not to be supposed that he will snatch Infants from their Mothers breasts and throw them into the everlasting flames of Hell for the sin of Adam that is as to them for their mere natural state of which himself was Author and Creator that is he will not damn them for being good For God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good and therefore so is that state of descent from Adam God is the Author of it and therefore it cannot be ill It cannot be contrary to God because it is his work 38. Upon the account of these reasons I suppose it safe to affirm that God does not damn any one to Hell merely for the sin of our first Father which I summ up in the words of S. Ambrose or whoever is the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul attributed to him Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur Est alia mors quae secunda dicitur in Gehennâ quam non peccato Adaepatimur sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquiritur Death is the dividing Soul and Body There is also another death which is in Hell and is called the second Death which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam but by occasion of it we fall into it by our own sins Next we are to inquire whether or no it does not make us infallibly naturally and necessarily vitious by taking from us Original righteousness by discomposing the order of our faculties and inslaving the will to sin and folly concerning which the inquiry must be made by parts 39. For if the sin of Adam did debauch our Nature and corrupt our will and manners it is either by a Physical or Natural efficiency of the sin it self or 2. Because we were all in the loins of Adam or 3. By the sentence and decree of God 40. I. Not by any Natural efficiency of the sin it self Because then it must be that every sin of Adam must spoil such a portion of his Nature that before he died he must be a very beast 2. We also by degeneration and multiplication of new sins must have been at so vast a distance from him at the very worst that by this time we should not have been so wise as a flie nor so free and unconstrain'd as fire 3. If one sin would naturally and by physical causality destroy Original righteousness then every one sin in the regenerate can as well destroy Habitual righteousness because that and this differ not but in their principle not in their nature and constitution And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace and lose his habits as Adam did Naturally it is all one 4. If that one sin of Adam did destroy all his righteousness and ours too then our Original sin does more hurt and is more punish'd and is of greater malice than our actual sin For one act of sin does but lessen and weaken the habit but does not quite destroy it If therefore this act of Adam in which certainly at least we did not offend maliciously destroys all Original righteousness and a malicious act now does not destroy a righteous habit it is better for us in our own malice than in our ignorance and we suffer less for doing evil that we know of than for doing that which we knew nothing of 41. II. If it be said that this evil came upon us because we all were in the loins of Adam I consider 1. That then by the same reason we are guilty of all the sins which he ever committed while we were in his loins there being no imaginable reason why the first sin should be propagated and not the rest and he might have sinned the second time and have sinn'd worse Add to this that the later sins are commonly the worse as being committed not only against the same law but a greater reason and a longer experience and heightned by the mark of ingratitude and deeply noted with folly for venturing damnation so much longer And then he that was born last should have most Original sin and Seth should in his birth and nature be worse than Abel and Abel be worse than Cain 2. Upon this account all the sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us because we were in their loins when they sinn'd them and every lustful father must have a lustful son and so every man or no man will be lustful For if ever any man were lustful or intemperate when or before he begot his child upon this reckoning his child will be so too and then his grandchild and so on for ever 3. Sin is seated in the will it is an action and transient and when it dwells or abides it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love to which is naturally consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly and therefore sin does not infect our mere natural faculties but the will only and not that in the natural capacity but in its moral only 4. And indeed to him that considers it it will seem strange and monstrous that a moral obliquity in a single instance should make an universal change in a natural suscipient and in a natural capacity When it is in nature impossible that any impression should be made but between those things that communicate in matter or capacity and therefore if this were done at all it must be by a higher principle by Gods own act or sanction and then should be referred to another principle not this against which I am now disputing 5. No man can transmit a good habit a grace or a vertue by natural generation as a great Scholar's son cannot be born with learning and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birth-day give wise sentences and Marcus the son of Cicero was not so good an Orator as his father and how can it be then that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one when it is not the goodness or the badness of a quality that hinders its dissemination but its being an acquir'd and superinduc'd quality that makes it cannot descend naturally Add to this how can a bad quality morally bad be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good and since neither God that is the Maker of all does amiss and the father that begets sins not and the child that is begotten cannot sin by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to the posterity 6. It is generally now adays especially believed that the soul is immediately created not generated according to the doctrine of Aristotle affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the soul is from without and is a Divine substance and therefore sin cannot descend by natural generation or by our being in Adams loins And how can it be that the father who contributes nothing to her production should contribute to
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
and those great advantages which by this Doctrine so understood may be reaped if men will be quiet and patient void of prejudice and not void of Charity This Madam is reason sufficient why I offer so many justifications of my Doctrine before any man appears in publick against it but because there are many who do enter into the houses of the rich and the honourable and whisper secret oppositions and accusations rather than arguments against my Doctrine the good Women that are zealous for Religion and make up in the passions of one faculty what is not so visible in the actions and operations of another are sure to be affrighted before they be instructed and men enter caveats in that Court before they try the cause But that is not all For I have found that some men to whom I gave and designed my labours and for whose sake I was willing to suffer the persecution of a suspected truth have been so unjust to me and so unserviceable to your self Madam and to some other excellent and rare personages as to tell stories and give names to my proposition and by secret murmurs hinder you from receiving that good which your wisdom and your piety would have discerned there if they had not affrighted you with telling that a Snake lay under the Plantane and that this Doctrine which is as wholsome as the fruits of Paradise was enwrapped with the infoldings of a Serpent subtile and fallacious Madam I know the arts of these men and they often put me in mind of what was told me by M. Sackvill the late Earl of Dorsets Vncle that the cunning Sects of the World he named the Jesuits and the Presbyterians did more prevail by whispering to Ladies than all the Church of England and the more sober Protestants could do by fine force and strength of argument For they by prejudice or fears terrible things and zealous nothings confident sayings and little stories governing the Ladies Consciences who can perswade their Lords their Lords will convert their Tenants and so the World is all their own I should wish them all good of their profits and purchases if the case were otherwise than it is but because they are questions of Souls of their interest and advantages I cannot wish they may prevail with the more Religious and Zealous Personages and therefore Madam I have taken the boldness to write this tedious Letter to you that I may give you a right understanding and an easie explication of this great Question as conceiving my self the more bound to do it to your satisfaction not only because you are Zealous for the Religion of this Church and are a person as well of Reason as of Religion but also because you have passed divers obligations upon me for which all my services are too little a return DEVS JVSTIFICATVS OR A VINDICATION OF THE Glory of the DIVINE ATTRIBUTES In the Question of ORIGINAL SIN IN Order to which I will plainly describe the great lines of difference and danger which are in the errors and mistakes about this Question 2. I will prove the truth and necessity of my own together with the usefulness and reasonableness of it 3. I will answer those little murmurs by which so far as I can yet learn these men seek to invade the understandings of those who have not leisure or will to examine the thing it self in my own words and arguments 4. And if any thing else falls in by the by in which I can give satisfaction to a Person of Your great Worthiness I will not omit it as being desirous to have this Doctrine stand as fair in your eyes as it is in all its own colours and proportions But first Madam be pleased to remember that the question is not whether there be any such thing as Original Sin for it is certain and confessed on all hands almost For my part I cannot but confess that to be which I feel and groan under and by which all the World is miserable Adam turned his back upon the Sun and dwelt in the dark and the shadow he sinned and fell into Gods displeasure and was made naked of all his supernatural endowments and was ashamed and sentenced to death and deprived of the means of long life and of the Sacrament and instrument of Immortality I mean the Tree of Life he then fell under the evils of a sickly body and a passionate ignorant uninstructed soul his sin made him sickly his sickness made him peevish his sin left him ignorant his ignorance made him foolish and unreasonable His sin left him to his nature and by his nature who ever was to be born at all was to be born a child and to do before he could understand and be bred under Laws to which he was always bound but which could not always be exacted and he was to chuse when he could not â—eason and had passions most strong when he had his understanding most weak and was to ride a wild horse without a bridle and the more need he had of a curb the less strength he had to use it and this being the case of all the World what was every mans evil became all mens greater evil and though alone it was very bad yet when they came together it was made much worse like Ships in a storm every one alone hath enough to do to out-ride it but when they meet besides the evils of the storm they find the intolerable calamity of their mutual concussion and every Ship that is ready to be oppressed with the tempest is a worse tempest to every vessel against which it is violently dashed So it is in mankind every man hath evil enough of his own and it is hard for a man to live soberly temperately and religiously but when he hath Parents and Children Brothers and Sisters Friends and Enemies Buyers and Sellers Lawyers and Physicians a Family and a Neighbourhood a King over him or Tenants under him a Bishop to rule in matters of Government spiritual and a People to be ruled by him in the affairs of their Souls then it is that every man dashes against another and one relation requires what another denies and when one speaks another will contradict him and that which is well spoken is sometimes innocently mistaken and that upon a good cause produces an evil effect and by these and ten thousand other concurrent causes man is made more than most miserable But the main thing is this when God was angry with Adam the man fell from the state of grace for God withdrew his grace and we returned to the state of mere nature of our prime creation And although I am not of Petrus Diaconus his mind who said that when we all fell in Adam we fell into the dirt and not only so but we fell also upon a heap of stones so that we not only were made naked but defiled also and broken all in pieces yet this I believe to be certain that
here also they are not to be confuted and as for the particular Scriptures unless we have the advantage of essential reason taken from the Divine Attributes they will oppose Scripture to Scripture and have as much advantage to expound the opposite places as the Jews have in their Questions of the Messias anâ— therefore si meos ipse corymbos necterem if I might make mine own arguments in their Society and with their leave I would upon that very account suspect the usual discourses of the effects and Oeconomy of Original sin 8. For where will they reckon the beginning of Predestination will they reckon it in Adam after the Fall or in Christ immediately promised If in Adam then they return to the Presbyterian way and run upon all the rocks before reckoned enough to break all the world in pieces If in Christ they reckon it and so they do then thus I argue If we are all reckoned in Christ before we were born then how can we be reckoned in Adam when we are born I speak as to the matter of Predestination to salvation or damnation For as for the intermedial temporal evils and dangers spiritual and sad infirmities they are our nature and might with Justice have been all the portion God had given to Adam and therefore may be so to us and consequently not at all to be reckoned in this enquiry But certainly as to the main 9. If God looks upon us all in Christ then by him we are rescued from Adam so much is done for us before we were born For if this is not to be reckoned till after we were born then Adams sin prevailed really in some periods and to some effects for which God in Christ had provided no remedy for it gave no remedy to children till after they were born but irremediably they were born children of wrath but if a remedy were given to Children before they were born then they are born in Christ not in Adam but if this remedy was not given to Children before they were born then it follows that we were not at first looked upon in Christ but in Adam and consequently he was caput praedestinationis the head of predestination or else there were two the one before we were born the other after So that haereâ—leâ—hâ—lis arundo The arrow sticks fast and it cannot be pulled out unless by other instruments than are commonly in fashion However it be yet methinks this a very good probable Argument As Adam sinned before any child was born so was Christ promised before and that our Redeemer shall not have more force upon children that they should be born beloved and quitted from wrath than Adam our Progenitor shall have to cause that we be born hated and in a damnable condition wants so many degrees of probability that it seems to dishonour the mercy of God and the reputation of his goodness and the power of his redemption For this serves as an Antidote and Antinomy of their great objection pretended by these learned persons for whereas they say they the rather affirm this because it is an honour to the redemption which our Saviour wrought for us that it rescued us from the sentence of damnation which we had incurred To this I say that the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak propositions and neither can the reputation and honour of the Divine goodness borrow aids and artificial supports from the dishonour of his Justice and it is no reputation to a Physician to say he hath cured us of an evil which we never had and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that the Son may have the Honour to have cured us I understand not that He that makes a necessity that he may find a remedy is like the Roman whom Cato found fault withall he would commit a fault that he might beg a pardon he had rather write bad Greek that he might make an apology than write good Latin and need none But however Christ hath done enough for us even all that we did need and since it is all the reason in the world we should pay him all honour we may remember that it is a greater favour to us that by the benefit of our blessed Saviour who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world we were reckoned in Christ and born in the accounts of the Divine favour I say it is a greater favour that we were born under the redemption of Christ than under the sentence and damnation of Adam and to prevent an evil is a greater favour than to cure it so that if to do honour to Gods goodness and to the graces of our Redeemer we will suppose a need we may do him more honour to suppose that the promised seed of the woman did do us as early a good as the sin of Adam could do us mischief and therefore that in Christ we are born quitted from any such supposed sentence and not that we bring it upon our shoulders into the world with us But this thing relies only upon their suppositions For if we will speak of what is really true and plainly revealed From all the sins of all mankind Christ came to redeem us He came to give us a supernatural birth to tell us all his Fathers will to reveal to us those glorious promises upon the expectation of which we might be enabled to do every thing that is required He came to bring us grace and life and spirit to strengthen us against all the powers of Hell and Earth to sanctifie our afflictions which from Adam by Natural generation descended on us to take out the sting of death to make it an entrance to immortal life to assure us of resurrection to intercede for us and to be an advocate for us when we by infirmity commit sin to pardon us when we repent Nothing of which could be derived to us from Adam by our natural generation Mankind now taken in his whole constitution and design is like the Birds of Paradise which travellers tell us of in the Molucco Islands born without legs but by a celestial power they have a recompence made to them for that defect and they always hover in the air and feed on the dew of Heaven so are we birds of Paradise but cast out from thence and born without legs without strength to walk in the Laws of God or to go to Heaven but by a power from above we are adopted in our new birth to a celestial conversation we feed on the dew of Heaven The just does live by faith and breaths in this new life by the spirit of God For from the first Adam nothing descended to us but an infirm body and a naked soul evil example and a body of death ignorance and passion hard labour and a cursed field a captive soul and an imprisoned body that is a soul naturally apt to comply with the
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
