Cause of our First Parents sins and of all other sins which necessarily issue from their sins unlesse it be granted and agreed upon that Adams Falling or not Falling should both be alike possible that neither should or could be necessary either to the First or Second Causes To deny that God did ordain or constitute a true and Facible Mean between the Necessity of Adams Perseverance in the State wherein he was created and the Necessity of his Falling into sin that is a mutual Possibility of falling or not of Falling into sin would imply as Evident a Contradiction unto or impeachment of his Goodness as it would do to his Omnipotency if any man should peremptorily deny that the Constitution or Tenour of such a Decree were possible to his Almighty power To say God could not possibly make such a disjunctive Decree or such a Tenour of mutual possibility betwixt things Decreed as hath been often mentioned would be a grosse Error yet an error I take it not so dangerous as to deny that he did de Facto make such a Decree For our Gratious Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier is doubtless more jealous to have his Goodness impeached or suspected then to have his Almighty Power questioned 6. Thus much of the main general Query Concerning the manner how sin or that evil which we call Malum culpae did find First entrance into the works of God and in particular into the nature of Man from the first moment of whose creation he and all the rest of Gods visible works had this Elogium or commendation that they were Exceeding Good No entrance of sin into the works of God into man especially was possible without the Incogitancy or Inadvertency of a Free Cause or Agent The true nature of the first sin and of its haynousnesse did especially consist in this that whereas our gratious Creator had endowed our First Parents with a Power or faculty to Doe well exceeding well and given them good encouragement to persevere in so doing they should so incogitantly and quickly abuse this power and the Divine Concourse or assistance that did attend it to do that which was evil that which the Lord their Creator had so peremptorily forbidden them to do under commination of a dreadful punishment to ensue upon the doing of it The difficulty or main Querie which remains all that hath been said being granted is principally this How this one sinful Act of our First Parents could possibly produce an Habit
of sin or that which is more then a Habit an unmoveable custome of sin or an Hereditary disease of sinfulness throughout all the successions of the sons of Adam to the worlds end The second Querie yet in the first place to be discuss'd is this Wherein the nature of that hereditary disease which we call Sin Original doth properly consist The third How this hereditary disease doth bring all mankind into a true and proper servitude to sin and by sin unto Satan c. In the discussion of this and many other difficulties depending upon it I shall endeavour to observe that Rule which Chemnitius in many of his works hath commended to the observation of every Student in Divinity and his Rule is this To state all Questions upon those places of Scripture out of which they are naturally emergent or out of those passages upon whose mistakings or non-observance of them many Theological controversies were first occasioned and are to this day abetted or maintained with eagerness of dissension To begin first with that most heavenly discourse of our Saviour John 8. 30 c. SECT II. Of the Properties or Symptomes of Sin Original and of the nature of Sin in general CHAP. VII Containing the State of the Controversie or Debate betwixt our Saviour and the Jews John 8. 30 c. JOHN Chap. 8. Verse 30. As he spake those words many believed on him Verse 31. Then said Jesus unto those Jews which believed on him if ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed Verse 32. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free Verse 33. They answered him We be Abrahams seed and were never in bondage to any man how sayest thou Ye shall be made free Verse 34. Jesus answered them Verily verily I say unto you Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin Verse 35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever but the Son abideth ever Verse 36. If the Son therefore shall make you Free ye shall be Free indeed 1. A Paraphrase on John 8. vers 34 c. WHether that Reply or sawcy interruption vers 33. We be Abrahams seed and were never in bondage to any man How sayest thou ye shall be made Free was made by those Jews whom our Evangelist avouches did believe on him vers 30. or by some other By-standers hath been discuss'd in a Sermon lately delivered which by Gods assistance shall be annexed to the Discussions following which better befit the Press or the Schools then the Pulpit So that I must take my Rise from our Saviours Rejoynder to that former sawcy reply vers 34. Verily verily I say unto you Whosoever committeth sin c. The fore-cited sentence of Cyprian doth here again opportunely interpose it self Vt Deum cognoscas teipsum prius cognosce That thou mayest know God aright first learn to know thy self The advice is as true and fitting to our present purpose Vt Christum cognoscas teipsum prius cognosce There is no better way or Method to know Christ as He is in speciall our Lord God and Redeemer then by knowing or understanding our selves to be servants and wherein that servitude consists from which we are redeemed That we are by nature servants unto sin you will require no further proof nor can there any other be found better then our Saviours own Authority Verily verily I say unto you Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin The Assertion is Emphatical and as peremptory as plain But concerning the Extent or Limitation of it there may be some Question made or Scruple cast in by the ordinary Hearer or Reader For seeing as Solomon long ago hath taught us Ex cathedra There is no man that sinneth not and our Apostle to like purpose If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us Then if it be universally true which our Saviour here saith whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin the very Redeemed of the Lord the best of his Saints here on earth may seem concluded to be servants to sin seeing he that sinneth doth commit sin The Argument is somewhat captious and would be stronger if To commit sin were a verb of the present Tense and were to be no further extended But the word in the Original is not a verb but a participle of the present Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And participles of that Form as every young Student in the Greek tongue Ecclesiastick especially well knows are according to Hebraisms most frequent in the Greek Testament fully Equivalent to Latin Verbals Vinum appetere that is to call for a cup of wine any ordinary man may without impeachment to his sobriety or censure of temulency But to be Homo appetens vini is in the Latin Tongue a full Character or expression of a Wine-bibber or a Drunkard So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as if he had said in Latin Operarius iniquitatis which is the best expression of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not every one that committeth a sin or more sins then one but every one that is a Committer of sin or a Worker of Iniquity is the Servant of sin And such all of us are by Nature and so continue until we be redeemed by the Free Grace of Christ from the Dominion of sin and Tyrannie of Satan But before we can come to know the manner how we are made Free by the Son of God we must as hath been intimated before first know wherein our servitude to sin doth consist And this we cannot well know without some prenotion or description at least of the properties or conditions of sin especially original To omit the distinction of sins of Omission and Commission there be of sin generally or indefinitely taken I dare not say divers kinds but divers stems roots or branches The First root of sin was the sin of the First man which was both an Actual and Habitual sin in him The second is Sin Original which is more then an Habit an hereditary disease of our Nature altogether incurable save only by the Free Grace of the Son of God Over and above both these roots or stems there be other branches as some Sins Habitual which are acquired or produced by such precedent Actual sins as we freely and frequently commit without any necessity imposed upon us by the inhabitation of Sin Original in our Nature CHAP. VIII Of the Sin of the First man And of Sin Original which was derived from him Of Sins Actual and the difference betwixt them That of Sin Original the Heathens had a natural notion 1. COncerning the Actuall Sin of the First man and the Habit which it produced in himself I have not much more to say then hath been said before to wit that neither could have any necessary Cause but a Cause contingent only or a free Agent Nor is there I take it
command him to do and such an eager pronenesse or appetite to do those things which the Law of Reason or of Nature forbids him to do and those things with greatest Eagernesse which the same Law of Reason or other positive Laws derived from it most peremptorily and upon severest penalties forbid him to do It hath been observed by many Authors that the Unnatural sin of Parricide wilful Murther of Father or Mother or of Superiour Kindred did not become rife or frequent amongst the Romans until they had upon particular sad accidents enacted a publick Law and ordained a special kind of torment for transgressors in this kind Lucius Ostius was the first amongst the Romans that did commit this Unnatural sin And He lived almost six hundred years after the City was founded a little after the second Punick War Some good ‖ See Plutarch in the Life of Romulus Laertius in the Life of Solon and Tully in His second Oration Pro Roscio Amerino who gives the true Character or Expression of that speech of Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untowardly rendred by the Latin Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. in Rom. pag. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. Lacrt. l. 1. in Solone Is Solon cùm interrogaretur Cur Nullum supplicium constituisset in Eum qui Parentem necâsset respondit se id neminem facturum putasse Sapienter fecisse dicitur cùm de eo nihil sanxerit quod antea commissum non erat ne non tam Prohibere quà m admonere videretur Tull. Orat. 2. Pro Sext. Roscio Amerino Writers ascribe the long abstinence from this unnatural sin unto the wisdom of Romulus their Founder who enacted no Law against much lesse appointed any peculiar kind of death unto this Crime which He expected should never be committed by His Posterity Certain it is that Solon for the like reason did not so much as mention this Crime in His otherwise most severe Laws But this observation was taken from the Heathen Romans in times ancient and far more remote and doth not as happily will be objected hold in these times or places wherein we live Yet the Ingenuous and Learned French †Thuanus Historian who meddles with the History of his own times only tels us that the like unnatural sin towards Children or Infants did never come to so high and far-spreading a Flow in the great City of that Kingdom until the State or Parliament had erected a peculiar Court to be held for examination or trial of such Cruel Mothers as sought to salve the breach of one Commandment by the violation of another to cover the shame of their own wantonnesse by murthering the tender fruits of their folly as if the Damme which the Law had set for repressing or stopping the Course of this bloudy sin had but provoked the stream or Current to swell higher and greater to overburst all obstacles or inhibitions which the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and of the Kingdom had set against it 2. Again why Pulpit-pride why Clergie-cunning insolency or malice should grow into a Proverb throughout most Christian Kingdoms or Provinces as if these or like transgressions in our profession were of such a scantling as could hardly be matched by the Laitie I cannot give a more probable reason if the imputation be true or the occasion of the Proverbe just then this That Men of our profession who are Gods peculiar Inheritance are bound by the Lawes of God to more strict observance of our Saviours praecepts concerning Humility Meeknesse Brotherly-love and Charity or peaceable disposicion towards all then ordinary Men or men of other Callings or professions are And we know whose saying it is That if we do not continue as we are by the place wherein he hath set us the Salt of the Earth and Light of the World We shall become the most degenerate unprofitable members of the Land and Church wherein we Live And if the whole Tribe were to beare peculiar Armes as some other ingenuous Professions doe No Device could so well befit us as Jeremiah's two Baskets of Figges Then saia the Lord unto me What seest thou Jeremiah and I said Figgs the good Figgs very good and the evill very evill that cannot be eaten they are so evill Jer. 24. 3. The bad Figs were the Emblem of the disobedient refractory as the good Figs were of the obedient and beleeving Jewes in the Prophets time Both parts of the Embleme are as applyable to the Sons of Levi in our dayes Such of this Tribe as suffer sin to raigne in their Mortall bodies are generally the worst of sinners Such as mortifie the workes of the flesh by the spirit by prayer and other good services of God and seeke their Freedome or manumission by the Son of God Working out their Salvation with feare and trembling are the Best of all Gods Saints on Earth 3. The proper effects or Symptomes of Sinâ— Original described by S. Paul But the greatest part of the Induction hitherto made for finding out the properties or Symptomes of Sin original will be excepted against especially by such as are meer strangers to their own Breasts or dispositions of their hearts because the particular observations or Experiments whereof the Induction consists have been made by the Heathen or related by Authors not Canonicall But the Exception will voyd it self if we shall make it cleer to men altogether unexperienced of themselves that the like Experiments or observations have been made and more fully expressed by one whose Authority is Canonical whose Testimony of Experiments made in himself and taken by himself is most Authentick it is St. Paul That sin Originall was in the world before the Law was given is cleer from this Apostle Rom. 5. 13. For untill the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no Law So our English and most other Modern translations render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None of them altogether so well as it might be rendred Better thus There is not there cannot be any true estimate or full reckoning made of sin where there is no Law to give the * The Syriack reades it Usque enim ad Legem peccatii quum esset in mundo non reputabatur peccatum propterea quòd nâ—n erat Lex That is Sin though it were in the world untill the Law yet was it not reputed or reckoned for sin untill the law was given But if it be true which the Appostle Saith that sin raigned unto death untill the Law I hope it was imputed with a Witnesse Charge And againe Ver. 20. Moreover the Law entred that the offence might abound This abounding of the offence whereof he speakes was the issue or effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the End or Finall Cause why the Law was given For so the Law-giver might be suspected to have been the Author of sin
great starr is capable of Light by reflexion as a Globe of steel or other solid Body whose surfaces are smooth and Equable It doth not it cannot transmit Light or suffer it to be transfused through it after the manner of glass Yet if we should give a perfect and absolute Definition of an Eclipse in the Moon we must add the Abstract or nominal Definition of the Eclipse unto the Reall or Philosophicall As thus The Eclipse of the moon is a true and reall privation of light or splendor not in respect of us only but in it self caused by the interposition of the body of the Earth which hindereth the transmission of light which it borrowes from the Sun But the Eclipse of the Sun is only a privation of our sight or view of it occasioned or caused by the interposition of the dark body of the Moone betwixt this glorious Starr and fountaine of light and our eyes 6. The maine businesse wherein Illyricus is so Zealous was to banish all such Nominal or Grammatical Definitions as have been mentioned out of the precincts of Theologie and to put in continual Caveats against the Admission of Abstracts or mere Relations into the Definition of Original Sin or of that Unrighteousnesse which is inherent in the man unregenerate And however St. Austin Aquinas and Melancthon say in effect as much as Illyricus did if their meanings were rightly apprehended or weighed by their Followers Yet his Expressions of the Nature Cause and Properties of Original Sin were to his own and so they are to my apprehension more cleare more full and real then any Definitions of Aquinas or Melancthon Even where they speake most fully according to their own Principles unto this point Aquinas as this Author quotes him some where grantes Originale peccatum non esse meram privationem justitiae originalis that Original Sin is not only a meere privation or want of Original Righteousnesse but a positive or forcible inclination contrary to it Melancthon with many Others of the most Learned writers which have been in the Germane or French Church since Luther began to renounce the Romish Church acknowledge and Define the same Sin to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disorder of our faculties and Affections or which is more a Depravation of our nature Or in other tearmes whether Greek or Latin fully equivalent unto these Wherein then doth this singular writer as some do censure him either differ from or go beyond Aquinas Melancthon or Others all of whom respectively grant as much and some of them more then is included in the Definitions or descriptions of Sin forecited out of Aquinas and Melancthon 7. Illyricus defines Originall Sin not by the Abstract but by the Concrete as thus Original Sin is the Nature of man corrupted or the affections or Faculties of our soules and bodyes disordered and depraved c.. He no where defines it to be the Nature the Substance or Faculties of men absolutely considered or without Limitation Yet to be All these so farr as they are depraved and corrupted or transformed out of that Image of God which was seated in them by Creation into the image or real similitude of Satan In man considered as he was the work of God or made after his image there was an exact Harmony or consonancie of Will unto the Law and Will of God an Exact Harmonie of Faculties and Affections amongst themselves and a sweet subordination of them unto the reasonable will or conscience whil'st that held consort with the will and Law of God But by the First Mans Fall or willfull transgression all parts of this Harmony are lost The sensitive desires Faculties or Affections are at continuall jarr and discord amongst themselves The best consort they hold is to fight joyntly against the Reasonable Soul and Conscience or spirituall part of our nature especially so far as it holds any Consort with the Will of God His Definition then of Sin by the substance or Nature of man as that is depraved or corrupted and the Definitions of other Writers which define it to be the Depravation of our nature or the difference between him when he defines it by the Faculties or parts of our nature as these are disordered or instamped with the image of Satan and other Divines who define it to be an Ataxie or disorder of the Affections and Faculties if we calculate their severall Expressions aright they come all to one Reckoning there is no more materiall question or reall difference betwixt them then if we should dispute whether Three times foure or foure times three Or two times six or six times two do better expresse or decipher the number of twelve Or whether Harmonie be a Consonancie of true voices or sounds Or true voices or sounds perfectly Consonant CHAP. XIII Calvin and Martyr c. consent with Illyricus in the Description of Original Sin How farr Sin Original may be said to be the Pollution of thewhole Nature and Faculties of man or the Faculties of man as they are polluted 1. The opinion of Calvin and Martyr concerning the nature of Original or acquired Sin BEsides many Other good Writers Calvin and Martyr in their Definitions or descriptions of Sin in the unregenerate man consort so well with Illyricus that he that will condemne any One of them will be concluded not to acquit either of the other Two He that approves One of them cannot but approve the Other if he either understand himself or them Calvin defines Sin Original to be a Pravity Corruption of nature Calvinus definit Peccatum Originale esse naturae pravitateÌ„ ac corruptionem ac mox exponens se dicit Imo tota hominis natura quoddam est peccati semen ideo non odiosa abominabilis Deo esse non potest Quae profectò ipsissima ratio formaque peccati originalis est ipsam certe essentiaÌ„ hominis pessimam describit Martyr quoque super Rom definiens Peccatum Originale eamque definitionem explicans non obscurè id ponit in ipsa mala Essentia hominis dicit enim totum hominem corruptissimum esse definit verò inquiens est ergo peccatum totius hominis naturae depravatio à lapsu primi parentis in posteros traducta per generationem c. Et mox definitionem explicans inquit In hac Definitione omnia genera Causarum habentur pro materia aut subjecto habemê° omnes hominis partes aut vires Forma est earuÌ„ omniuÌ„ depravatto c. En audis ei originale peccatum complecti etiam ipsas hominis partes ac vires quatenus sunt corruptae ac depravatae Illyricus in libello cui Titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basileae impresso anno 1568. pag. 140. 