unless they were his at his death If therefore they be confiscated before his death ours indeed is the inconvenience too but his alone is the punishment and to neither of us is the wrong But concerning the second I mean that which is superinduc'd it is not his fault alone nor ours alone and neither of us is innocent we all put in our accursed Symbol for the debauching of our spirits for the besotting our souls for the spoiling our bodies Ille initium induxit debiti nos foenus auximus posterioribus peccatis c. He began the principal and we have increas'd the interest This we also find well expressed by Justin Martyr for the Fathers of the first ages spake prudently and temperately in this Article as in other things Christ was not born or crucified because himself had need of these things but for the sake of mankind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides the evil which every one adds upon his own account And it appears in the greatest instance of all even in that of natural death which though it was natural yet from Adam it began to be a curse just as the motion of a Serpent upon his belly which was concreated with him yet upon this story was changed into a malediction and an evil adjunct But though Adam was the gate and brought in the head of death yet our sins brought him in further we brought in the body of death Our life was left by Adam a thousand years long almost but the iniquity of man brought it quickly to 500 years from thence to 250 from thence to 120 and at last to seventy and then God would no more strike all mankind in the same manner but individuals and single sinners smart for it and are cut off in their youth and do not live out half their days And so it is in the matters of the soul and the spirit Every sin leaves an evil upon the soul and every age grows worse and adds some iniquity of its own to the former examples And therefore Tertullian calls Adam mali traducem he transmitted the original and exemplar and we write after his copy Infirmitatis ingenitae vitium so Arnobius calls our natural baseness we are naturally weak and this weakness is a vice or defect of Nature and our evil usages make our natures worse like Butchers being used to kill beasts their natures grow more savage and unmerciful so it is with us all If our parents be good yet we often prove bad as the wild olive comes from the branch of a natural olive or as corn with the chaff come from clean grain and the uncircumcised from the circumcised But if our parents be bad it is the less wonder if their children are so a Blackamore begets a Blackamore as an Epileptick son does often come from an Epileptick father and hereditary diseases are transmitted by generation so it is in that viciousness that is radicated in the body for a lustful father oftentimes begets a lustful son and so it is in all those instances where the soul follows the temperature of the body And thus not only Adam but every father may transmit an Original sin or rather an Original viciousness of his own For a vicious nature or a natural improbity when it is not consented to is not a sin but an ill disposition Philosophy and the Grace of God must cure it but it often causes us to sin before our reason and our higher principles are well attended to But when we consent to and actuate our evil inclinations we spoil our natures and make them worse making evil still more natural For it is as much in our nature to be pleased with our artificial delights as with our natural And this is the doctrine of S. Austin speaking of Concupiscence Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quòd peccata facta est peccati si vicerit facit reum Concupiscence or the viciousness of our Nature is after a certain manner of speaking called sin because it is made worse by sin and makes us guilty of sin when it is consented to It hath the nature of sin so the article of the Church of England expresses it that is it is in eâdem materiâ it comes from a weak principle à naturae vitio from the imperfect and defective nature of man and inclines to sin But that I may again use S. Austins words Quantum ad nos attiâ—et sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum Although we all have concupiscence yet none of us all should have any sin if we did not consent to this concupiscence unto evil Concupiscence is Naturae vitium but not peccatum a defect or fault of nature but not formally a sin which distinction we learn from S. Austin Non enim talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt Concupiscence is an evil as a weak eye is but not a sin if we speak properly till it be consented to and then indeed it is the parent of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. James it brings forth sin 85. This is the vile state of our natural viciousness and improbity and misery in which Adam had some but truly not the biggest share and let this consideration sink as deep as it will in us to make us humble and careful but let us not use it as an excuse to lessen our diligence by greatning our evil necessity For death and sin were both born from Adam but we have nurs'd them up to an ugly bulk and deformity But I must now proceed to other practical rules 86. II. It is necessary that we understand that our natural state is not a state in which we can hope for heaven Natural agents can effect but natural ends by natural instruments and now supposing the former doctrine that we lost not the Divine favour by our guilt of what we never did consent to yet we were born in pure naturals and they some of them worsted by our forefathers yet we were at the best born but in pure naturals and we must be born again that as by our first birth we are heirs of death so by our new birth we may be adopted into the inheritance of life and salvation 87. III. It is our duty to be humbled in the consideration of our selves and of our natural condition That by distrusting our own strengths we may take sanctuary in God through Jesus Christ praying for his grace entertaining and caressing of his holy Spirit with purities and devotions with charity and humility infinitely fearing to grieve him lest he leaving us we be left as Adam left us in pure naturals but in some degrees worsted by the nature of sin in some instances and the anger of God in all that is in the state of flesh and blood which shall never inherit the
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
chosen my friend wisely or fortunately he cannot be the correlative in the best Union but then the friend lives as the soul does after death it is in the state of separation in which the soul strangely loves the body and longs to be reunited but the body is an useless trunk and can do no ministeries to the soul which therefore prays to have the body reformed and restored and made a brave and a fit companion So must these best friends when one is useless or unapt to the braveries of the princely friendship they must love ever and pray ever and long till the other be perfected and made fit in this case there wants only the body but the soul is still a relative and must be so for ever A Husband and a Wife are the best friends but they cannot always signifie all that to each other which their friendships would as the Sun shines not upon a Valley which sends up a thick vapour to cover his face and though his beams are eternal yet the emission is intercepted by the intervening cloud But however all friendships are but parts of this a man must leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife that is the dearest thing in Nature is not comparable to the dearest thing of friendship and I think this is argument sufficient to prove friendship to be the greatest band in the world Adde to this that other friendships are part of this they are marriages too less indeed than the other because they cannot must not be all that endearment which the other is yet that being the principal is the measure of the rest and are all to be honoured by like dignities and measured by the same rules and conducted by their portion of the same Laws But as Friendships are Marriages of the soul and of fortunes and interests and counsels so they are Brotherhoods too and I often think of the excellencies of friendships in the words of David who certainly was the best friend in the world Ecce quà m bonum quà m jucundum fratres habitare in unum It is good and it is pleasant that Brethren should live like friends that is they who are any ways relative and who are any ways social and confederate should also dwell in Unity and loving society for that is the meaning of the word Brother in Scripture It was my Brother Jonathan said David such Brothers contracting such friendships are the beauties of society and the pleasure of life and the festivity of minds and whatsoever can be spoken of love which is God's eldest daughter can be said of vertuous friendships and though Carneades made an eloquent Oration at Rome against justice yet never saw a Panegyrick of malice or ever read that any man was witty against friendship Indeed it is probable that some men finding themselves by the peculiarities of friendship excluded from the participation of those beauties of society which enamel and adorn the wise and the vertuous might suppose themselves to have reason to speak the evil words of envy and detraction I wonder not for all those unhappy souls which shall find Heaven-gates shut against them will think they have reason to murmur and blaspheme The similitude is apt enough for that is the region of friendship and Love is the light of that glorious Country but so bright that it needs no Sun Here we have fine and bright rays of that Celestial flame and though to all mankind the light of it is in some measure to be extended like the treasures of light dwelling in the South yet a little do illustrate and beautifie the North yet some live under the line and the beams of friendship in that position are imminent and perpendicular I know but one thing more in which the Communications of friendship can be restrained and that is in Friends and Enemies Amicus amici amicus meus non est My friends friend is not always my friend nor his enemy mine for if my friend quarrel with a third person with whom he hath had no friendships upon the account of interest if that third person be my friend the nobleness of our friendships despises such a quarrel and what may be reasonable in him would be ignoble in me sometimes it may be otherwise and friends may marry one anothers loves and hatreds but it is by chance if it can be just and therefore because it is not always right it cannot be ever necessary In all things else let friendships be as high and expressive till they become an Union or that friends like the Molionidae be so the same that the flames of their dead bodies make but one Pyramis no charity can be reproved and such friendships which are more than shadows are nothing else but the rays of that glorious grace drawn into one centre and made more active by the Union and the proper significations are well represented in the old Hieroglyphick by which the Ancients depicted friendship In the beauties and strength of a young man bare-headed rudely clothed to signifie its activity and lastingness readiness of action and aptnesses to do service Upon the fringes of his garment was written Mors vita as signifying that in life and death the friendship was the same on the forehead was written Summer and Winter that is prosperous and adverse accidents and states of life the left arm and shoulder was bare and naked down to the heart to which the finger pointed and there was written longè propè by all which we know that friendship does good far and near in Summer and Winter in life and death and knows no difference of state or accident but by the variety of her services and therefore ask no more to what we can be obliged by friendship for it is every thing that can be honest and prudent useful and necessary For this is all the allay of this Universality we may do any thing or suffer any thing that is wise or necessary or greatly beneficial to my friend and that in any thing in which I am perfect master of my person and fortunes But I would not in bravery visit my friend when he is sick of the plague unless I can do him good equal at least to my danger but I will procure him Physicians and prayers all the assistances that he can receive and that he can desire if they be in my power and when he is dead I will not run into his grave and be stifled with his earth but I will mourn for him and perform his will and take care of his relatives and do for him as if he were alive and I think that is the meaning of that hard saying of a Greek Poet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To me though distant let thy friendship fly Though men be mortal friendships must not die Of all things else there 's great satiety Of such immortal abstracted pure friendships indeed there is no great plenty and to see brothers
kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life We do not interpose in this Opinion to say that it is true or false probable or improbable for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith or necessary belief so far as we find But we observe from hence that if their opinion be true then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false If it be not true yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd Opinion of the Fathers is at least new no Catholick Doctrine not belived in the Primitive Church and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine But besides these things it is certain that the Doctrine of Purgatory before the day of Judgment in Saint Augustine's time was not the Doctrine of the Church it was not the Catholick Doctrine for himself did doubt of it Whether it be so or not it may be inquired and possibly it may be found so and possibly it may never so Saint Augustine In his time therefore it was no Doctrine of the Church and it continued much longer in uncertainty for in the time of Otho Frisingensis who liv'd in the year 1146. it was gotten no further than to a Quidam asserunt some do affirm that there is a place of Purgatory after death And although it is not to be denied but that many of the ancient Doctors had strange Opinions concerning Purgations and Fires and Intermedial states and common Receptacles and liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life yet we can truly affirm it and can never be convinc'd to erre in this affirmation that there is not any one of the Ancients within five hundred years whose opinion in this Article throughout the Church of Rome at this day follows But the people of the Roman Communion have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear and by their credulity they have been softned and intic'd into this belief by perpetual tales and legends by which they lov'd to be abus'd To this purpose their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of Saint Hierom after death to Eusebius commanding him to lay his fack upon the corps of three dead men that they arising from death might confess Purgatory which formerly they had denied The story is written in an Epistle imputed to Saint Cyril but the ill luck of it was that Saint Hierom out-lived Saint Cyril and wrote his life and so confuted that story but all is one for that they believe it nevertheless But there are enough to help it out and if they be not firmly true yet if they be firmly believ'd all is well enough In the Speculum exemplorum it is said That a certain Priest in an extasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains and afterwards climbing up to Heaven upon a shining Pillar And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs and some Devils basting them with scalding Lard but a while after they were carried to a cool place and so prov'd Purgatory But Bishop Theobald standing upon a piece of Ice to cool his feet was nearer Purgatory than he was aware and was convinc'd of it when he heard a poor soul telling him that under that Ice he was tormented and that he should be delivered if for thirty dayes continual he would say for him thirty Masses and some such thing was seen by Conrade and Vdalric in a Pool of water For the place of Purgatory was not yet resolv'd on till Saint Patrick had the key of it delivered to him which when one Nicholas borrowed of him he saw as strange and true things there as ever Virgil dreamed of in his Purgatory or Cicero in his dream of Scipio or Plato in his Gorgias or Phaedo who indeed are the surest Authors to prove Purgatory But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of Trent there are yet remaining more certain Arguments even revelations made by Angels and the testimony of Saint Odilio himself who heard the Devil complain and he had great reason surely that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands by the Alms and Prayers of the living and the Sister of Saint Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper told her Brother that she was to be tormented for fifteen dayes in Purgatory We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narratives for if they did they were not wise But this we know that by such stories the people were brought into a belief of it and having served their turn of them the Master-builders used them as false Arches and Centries taking them away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by Authority But even the better sort of them do believe them or else they do worse for they urge and cite the Dialogues of Saint Gregory the Oration of Saint John Damascen de Defunctis the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemoration of All-souls which nevertheless was instituted after Saint Augustine's death and divers other citations which the Greeks in their Apology call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holds and the Castles the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons But in this they are the less to be blamed because better Arguments than they have no men are tied to make use of But against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our charges that besides that the Scriptures expresly forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth the Holy Doctors of the Church particularly Tertullian Saint Athanasius Saint Chrysostom Isidor and Theophylact deny that the souls of the dead ever do appear and bring many reasons to prove that it is unfitting they should saying If they did it would be the cause of many errors and the Devils under that pretence might easily abuse the World with notices and revelations of their own and because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets and especially to hear that Prophet whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us our blessed Jesus who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church But because we are now representing the Novelty of this Doctrine and proving that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church nor at all esteemed a matter of Faith whether there was or was not any such place or state we add this That the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latins in this particular since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the Laboratories of Rome and in the Council of Basil publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory How afterwards they
were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half-consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolv'd that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration We add this only to make the conviction more manifest We have thought fit to annex some few but very clear testimonies of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory Saint Cyprian saith Quando istinc excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis effectus When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction Saint Dionysius call the extremity of death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our Agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never-failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates Saint Justin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd but the souls of the just into Paradise where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels Saint Ambrose saith That Death is a Haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it finds every man so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come The same is affirmed by Saint Hilary c Saint Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of Rest. Saint Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms That after this life there is no purgation For after Christ's ascension into Heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of Darkness said Olympiodorus And lastly we recite the words of Saint Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or any of the precedent are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we add the saying of Christ and we rely upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgment but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgment of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgment or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow SECT V. THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches Declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third one thousand two hundred years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof
certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia said Alphonsus à Castro and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknowledge The thing is true they say but if it were not yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Jesu Christe rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni de profundo lacu libera eos de ore leonis ne absorbeat eos Tartarus ne cadant in obscurum So it is in the Masses pro defunctis And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted and in Hell nothing is forgiven and from hence to conclude that there is no avoiding of Purgatory is too hasty a conclusion let him stay till he comes to Heaven and the final sentence is past and then he will if he finds it to be so have reason to say what he does but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better Saint Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother for the Reasons already expressed though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory It was upon consideration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable nor did she die at all said her Son Hoc documentis ejus morum fide non ficta rationibus certis tenebamus and when he did pray for her Credo jam feceris quod te rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman Saint Austin prayed for pardon for his Mother and did believe the thing was done already but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary Oblation of his mouth So that now all the Objection is vanished S. Austin prayed besides many other Reasons to manifest his kindness not for any need she had But after all this was not Saint Monica a Saint Is she not put in the Roman Calendar and the fourth of May appointed for her Festival And do Saints do Canoniz'd persons use to go to Purgatory But let it be as it will I only desire that this be remembred against a good time that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed I fear it will be denied by and by But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory for the Patriarchs Apostles c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and therefore if it can be made good they have no probability left upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory I have already offered something in proof of this which I shall now review and confirm fully I begin with that of Durantus whom I alledged as confessing that they offer'd for the Patriarchs and Prophets and the Blessed Virgin I intend him for no more for true it is he denies that the Church prayed for them but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them even for the Blessed Virgin Mary her self this he grants I have alledged him a little out of the order because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken and with what boldness they say that offering for them is only giving thanks and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists but no Prayers I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error viz. that Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis is not Prayer and then to make it clear that they did really pray for mercy for pardon for a place of rest for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgatory for it is a great ignorance to suppose that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered it must mean only thanksgiving For it is called in Saint Dionys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Eucharistical prayer and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead And Saint Cyprian speaking of Bishops being made Executors of Testaments saith Si quis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebratur Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit Where offerre and celebrare sacrificium pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer and Saint Cyprian presently after joyns them together pro dormitione ejus oblatio aut deprecatio And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy us'd in the dayes of Pope Innocent the third we shall find this well expounded prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam They offered but the Offering it self was not Eucharistical but deprecatory And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy publish'd at Crackow Per hanc etiam oblationem da aeternam pacem omnibus qui nos precesserunt in fide Christi sanctis Patribus Patriarchis Apostolis Prophetis Martyribus c. which testimony does not only evince that the offering Sacrifices and Oblations for the Saints did signifie praying for them but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever And concerning Saint Chrysostom that which Sixtus Senensis sayes is material to this very purpose Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata conscripsit formulam precandi offerendi pro omnibus fidelibus defunctis praecipue pro animabus beatorum in haec verba Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis Martyribus c. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs but that they intended to do so when they offered the Sacramental Oblations and offerimus is offerimus tibi preces Now since it is so I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus that he acknowledged so much that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints Now though he presently kick'd this down with his foot and denied that they prayed for Saints departed I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman Contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a Witness but because I cited no words of his and my Adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the Argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the Just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists
Denis means that death is the end of all the agonies of this life A goodly note and never revealed till then and now as if this were a good argument to encourage men to contend bravely and not to fear death because when they are once dead they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life indeed you may go to worse and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges see the words of S. Dionys They that live a holy life looking to the true promises of God as if they were to behold the truth it self in that resurrection which is according to it with firm and true hope and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death as to an end of all holy contentions now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true and that they who had contended here and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition should be told that now they shall go to worse he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comforters No the servant of God coming to the end of his own troubles viz. by death is filled with holy gladness and with much rejoycing ascends to the way of Divine regeneration viz. to immortality which word can hardly mean that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire The words of Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of those Questions and Answers imputed to him affirms that presently after the departure of the soul from the body a distinction is made between the just and the unjust for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them the souls of the just to Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades the invisible region or Hell Against these words because they pinch severely E. W. thinks himself bound to say something and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says after our departure presently there is a separation made he answers that Justin Matyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgment for so it seems he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presently after death to mean the day of judgment of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing And whereas Justin Martyr says that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise E. W. answers 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven no Justin says into Paradise true but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell that is a place of bliss the region of the blessed But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise That 's the next answer which the very words of Justin do contradict There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved This is the separation which is made one is carried to Paradise the other to a place in hell But these being such pitiful offers at answering the Gentleman tries another way and says 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis that Justin Martyr and many other of the Fathers affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life To this I answer that one opinion does not contradict another for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places and have antepasts of joy and comforts yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antedate the final sentence and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of Piety as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety yet as these do not hinder but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval They can both consist together and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers And methinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions for he quotes him saying there is a double beatitude the one imperfect of soul only the other consummate and perfect of soul and body The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub Altare c. The other perfect joy the glory of the resurrection c. But it matters not what is said or how it be contradicted so it seem but to serve a present turn But at last if nothing of this will do these words are not the words of Justin for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos To which I answer it matters not whether they be Justins or no But they are put together in the collection of his works and they are generally called his and cited under his name and made use of by Bellarmine when he supposes them to be to his purpose However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox and so esteem'd in the Church and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors well but how is this against Purgatory says E. W. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory To this I answer that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books he might have been questioned and followed Mr. Whites fortune And he adds it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion that is Purgatory might be after the day of judgment for so Origen held that all the fires are Purgatory and the Devils themselves should be sav'd Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the Dissuasive cares not to answer by a condemned heresie rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England But however the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so that they thrust him into a corner for in these receptacles the godly have joy and they enter into them as soon as they die and abide there till the day of judgment S. Ambrose is so full pertinent and material to
of us from Heaven they that say that not every solution or breaking of them is exclusive from Heaven which are the words of Bellarmine and the doctrine of the Roman Church must even by the consequence of this very gloss of his fall under the danger of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the false teachers or the breakers of them by false interpretation However fearful is the malediction even to the breakers of the least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the words of Theophylact he shall be last in the resurrection and shall be thrown into Hell for that is the meaning of least in the Kingdom of Heaven fortasse ideò non erit in regno coelorum ubi nisi magni esse non possunt said S. Austin least is none at all for into Heaven none can enter but they which are great in Gods account 19. VII Lastly God hath given us the perpetual assistances of his Spirit the presence of his grace the ministery of his word the fear of judgments the endearment of his mercies the admonition of friends the severity of Preachers the aid of Books the apprehension of death the sense of our daily dangers our continual necessities and the recollection of our prayers and above all he hath promised Heaven to the obedient which is a state of blessings so great and infinite as upon the account of them it is infinitely reasonable and just if he shall exact of us every sin that is every thing which we can avoid 20. Upon this account it is that although wise and prudent men do not despise the continual endearments of an old friend yet in many cases God may and doth and from the rules and proper measures of humane friendship to argue up to a presumption of Gods easiness in not exacting our duty is a fallacious proceeding but it will deceive no body but our selves 21. II. Every sin is directly against Gods law and therefore is damnable and deadly in the accounts of the Divine justice one as well though not so grievously as another For though sins be differenc'd by greater and less yet their proportion to punishment is not differenc'd by Temporal and Eternal but by greater and less in that kind which God hath threatned So Origen Vnusquisque pro qualitate quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit Si parum est quod peccas ferieris damnâ— minuti ut Lucas scripsit ut verò Matthaeus quadrantis Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod eâ—estitisti debitor solvere Non enim inde exibis nisi minima quaeque persolveris Every one according to the quantity and quality of his sin must pay his fine but till he hath paid he shall not be loosed from those fearful prisons that is he shall never be loosed if he agree not before he comes thither The smallest offence is a sin and therefore it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law a violation of that band by which our obedience unites us unto God And this the holy Scripture signifies unto us in various expressions For though the several words are variously used in sacred and profane writers yet all of them signifie that even the smallest sin is a prevarication of the Holy laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen calls sin which we render well by Transgression and even those words which in distinction signifie a small offence yet they also signifie the same with the greater words to shew that they all have the same formality and do the same displeasure or at least that by the difference of the words no difference of their natures can be regularly observed Sins against God only are by Phavorinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same word is also used for sin against our neighbours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thy brother sin against thee that is do thee injury and this is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 injustice But Demosthenes distinguishes injustice from sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary and involuntary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that does wrong willingly is unjust he that does it unwillingly is a sinner 22. The same indistinction is observable in the other words of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by S. Hierome used for the beginnings of sin Cum cogitatio tacita subrepit ex aliquâ— parte conniventibus nobis nec dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam when a sudden thought invades us without our advertency and observation and hath not brought forth death as yet and yet that death is appendent to whatsoever it be that can be signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may observe because the sin of Adam that called death upon all the world is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Ephesian Gentiles S. Paul said they had been dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in trespasses and sins and therefore it cannot hence be inferred that such little obliquities or beginnings of greater sins are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the law not against it for it is at least the word hinders not but it may be of the same kind of malignity as was the sin of Adam And therefore S. Austin renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delictum or offence and so do our Bibles And the same also is the case of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is attributed even to concupiscence or the beginnings of mischief by S. Paul and by S. Hierome but the same is used for the consummation of concupiscence in the matter of uncleanness by S. James Lust when it hath conceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum is the Latin word which when it is used in a distinct and pressed sence it is taken for the lesser sins and is distinguished from crimen Paulus Orosius uses it to signifie only the concupiscence or sinful thoughts of the heart and when it breaks forth to action he calls it a crime peccatum cogitatio concipit crimen verò non nisi actus ostendit and it was so used by the ancient Latins Peccatus it was called by them quasi pellicatus that inticing which is proper to uncleanness So Cicero in A. Gellius Nemo ita manifesto peccatu tenebatur ut cum impudens fuisset in facto tum impudentior videretur si negaret Thus the indistinction of words mingles all their significations in the same common notion and formality They were not sins at all if they were not against a Law and if they be they cannot be of their own nature venial but must be liable to that punishment which was threatned in the Law whereof that action is a transgression 23. II. The Law of God never threatens the justice of God never inflicts punishment but upon transgressors of his Laws the smallest offences are not only threatned but may be punished with death therefore
pardon till he be reconciled to his Father but if he be yet his Father may chastise his little misdemeanors or reserve some of his displeasure so far as may minister to discipline not to destruction and therefore if a son have escaped his Fathers anger and final displeasure let him remember that though his Father is not willing to dis-inherit him yet he will be ready to chastise him And we see it by the whole dispensation of God that the righteous are punished and afflictions begin at the House of God and God is so impatient even of little evils in them that to make them pure he will draw them through the fire and there are some who are sav'd yet so as by fire And certainly those sins ought not to be neglected or esteemed little which provoke God to anger even against his servants We find this instanc'd in the case of the Corinthians who used undecent circumstances and unhandsome usages of the blessed Sacrament even for this God severely reprov'd them for this cause many are weak and sick and some are fallen asleep which is an expression used in Scripture to signifie them that die in the Lord and is not used to signifie the death of them that perish from the presence of the Lord. These persons died in the state of grace and repentance but yet died in their sin chastised for their lesser sins but so that their souls were sav'd This is that which Clemens Alexandrinus affirms of sins committed after our illumination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These sins must be purged with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the chastisements of sons The result of this consideration is that which S. Peter advises that we pass the time of our sojourning here in fear for no man ought to walk confidently who knows that even the most laudable life hath in it evil enough to be smarted for with a severe calamity 52. IX The most trifling actions the daily incursions of sins though of the least malignity yet if they be neglected combine and knit together till by their multitude they grow insupportable This caution I learn from Caesarius Arelatensis Et hoc considerate Fratres quia etiamsi capitalia crimina non subreperent ipsa minuta peccata quae quod pejus est aut non attendimus aut certè pro nihilo computamus si simul omnia congregentur nescio quae bonorum operum abundantia illis praeponderare sufficiat Although capital sins invade you not yet if your minutes your small sins which either we do not consider at all or value not at all be combin'd or gathered into one heap I know not what multitude of good works will suffice to weigh them down For little sins are like the sand and when they become a heap are heavy as lead and a leaking ship may as certainly perish with the little inlets of water as with a mighty wave for of many drops a river is made and therefore ipsa minuta vel levia non contemnantur Illa enim quae humanae fragilitati quamvis parva tamen crebra subrepunt quasi collecta contra nos fuerint ita nos gravabunt sicut unum aliquod grande peccatum Let not little sins be despised for even those smallest things which creep upon us by our natural weakness yet when they are gathered together against us stand on an heap and like an army of flies can destroy us as well as any one deadly enemy Quae quamvis singula non lethali vulnere ferire sentiantur sicut homicidium adulterium vel caetera hujusmodi tamen omnia simul congregata velut scabies quo plura sunt necant nostrum decus ita exterminant ut à filii sponsi speciosi formâ prae filiis hominum castissimis amplexibus separent nisi medicamento quotidianae poenitentiae dissecentur Indeed we do not feel every one of them strike so home and deadly as murder and adultery does yet when they are united they are like a scab they kill with their multitude and so destroy our internal beauty that they separate us from the purest embraces of the Bridegroom unless they be scattered with the medicine of a daily repentance For he that does these little sins often and repents not of them nor strives against them either loves them directly or by interpretation 53. X. Let no man when he is tempted to a sin go then to take measures of it because it being his own case he is an unequal and incompetent Judge His temptation is his prejudice and his bribe and it is ten to one but he will suck in the poyson by his making himself believe that the potion is not deadly Examine not the particular measures unless the sin be indeed by its disreputation great then examine as much as you please provided you go not about to lessen it It is enough it is a sin condemned by the laws of God and that death and damnation are its wages 54. XI When the mischief is done then you may in the first days of your shame and sorrow for it with more safety take its measures For immediately after acting sin does to most men appear in all its ugliness and deformitty and if in the days of your temptation you did lessen the measure of your sin yet in the days of your sorrow do not shorten the measures of repentance Every sin is deadly enough and no repentance or godly sorrow can be too great for that which hath deserved the eternal wrath of God 55. XII I end these advices with the meditation of S. Hierom. Si ira sermonis injuria atque interdum jocus judicio concilióque atque Gehennae ignibus delegatur quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio avaritia quae est radix omnium malorum If anger and injurious words and sometimes a foolish jest is sentenc'd to capital and supreme punishments what punishment shall the lustful and the covetous have And what will be the event of all our souls who reckon these injurious or angry words of calling Fool or Sot amongst the smallest and those which are indeed less we do not observe at all For who is there amongst us almost who calls himself to an account for trifling words loose laughter the smallest beginnings of intemperance careless spending too great portions of our time in trifling visits and courtships balls revellings phantastick dressings sleepiness idleness and useless conversation neglecting our times of prayer frequently or causlesly slighting religion and religious persons siding with factions indifferently forgetting our former obligations upon trifling regards vain thoughts wandrings and weariness at our devotion love of praise laying little plots and snares to be commended high opinion of our selves resolutions to excuse all and never to confess an error going to Church for vain purposes itching ears love of flattery and thousands more The very kinds of them put together are a heap and therefore the so frequent and almost