141. and presently explaining himself saith yea the whole nature of man is a Kinde of Seed of Sin and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God which truly is the very Forme Essence or Definition of
Original Sin and describes or descryes surely the Being of man to be very Evill And Martyr upon the Rom Defining Original Sin and explaining that definition manifestly places it in the Evill essence of Man for he says That The whole man is most Corrupt And then defines it Thus Sin is the depravation of the whole nature of man Transmitted to posterity from the Fall of our First Parents and by Generation c. And then opening the Definition he Says In this Definition are found all Kindes of Causes For the subject Or Matter we have All the parts or powers of man The Forme is the Depravation of them all Lo you see that according to Him Martyr Sin Original Comprehends the parts powers of man so farr forth as they be corrupted and depraved Illyricus in a Book intituled Know thy self 2. But these Definitions or Descriptions though for ought I know or have to except against them they may be most Orthodoxal for their truth or substance yet the right Limitation of them or of the subject defined is not free from further Question as First Whether the Subject of them be Sin Original or Acquired as one or both of them are seated in the Natural or unregenerate man or as they are inherent in part in the Best Men after their Regeneration or Purification of their hearts by Faith If every Part if every Faculty or member of the Humane Nature be from the womb tainted with this Foul Leprosie it will be somewhat hard to conceive how any Part or Faculty should be absolutely freed from all degrees of corruption by Regeneration unlesse we grant that All are in some measure freed from it and acknowledge some Reliques of Sin Original to remain in every part or Faculty of the man truly Regenerate or renewed in the spirit of his mind It may in the First place be conceived that the Mind or Conscience of men so renewed may be throughly cleansed not only from the guilt but from the real stain or pollution of sin and yet the flesh or whole sensitive parts or faculties of the same man still lodge some Reliques of Original Corruption in them though in a Lower degree or Less measure then the same Corruption dwelleth in the Conscience or Spirit of the unregenerate or Natural man Or if we grant the Minde and Conscience of sanctified men to be yet subject to some Tincture or Reliques of Corruption Yet these we must acknowledge to be so weak and feeble that they cannot hinder or diminish the Raign or Soveraignty of the Spirit over the flesh by which the Yoak of servitude unto Sin or slavery unto Satan unto which all men before Regeneration are by Nature subject is utterly broken If we consider Man as he was first moulded by God he was for nature substance and Faculties of his soul like a sound Instrument well string'd and better tuned But by eating of the forbidden fruit and losse of Paradise his very substance was corrupted and deprived of Life Spiritual and all his Powers or Faculties not only corrupted but distuned Our Nature by Regeneration is Restored to Life spiritual yet not to perfect health and strength so long as we carry this burden of Flesh and Mortality about with us By the same Spirit of Regeneration the Powers or Faculties of our souls and our sensitive Affections are better tuned then they were before yet not so sound or well tuned as in the First Creation they were but like to Asymmetral or harsh voices which never hold consort with sounds or voices truly Harmonical or like to those which we call False strings in a stringed Instrument which by no skill either of him that tunes or handles it can be brought to bear a part in exact Harmony Both such voices such strings will still retain some jarring sound or discord in an accurate observant Musitians Ear though much less when the string is stricken open or upon a Lower stop or the voice taken at a lower Key then whe they are stretched higher For with the height of either sound the discord or Dis-Harmony is still increased 3. Whether sin Original or Acquired have an influxe into every Act of the Humane Soul But when Calvin Martyr and Illyricus make Original Sin to be the whole Nature of Man and all his Faculties so far as they are corrupted and taintted I know not whether their meaning were that there is no Action or thought of man though Regenerate into which this Corruption of Nature or Taint of sin hath not some Influx or whether they did actually or expresly minde this or other like Inference when they exhibited unto us the former Definitions of Sin For my self as I make no question but that The Blessed Virgin her self was by nature the Daughter of Adam and therefore not so absolutely free from her Conception as her Son our Saviour was So I am afraid to avouch or think that either Sin Original or acquired it being supposed that she had some Reliques of both in her should have any influence into or commixture with that Good Thought or Actual consent which she yielded to the Angel Gabriel Luke 1. 38. Ecce Ancilla domini c. Behold the hand-maid of the Lord be it unto Me according to thy word 4. But these are Niceties which I would not have touched had it not been that Some whom I name not have gone too far in opposition to the Papist or Pelagian unto whom Others by coming too neer have fallen much wide or short of the Truth My aim and intention as I often professe is not to take upon me either by voice or pen to instruct such as are or take themselves to be pro modulo viatorum perfectly Regenerated much lesse men altogether certain of their own Personal Election or Salvation The utmost of my endeavours is to direct my self and the height of my desires in this work is to advise Others what we are to do for our selves or what is to be done for us after Baptism or Confirmation that we may be throughly Regenerated or which is in effect all one make our Election sure We are I take it in the First place to Calculate the number of our sins and to measure or weigh the Body of Sin inherent in us whether by Nature or invited by our selves not by a corrupt worldly Dialect but according to the scales or Standard of the Sanctuary And to this purpose no man hath given better hints or directions then Illyricus For as he often observes and wel illustrates In the Dialect of our Saviour himself of his Apostles and Evangelists whatsoever is repugnant to the Law of God or abominable in his sight is accounted sin and so are not Accidents or meer Abstracts or Relations only but specially the very sustance or Nature of man so far as that is polluted or corrupted with Sin or wrought and transformed into the image of Satan Now though it be true which was said before
well doing should undoubtedly be rewarded according to their Works that all such as continue in impious or ungodly Courses shall treasure up Wrath against the Day of Wrath and bring a Necessity upon themselves of being Everlastingly tormented 2. The Stoicks first and after them the Manichees did oppose this Heavenly Doctrine by maintaining a strange and more then Brutish Opinion which had been hatched before our Saviour Christ was born to wit That all Effects or Events whether contrived by men or otherwise projected by Nature it self did fall out by an Indispensable and Unconquerable Necessity The Necessary Issue of this Doctrine as was apprehended by all Christian Antiquity did amount thus high See S. August 1 Tom. 3. Books de lib. Arb. 7 Tom. L. de lib. Arb. Gra. c. 2. Quomodo jubet Deus si non est Liberum Arbitrium That all those Exhortations to repentance to sanctity or to newness of life and to the practise of Good works Moral or Spiritual whether these were given to us men by our Saviour Christ or by his Apostles had been better directed to Horse or Mule or other more Docile Reasonlesse Creatures then unto the unregenerate Man from whom to take away all Freedom of Will as Fate or Necessity doth were to make him a Degree Lower and place him in an Estate or Condition of life much worse then the most foolish or most noisom Reasonlesse Creatures do by their Creators Bounty enjoy 3. S. Chrys 1. Tom. Hom. 62. Orat. 2. de Fato sayes that A Fatalist cannot be saved The Ancient Fathers of the first and best Ages Justin Martyr Origen Athanasius Nyssen Jerom c. did so zealously intend the Extirpation of this Heresie or rather Heathenish Infidelity which necessarily deprived men whether regenerate or unregenerate of all Freedom of Will in what Action soever that they seldom mentioned the Use or necessity of Grace for performance of Actions truly Good For this as some have well observed was impertinent to the Question then only agitated betwixt Them Gracelesse men Stoicks ☜ I mean or Manichees They only sought to fortifie the Sentence Contradictory unto these Blasphemous Tenents Concerning the Absolute Fatality of Humane Actions whether Good or Bad. Now Pelagius having observed that such of these Reverend Fathers as lived and writ before him did say little or sometimes nothing for Magnifying of Grace but exceeding much and very well for establishing some kind of Free-Will in men more then is to be found in beasts took hence Occasion to exalt Free-will and depresse Grace even whilest the Controversie was about the Concurrence of Gods Free Grace and mans Free-will a Point not thought of amongst Christians in Primitive Times it being then taken as granted by all Tolle Liberum Arbitrium non erit Quod Tolle Gratiam Liberam non erit Quo Salvetur Tolle Liberum Arbitrium quomodo Deus judicabit Tolle Gratiam quomodo Salvabit mundum Epist. 1. ad Valentin Tom. 7. that however Free-Will be Necessary unto salvation a Quality without which a man is neither capable of Reward nor Punishment yet the only Cause of mans Redemption from Servitude to sin or of Salvation by such Redemption was the Free-Grace of God as it issues from the Sole Fountain of Life and Grace The Man Christ Jesus God Incarnate 4. Pelagius having drawn the one Scale of this Dispute so far awry on the one side did provoke certain Monks in Africk whose Founder or principal Benefactor was one Valentinus to wrest the other Scale as far amisse on the otherside and to jump with the Stoicks or Manichees Opinion This stirred up the spirit of that most Learned Father of those times I mean for Rational or Scholastick disputes S. Austin to attempt the drawing of a Middle Line between these Two Extravagancies or Extremities which he oftentimes performed with a steady and constant hand yet sometimes too often if so it had pleased the Lord did faulter Since his death not only the fore-mentioned Difficultie Concerning The Compossibility of Gods Free Grace and mans Free-Will but the very true and punctual meaning of this Learned Moderator hath been by his Followers whether Fathers Schoolmen or Others so meanly Tufted and so unskilfully hunted after as a Man that would take pains to read them may fitly apply that Conceit which a pleasant Wit entertained of a Text forsaken by the Preacher or profest Handler of it to the true State of the main Question Concerning Freedom of Will that is A march Hare might have sit upon it and never have been started for all the barking and bauling of Contrary Factions or opposite Sectaries some Three or Four not so well esteem'd or seconded as they deserved only excepted 5. One Principal Reason of so little Speed and lesse good Successe in this Search hath been because the most of such as have undertaken this Task usually took no more of the main Controversie into due consideration then did lie just under their Level or between them and the Scope at which they aimed And that was if not only yet principally the Confutation of others Errors or Heretical Doctrine an attempt which seldom finds any good Atchievance unlesse it be managed with much discretion with moderation of passions or affections Nor will this suffice unlesse the Party thus qualified be enabled with Good Literature distinctly to set down the true and Positive Grounds of that Truth about whose meaning or extent Questions usually arise or to resolve the several Branches of Controversies moved into their first Stems roots or seeds He that will adventure to write or speak of Election Reprobation or Predestination before he be so well instructed in the Grounds of Philosophy both Natural and Moral as to understand the Nature Properties and several Stems of Free-Will or to make search after all or any of these before he clearly know what Necessity and Contingency are wherein they differ or how they sometimes intermingle or the one of them grow into the other shall as too Many in our times have done so Crosse-shackle himself with Ramistical Pot-Hooks or Dichotomies that he shall be inforced either to stumble or enterfere at every second or third step For avoiding this inconvenience into which I had from my Youth observed many otherwise Learned Writers through want of skill in true and solid Logick but especially in Philosophy to fall I have premised what I hope was rightly conceived concerning the fore-mentioned Fundamental Points of †See His sixt Book of Com. or Attributes part 2. Sect. 2. Fate Necessity and Contingency And by help of those Principles as clearly as the matter would suffer heretofore discuss'd at large I trust I shall be able to treat of this present Argument of Free-Will and hereafter of Predestination so farr as is fitting or shall be permitted me by Authority Consequently to mine own Grounds or Positions without enterfering or stumbling in my course without crossing or trenching upon
such evil with positively evil intentions It is their delight to Countermand Gods Laws to make his Negative Precepts Their Affirmatives and his Affirmatives their Negatives And knowing much better then most men do with what particulars God is more specially offended they tempt every man as opportunity serves to do those things wherwith he is most offended To tempt some men unto grosse foul or base sins they see it bootlesse Neverthelesse in as much as no man can be without some sin or other they sollicite all to be like themselves in one sin at least that is in Impenitency And to be finally Impenitent for the least sin is more offensive to the Goodnesse and Mercy of God then all other sins that can be by man Committed 5. But some happily will thus far plead for Baal or Belzebub and his Followers That many good Turns are done by them to some men Yet even their best Favours or greatest Benefits are worse then a biting usurers kindnesse Unto this man they may lend Wealth to that man health to a third procure ease from pain or use of Limbs but all this with purpose to get the Eternal inheritance of their Souls 6. The Unregenerate sin not in every Action against men The meerly Natural or unregenerate men in some actions sin not at all against their Neighbours or Fellow Creatures to whom oft-times they heartily do that Good which they truly intended And in such Actions Their Offence in respect of Gods Law is to be accounted as I take it Privative only no way Positive Pythagoras Socrates Plato Anacharsis perhaps Diogenâ—s himself and many other Heathen would have done as the good Samaritane did to any Passenger or Citizen of the Great City Now the Samaritans Action was not against Gods Law though not altogether according to his Law Neither the Intention nor Performance in Like deeds of mercy done by Heathen or meer natural men are void of evil because the Doers are never affected with that Sincerity of Heart on with those Bowels of Compassion which Gods Law requires much lesse with those Referencies which are due unto Gods Glory Yet if any man be of Opinion that the Heathen or unregenerate man doth Positively and actually sin against Gods Laws in the Best works that he can do I will not contend with him For albeit I think my Former Assertion to be true yet is it not my purpose to take the truth of it for any Ground of the insuing Discourse Concerning the proper subject of mans Free-Will 7. The Unregenerate man hath a true Freedom in doing Evil. Supposing it were most true That the best of unregenerate men do Positively and actually sin against Gods Law in every Action that they do Yet this shall no way infringe our First Assertion which is this The unregenerate man hath a true Freedom of will in the Choice of those particular Evils into some one or other of which he necessarily fals For as the Absolute Impossibility or want of Freedom to do Evil doth not bereave the Almighty of absolute Freedom in doing Well So neither doth the unregenerate mans Impossibility of doing Good strip him of all Freedom in doing Evil. Though he cannot but do Evil or do every thing that he doth amisse yet is there no Necessity that he should do so great Evil as oft-times he doth or do it so far amisse as he doth Few men have any power or Freedom of Will not to be angry when they are provoked not to allay their anger so soon as they ought after it be once upon what Termes soever kindled Yet even such as Neâ—essarily sin this sin of unadvised Anger in some degree or otherâ— do not thereupon necessarily commit Man-slaughter Murther or Blasphemy Many men have Power or Freedom of Will in ruling their tongues which have no Freedom or power to stay the boyling of the heart in anger Many again in their passions have a Free Power over their hands which have none over their tongues Many that can hardly hold their hands in heat of anger have a Freedom of will not to strike with edge-tools or weapons that may make deadly wounds 8. Every Unregenerate man at his first arrival at the Use of Reason is Free in respect of the height or Extremity of those very sins unto which he is either by General Corruption of nature or Peculiar Disposition of body most subject It is not Necessary that he which is by Nature Education and Dyet most prone to wantonnesse Juvenal Nâ—mo repente suit turpissimus â—â—ould delight in Adultery or to be overtaken with temptations to Unnatural Lusts Into Acts or Crimes whether for their kind unnatural or Prodigious or for degree extremely evil no natural man did ever Necessarily fall nisâ— Necessitate ex Hypothesi that is unlesse it were for abusing that Freedom of Will or choice which naturally he hath in Ordinary evils in things Moral or Indifferent But by sinning in a higher Degree or oftner in any kind then the corrupted estate of Nature or Sin meerly inbred did Necessitate us unto we exempt our selves from the Protection of Gods ordinary and wonted Providence And thence exempted we naturally fall into an Estate or disposition of mind most unnatural and bring a * See Chap. 18. last Parag. and Chap. 21. Parag. 3 4 5. Necessity upon our selves of sinning extreamly Finally without Gods Special Grace the best of us sinin every Action without the guidance of his Fatherly Providence we sin extreamly against Every divine Commandment 9. All of us at the First use of Reason have a true Freedom of Will in avoiding such Occasions or Opportunities to sin as being not avoided but Voluntarily and Freely affected draw a Necessity upon us of falling into foul and grievous sins It was perhaps impossible for AEgisthus to avoid Adultery so long as he betroathed himself to Sloth But it was not impossible for him nor for any to have avoided this disease or at Least to have been divorced from it after he had been betrothed to it The Poet in my Opinion gave us a truer Cause of this mans fault then those Divines possibly can which make all Events Necessary or unavoidable in respect of Gods Decree Quaeritur AEgisthus quare sit factus Adulter In promptu causa est desidiosus erat 10. Supposing his slothfulnesse had been no sin in its self yet would it be a grievous sin in us to say that the Almighty did Decree he should be slothful that he might become an Adulterer or be an Adulterer that he might become a Reprobate for manifestation of his Glory His slothfulnesse in true Divinity was the true and Necessary Cause of his Filthinesse But of his slothfulnesse there was no Necessary Cause To use Free-will extreamly amisse is not Necessary but Contingent but a Cause Contingent only The only Cause it had was the ill use of that Freedom which he had in doing amisse or avoiding Occasions of doing greater