is done in the same degree the repentance is perfect more or less For there is a latitude in this duty as there are degrees of perfection SECT II. 1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 1. THAT this doctrine is of great usefulness and advantage to the necessity and perswasions of holy life is a good probable inducement to believe it true especially since God is so essential an enemy to sin since he hath used such rare arts of the Spirit for the extermination of it since he sent his holy Son to destroy it and he is perpetually destroying it and will at last make that it shall be no more at all but in the house of cursing the horrible regions of damnation But I will use this only as an argument to all pious and prudent persons to take off all prejudices against the severity of this doctrine For it is nothing so much against it if we say it is severe as it makes for it that we understand it to be necessary For this doctrine which I am now reproving although it be the doctrine properly of the Roman Schools yet it is their and our practice too We sin with greediness and repent at leisure Pars magna Italiae est si verum admittimus in quâ Nemo togam sumit nisi mortuus No man puts on his mourning garment till he be dead This day we seldom think it fit to repent but the day appointed for repentance is always To morrow Against which dangerous folly I offer these considerations 2. I. If the duty of repentance be indispensably requir'd in the danger of death and he that does not repent when he is arrested with the probability of so sad a change is felo de se uncharitable to himself and a murderer of his own soul then so is he in his proportion who puts it off one day because every day of delay is a day of danger and the same law of charity obliges him to repent to day if he sinn'd yesterday lest he be dead before to morrow The necessity indeed is not so great and the duty is not so urgent and the refusal is not so great a sin in health as in sickness and dangers imminent and visible But there are degrees of necessity as there are degrees of danger And he that considers how many persons die suddenly and how many more may and no man knows that he shall not cannot but confess that because there is danger there is also an obligation of duty and charity to repent speedily and that positively or carelesly to put it off is a new fault and increases Gods enmity against him He that is well may die to morrow He that is very sick may recover and live many years If therefore a periculum ne fiat a danger lest repentance be never done is a sufficient determination of the Divine Commandment to do it then it is certain that it is in every instant determinately necessary because in every instant there is danger In all great sicknesses there is not an equal danger yet in all great sicknesses it is a particular sin not to repent even by the confession of all sides it is so therefore in all the periods of an uncertain life a sin but in differing degrees And therefore this is not an argument of caution only but of duty For therefore it is of duty because it is of caution It could not be a caution unless there were a danger and if there be a danger then it is a duty For he that is very sick must do it But how if he escapes was he obliged for all that He was because he knew not that he should escape By the same reason is every one obliged because whether he shall or shall not escape the next minute he knows not And certainly it was none of the least reasons of Gods concealing the day of our death that we might ever stand ready And this is plainly enough taught us by our blessed Saviour laboriously perswading and commanding us not to defer our repentance by his parable of the rich man who promised to himself the pleasures of many years he reprov'd that folly with a Stulte hac nocte and it may be any mans case for Nemo tam felix Crastinum ut possit sibi polliceri But he adds a Precept Let your loyns be girded about and your lights shining and ye your selves like men that wait for their Lord. And blessed are those servants whom their Lord when he cometh shall find watching And much more to the same purpose Nay that it was the reason why God concealed the time of his coming to us that we might always expect him he intimated in the following Parable This know that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come he would have watched Be ye therefore ready also for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not Nothing could better have improved this argument than these words of our blessed Saviour we must stand in procinctu ready girded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ready for the service always watching as uncertain of the time but in perpetual expectation of the day of our Lord. I think nothing can be said fuller to this purpose But I add the words of S. Austin Verum quidem dicis quòd Deus poenitentiae tuae indulgentiam promisit sed huic dilationi tuae crastinum non promisit To him that repents God hath promised pardon but to him that defers repentance he hath not promised the respite of one day It is certain therefore he intended thou shouldest speedily repent and since he hath by words and deeds declar'd this to be his purpose he that obeys not is in this very delay properly and specifically a Transgressor 3. II. I consider that although the precept of repentance be affirmative yet it is also limited and the time sufficiently declared even the present and none else As soon as ever you need it so soon you are obliged To day if ye will hear his voice harden not your hearts That is defer not to hear him this day for every putting it off is a hardening your hearts For he that speaks to day is not pleased if you promise to hear him to morrow It was Felix his case to S. Paul Go away I will hear thee some other time He that calls every day means every day that we should repent For although to most men God gives time and leisure and expects and perseveres to call yet this is not because he gives them leave to defer it but because he still forbears to strike though their sin grows greater Now I demand when God calls us to repentance is it indifferent to him whether we repent to day or no Why does he call so earnestly if he desires it so coldly Or if he be not indifferent is he displeas'd if we repent speedily This no man thinks
that 's a full account of this particular since the Laws of our Religion require of us a holy life but the Religion could demand of strangers nothing but to believe and at first to promise to obey and then to 〈◊〉 it accordingly if they shall live Now to do this was never too late and this is all which is affirmed by S. Cyprian 65. S. Hierome affirm'd Nunquam sera est conversio latro de cruce transiit ad Paradisum And S. Austin De nullo desperandum est quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit and again De quocunque pessimo in hâc vitâ constituto utique non est desperandum Ne◠pro illo imprudentèr oratur de quo non desperatur Concerning the words of S. Hierome the same answer will serve which I gave to the words of S. Cyprian because his instance is of the Thief upon the Cross who then came first to Christ and his case was as if a Heathen were new converted to Christianity Baptizatus ad horam securus hinc exit was the Rule of the Church But God requires more holiness of Christians than he did of strangers and therefore he also expects a longer and more laborious Repentance But of this I have given account in the case of Demetrianus S. Austins words press not at all All that he sayes is this We must despair of no man so long as the mercy of God leadeth him to repentance It is true we must not absolutely despair but neither must we presume without a warrant nay hope as long as God calls effectually But when the severity of God cuts him off from repentance by allowing him no time or not time enough to finish what is required the case is wholly differing But S. Chrysostome speaks words which are not easie to be reconciled to the former doctrine The words of S. Chrysostome are these Take heed of saying that there is a place of pardon onely for them that have sinn'd but little For if you please suppose any one abounding with all maliciousness and that hath done all things which shut men from the Kingdome let this man be not a Heathen but a Christian and accepted of God but afterwards an Whoremonger an Adulterer an effeminate person unnaturally lustfull a thief a drunkard a slanderer and one that hath diligently committed such crimes truly I will not be to him an author of despairing although he had persevered in these wickednesses to an extreme old age Truly neither would I. But neither could he nor any man else be forward to warrant his particular But if the remaining portion of his old age be well imployed according as the time is and the spending of that time and the earnestness of the repentance and the greatness of the grief and the heartiness of the return and the fulness of the restitution and the zeal of amends and the abundance of charity and the largeness of the devotion so we approach to very many degrees of hope But there is difference between the case of an extreme old age and a death-bed That may have more time and better faculties and fitted opportunities and a clearer choice and a more perfect resistance between temptation and grace But for the state of death-bed although there is in that also some variety yet the best is very bad and the worst is stark naught but concerning the event of both God only is the Judge Only it is of great use that Chrysostom says in the same Letters to Theodorus Quódque est majoris facilitatis argumentum etiamsi non omnem prae se fert poenitentiam brevem illam exiguo tempore factam non abnuit sed magnâ mercede compensat Even a dying person ought not to despair and leave off to do those little things of which only there is then left to him a possibility because even that imperfect Repentance done in that little time God rejects not but will give to it a great reward So he did to Ahab And whatsoever is good shall have a good some way or other it shall find a recompence but every recompence is not eternal glory and every good thing shall not be recompensed with Heaven To the same purpose is that of Coelestinus reproving them that denied repentance to persons qui obitûs sui tempore hoc animae suae cupiunt remedio subveniri who at the time of their death desired to be admitted to it Horremus fateor tantae impietatis aliquem reperiri ut de Dei pietate desperet quasi non posset ad se quovis tempore concurrenti succurrere periclitantem sub onere peccatorum hominem pondere quo se expedire desiderat liberare I confess saith he we abhor that any one should be found to be of so great impiety as to despair of Gods mercy as if he could not at any time relieve him that comes to him and ease him that runs to be eased of the burthen of his sins Quid hoc rogo aliud est c. What else is this but to add death to the dying man and to kill his soul with cruelty by denying that he can be absolved since God is most ready to help and inviting to repentance thus promises saying In what day soever the sinner shall be converted his sins shall not be imputed to him and again I would not the death of a sinner but that he should be converted and live He therefore takes salvation from a man who denies him his hoped for repentance in the time of his death and he despairs of the clemency of God who does not believe it sufficient to help the dying man in a moment of time The Thief on the Cross hanging on Christs right hand had lost his reward if the repentance of one hour had not helped him When he was in pain he repented and obtain'd Paradise by one discourse Therefore the true conversion to God of dying persons is to be accounted of by the mind rather than by time Thus far S. Coelestine The summ of which is this That dying persons must not be thrust into despair Because Gods mercy is infinite and his power is infinite He can do what he please and he may do more than we know of even more than he hath promised and therefore they that are spiritual must not refuse to do all that they can to such miserable persons And in all this there is nothing to be reproved but that the good man by incompetent arguments goes about to prove what he had a mind to If the hindring such persons to despair be all that he intends it is well if more be intended his arguments will not do it 66. Afterwards in the descending ages of the Church things grew worse and it began to be good doctrine even in the days of S. Isidore Nullus desperare debet veniam etiamsi circa finem vitae ad poenitentiam convertatur Vnumquemque enim Deus de suo fine non
that it is therefore seasonable to hope because it is a duty and the very hope it self God delights to reward for so said the Apostle Cast not away your confidence which hath great recompence of reward And the Church of God imitating the mercies of our gracious God and Father hath denied to give the Sacrament of peace and mercy to none that seek it Viaticum omnibus in morte positis non est negandum And in the saddest consideration of things that can be suppose it be with him as with Simon Magus suppose that he is in the gall of bitterness in the state of damnation in the guilt of a sin which we know not whether God will pardon or not yet still it is wise and pious counsell that he should pray if peradventure he may be forgiven He I say that considers these things will have cause to be very earnest and very busie to lose no time to remit no labour to quit no hope but humbly passionately diligently set upon that duty of repentance which should have long ago come to some perfection Now because I have as I suppose said enough to make men afraid to put off their repentance to their death-bed yet in behalf of those who have been unfortunately lost in their lives or less instructed or violently tempted or unhappily betrayed and are upon their death-beds because though nothing can be ascertain'd to them yet it is not to be suffered that they should utterly despair I have thought fit to transcribe out of the writings of the ancient Doctors such exhortations as may both instruct and comfort promote duty and give some little door of hope but not add boldness in defiance of all the laws of holiness 30. In an epistle of Celestine Bishop of Rome in S. Austins time we find these words Vera ad Deum conversio in ultimis positorum mente potiùs aestimanda est quà m tempore Quum ergo Dominus sit cordis inspector quovis tempore non est deneganda poenitentia postulanti quum ille se obliget Judici cui occulta omnia noverit revelari True conversion is to be accounted of by the mind rather than by time Therefore repentance is not to be denied to him who at any time asks it And he despairs of the clemency of God who thinks it not sufficient or that it cannot relieve the sinner in an instant Donec sumus in hâc vitâ quantacunque nobis acciderint peccata possibile est omnia ablui per poenitentiam said S. Austin As long as we are alive so long it is possible that the vilest sins that are may be wash'd off by repentance Si vulneratus es adhibe tibi curam dum vivis dum spiras etiam in ipso lecto positus etiam si dici potest animam efflans ut jam de hoc mundo exeas Non impeditur temporis angustiâ misericordia Dei. Quid enim est peccatum ad Dei misericordiam tela araneae quae vento flante nusquam comparet So S. Chrysostom If thou art wounded in thy soul take care of it while thou livest even so long as thou canst breath though thou beest now breathing thy last yet take care still The mercy of God cannot be hindred by time For what is thy sin to Gods mercy even as a spiders web when the wind blows it is gone in an instant Many more there are to the same purpose who all speaking of the mightiness of the Divine mercy do insinuate their meaning to be concerning a miraculous or extraordinary mercy And therefore I shall oppose nothing against this only say that it is very sad when men put their hopes of being sav'd upon a miracle and that without a miracle they must perish But yet then to despair is entring into hell before their time and even a course of the greatest imprudence in the world next to that they are already guilty of that is a putting things to that extremity Dandum interstitium paenitentia said Tacitus And Inter vitae negotia diem mortis oportere aliquid spatium intercedere said Charles the Emperour For Nemo mortem venientem hilaris excepit nisi qui se ad eam diu composuerat said Seneca Repentance must have a space of time and from the affairs of the world to rush into the arms of death is too quick a change for him that would fain be saved If he can in the midst of all these disadvantages it is well but he cannot with chearfulness and joy receive his death unless he bestowed much time and care in preparations against that sad solemnity Now concerning these instruments of hope I am yet to give another account lest this either seem to be an easiness and flattery of souls and not warrantable from any revelation from God or if it be that it is also a perfect destruction of all the former doctrine For if it be inquired thus Hath God declared that death-bed penitents shall not be saved or that they may be saved or hath he said nothing at all of it If he hath said they cannot be saved why then do I bid them hope and so abuse them with a false perswasion If he hath said that they may be saved why do I dispute against it and make them fear where God by a just promise hath given them reason to be confident and hath obliged them to believe they shall be saved If he hath said nothing of it why are not they to be comprehended within the general rules of all returning penitents especially since there was one case specially made for their interest the example of the Thief upon the Cross To this I shall give a clear and plain answer That God hath required such conditions of pardon and that the duty of repentance is of such extent and burden that it cannot be finish'd and perform'd by dying persons after a vicious life is evident from all the former arguments and therefore if we make dying mens accounts upon the stock of Gods usual dealing and open revelation their case is desperate for the preceding reasons But why then do I bid them hope if their case be desperate Either God threatning death to all impenitent persons means not to exact death of all but of some only or else when his holy Spirit describes Repentance in severe characters he secretly means to take less than he says For if it be such a work that cannot possibly be done on a death-bed how then can dying persons be called upon to repent for it is vain to repent if it be impossible to hope but if it be possible to do the work of Repentance on our death-bed but only that it is very difficult there is in this affirmative no great matter Every one confesses that and all evil men put it to the venture For the first part of the dilemma I affirm nothing of it God threatning death to all the impenitent excepts none Except ye repent ye
may be acceptable in Jesus Christ. If I perish I perish I have deserved it but I will hope for mercy till thy mercy hath a limit till thy goodness can be numbred O my God let me not perish thou hast no pleasure in my death and it is impossible for man to suffer thy extremest wrath Who can dwell with the everlasting burning O my God let me dwell safely in the embraces of thy sweetest mercy Amen Amen Amen CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin and whether or no or how far we are bound to repent of it SECT I. 1. ORIGINAL sin is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sin of Adam which was committed in the Original of mankind by our first Parent and which hath influence upon all his posterity Nascuntur non propriè sed originalitèr peccatores So S. Austin and therefore S. Ignatius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old impiety that which was in the original or first Parent of mankind 2. This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more A certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality was inflicted on him and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness that is in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men For as God was not bound to give what he never promised viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life so neither does it appear in that angry entercourse that God had with Adam that he took from him or us any of our natural perfections but his graces only 3. Man being left in this state of pure Naturals could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion cannot be acquir'd by any natural means Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness obtain Heaven by desert or by any natural efficiency for it is a gift still and it is neque currentis neque operantis neither of him that runneth nor of him that worketh but of God who freely gives it to such persons whom he also by other gifts and graces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it 4. What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence we know not God hath no where told us and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conjectures But after his fall we find no sign of any thing but of a common man And therefore as it was with him so it is with us our nature cannot go to Heaven without the helps of the Divine grace so neither could his and whether he had them or no it is certain we have receiving more by the second Adam than we did lose by the first and the sons of God are now spiritual which he never was that we can find 5. But concerning the sin of Adam tragical things are spoken it destroyed his original righteousness and lost it to us for ever it corrupted his nature and corrupted ours and brought upon him and not him only but on us also who thought of no such thing an inevitable necessity of sinning making it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry or to be sick and die and the conâ—equent of these things is saddest of all we are born enemies of God sons of wrath and heirs of eternal damnation 6. In the meditation of these sad stories I shall separate the certain from the uncertain that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexions upon Godâ— honour and the reputation of his justice and his goodness I shall do it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly dispute in this Question right or wrong according as it happens 7. By one man sin came into the world That sin entred into the world by Adam is therefore certain because he was the first man and unless he had never sinn'd it must needs enter by him for it comes in first by the first and Death by sin that is Death which at first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly and to the Woman to be subject to her Husband These things were so before and would have been so for the Apostle pressing the duty of subjection gives two reasons why the woman was to obey One of them only was derived from this sin the other was the prerogative of creation for Adam was first formed then Eve so that before her fall she was to have been subject to her husband because she was later in being she was a minor and therefore under subjection she was also the weaker vessel But it had not been a curse and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature 8. Death passed upon all men That is upon all the old world who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam And therefore S. Paul adds that for the reason In as much as all men have sinned If all men have sinned upon their own account as it is certain they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sons and daughters sinned after him and so died in their own sin by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural and a death which their own sins deserved but yet which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so S. Hierome 9. But this is not thought sufficient and men do usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam and in him we all by interpretation sinned and therefore think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all men have sinned ought to be expounded thus Death passed upon all men In whom all men have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinn'd and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punish'd and liable to eternal damnation And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him 10. Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry if it be observed that the words being read Forasmuch as all men have sinned beat a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible if it be