had perished in the wildernesse But the Apostle further demands with whom was he grieved forty years Was it not with them which had sinned whose carcases fell in the wildernesse And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his Rest but to them that believed not so we see what they could not enter in because of unbeliefe He saith not they did not enter in because of unbelief but they could not enter in because of Unbelief This argues that the Possibility of entring in was utterly cut off and we know it was so cut off because the Lord had sworn they should not enter in But what was the true or adequate Cause why they could not enter in or why their former Possibility of entring in was utterly cut off The Apostle mentioned only Two Vnbelief and Sinne. But are his words only to be understood of ordinary Sinne or Simple unbelief or was there any Sin or Vnbelief for Specifical Quality so deadly as could utterly exclude them from all Possibility of entring in or do these Termes though Indefinite in themselves necessarily Include a certain Measure or high Degree of Vnbelief or Sinne. This Point may best be resolved by the Historicall Relations of Moses whereunto our Apostles discourse throughout the whole 3. Chapter to the Hebrews hath speciall Reference and on which his Exhortation or main Argument is wholly grounded This Story is set down at large Numbers the 14. 21. Of Promises or threats without or under Oath See his 7. Book Ch. 13. 9. Book Ch. 18. As truly as I live saith God to Moses all the earth shall be filled with the Glory of the Lord. This is the Express form of the Oath The Contents of the same Oath or the Articles unto which God Swears are set down at large in the words following in which likewise the Measure and Quantity as well of their Positive Sin as of their Vnbelief is Emphatically expressed All those men which have seen my Glory and my Miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wildernesse and have temptea me these ten times and have not hearkened unto my voyce surely they shall not see the Land which I sware unto their Fathers neither shall any of them that provoked me see it They had seen or known by certain Relation Ten several Mighty Wonders which God had wrought in Egypt upon Pharaoh upon his Land and People Now the contempt and neglect of so many Wonders besides the Miracles which he had wrought for them in the wildernesse argue a great Measure of Disobedience or Vnbelief a great Measure of Omission or neglect of this Duty of Mortification which is Necessary to All a great Measure of Life stubbornly led after the Flesh Howbeit Their Sins were most grievous which had seen the Good Land which God had promised by Oath unto their Fathers as is clear from Numb 14. 36 37. The men which Moses sent to search the Land who returned and made all the Congregation to murmur against him by bringing up a slander upon the Land Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the Land dyed by the plague before the Lord and so they dyed before their brethren which had given credit unto their report and out of their Vnbelief did murmur against their God Howbeit even these with all the rest above twenty years old Except Caleb and Joshua were utterly cut off from all Possibility of entring in before the time or hour of their death yea they dyed before their Ordinary Times for this their Provocation as is Emphatically exprest ver 34. Ye shall bear your Iniquities forty years And you shall know my breach of promise that is the Revocation of the Blessing promised 7. That Caleb and Joshua had their Estate or Interest in the same promise irrevocably confirmed unto them long before their time of their entring into the promised Land may be gathered from the Exception interserted in the Oath for the Lord had sworn that none of the rest should enter in besides Caleb and Joshua Num. 14. 30. This Exception in Ordinary Construction seems to include that the Lord did Positively swear That These Two should enter into his Rest Howbeit this Exception alone is but a Presumption or a proof not Concludent without Favourable Construction and as Lawyers say Favorabiliora sunt amplianda Favourable promises are to be taken in the ampler Sense But thus we may not interpret Gods Promises without warrant from Him That Gods meaning in the former Clause or Exception concerning Caleb and Joshua was to be taken in this Favourable and ample Sense we have a further Positive and Concludent Proof from the Petition which Caleb exhibited unto Joshua and Joshua granted Josh 14. 6 9 10 11 12 13. Thou knowest saith Caleb unto Joshua the thing that the Lord said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Cadesh Barnea Moses sware in that day saying surely the Land whereon thy feet have troden shall be thine inheritance and thy Childrens for ever because thou hast wholly followed the Lord my God And now behold the Lord hath kept me alive as he said these fortie and five years even since the Lord spake this Word unto Moses whilest the Children of Israel wandred in the Wildernesse and now lo I am this day fourfcore and five years old As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day when Moses sent me as my strength was then even so is my strength now for warre both to go out and come in And Ioshua blessed him and gave unto Caleb the son of Iephunneh Hebron for an inheritance Such is the Force and Efficacy of Gods Promise confirmed by Oath that it not only kept Caleb alive but in the same strength and Activity of body till 85. years in which he was at 40. years It was as Remarkable in preserving his life and strength as it was in bringing mortality upon others Yet was not his Promise so confirmed by Oath unto all that were excepted from the Plague denounct by Oath as it was unto Caleb and Ioshua For all that were under twenty years old were excepted from the plague denounced by Oath yet were they not all assured by Oath that they should enter into the Land of Promise The Exception of Them in the Oath only reserves that Possibility or that Interest which their Fathers had in the Promise as Entire to them as it was at the first Their Estate was but Conditional and held as it were the Mean between the Estate of Caleb and Ioshua which was Confirmed by Oath and the Estate of their Forefathers which were Excluded by Oath For so Moses saith unto the Tribe of Reuben and God whose disobedience and backsliding he feared Numb 32. 14 15. Behold ye are risen up in your Fathers stead an increase of sinful men to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord towards Israel For if ye turn away from after him he
of every creature which is good had an Objective being in him before it could have any Subjective being in the creature The Beautie of Salomons Temple whilst it stood was Subjectively in the materials rightly proportioned and adorned but Objectively in the Spectators or Surveyors eye The same Beautie was Objectively in the Architects Brain or Fancie before it could be either Subjectively in the material Temple or building or Objectively in the Spectators eye In like manner Justice or goodnesse Original was Subjectively in the first Man after his Creation but was Objectively in God before the First Man was created 8 Yet if another man had written That there was an Objective Goodnesse in the Creature precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Will I should not have had the malitious wit or invention to have charged him as the forecited Author hath done me with the overthrowing of any Divine Attribute or with making the Creature a God or with Blasphemous Arminian Heresie Charitie would rather have moved me to make this construction of his words If we consider these Three Man the Image of God Goodness as all of them were Objectively in God before they had any actuall being Gods Image might be said to be in the Man and Goodnesse in Gods Image in such a sense as every Attribute is said to be in the subject of aproposition abstract from sense He that saith Socrates is a reasonable creature must acknowledge reason to be in Socrates The connexion between the Subject and the Attribute in Abstract Propositions is Essentiall and Eternall So necessarie so eternal was the Connexion between Man made after Gods Image or so considered and Goodness that whensoever it should please God to give this Subject Man after his Image actual Being the Attribute likewise to wit Goodness was of necessitie to have actuall Being or Coexistence with its Subject without intervention or interposition of any other cause If besides the Act or exercise of Gods Will by which man was created after his Image any other Act or exercise of his Will had been necessary or useful to make him actually Good then Goodness or Justice original should not have been Natural but Supernatural to the First Man which no good Protestant may grant The First Mans Goodness so long as it continued was continued by preservation of Gods Image in him and cannot be renued otherwise then by renovation of the same Image in him so that the Goodness of God is the Rule of Goodness the Ideal Form or patern of Goodness in the Creature The Act or exercise of the Divine Wil makes no creature morally or spiritually good but by making it conformable