rendred In him it is violent and hard a distinct period by it self without dependence or proper purpose against the faith of all copies who do not make this a distinct period and against the usual manner of speaking 2. This phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in 2 Cor. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not for that we would be unclothed and so it is used in Polybius Suidas and Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is eâ conditione for that cause or condition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quid ades are the words of the Gospel as Suidas quotes them 3. Although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom or in him yet it is so very seldom or infrequent that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification 4. If it did always signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in him which it does not yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do and which the Apostles discourse does infer for even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does divers times signifie forasmuch or for that as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 But 5. supposing all that can be and that it did signifie in whom yet the sence were fair enough as to the whole article for by him or in him we are made sinners that is brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners we are us'd like sinners by him or in him just as when a sinner is justified he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned though he really did sin oftentimes and this for his sake who is made righteousness to us so in Adam we are made sinners that is treated ill and afflicted though our selves be innocent of that sin which was the occasion of our being us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent But how this came to pass is told in the following words 11. For until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come By which discourse it appears that S. Paul does not speak of all minkind as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reach'd only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses This death was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinn'd not so capitally as he did For to sin like Adam is used as a Tragical and a high expression So it is in the Prophet They like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is They like Adam have transgressed and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam for Abel and Seth and Abraham and all the Patriarchs died Enoch only excepted and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world who generally sinn'd like Adam since it passed on and reigned upon less sinners * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams For God was so exasperated with Mankind that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinn'd not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatned had not suffer'd so severely * The case is this Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged all equally innocent equally culpable David took the five sons of Michal for she had left him unhandsomly Jonathan was his friend and therefore he spar'd his son Mephibosheth Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons whether David should take the sons of Michal or of Jonathan but it is likely that as upon the kindness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son so upon the just provocation of Michal he made that evil to fall upon them of which they were otherwise capable which it may be they should not have suffered if their Mother had been kind Adam was to God as Michal to David 12. But there was in it a further design for by this dispensation of death Adam was made a figure of Christ So the Apostle expresly affirms who is the figure of him that was to come that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam though they sinn'd less than Adam so life should be given to the followers of Christ though they were imperfectly righteous that is not after the similitude of Christs perfection 13. But for the further clearing the Article depending upon the right understanding of these words these two things are observable 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further than till Moses For after the giving of Moses's law death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression but by the sanction of Moses's law where death was anew distinctly and expresly threatned as it was to Adam and so went forward upon a new score but introduc'd first by Adam that is he was the cause at first and till Moses also he was in some sence the author and for ever after the precedent and therefore the Apostle said well In Adam we all die his sin brought in the sentence in him it began and from him it passed upon all the world though by several dispensations 2. In the discourse of the Apostle those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from Adam and therefore it did not come upon the account of Natural or Original corruption but they were consider'd as Sinners just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as merely children by title or spiritual birth and adoption but as just and faithful But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle as God gives to these life by Christ which is a greater thing than their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected so here also this part of Adams posterity was punish'd with death for their own sin but this death was brought upon them by Adam that is the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression 14. There is now remaining no difficulty but
sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the Tree of life and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and die without that remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was mortal of himself and we are mortal from him Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit said Justin Martyr Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin and subjected them to death One explicates the other and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin Malum domesticum contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum His sin infected us with death and this infection we derive in our birth that is we are born mortal Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death in him we are sinners as in him we die But this sin is not real and inherent but imputed only to such a degree So S. Cyprian affirms most expresly infans recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit An infant hath not sinn'd save only that being carnally born of Adam in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death 20. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to die was to some a punishment but to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam as I before discours'd upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law But to those who sinned not at all as Infants and Innocents it was merely a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they die but as it related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil afflicted for their sin or any guiltiness of their own properly so called 21. We find nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Other things are said but I find no warrant for them in that sence they are usually suppos'd and some of them in no sence at all The particulars commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance a proneness to sin a natural malice a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls a loss of our wills liberty and nothing is left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summ of affairs is expounded to be a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are born heirs of damnation 22. Concerning Original or Natural ignorance it is true we derive it from our Parents I mean we are born with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut Neither can we guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall Certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge But concerning his posterity indeed it is true a child cannot speak at first nor understand and if as Plato said all our knowledge is nothing but memory it is no wonder a child is born without knowledge But so it is in the wisest men in the world they also when they see or hear a thing first think it strange and could not know it till they saw or heard it Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam as we do our Nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall we may best guess at by the event for if he had not had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin and became devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary and was left naked and mere and therefore it is not only an Original imperfection which we inherit but in the sence now explicated it is also an Original corruption And this is all As natural death by his sin became a curse so our natural imperfection became natural corruption and that is Original sin Death and imperfection we derive from Adam but both were natural to us but by him they became actual and penal and by him they became worse as by every evil act every principle of evil is improv'd And in this sence this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church We are miserable really sinners in account or effect that properly this improperly and are faln into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it For in Original sin we are to consider the principle and the effects The principle is the actual sin of Adam This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us hath brought upon us a necessity of dying and all the affections of mortality which although they were natural yet would by grace have been hindred Another evil there is upon us and that is Concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him This also from him is derived to us and is by many causes made worse by him and by our selves And this is the whole state of Original sin so far as is fairly warrantable But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing The sin of Adam neither made us 1. Heirs of damnation Nor 2. Naturally and necessarily vicious 23. I. It could not make us Heirs of damnation This I shall the less need to insist upon because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point and have descended to this lesser proportion that Original sin damns only to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face But to this I say these things 24. I. That there are many Divines which believe this alone to be the worm that never dies and the fire that never goeth out that is in effect this and the anguish for this is all the Hell of the damned And unless infants remain infants in the resurrection too which no man that I know affirms or unless they be senseless and inapprehensive it is not to be imagined but that all that know
her pollution that he who did not transmit life should transmit his sin and yet if the soul were traduc'd from the parents and begotten yet sin could not descend because it is not a natural but a superinduc'd quality and if it could then it would follow that we should from every vicious father derive a proper Original sin besides the general 7. If in him we sinned then it were but just that in him we should be punished for as the sin is so ought the punishment to be But it were unjust or at least it seems so that he should sin for us and we be punished for him or that he should sin for us and for himself and yet be punish'd for himself alone 42. III. But if it be said that this happened because of the will and decree of God then there is no more to be done but to look into the record and see what God threatned and what he inflicted He threatned death and inflicted it with all its preparations and solemnities in men and women hard labour in them both which S. Chrysostome thus expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam falling even they that did not eat of the Tree were of him all born mortal He and all his posterity were left in the mere natural state that is in a state of imperfection in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a supernatural end whither God had secretly design'd mankind In this state he could never arrive at Heaven but that was to be supplied by other means for this made it necessary that all should come to Christ and is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and necessity for the baptism of Infants that they being admitted to supernatural promises and assistances may be lifted up to a state above their nature Not only to improve their present good as the Pelagians affirm'd Tam Dives verò hoc donum baptismatis esse Vt parvis etiam vitióque carentibus omni Congruat ut qui sunt geniti bene sint meliores Naturaeque bonum adjecto illustretur honore But to take off that evil state of things whither by occasion of the fall of Adam they were devolv'd and to give them new birth adoption into Christ and the seeds of a new nature so to become children of God and heirs of the promises who in their mere naturals did inherit from Adam nothing but misery and imperfection and death Coelorum regnum sperate hoc fonte renati Non recipit felix vita semel genitos Insons esse volens isto mundare lavacro Seu patrio premeris crimine seu proprio So Xistus in the Verses written upon the Fount of Constantine But 2. It is not to be supposed that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity because from that time ever unto this he by new laws hath required innocence of life or repentance and holiness For besides that it is a great testimony of the Divine favour that God will still imploy us and exact more services of us and that there is no greater argument of joy to us in the world than that we are Gods servants and there can be no greater testimony that God is our God and that of this employing us in his service there can be no greater evidence than the giving to us new laws Besides this I say if man could not obey it is not consistent with the wisdom of God to require of man what he knows man cannot do nor with his justice to punish that in man which he knows man cannot avoid 43. But if it be objected that man had strengths enough in his first Creation but when in Adam he sinned in him also he forfeited all his strengths and therefore his consequent disability being his own fault cannot be his excuse and to whatsoever laws God shall be pleased afterwards to impose he cannot plead his infirmity because himself having brought it on himself must suffer for it It being just in God to exact the law of him even where he is unable to keep it because God once made him able and he disabled himself I answer many things 44. I. That Adam had any more strengths than we have and greater powers of Nature and by his fall lost them to himself and us being part of the question ought not to be pretended till it be proved Adam was a man as his sons are and no more and God gave him strength enough to do his duty and God is as just and loving to us as to him and hath promisâ—d he will lay no more upon us than he will make us able to bear But 2. He that disables himself from doing his Lord service if he does it on purpose that he may not serve him may be punished for not doing all that which was imposed upon him because that servant did chuse his disability that he might with some pretence refuse the service He did disobey in all the following particulars because out of a resolution not to obey in those particulars he made himself unable in the general It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance He that refuses knowledge lest he should understand his duty and he that disables himself that he may not do it may be punished not only for not doing it but for making it impossible to be done But that was not Adams case so far as we know and it is certain it was not ours in the matter of his sin 3. But if he commits a fault which accidentally disables him as if he eats too much and be sick the next day and fall into a fever he may indeed and is justly punished for his gluttony but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weakness he can no ways perform The reason is because this disability was involuntary and an evil accident of it self a punishment of his sin and therefore of it self not punishable and this involuntariness is still the more notorious and certain as the consequents are the more remote 4. No man can be answerable to God for the consequent of his sin unless it be natural foretold or foreseen but for the sin it self he is and as for the consequents superinduc'd by God he must suffer them but not answer for them For these being in the hands of God are not the works of mens hands God hath effected it upon the sinner he is the Author of it and by it he is directly glorified and therefore though by it the sinner is punished yet for it he cannot be punished again 5. But that I may come to the case of the present argument This measure and line of justice is most evident in laws to be imposed after the disability is contracted and not foreseen before concerning which there can be no pretence of justice that the breach of them should be punished If a law be already imposed and a man by his fault loses those