unto his own Goodness This and no other was my meaning in that 13. Chapter and this my meaning as I thought was sufficiently exprest by me and is so acknowledged by ingenious and understanding Readers 9. Nihil In bonis numerandum nisi quod per seipsum sit Laudabile i. e. sponte suâ possit laudari Tull. de Leg. L. 1. p. 163 quod a. laudabile sponte suâ illud ante sine praecepto bonum Laudabile If any man be disposed to except either against any Particular Proposition in this 13. Chapter or against my Generall declaration in what sense Gods Will is said to be the Rule of Goodness I shall request him positively to set down the Proposition Contradictory to any Proposition of mine which in that Chapter he thinketh to be Erroneous And if he can Concludently draw any such dangerous Consequence out of the Propositions avouched by me as I shall do out of his I faithfully promise to retract what I have said But until I see better Proofs then this obiector brings any I rest confident that howsoever some Divines of our Times will be ready to Contradict this Proposition All things are not Good only because God willeth them but God willeth somethings because they are Good Whiles this controversie is only betwixt him and me in this Particular yet I shall be sure to finde the same man to Contradict himself and to confesse as much as I here avouch whensoever he shall have occasion to dispute with the Jew or to assign the difference between the Ceremonial and the Moral Law or the Reason why The One is to be perpetually observed The Other not so The shedding of innocent Blood was evil before any Law was made against it before Gods Will was declared to the contrarie Cain did suffer punishment for the Fact before any positive Law and before any Act of Gods Will declared to prohibit it The shedding of innocent blood then was not evil because it was forbidden but it was afterwards peremptorily forbidden because alwaies Evil. Cains Enterprise against his innocent brother was Objectively Evil before there was any man that could commit this or the like enormitie Charitie Peace Brotherly Love are Good not onely because God hath commanded them or willed us to follow them but God by his Law doth will and command us to follow after these things because they were alwayes good even before he willed or commanded us to follow them The time will never be wherein Innocencie Brotherly Love Charitie Peace and loving kindnesse shall be as displeasing to God as Murther Hatred Malice Crueltie and Uncharitablenesse hitherto alwaies have been He cannot enact a Law either to authorize these or the like practises or to prohibit the contrarie vertues But in as much as Râ—ites and Ceremonies Sacrifices Circumcision c. which God sometimes did will and command men to observe were onely Good because God did will and command them Hence it is that they are now abrogated and their use inverted without any change of Gods eternal Will or of his Divine Nature The Negative Precepts concerning Rites and Ceremonies have been turned into Affirmatives and the Affirmatives into Negatives because the One containeth no other Goodnesse nor the Other any Evil in them which did not entirely depend upon Gods Positive Will to command or forbid them And seeing His Will though most Immutable is immutably Free though not to do Good or Evil yet Free to make that which is not in its nature or essentially Good to be Good for One Time or Season not for Another and that which is not in its nature or essentially Evil but of an indifferent nature to be sometimes Good and sometimes Evil therefore hath he made the Omission of some Ceremonies to be as Good in latter times as their observance was in former and the Observance of others to be as evil as their former Neglect or contempt were under the Law or from the Date of Gods first Covenant with Abraham until the Ratification or publication of the New Covenant made in Christ The uncircumcised manchilde saith God to Abraham Gen. 17. 14. whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people But seeing the observance of that which is here commanded was onely Good
because it was thus peremptorily willed commanded or required by God not Objectively Good from eternity the observance of the same thing commanded is now as dangerous and displeasing to God as the neglect or Non-Observance of it in Abrahams in Mosess in the Prophets times had been Hence is that wish of our Apostle Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even out off that trouble you that is I would that they which presse Circumcision upon you and upon your children might be sentenced according to Gods Law enacted against such as during the First Covenant did omit or neglect it 10 Partly from ignorance of this Distinction between the nature of things commanded and forbidden by the Moral and Ceremonial Law partly from ignorance why obedience to the Law of Ceremonies was so strictly enjoyned and the neglect of it so severely punished oft times by Gods immediate hand the Jews were drawn to place as great Sanctity in the observance of Rites and Ceremonies as in sincere obedience to the Moral Precepts This was one main root of their Hypocrisie a sin from which it is scarce possible any hearer of the Word should be free unlesse he be taught to put some difference between the Nature of things Good and Evil of things commanded and forbidden besides the Will or authority of the Commander If the Acts or Injunctions of Gods Will were the onely Rule of Goodnesse and had not eternal Goodness rather for their Rule it would be hard to avoid the Stoical error that all sins are equal besides a kinde of Fatality in humane affairs worse then Stoical The Turks acknowledge Gods Will to be a Rule of Goodnesse as soveraign as the author of the forementioned Epistle doth to be such a Cause of Causes as he would have it But being ignorant or not considering that there is an Immutable goodnesse precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Wil a Goodness whereof his Wil however considered is no Cause For it is Coeternal to his Wil to his Wisdom and Essence they fall into grosly absurd errours And consequently unto this their ignorance or to the common error that all things are Good onely because God willeth them they sometimes highly commend and sometimes deeply discommend the self same practises for quality and circumstances with as great vehemency of zeal and spirit and with as fair Protestations of obedience in all things to Gods Will as any other men do For Selimus to attempt the deposition of his Father was in their Divinitie a good and godly Act. For Bajazet to take arms against his Brother vvas an abominable impietie What vvas the reason Injects sortè Bajazetis mentione coepit Chiaussus in eum inclementiùs invehi quod arma sumpsisset contra fratrem Ego contrà dicebam videri mihi miseratione dignum cui inevitabilis necessitas imposita esset aut capiendorum armorum aut certae pestis subeundae Sed cum Chiaussus nihilominùs exeerari pergeret Vos inquam immanis facinoris reum facitis Bajazetem At Selimum hujus Imperatoris patrem qui non modò contra patris voluntatem verùâ—s etiam salutem arma tulit nullius criminis arguitis Rectè inquit Chiaussus nam rerum exitus satis docuit illum quod fecit divino fecisse instinctu coelitùs fuisse praedestinatum Tum ego si hoe more agetur quicquid quamvis pessimo Consilio susceptum si benè cedat rectè factum interpretabimini Dei voluntati adscribetis Deum facietis authotem mali nec quicquam benè aut sequiùs factum nisi ex eventu pendetis Sumus aliquandiu in hoe sermone commorati cum uterque non sine animorum vocis contentione quod proposuisset defenderet Collecta utrinque plura sacrae scripturae loca Nunquid potest vas dicere figulo Cur me ita finxâ—sti Indurabo cor Pharaonis Jacob dilexi Esaâ— odio habui atque alia ut veniebant in mentem Auger Busbequ Epist 4. Selimus his attempt found good successe for he prevailed against his Father and this vvas an Argument that it vvas Gods Wil that he should so do But Bajazet miscarries in his attempt against his brother and his disaster vvas a proof sufficient that God vvas displeased vvith his attempt it vvas not his Will that he should prosper And seeing his Will is the only Rule of Goodnesse seeing he did predestinate these tvvo Princes as he did Jacob and Esau the one to a good end the other to an Evil the self same Fact or Attempt vvas good in the one but vvicked in the other We all condemn it as an error in the Turk for measuring the difference betvveen good and evil by the Event But even this errour hath an Original which is worse They therefore measure all good and evill by the Event because they ascribe all Events without exception to the Irresistible Will of God Ex quo satis constitit non Avi misericordin eó usque Nepoti parcitum sed ex opinione quae Turcis insedit ut res quocunque consilio institutas si benè cadunt ad Deum auctorem refarant Proptoreà quamdio incertum suit quem exitum Bajazetis conatus sortirentur abstinendas ab insantis injuria manus Suleimannus statuit nesi postmodùmres meliùs vertisser obniti voluntati Dei voluisse videretur Sed nunc illo extincto ac veluti divina sententia damnato causam esse non putabat cur filio diutiùs parceretur Ne malum ovum ex malo corvo relinqueretur Ibidem and think that nothing can fall out otherwise then it doth because every thing is irresistibly appointed by Gods Will which in their Divinitie is such a necessarie Cause of Causes and by Consequence of all Effects as the Author of the said Epistle would have it to be Whosoever he be whether Jew Turk or Christian which thinks that all Events are so irresistibly decreed by God that none can fall out otherwise then they do must of necessity grant either that there is no moral evil under the Sunne or that Gods will which is the Cause of Causes is the only Cause of such evil 11 But is the like sin or errour expresly to be found in Israel Do any make the same Fact for nature qualitie and substance to be no sin in one man and yet a sin in another or to be a little sin in one man and a grievous outcrying sin in another Though they do not avouch this of rebellious attempts against Prince and State or of other like publick Facts Cognoscible by humane Law yet the Principles of Praedestination commonly held by them and the Turk draw them to the like Inconveniences in transforming the immutable Rule of Goodnesse into the similitude of their partial affections in other Cases The Adulterie and murther which David committed had been grievous sins in any other man but in David being predestinated they were but sins of infirmitie sins by which the outward man was defiled not the inward man Such
Irresistible Will in the eternal Idea of Reprobation before man or Angel had actual Being as if the only end of his Being had been to be a Reprobate or vessel of wrath Beza's Collections to this purpose unlesse they be better limited than he hath left them make God not onely a direct and positive Cause but the immediate and onely Cause of all Pharaohs tyrannie a more direct and more necessary Cause of his butchering the Israelites infants than he was of Adams good actions during the space of his innocencie For of those or of his short continuance in the state of integritie he was no necessarie nor immutable Cause that is he did not decree that Adams integrity should be immutable But whether Gods hardening Pharaoh by his Irresistible Will can any way inferre that Pharaoh was an Absolute Reprobate or born to the end he might be hardned we are hereafter to dispute in the third Point All we have to say in this place is this If as much as Beza earnestly contends for were once granted the Objection following to which our Apostle vouchsafes a double answer had been altogether as unanswerable as impertinently moved in this place Let us then examin the Pertinencie of the Objection and unfold the Validitie of the Answers The second General Point concerning the Pertinencie of the Objection 6. VVHy doth he yet find fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Why doth he yet chide with whom doth he find fault or whom doth he chide See Lib. 7. Ch. 19. Numb 4 5 6. All that are reprobates doth he only chide them is this all that they are to fear the very worst that can befall them were this speech to be as farre extended as it is by most Interpreters no question but our Apostle would have intended the force and acrimonie of it a great deal more than he doth thus farre at least Why doth he punish why doth he plague the reprobates in this life and deliver them up to everlasting torments in the life to come seeing they do but that which he by his Irresistible Will hath appointed Or suppose the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might by some unusual Synecdoche which passeth our reading observation or understanding include as much or more than we now expresse all the plagues of this life and all the torments which befall the reprobates in the life to come That the Objection proposed hath referrence only to Pharaoh or to some few in his Case not al that perish or are reprobated yet it is questioned what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath here to do It must be examined whence it came and whither it tends It naturaly designes some definite point or section of time and imports particulars before begun and still continued it can have no place in the immoveable Sphere of eternitie no reference to the exercise of Gods everlasting wrath against Reprobates in General 7. These Queries which here naturally offer themselves though for ought that I know not discussed by any interpreters have occasioned me in this place to make use of a Rule more usefull than usual for explicating the difficult places of the New Testament The Rule is this To search out the passages of the old Testament with their historical Circumstances unto which the speeches of our Saviour and his Apostles have special Reference or Allusion Now this Interrogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was conceived from our Apostles meditations upon those expostulations with Pharaoh Exod. 9. 16. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up for to shew in thee my power and that my name may be declared throughout all the Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet exaltest thou thyself against my people or oppressest thou my people that thou wilt not let them go Chap. 10. vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he yet chides and threatens him again how long wilt thou refuse to humble thy self before me Let my people go that they may serve me Else if thou refuse to let my People go behold to morrow I will bring the Locusts into thy coasts That which makes most for this interpretation is the historical circumstance of time and manner of Gods proceeding with Pharaoh For this expostulation whereunto our Apostle in this place hath reference was uttered after the seventh wonder wrought by Moses and Aaron in the sight of Pharaoh upon which it is expresly said that The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he hearkened not unto them Whereas of the five going before it is only said That Pharaoh hardened his heart or his heart was hardened or he set not his heart to the wonders See Chap. 40. Numb 15. The Spirits Censure likewise of Pharaohs stupiditie upon the first wonder may be read impersonally or be referred to the wonder it self which might positively harden his heart in such a sense as is before expressed Nor is it to be omitted that upon the neglect of the seventh wonder the Lord enlargeth his Commission to Moses and his threats to Pharaoh Exod. 9. 13 c. Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrewes Let my people go that they may serve me For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart and upon thy servants and upon thy people that thou maiest know that there is none like me in all the earth For now I will stretch out my hand that I may smite thee and thy people with Pestilence and thou shalt be cut off from the earth or as Junius excellently rendreth it I had smitten thee and thy people with pestilence when I destroyed your cattel with murrain and thou hadst been cut off from the earth when the boyles were so rife upon the Magicians but when they fell I made thee to stand for so the Hebrew is Verbatìm to what purpose That I might shew my power and declare my name more manifestly throughout all the earth by a more remarkable destruction than at that time should have befallen thee 8. The true Occasion of the former Objection This brief survey of these historical Circumstances presents unto us as in a Map the just Occasion the due force and full extent of the Objection here intimated in transitu Thou wilt say then unto me why doth he yet find fault As if some one on Pharaohs behalf had replied more expresly thus God indeed had just cause to upbraid Pharaoh heretofore for neglect of his Signs and wonders for it was a foul fault in him not to relent so long as there was a possibilitie left for him to relent But since God hath thus openly declared his Irresistible will to harden him to destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why doth he chide him any longer Why doth he hold on to expostulate more sharply with him than heretofore for that which is impossible for him to avoid For is it possible for him to open the door of repentance when God hath shut it or to mollifie his heart whose hardening
of the Son of God is not by their doctrine of infinite value nor of force and vertue everlasting but infinite only secundum quid i. e. infinite in the Nature of a bloudie sacrifice not so simply infinite as to exclude all other sacrifice or offering for sin For if it had been of value infinite or All-sufficient to take away sin whilest it was offered up in a bloudy manner there had been no more offering either required or left for sin whether a bloudie or a bloudlesse offering whether after a bloudy or a bloudless manner for if Once offered it were in the nature of an offering infinite it necessarily took away all other offerings or manner of offering for sin A Note Relating to the precedent Chapter EUsebius Socrates and Theodoret amongst the Greeks Primasius and Austin amongst the Latines do not distinguish betwixt these two Ominous names Novatus and Novatianus But St. Cyprian in his 49. Epistle shews plainly that they were of two distinct persons though agreeing too well in Schism and Heresie Novatus was an African new Monster a Preshyter in the Church of Carthage where S. Cyprian was Bishop vir sui nominis for he was Rerum novarum semper Cupidus disobedient to his Bishop spightful against the Order unnatural to his Father who dyed for hunger and lay too long unburied unfaithful to the Orphan the Widdow the Church-stock unkind to his wife whom he made to miscarry with a kick Damnat sacrificantium manus ipse nocentior pedibus says S. Cyprian Thus qualified fearing Excommunication He fled to Rome and joyned with Novatianus a Roman Presbyter who was about that time brewing his Schism against Cornelius Bishop of Rome These Two were the Ring-leaders of the Sect of the Cathari See S. Cyprian Epist 49. and Epist 51. 