philosoph c. 2. Concupiscere 〈◊〉 concupiscere mentiri non mentiri quaecunque talia in quibus consistunt virtutis vitii opera haec sunt in nostro libero arbitrio B. Macarius Aegyptius hom 15. Caeterúmve semel omninò resonet permanea◠delectus arbitrii libertas quam primitus homini dedit Deus ea propter dispensatione suâ res administrantur corporum solutio sit ut in voluntate hominis situm sit ad bonum vel malum converti Marcus Heremita lib. de Baptismo ultra medium speaks more home to the particular question Haec similia cum sciat scriptura in nostrâ potestate positum esse ut haec agamus nec ne propterea non Satanam neque peccatum Adae sed nos increpat infra Primam conceptionem habemus ex dispensatione quemadmodum ille perinde ac ille pro arbitrio possumus obtemperare vel non obtemperare Julius Firmicus de erroribus profanarum religionum cap. 29. Liberum te Deus fecit in tuâ manu est ut aut vivas aut pereas quia te per abrupta praecipitas S. Ambros. in exposit Psalm 40. Homini dedit eligendi arbitrium quod sequatur ante hominem vita mors si deliqueris non natura in culpa est sed eligentis affectus Gaudentius Brixianus tertio tractat super Exod. Horum concessa semel voluntatis libertas non aufertur ne nihil de eo judicare possit qui liber non fuerit in agendo Boetius libro de consolatione philosophiae Quae cum ita sint manet intemerata mortalibus libertas arbitrii Though it were easie to bring very many more testimonies to this purpose yet I have omitted them because the matter is known to all learned Persons and have chosen these because they testifie that our liberty of choice remains after the fall that if we sin the fault is not in our Nature but in our Persons and Election that still it is in our powers to do good or evil that this is the sentence of the Church that he who denies this is not a Catholick believer 15. And this is so agreeable to nature to experience to the sentence of all wise men to the nature of laws to the effect of reward and punishments that I am perswaded no man would deny it if it were not upon this mistake For many wise and learned men dispute against it because they find it affirmed in H. Scripture every where that grace is necessary that we are servants of sin that we cannot come to God unless we be drawn and very many more excellent things to the same purpose Upon the account of which they conclude that therefore our free will is impaired by Adam's fall since without the grace of God we cannot convert our selves to Godliness and being converted without it we cannot stand and if we stand without it we cannot go on and going on without it we cannot persevere Now though all this be very true yet there is a mistake in the whole Question For when it is affirmed that Adam's sin did not could not impair our liberty but all that freedom of election which was concreated with his reason and is essential to an understanding creature did remain inviolate there is no more said but that after Adam's fall all that which was natural remained and that what Adam could naturally do all that he and we can do afterwards But yet this contradicts not all those excellent discourses which the Church makes of the necessity of Grace of the necessity and effect of which I am more earnestly perswaded and do believe more things than are ordinarily taught in the Schools of Learning But when I say that our will can do all that it ever could I mean all that it could ever do naturally but not all that is to be done supernaturally But then this I add that the things of the Spirit that is all that belongs to spiritual life are not naturally known not naturally discerned but are made known to us by the Spirit and when they are known they are not naturally amiable as being in great degrees and many regards contradictory to natural desires but they are made amiable by the proposition of spiritual rewards and our will is moved by God in wayes not natural and the active and passive are brought together by secret powers and after all this our will being put into a supernatural order does upon these presuppositions choose freely and work in the manner of Nature Our will is after Adam naturally as free as ever it was and in spiritual things it 's free when it is made so by the Spirit for Nature could never do that according to that saying of Celestine Nemo nisi per Christum libero arbitrio benè utitur Omnis sancta cogitatio motus bonae voluntatis ex Deo est A man before he is in Christ hath free-will but cannot use it well He hath motions and operations of will but without God's grace they do not delight in holy things But then in the next place there is another mistake also when it is affirmed in the writings of some Doctors that the will of man is depraved men presently suppose that Depravation is a Natural or Physical effect and means a diminution of powers whereas it signifies nothing but a being in love with or having chosen an evil object and not an impossibility or weakness to do the contrary but only because it will not For the powers of the will cannot be lessened by any act of the same faculty for the act is not contrary to the faculty and therefore can do nothing towards its destruction III. As a consequent of this I infer that there is no natural necessity of sinning that is there is no sinful action to which naturally we are determined but it is our own choice that we sin This depending upon the former stands or falls with it But because God hath super-induced so many Laws and the Devil super-induces temptations upon our weak nature and we are to enter into a supernatural state of things therefore it is that we need the Helps of supernatural grace to enable us to do a supernatural duty in order to a divine end so that the necessity of sinning which we all complain of though it be greater in us than it was in Adam before his fall yet is not absolute in either nor meerly natural but accidental and super-induced and in remedy to it God also hath superinduced and promised his Holy Spirit to them that ask Him SECT IV. Adam's Sin is not imputed to us to our Damnation 16. BUT the main of all is this that this sin of Adam is not imputed unto us to Eternal Damnation For Eternal Death was not threatned to Adam for his sin and therefore could not from him come upon us for that which was none of ours Indeed the Socinians affirm that the death which entered into the
World by Adam's sin was Death Eternal that is God then decreed to punish sinners with the portion of Devils It is likely he did so but that this was the death introduced for the sin of Adam upon all Man-kind is not at all affirmed in Scripture but temporal death is the effect of Adam's sin in Adam we all die and the Death that Adam's sin brought in is such as could have a remedy or recompence by Christ but Eternal Death hath no recompence and shall never be destroyed but temporal death shall But that which I say is this that for Adam's sin alone no man but himself is or can justly be condemned to the bitter pains of Eternal Fire This depends also upon the former accounts because meer Nature brings not to Hell but choice Nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas said S. Bernard and since Original sin is not properly ours but only by imputation if God should impute Adam's sin so as to damn any one for it all our good we receive from God is much less than that evil and we should be infinitely to seek for justifications of God's justice and glorifications of his mercy or testimonies of his goodness But now the matter is on this side so reasonable in it self that let a man take what side he will he shall have parties enough and no prejudices or load of a consenting authority can be against him but that there shall be on the side of reason as great and leading persons as there are of those who have been abused by errour and prejudice In the time of S. Augustine Vincentius Victor and some others did believe that Infants dying without Baptism should never the less be saved although he believed them guilty of Original sin Bucer Peter Martyr and Calvin affirmed the same of the children of faithful Parents but Zuinglius affirmed it of all and that no Infant did lose Heaven for his Original stain and corruption Something less than this was the Doctrine of the Pelagians who exclude Infants unbaptized from the Kingdom of Heaven but promised to them an eternal and a natural beatitude and for it S. Augustine reckons them for Hereticks as indeed being impatient of every thing almost which they said But yet the opinion was imbraced lately by Ambrosius Catherinus Albertus Pighius and Hieronymus Savanarola And though S. Augustine sometimes calls as good Men as himself by the Name of Pelagians calling all them so that assign a third place or state to Infants yet besides these now reckoned S. Gregory Nazianzen and his Scholiast Nicetes did believe and reach it and the same is affirmed also by S. Athanasius or whoever is the Author of the Questions to Antiochus usually attributed to him and also by S. Ambrose or the Author of the Commentaries on S. Paul's Epistles who lived in the time of Pope Damasus that is before 400. Years after Christ and even by S. Augustine himself expresly in his third Book de libero arbitrio cap. 23. But when he was heated with his disputations against the Pelagians he denied all and said that a middle place or state was never heard of in the Church For all this the opinion of a middle state for unbaptized Infants continued in the Church and was expresly affirmed by Pope Innocent the third who although he says Infants shall not see the face of God yet he expresly denies that they shall be tormented in Hell and he is generally followed by the Schoolmen who almost universally teach that Infants shall be deprived of the Vision Beatifical but shall not suffer Hell torments but yet they stoop so much towards S. Augustin's harsh and fierce Opinion that they say this deprivation is a part of Hell not of torment but of banishment from God and of abode in the place of torment Among these they are also divided some affirming that they have some pain of sense but little and light others saying they have none even as they pleased to fancy for they speak wholly without ground and meerly by chance and interest and against the consent of Antiquity as I have already instanced But Gregorius Ariminensis Driedo Luther Melancthon and Tilmanus Heshusius are fallen into the worst of S. Augustine's opinion and sentence poor Infants to the flames of Hell for Original sin if they die before Baptism To this I shall not say much more than what I have said otherwhere But that no Catholick Writer for 400. Years after Christ did ever affirm it but divers affirmed the contrary And indeed if the Unavoidable want of Baptism should damn Infants for the fault which was also unavoidable I do not understand how it can in any sence be true that Christ died for all if at least the Children of Christian Parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's Death because that without the fault of any man they want the ceremony Upon this account some good men observing the great sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing upon any terms to admit Infants to Heaven even without Baptism if any one of their Relatives desire it for them or if the Church desires it which in effect admits all Christian infants to Heaven Of this opinion were Gerson Biel Cajetan and some others All which to my sence seems to declare that if men would give themselves freedom of judgment and speak what they think most reasonable they would speak honour of God's mercy and not impose such fierce and unintelligibe things concerning his justice and goodness since our blessed Saviour concerning infants and those only who are like infants affirms that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven But now in the midst of this great variety of Opinions it will be hard to pick out any thing that is certain For my part I believe this only as certain That Nature alone cannot bring them to Heaven and that Adam left us in a state in which we could not hope for it but this I know also that as soon as this was done Christ was promised and that before there was any birth of Man or Woman and that God's Grace is greater and more communicative than sin and Christ was more Gracious and effective than Adam was hurtful and that therefore it seems very agreeable to God's goodness to bring them to happiness by Christ who were brought to misery by Adam and that he will do this by himself alone in ways of his own finding out And yet if God will not give them Heaven by Christ he will not throw them into Hell by Adam if his goodness will not do the first his Goodness and his Justice will not suffer him to do the second and therefore I consent to Antiquity and the Schoolmens opinion thus far that the destitution or loss of God's sight is the effect of Original sin that is by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go to Heaven But here I differ Whereas they
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
of Original sin as it is commonly explicated at this day For all that this Author for it was indeed some later Catholick Author but not Justin did know of Original sin was that which he relates in the answer to the 102 Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ by baptism putting off Adam by whom we being made sinners did die and putting on Christ by whom being Justified we are risen from the dead In whom saith the Apostle we were circumcised with the circumcision which is made without hands while you have put off your body That is Adam's sin made us to become sinners that is was imputed to us so that in him we die but by Christ being justified we are made alive that is in him we are admitted to another life a life after our resurrection and this is by baptism for there we die to Adam and live to Christ we are initiated in a new birth to a new and more perfect state of things But all this leaves Infants in a state of so much innocence that they are not formally guilty of a sin but imperfect and insufficient to righteousness and every one hath his liberty left him to do as he please so far is affirmed by the author of these answers But the sentence of Justin Martyr in this article may best be conjectured by his discourse at large undertaking to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A freedom of Election to fly evil things and to choose that which is good set down in his second apology for the Christians Theophilus Antiochenus affirms that which destroys the new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about Adam's perfection and rare knowledge in the state of innocence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam in that age was yet as an infant and therefore did not understand that secret viz. that the fruit which he eat had in it nothing but knowledge and a little after reckoning the evil consequents of Adam's sin he names these onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grief sorrow and death at last 20. Clemens of Alexandria having affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that by nature we are born apt to vertue not that we have vertue from our birth but that we are apt to require it from thence takes opportunity to discuss this question whether Adam was formed perfect or imperfect If imperfect how comes it to pass that the 〈◊〉 of God especially Man should be imperfect If perfect how came he to break the commandments He answers that Adam was not made perfect in his constitution but prepared indeed for vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For God would have us by our selves that is by our own choice to be 〈◊〉 For it is the nature of the Soul to be driven and stirred up by it self Many more things to the same purpose he affirms in perfect contradiction to them who believe Adam's sin so to have debauched our faculties that we have lost all our powers of election our powers of election grow stronger not weaker according as our knowledge increases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was in Adam meaning his free-will that was it which grew with the increase of a man Therefore it was not lost by Adam But more pertinent to the present Questions are these words An innocent Martyr suffers like an infant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an infant neither committed actual sin or sin in himself neither hath he sinned before-hand that is properly in Adam to whose sin he gave no consent for else there can be no antithesis or opposition in the parts of his distinction â—â— sinned not actually in himself being one member the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sinning before being opposed to actual sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in himself must mean Original and in another And this he also expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Tatianus and the Encratites did design to prove marriage to be unlawful because it produced nothing but sinners and to that purpose urged those words of Job There is no man free from pollution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though his life be but of one day For so antiquity did generally quote the 25 of Job 4. following the Lxx which interpretâ— the place there being neither the same words nor the like sence in the Hebrew But that very Quotation had no small influence into the forward perswasions of the article concerning Original sin as is visible to them that have read the writings of the Ancient D. D. But to the things here objected Clemens replied Let them tell us theâ— how an infant newly born hath fornicated or polluted himself or how he is fallen under the curse of Adam he who hath done nothing He had no other way to extricate himself For if marriage produces none but sinners persons hated by God formally guilty of sin then as the Fruit is such is the Tree He answers True if it were so but marriage produces infants that are innocent and having done nothing evil yet they never deserved to fall under Adam's curse The effect of which is this that to them sickness and death is a misery but not formally a punishment because they are innocent and formally are no sinners Some to elude this testimony would make these words to be the words of the Encratites or Julius Cassianus but then they are no sence but a direct objection to themselves But the case is clear to them that read and understand and therefore the Learned and Good man Johannes Gerardus Vâ—ssius confesses down-right Clementem Alexandrinum non satis intellexisse peccatum Originale That he did not understand the doctrine of Original sin This only I add that he takes from the Objector that place of David In sin hath my mother conceived 〈◊〉 affirming that by my mother he means Eve and that she peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she was in sin when she conceived him but he was not in sin when he was conceived But the meaning of Clemens Alex. is easily to be understood to be consonant to truth and the usual doctrine of the first ages which makes Adam's sin to be ours by imputation but that no sin upon that title is inherent in us and Clemens Alex. understood the Question very well though not to the purposes of our new Opinions 21. Tertullian speaks of the sin of Adam several times but affirms not that we have any formal proper and inherent sin But that the soul of man is a sinner because it is unclean just as it was amongst the rites of Moses Law where legal impurity was called sin and that we derive from Adam a shame rather than a sin an ignominy or reproach like that of being born of dishonourable Parents or rather from the society of the flesh as he expresses it and that this dishonour lasts upon us till we enter upon a new relation in Christ. Ita omnis anima
Chrysostome even when he differs from others and in this Article he consents with him and the rest now reckoned when God made Adam and adorned him with reason he gave him one commandement that he might exercise his reason he being deceived broke the commandement and was exposed to the sentence of death and so he begat Cain and Seth and others but all these as being begotten of him had a mortal nature This kind of Nature wants many things meat and drink and cloaths and dwelling and divers arts the use of these things often-times provokes to excess and the excess begets sin Therefore the divine Apostle saith that when Adam had sinned and was made mortal for his sin both came to his stock that is death and sin for death came upon all inasmuch as all men have sinned For every man suffers the decree of death not for the sin of the first man but for his own Much more to the same purpose he hath upon the same Chapter but this is enough to all the purposes of this Question Now if any man thinks that though these give testimony in behalf of my explication of this Article yet that it were easie to bring very many more to the contrary I answer and profess ingenuously that I know of none till about S. Austin's time for that the first Ages taught the doctrine of Original sin I do no ways doubt but affirm it all the way but that it is a sin improperly that is a stain and a reproach rather than a sin that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that it brought in sickness and death mortality and passions that it made us naked of those supernatural aides that Adam had and so more lyable to the temptations of the Devil this is all I find in antiquity and sufficient for the explication of this question which the more simply it is handled the more true and reasonable it is But that I may use the words of Solomon according to the Vulgar translation Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus God made man upright and he hath made himself more deformed than he is by mingling with innumerable questions 23. I think I have said enough to vindicate my sentence from Novelty and though that also be sufficient to quit me from singularity yet I have something more to add as to that particular and that is that it is very hard for a man to be singular in this Article if he would For first in the Primitive Church when Valentinus and Marcion Tatianus Julius Cassianus and the Encratites condemned marriage upon this account because it produces that only which is impure many good men and right believers did to justifie marriages undervalue the matter of Original sin this begat new questions in the manner of speaking and at last real differences were entertained and the Pelagian Heresie grew up upon this stock But they changed their Propositions so often that it was hard to tell what was the Heresie But the first draught of it was so rude so confused and so unreasonable that when any of the followers of it spake more warily and more learnedly yet by this time the name Pelagian was of so ill a sound that they would not be believed if they spake well nor trusted in their very recantations nor understood in their explications but cryed out against in all things right or wrong and in the fierce prosecution of this S. Austin and his followers Fulgentiâ—â— Prosper and others did excedere in dogmate pati aliquid humanum S. Austin called them all Pelagians who were of the middle opinion concerning infants and yet many Catholicks both before and since his time do profess it The Augustan confession calls them Pelagians who say that concupiscence is only the effect of Adam's sin and yet all the Roman Churches say it confidently and every man that is angry in this Question calls his Enemy Pelagian if he be not a Stoic or a Manichee a Valentinian or an Encratite But the Pelagians say so many things in their Controversie that like them that â—â—lk much they must needs say some things well though very many things amiss but if every thing which was said against S. Austin in these controversies be Pelagianism then all Antiquity were Pelagians and himself besides For he before his disputes in these Questions said much against what he said after as every learned man knows But yet it is certain that even after the Pelagian Heresie was conquered there were many good men who because they from every part take the good and leave the poyson were called Pelagians by them that were angry at them for being of another opinion in some of their Questions Cassian was a good and holy man and became the great rule of Monastines yet because he spake reason in his exhortations to Piety and justified God and blamed man he is called Pelagian and the Epistle ad Demetriadem and the little commentary on S. Paul's Epistles were read and commended highly by all men so long as they were supposed to be S. Hierom's but when some fancied that Faustus was the author they suspect the writings for the Man's sake and how-ever S. Austin was triumphant in the main Article against those Hereticks and there was great reason he should yet that he took in too much and confuted more than he should appears in this that though the World followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianisme yet the World left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianisme And therefore when Arch-Bishop Bradwardin wrote his Books de causâ Dei against the liberty of will and for the fiercer way of absolute decrees he complains in his Preface that the whole World was against him and gone after Pelagius in causa liberi arbitrii Not that they really were made so but that it is an usual thing to affright men from their reasons by Names and words and to confute an argument by slandering him that uses it Now this is it that I and all men else ought to be troubled at if my doctrine be accused of singularity I cannot acquit my self of the charge but by running into a greater For if I say that one Proposition is taught by all the Roman Schools and therefore I am not singular in it They reply it is true but then it is Popery which you defend If I tell that the Lutherans defend another part of it then the Calvinists hate it therefore because their enemies avow it Either it is Popery or Pelagianisme you are an Arminian or a Socinian And either you must say that which no body sayes and then you are singular or if you do say as others say you shall feel the reproach of the party that you own which is also disowned by all but it self That therefore which I shall choose to say is this that the doctrine of Original sin as