52. with Rigaltius his Notes CHAP. LV. From the Text Heb. 10. ver 1 2 16 17. And from this Maxim That Christ's One Sacrifice of himself was of Value absolutely Infinite it follows not That such as worship God in Spirt or such as are received into The Covenant of Grace have their sinnes remitted before they do committ them That Doctrine makes Christ's Resurrection useless in respect of us and Baptism needlesse Legal worshippers Conscious and their sins remembred in such a sort as Evangelical worshippers are not The vast Oddes betwixt Christ's One Sacrifice and the Many Legal We must distinguish betwixt the Infinite value and Infinite vertue of Christs sacrifice The precious Effects of H. Baptism and the Eucharist flowing from the Efficacie of Christs Sacrifice and Priesthood How Legal Sacrifices c did prefigure Christ's 1. BUt unto men which have not their Senses exercised in the Prophetical and Evangelical Writings or in the Harmonie betwixt them the words of the Apostle in that tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes An Objection made ver 1 2 16 17. do minister some scruple His words ver 1 2 are these The Law can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the commers thereunto perfect For then would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshippers that is such as were observers of the Legal worship only should have had no more conscience of sin From this Opposition between the condition of Gods people under the Law and the Condition of his people under the New Covenant that is of such as worship him not by Legal Sacrifices but in the Spirit it may seem to be concluded that such as are within the Covenant of Grace or worship him in spirit have their Sinnes remitted before they can commit them or as soon as they begin to worship God not by Legal sacrifices but in the spirit For if the sins of men thus qualified were not remitted before they were received into the Covenant of Grace or at least at the time when they were thereunto admitted they should at least have as much if not more Conscience of sin as the Legal worshippers had 2. This Scruple or Question which the words of the Apostle ver 1 2. do minister may be fortified or Augmented from the same Apostles Inference ver 17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more This is the Privilege of such as are within the New Covenant Fortified Now if according to the Tenor of this privilege God will no more remember their sinnes and iniquities who are comprized within the new Covenant the cause or Controversie may seem concluded that God will neither punish their sinnes nor question them for them For all punishment of sin all inquisition after sin doth include or presuppose a Remembrance or Cognizance of the sins for which men are punished or questioned Both these Scruples may receive strength or Countenance from that general Maxim unto which we willingly subscribe That the bloudy sacrifice whereby this new Covenant was made and ratified Reinforced was of value absolutely infinite for taking and putting away sinnes And how could it possibly be of value infinite for taking away sins unlesse the sins of all all their sins for whom it was offered were by it taken away or remitted So taken away that they should be no more remembred in Gods sight that They should have no more Conscience or horrour of sin 3. Answered The clear and unquestionable Points of Truth included in the Apostles words are but Two The Former That the Legal Worshippers were conscious of sin in such a sort as the Evangelical worshippers or men comprehended under the new Covenant are not conscious The Second that God did remember the sins of such as were under the former Covenant after such a manner as he doth not remember their sinnes who are under the new Covenant of Grace But for the Distinct meaning of the Apostle that is how farre the Legal worshippers had a consciousness of sin how farr the Evangelical worshippers have none In what sort measure or manner God did remember the sinnes of his people under the Old Covenant and not remember the sinnes of his people under the new Covenant of Grace we can have no better scantling no more indifferent standard than the words of the same Apostle in the same tenth Chapter ver 3. But in those sacrifices to wit which were offered by the Law there is a remembrance or commemoration of sin made every year But wherein did this Annual Remembrance or Commemoration of sin consist The Law as the Apostle elsewhere speakes was but a School-master unto Christ and the Lessons which this School-master did by the Annual or other bloudie sacrifices especially teach were these That the men by whom or for whom these bloudie sacrifices were offered had deserved and as often as they offered them did deserve to be tormented and mangled as these sacrifices were That the â—utchery of Them was but Favorabilis commutatio poenae a favourable exchange or diverting the punishment from themselves upon these bruit Beasts That whiles the fire under Gods Altar did continue Gods
c. 3303 c. See Presence Luther did not distinguish inter Liberam voluntatem Liberum Arbitrium 3130 Lutheran Catechisms and consequences 3188 Lutherans wrest the Antients in Point of Consubstantiation 3298 Lycurgus's Whelps 3085 3134 M. Great Magore weighs himself yearly in gold and gives it to the poor 3236 Malepert Courtier 3227 Manichees their Bruitish opinion 3080 c. Marie the B. Virgin free from sin in her consent Be in vnto me 3038 Mass Doctr. of it injurious to Christ 3262 c. wrongs his one sacrifice the value and efficacie of it 3289 c. scandalizes the Jew 3290 makes Legal Priests Types of Masse-Priests 3265 Melchizedeck by the Romanists made a Type of Mass-Priests rather then of Christ 3265 Melchizedek not read that he offerd any sacrifice his Priesthood was a Priesthood of Blessing Authoritative 3302 Ministers main work to sett men right in the way of Conversion 3219 Mercie of God maintained 3184 3210 c. 3217 He will have mercie on whom he will the sense and quintessence of that Aphorism 3205 it implies mercie in abundance mercie to the purpose to all that seek it 3217 God shewes mercie Isaac wills Esau runs 3215 He will have mercie on whom he will the extent of that Division 3242 c. To have mercie on whom he will is a reserved prerogative of God 3216 Rom. 9. 16. excludes not endeavours nor meanes but merits 3216 c Gods readiness to shew mercie 3221 He will have mercie he hardeneth to what points the Text reaches 3247 c. Merit of works The question useless as to Adams first Estate 3008 Meritorum Reviviscentia 3285 Men several sorts several workings of the Spirit 3121 Men not come to full growth in faith c. but Children in Christ 3247 Mens deprecaturad optima 3119 Not Metaphors but Mysteries in the 6 8 9 10 Chapt. to the Hebr. 3254 Moses hid by Revelation 3191 designed Heir of the Crown of Egypt 3192 His great Atchievements perhaps against Ethiopia an omen of his leading Israel out of Bondage ibid. Two points of his Embassie to Pharaoh 3193 Gods Viceroy carried the Treaties in accurate solemnitie 3194 instructed incouraged 3196 had miracles for Letters of Credence 3195 3197 Mortification 3096 c. Progress in mortificaton a firm sign of mans Estate in Grace 3097 3103 3245 By it measure our perswasions 3162 Dutie of mortification how universal how indefinite 3099 Universal in respect of Persons though not for the matter or degrees 3146 The very Elect must mortifie 3102 Mortification a Term divisible 3105 Mortification how wrought by the Spirit how by our selves 3106 How by Gods Spirit how by mans Spirit 3110 3115 3120 Flesh the seat of the disease and must be mortified Spirit quickned 3118 c. 3121 Mortification Moral and Spiritual 106 3132 c. Whether mortification be ex operibus praevisis 3112 Mortification consists in two things Deading our desires purifying the heart 3119 Accomplishment of mortification wherein it consists 3124 c. it consists not in negatives 3125 Men that have been mortified if they draw back like heated water they freez the soonest 3128 More about Mortification 3146 c. Each degree of mortification is an approach to the Final Ratification of the promise ye shall live 3152 Mortification our reasonable Service 3159 The use of the Doctrine of Mortification 3160 c. Murmuring what must quiet it 3229 Mutinie at Capua 3074 Maâ—hiavel's judgment upon it ib. N. NAaman had some degree of Free-will 3130 Natural grounds to deny our selves and flee to God Impotencie to doe good that Good he approves dulness it self a spur 3219 c. This natural Capacitie not used makes us inexcusable ibid. The Naturalist hunts Truth upon fresh Sents not foyled with second notions 3019 Negative Precepts Sin more provoked by them then by Affirmative the reason 3026 Negative See precepts See proposition This error That all things be necessary nothing Contingent in respect of God a cause of Errors c. 3164 3016 An ill necessitie freely Contracted 3052 3063 3055 Necessary ab aeterno that ungodly men perish but not necessarie that they should be ungodly men 3169 Necessitie See Adam See Decree See Free Nobilitie expires not in uno vitioso 3032 Non-age Persons under yeares neither servants nor freemen properly 3042 of the two rather Servants ibid A strange Note upon St. Jude 3164 3173 Novatian's Error or Heresie 3280 c. Novatian's quarel with Cornelius Bishop of Rome 3281 Novatus and Novatianus two several Persons 3291 Novatus his Character 3291 O. MAns Tye by oath tempts to unfaithfulness why 3026 Oath makes promise or threat irreversible 3148 Oath of God to Abraham to requite him in kind 3302 The great Objection why doth he yet find fault 3226 c. Answered 3228 3230 Obliquitie necessarily resulting from the Act is Caused by the Cause of the Act 3011 The Cause of any Action Essentially evil or inseparable from evill is the Cause of evill 3165 Obliquitie did necessarily result from the forbidden act exercised yet was not the Act necessarie 3012 The distinction of the Act and obliquitie has no place in the first sin of Man 3013 Act and obliquitie as Connex as Roundness and Sphere 3013 c. Oecolampadius his observation 3187 Often offering an argument of imperfection 3263 3290 Ex operibus praevisis whether mortification be so tanquam ex Titulo or tanquam ex Termino 3113 3218 Opera quae renunciamus opus quo renunciamus 3219 Object See Decree Ordained to Condemnation how ungodly men are 3164 God ordaines no man to trouble the Church 3165 Yet if God ordains all Actions so that they could not come to passe otherwise then they do That would follow 3164 c. What God ordains that he is Author of 3165 c. Every Ordination to Everlasting death is not Reprobation 3166 Ordination to life and predestination ordination to death and reprobation differ as Genus and Species 3166 Origen See Beza Original See sin P. PAcuvius See Calavius Parable that of our Saviour Matth. 12. 43. applyed 3277 Paraeus his Dispute with Becanus 3012 Parallels betwixt Jews and Modern Christians 3187 The Hardening of the Jews and the Egyptians 3206 c. Moses and Christ 3207 Passeover and the Lords Supper between the two Inheritances bequeathed by Moses and Christ 3261 The Mundane Tabernacle and Celelestial the Rites and Priests of that and Christ 3253 3257 3259 3261 The Red Heifer and Christ 3261 3267 3270 3299 3302 Pardon due to Learned Authors which their Followers cannot claim 3013 No Pardon Antedated by God 3283 Some Popes denyed to Antedate Pardons ib. Pardon See Sin remitted c. Parents may by Lewdness improve the venom of sin Original in their Children 3019 3031 Parricide not rife till forbidden by Law 3024 3145 Sin irritated by Precepts more by Negative Precepts 3025 c. It is easier to avoid the first occasions then the insuing opportunities of Sin against Negative Precepts 3094 Precepts