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
temptation but he offends God and then how we should understand S. James's rule that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation is beyond my reach and apprehension The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral and g. as it is good in Nature so it is not ill in manners the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil 34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation Viz. When it is so consented to when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam are to be renewed by the spirit of grace the effect of the second Adam which grace when we resist we do as Adam did and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us That was his sin and not ours but this is our sin and not his both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation but by one he deserved it and by the other we deserve it But then it is true that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality but in the same material part we do He left our Nature naked and for it he deserved Gods wrath if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature but then we deserve Gods wrath so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam but though he sinned in the first disrobing and we were imperfect by it yet we sin not till the second disrobing and then we return to the same imperfection and make it worse But I consider that although some Churches in their confessions express it yet the Church of England does not they add the word Eternal to Damnation but our Church abstains from that therefore Gods wrath and damnation can signifie the same that damnation does in S. Paul all the effects of Gods anger Temporal Death and the miseries of mortality was the effect of Adams sin and of our being reduc'd to the Natural and Corrupted or worsted state Or secondly they may signifie the same that hatred does in S. Paul and in Malachi Esau have I hated that is lov'd him less or did not give him what he was born to he lost the primogeniture and the Priesthood and the blessing So do we naturally fall short of Heaven This is hatred or the wrath of God and his Judgment upon the sin of Adam to condemn us to a state of imperfection and misery and death and deficiency from supernatural happiness all which I grant to be the effect of Adams sin and that our imperfect Nature deserves this that is it can deserve no better 35. And this infection of Nature Viz. This imperfection not any inherent quality that by contact pollutes the relatives and descendants but this abuse and reproach of our Nature this stain of our Nature by taking off the supernatural grace and beauties put into it like the cutting off the beards of Davids Embassadors or stripping a man of his robe and turning him abroad in his natural shame leaving him naked as Adam and we were But the word infection being metaphorical may aptly signifie any thing that is analogical to it and may mean a Natural habitude or inclination to forbidden instances But yet it signifies a very great evil for in the best Authors to be such by Nature means an aggravation of it So Carion in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man is very miserable or miserable by Nature and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you believe me to be such a man by Nature that I can speak nothing well 36. Doth remain yea in them that are regenerated That is all the baptized and unbaptized receive from Adam nothing but what is inclined to forbidden instances which is a principle against which and above which the spirit of God does operate For this is it which is called the lust of the flesh for so it follows whereby the lust of the flesh that is the desires and pronenesses to Natural objects which by Gods will came to be limited order'd and chastis'd curb'd and restrain'd 37. Called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is plain that the Church of England though she found it necessary to declare something in the fierce contention of the time in order to peace and unity of expression yet she was not willing too minutely to declare and descend to the particulars on either side and therefore she was pleas'd to make use of the Greek word of the sence of which there were so many disputes and recites the most usual redditions of the word 38. Which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affection some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God These several expositions reciting several things and the Church of England reciting all indefinitely but definitely declaring for none of them does only in the generality affirm that the flesh and spirit are contrary principles that the flesh resists the law of God but the spirit obeys it that is by the flesh alone we cannot obey Gods law naturally we cannot become the sons of God and heirs of Heaven but it must be a new birth by a spiritual regeneration The wisdom of the flesh that is Natural and secular principles are not apt dispositions to make us obedient to the law of God Sensuality that signifies an habitual lustfulness Desires signifie actual Lustings Affections signifie the Natural inclination now which of these is here meant the Church hath not declar'd but by the other words of the Article it is most probable She rather inclines to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by desires and sensuality rather than by affection or wisdom though of these also in their own sence it is true to affirm that they are not subject to the law of God there being some foolish principles which the flesh and the world is apt to entertain which are hindrances to holiness and the affection that is inclination to some certain objects being that very thing which the laws of God have restrained more or less in several periods of the world may without inconvenience to the Question be admitted to expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39. And although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized That is this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized nor to the regenerate that is when the new principle of grace and of the spirit is put into us we are reduced to as great a condition and as certain an order and a capacity of entring into Heaven as Adam was before his fall for then we are drawn from that mere natural state where Adam left us and therefore although these do die yet it is but the condition of nature not the punishment of the sin For Adams sin brought in Death and baptism and regeneration does not hinder
at a solemnity of joy so are all the sad accents and circumstances and effects and instruments of sorrow proper in a day of mourning All Nations weep not in the same manner and have not the same interjections of sorrow but as every one of us use to mourn in our greatest losses and in the death of our dearest relatives so it is fit we should mourn in the dangers and death of our souls that they may being refreshed by such salutary and medicinal showers spring up to life eternal 77. In the several Ages of the Church they had several methods of these satisfactions and they requiring a longer proof of their repentance than we usually do did also by consequent injoyn and expect greater and longer penitential severities Concerning which these two things are certain 78. The one is that they did not believe them simply necessary to the procuring of pardon from God which appears in this that they did absolve persons in the Article of death though they had not done their satisfactions They would absolve none that did not express his repentance some way or other but they did absolve them that could do no exterior penances by which it is plain that they made a separation of that which was useful and profitable only from that which is necessary 79. The other thing which I was to say is this That though these corporal severities were not esteemed by them simply necessary but such which might in any and in every instance be omitted in ordinary cases and commuted for others more fit and useful yet they chose these austerities as the best signification of their repentance towards men such in which there is the greatest likelihood of sincerity a hearty sorrow such which have in them the least objection such in which a man hath the clearest power and the most frequent opportunity such which every man can do which have in them the least inlet to temptation and the least powers to abuse a man and they are such which do not only signifie but effect and promote repentance But yet they are acts of repentance just as beating the breasts or smiting the thigh or sighing or tears or tearing the hair or refusing our meat are acts of sorrow if God should command us to be sorrowful this might be done when it could be done at all though none of these were in the expression and signification The Jews did in all great sorrows or trouble of mind rent their garments As we may be as much troubled as they though we do not tear our clothes so we may be as true penitents as were the holy Primitives though we do not use that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hardship which was then the manner of their penitential solemnities But then the repentance must be exercised by some other acts proper to the grace Prayers 80. Preces undique undecunque lucrum says one Prayers are useful upon all occasions but especially in repentances and afflictive duties or accidents Is any man afflicted let him pray saith S. James and since nothing can deserve pardon all the good works in the world done by Gods enemy cannot reconcile him to God but pardon of sins is as much a gift as eternal life is there is no way more proper to obtain pardon than a devout humble persevering prayer And this also is a part of repentance poenaeque genus vidisse precantem When we confess our sins and when we pray for pardon we concentre many acts of vertue together There is the hatred of sin and the shame for having committed it there is the justification of God and the humiliation of our selves there is confession of sins and hope of pardon there is fear and love sense of our infirmity and confidence of the Divine goodness sorrow for the past and holy purposes and desires and vows of living better in time to come Unless all this be in it the prayers are not worthy fruits of a holy repentance But such prayers are a part of amends it is a satisfaction to God in the true and modest sence of the word So S. Cyprian affirms speaking of the three children in the fiery Furnace Domino satisfacere nec inter ipsa gloriosa virtutum suarum martyria destiterunt They did not cease to satisfie the Lord in the very midst of their glorious martyrdoms For so saith the Scripture Stans Azarias precatus est Azarias standing in the flames did pray and made his exomologesis or penitential confession to God with his two partners Thus also Tertullian describes the manner of the Primitive repentance Animum moeroribus dejicere illa quae peccavit tristi tractatione mutare caeterum pastum potum pura nosse non ventris scil sed animae causâ plerumque verò jejuntis preces alere ingemiscere lachrymari mugire dies noctésque ad Dominum Deum suum presbyteris advolvi caris Dei adgeniculari omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere To have our minds cast down with sorrow to change our sins into severity to take meat and drink without art simple and pure viz. bread and water not for the bellies sake but for the soul to nourish our prayers most commonly with fasting to sigh and cry and roar to God 〈◊〉 Lord day and night to be prostrate before the Ministers and Priests to kneel before all the servants of God and to desire all the brethren to pray to God for them Oportet orare impensiùs rogare so S. Cyprian we must pray and beg more earnestly and as Pacianus adds according to the words of Tertullian before cited multorum precibus adjuvare we must help our prayers with the assistance of others Pray to God said Simon Peter to Simon Magus if peradventure the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee Pray for me said Simon Magus to S. Peter that the things which thou hast spoken may not happen to me And in this case the prayers of the Church and of the holy men that minister to the Church as they are of great avail in themselves so they were highly valued and earnestly desir'd and obtainâ—d by the penitents in the first Ages of the Church Alms. 81. Alms and Fasting are the wings of prayer and make it pierce the clouds That is humility and charity are the best advantages and sanctification of our desires to God This was the counsel of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar Eleemosynis peccata tua redime redeem thy sins by Alms so the Vulgar Latin reads it Not that money can be the price of a soul for we are not redeemed with silver and gold but that the charity of Alms is that which God delights in and accepts as done to himself and procures his pardon according to the words of Solomon In veritate misericordia expiatur iniquitas In truth and mercy iniquity is pardoned that is in the confession and Alms of a penitent there is pardon for water
but he that turns from sin and mortifies it that confesses it humbly and forsakes it that accuses himself and justifies God that prays for pardon and pardons his offending brother that will rather punish his flesh than nurse his sin that judges himself that he may be acquitted by God so these things be done let every man chuse his own instruments of mortification and the instances and indications of his penitential sorrow SECT VII The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice 86. HE that will judge of his repentance by his sorrow must not judge of his sorrow by his tears or by any one manner of expression For sorrow puts on divers shapes according to the temper of the body or the natural or accidental affections of the mind or to the present consideration of things Wise men and women do not very often grieve in the same manner or signifie the trouble of intellectual apprehensions by the same indications But if sin does equally smart it may be equally complain'd of in all persons whose natures are alike queâ—ulous and complaining that is when men are forc'd into repentance they are very apprehensive of their present evils and consequent dangers and past follies but if they repent more wisely and upon higher considerations than the affrights of women and weak persons they will put on such affections as are the proper effects of those apprehensions by which they were moved But although this be true in the nature and secret and proportion'd causes of things yet there is no such simplicity and purity of apprehensions in any person or any instance whatsoever but there is something of sense mingled with every tittle of reason and the consideration of our selves mingleâ— with our apprehensions of God and when Philosophy does something our interest does more and there are so few that leave their sins upon immaterial speculations that even of them that pretend to do it there is oftentimes no other reason inducing them to believe they do so than because they do not know the secrets of their own hearts and cannot discern their intentions and therefore when there is not a material sensible grief in penitents there is too often a just cause of suspecting their repentances it does not always proceed from an innocent or a laudable cause unless the penitent be indisposed in all accidents to such effects and impresses of passion 87. II. He that cannot find any sensitive and pungent material grief for his sins may suspect himself because so doing he may serve some good ends but on no wise may we suspect another upon that account for we may be judges of our selves but not of others and although we know enough of our selves to suspect every thing of our selves yet we do not know so much of others but that there may for ought we know be enough to excuse or acquit them in their inquiries after the worthiness of their repentance 88. III. He that inquires after his own repentance and finds no sharpnesses of grief or active sensitive sorrow is only so far to suspect his repentance that he use all means to improve it which is to be done by a long serious and lasting conversation with arguments of sorrow which like a continual dropping will intenerate the spirit and make it malleable to the first motives of repentance No man repents but he that fears some evil to stand at the end of his evil course and whoever feareth unless he be abused by some collateral false perswasion will be troubled for putting himself into so evil a condition and state of things and not to be moved with sad apprehensions is nothing else but not to have considered or to have promised to himself pardon upon easier conditions than God hath promised Therefore let the penitent often meditate of the four last things Death and the day of Judgment the portion of the godly and the sad intolerable portion of accursed souls of the greatness and extension of the duty of repentance and the intension of its acts or the spirit and manner of its performance of the uncertainty of pardon in respect of his own secret and sometimes undiscerned defects the sad evils that God hath inflicted sometimes even upon penitent persons the volatile nature of pleasure and the shame of being a fool in the eyes of God and good men the unworthy usages of our selves and evil returns to God for his great kindnesses let him consider that the last nights pleasure is not now at all and how infinite a folly it is to die for that which hath no being that one of the greatest torments of Hell will be the very indignation at their own folly for that foolish exchange which they have made and there is nothing to allay the misery or to support the spirit of a man who shall so extremely suffer for so very a nothing that it is an unspeakable horror for a man eternally to be restless in the vexations of an everlasting fever and that such a fever is as much short of the eternal anger of God as a single sigh is of that fever that a man cannot think what eternity is nor suffer with patience for one minute the pains which are provided for that eternity and to apply all this to himself for ought every great sinner knows this shall be in his lot and if he dies before his sin is pardon'd he is too sure it shall be so and whether his sin is pardon'd or no few men ever know till they be dead but very many men presume and they commonly who have the least reason He that often and long considers these things will not have cause to complain of too merry a heart But when men repent only in feasts and company and open house and carelesness and inconsideration they will have cause to repent that he hath not repented 89. IV. Every true penitential sorrow is rather natural than solemn that is it is the product of our internal apprehensions rather than outward order and command He that repents only by solemnity at a certain period by the expectation of to morrows Sun may indeed act a sorrow but cannot be sure that he shall then be sorrowful Other acts of repentance may be done in their proper period by order and command upon set days and indicted solemnities such as is fasting and prayer and alms and confession and disciplines and all the instances of humiliation but sorrow is not to be reckoned in this account unless it dwells there before When there is a natural abiding sorrow for our sins any publick day of humiliation can bring it forth and put it into activity but when a sinner is gay and intemperately merry upon Shrove-Tuesday and resolves to mourn upon Ash-Wednesday his sorrow hath in it more of the Theatre than the Temple and is not at all to be relied upon by him that resolves to take severe accounts of himself 90. V. In taking accounts of our penitential sorrow we must be careful
we by his fall received evil enough to undo us and ruine us all but yet the evil did so descend upon us that we were left in powers and capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actual mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sin was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understanding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devil had wounded us yet Gâ—d senâ— his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyl and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory as some would make it which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the work of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evil by his fall But to this we may superadd that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones The foot moves at the command of the Will and by the Empire of reason but the passions are stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the summ total of the evil of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a sojourner and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chuses and delights in That which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorrs and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from material Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is a useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be the emanations of distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immaterial or the motives such the act of the Will is so merely intellectual that it is then spiritual and the acts are proper and Symbolical and the act of it we call election or volition but if the Object is material or corporal the acts of the Will are passion that is adhesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body An Object can diversifie an act but never distinguish faculties And if we make it one faculty that chuses a reasonable object and another that chuses the sensual we may as well assign a third faculty for the supernatural and religious and when to chuse a sensual object is always either reasonable or unreasonable and every adherence to pleasure and mortification or refusing of it is subject to a command and the matter of duty it will follow that even the passions also are issues of the Will by passions meaning the actions of prosecution or refusal of sensitive objects the acts of the Concupiscible and Irascible appetite not the impresses made by these upon the body as trembling redness paleness heaviness and the like and therefore to say the passions rule the will is an improper saying but it hath no truth in its meaning but this that the Will is more passionate than wise it is more delighted with Bodily pleasures than Spiritual but as the understanding considers both and the disputation about them is in that faculty alone so the choice of both is in the will alone Now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I have reproved them you will find that I have reason There are one sort of Calvin's Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God looked upon mankind only as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally only because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam says the Law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerful but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men than good men can be to Dogs and Sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it says that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who
against his justice which is revealed and to hope God will save them whom he hates who are gone from him in Adam who are born heirs of his wrath slaves of the Devil servants of sin for these Epithets are given to all the Children of Adam by the opponents in this Question is to hope for that against which his justice visibly is engaged and for which hope there is no ground unless this instance of Divine goodness were expressed in revelation For so even wicked persons on their death-bed are bidden to hope without rule and without reason or sufficient grounds of trust But besides that we hope in Gods goodness in this case is not ill but I ask Is it against Gods goodness that any one should perish for Original sin if it be against Gods goodness it is also against his justice for nothing is just that is not also good Gods goodness may cause his justice to forbear a sentence but whatsoever is against Gods goodness is against God and therefore against his justice also because every attribute in God is God himself For it is not always true to say This is against Gods goodness because the contradictory is agreeable to Gods goodness Neither is it always false to say that two contradictories may both be agreeable to Gods goodness Gods goodness is of such a latitude that it may take in both parts of the contradiction Contradictories cannot both be against Gods goodness but they may both be in with it Whatsoever is against the goodness of God is essentially evil But a thing may be agreeable to Gods goodness and yet the other part not be against it For example It is against the goodness of God to hate fools and Ideots and therefore he can never hate them But it is agreeable to Gods goodness to give Heaven to them and the joys beatifical and if he does not give them so much yet if he does no evil to them hereafter it is also agreeable to his goodness To give them Heaven or not to give them Heaven though they be contradictories yet are both agreeable to his goodness But in contraries the case is otherwise For though not to give them Heaven is consistent with the Divine goodness yet to send them to Hell is not The reason of the difference is this Because to do contrary things must come from contrary principles and whatsoever is contrary to the Divine goodness is essentially evil But to do or not to do supposes but one positive principle and the other negative not having a contrary cause may be wholly innocent as proceeding from a negative But to speak more plain Is it against Gods goodness that Infants should be damned for Original sin then it could never have been done it was essentially evil and therefore could never have been decreed or sentenced But if it be not against Gods goodness that they should perish in Hell then it may consist with Gods goodness and then to hope that Gods goodness will rescue them from his justice when the thing may agree with both is to hope without ground God may be good though they perish for Adams sin and if so and that he can be just too upon the account of what attribute shall these innocents be rescued and we hope for mercy for them 6. If Adams posterity be only liable to damnation but shall never be damned for Adams sin then all the children of Heathens dying in their Infancy shall escape as well as baptized Christian Children which if any of my disagreeing Brethren shall affirm he will indeed seem to magnifie Gods goodness but he must fall out with some great Doctors of the Church whom he would pretend to follow and besides he will be hard put to it to tell what advantage Christian Children have over Heathens supposing them all to die young for being bred up in the Christian Religion is accidental and may happen to the children of unbelievers or may not happen to the children of believers and if Baptism adds nothing to their present state there is no reason Infants should be baptized but if it does add to their present capacity as most certainly it does very much then that Heathen Infants should be in a condition of being rescued from the wrath of God as well as Christian Infants is a strange unlookt for affirmative and can no way be justified or made probable but by affirming it to be against the justice of God to condemn any for Adams sin Indeed if it be unâ—ust as I have proved it is then it will follow that none shall suffer damnation by it But if the hopes of the salvation of Heathen Infants be to be derived only from Gods goodness though Gods goodness cannot fail yet our Argument may fail for it will not follow because God is good therefore Heathen Infants shall be saved for it might as well follow God is good therefore Heathens shall be no Heathens but all turn Christians These things do not follow affirmatively but negatively they do For if it were against Gods goodness that they should be reckoned in Adam unto eternal death then it is also against his Justice and against God all the way and then they who affirm they were so reckoned must shew some revelation to assure us that although it be just in God to damn all Heathens yet that he is so good that he will not For so long as there is no revelation of any such goodness there is this principle to conâ—est against it I mean their affirming that they are in Adam justly liable to damnation and therefore without disparagement to the infinite goodness of God Heathen Infants may perish for it is never against Gods goodness to throw a sinner into Hell 7. But to come yet closer to the Question some good men and wise suppose that the Sublapsarian Presbyterians can be confuted in their pretended grounds of absolute reprobation although we grant that Adams sin is damnable to his posterity provided we say that though it was damnable yet it shall never damn us Now though I wish it could be done that they and I might not differ so much as in a circumstance yet first it is certain that the men they speak of can never be confuted upon the stock of Gods Justice because as the one says It is just that God should actually damn all for the sin of Adam So the other says It is just that God should actually sentence all to damnation and so there the case is equal Secondly They cannot be confuted upon the stock of Gods goodness because the emanations of that are wholly arbitrary and though there are negative measures of it as there is of Gods Infinity and we know Gods goodness to be inconsistent with some things yet there are no positive measures of this goodness and no man can tell how much it will do for us and therefore without a revelation things may be sometimes hoped which yet may not be presumed and therefore
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargeable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism I answer As much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of Beasts whose blood could not take away sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresie who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to Heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise than is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holiness of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed only to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be implied by the Apostles words And in this I am not a little confirmed by the discourse of S. Irenaeus to this purpose lib. 3. cap. 35. Propter hoc initio transgressionis Adae c. Therefore in the beginning of Adams transgression as the Scripture tells God did not curse Adam but the Earth in his labours as one of the Ancients saith God removed the curse upon the Earth that it might not abide on man But the condemnation of his sin he received weariness and labour and to eat in the sweat of his brows and to return to dust again and likewise the woman had for her punishment tediousness labours groans sorrows of child-birth and to serve her husband that they might not wholly perish in the curse not yet despise God while they remained without punishment But all the curse run upon the Serpent who seduced them and this our Lord in the Gospel saith to them on his left hand Go ye cursed into everlasting fire which my Father prepared for the Devil and his Angels signifying that not to man in the prime intention was eternal fire prepared but to him who was the seducer but this they also shall justly feel who like them without repentance and departing from them persevere in the works of malice 5. The Apostle says By the disobedience of one many were made sinners By which it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sence could it be properly ours For then it were not Vnius but inobedientia singulorum the disobedience of all men 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative and to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treat him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor always so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed ciâ—râ— reprehensionem says Laurentius Valla It is like an exprobration but short of a reprooâ— so Quintilian Imputas nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulenâ—ae liberalitatem Thou dost impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning and when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety Legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur The legacy whether it be given or left to the heir whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no Divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he did really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sence it be true that in him we sinned then we sinned as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned less then we did not sin in him for to sin in him could not by him be lessened to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin less to us than to him then this imputation supposes it only to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the design or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25.33 expresses thus A muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sin and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1.24 By the envy of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ than the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read S. Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediate successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sence together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a Paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam and not to his Children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgment unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ of all is this By the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
brought death into the world That it was his sin alone that did the great mischief That this sin was made ours 〈◊〉 by inherence but by imputation That they who suffered the calamity did not know what the sin was That there was a difference of men even in relation to thiâ— sin and it passed upon some more than upon others that is some were more miserable than others That some did not sin by that sin of Adam and some did that is some there were whose manners were not corrupted by that example and some were that it was not our sin but his that the sin did not multiply by the variety of subject but was still but one sin and that it was his and not ours all which particulars are as so many verifications of the doctrine I have delivered and so many illustrations of the main Article But in verification of one great part of it I mean that concerning Infants and that they are not corrupted properly or made sinners by any inherent impurity is clearly affirmed by S. Peter whose words are thus rendred in the same Aethiopick Testament 1 Pet. 2.2 And be ye like unto newly begotten Infants who are begotten every one without sin or malice and as milk not mingled And to the same sence those words of our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees asking who sinn'd this man or his Parents John 9. the Syriack Scholiast does give this Paraphrase some say it is an indirect question For how is it possible for a man to sin before he was born And if his Parents sinn'd how could he bear their sin But if they say that the punishment of the Parents may be upon the Children let them know that this is spoken of them that came out of Egypt and is not Universal And those words of David In sin hath my Mother conceived me R. David Kimchi and Abeâ—esra say that they are expounded of Eve who did not conceive till she had sinned But to return to the words of S. Paul The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eternal bonds of Hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the access had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirms that we were sentenced in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgment which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sence imaginable that the death which here S. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatned in Moses's Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methuselah that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression Since then all the judgment which the Apostle says came by the sin of Adam was sufficiently and plainly enough affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankind to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodness through Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirmed by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymy or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin Shall rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a sin but only metonymically and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Frier Luys di Vrretta in his Ecclesiastical story of Aethiopia says That the Christians in Aethiopia under the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no so entremetieron en essas Theologias del peccato Original porque mâ—nca tuvieron los entendimientes muy metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Llana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilios sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original Sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentle comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the Primitive Saints and Holy Councils without disputation or difference so says the story But we unfortunately trouble our selves by raising Ideas of Sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not believe but it is a vision And the height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easie to be understood And indeed Religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to believe impossible Articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is
believed by the same simplicity it is taught when we do not call that a mystery which we are not able to prove and tempt our faith to swallow that whole which reason cannot chew One thing I am to observe more before I leave considering the words of the Apostle The Apostle here having instituted a comparison between Adam and Christ that as death came by one so life by the other as by one we are made sinners so by the other we are made righteous some from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said thus Christ and Adam are compared therefore as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really Sinners our righteousness by Christ is more than imputed and therefore so is our unrighteousness by Adam to this besides what I have already spoken in my humble addresses to that wise and charitable Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester delivering the sence and objections of others in which I have declared my sence of the imputation of Christs righteousness and besides that although the Apostle offers a similitude yet he finds himself surprised and that one part of the similitude does far exceed the other and therefore nothing can follow hence but that if we receive evil from Adam we shall much more receive good from Christ besides this I say I have something very material to reply to the form of the argument which is a very trick and fallacy For the Apostle argues thus As by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous and that is very true and much more but to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is to invert the purpose of the Apostle who argues from the less to the greater and to make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the less in matter of power is as if one should say If a child can carry a ten pound weight much more can a man and therefore whatsoever a man can do that also a child can do For though I can say If this thing be done in a green tree what shall be done in the dry yet I must not say therefore If this be done in the dry tree what shall be done in the green For the dry tree of the Cross could do much more than the green tree in the Garden of Eden It is a good argument to say If the Devil be so potent to do a shrewd turn much more powerful is God to do good but we cannot conclude from hence but God can by his own mere power and pleasure save a soul therefore the Devil can by his power ruine one In a similitude the first part may be and often is less than the second but never greater and therefore though the Apostle said As by Adam c. So by Christ c. Yet we cannot say as by Christ so by Adam We may well reason thus As by Nature there is a reward to evil doers so much more is there by God but we cannot by way of conversion reason thus As by God there is an eternal reward appointed to good actions so by Nature there is an eternal reward for evil ones And who would not deride this way of arguing As by our Fathers we receive temporal good things so much more do we by God but by God we also receive an immortal Soul therefore from our Fathers we receive an immortal Body For not the consequent of a hypothetical proposition but the antecedent is to be the assumption of the Syllogism This therefore is a fallacy which when those wise persons who are unwarily perswaded by it shall observe I doubt not but the whole way of arguing will appear unconcluding Object 6. But it is objected that my Doctrine is against the ninth Article in the Church of England and that I hear Madam does most of all stick with you Of this Madam I should not now have taken notice because I have already answered it in some additional papers which are already published but that I was so delighted to hear and to know that a person of your interest and piety of your zeal and prudence is so earnest for the Church of England that I could not pass it by without paying you that regard and just acknowledgment which so much excellency deserves But then Madam I am to say that I could not be delighted in your zeal for our excellent Church if I were not as zealous my self for it too I have oftentimes subscribed that Article and though if I had cause to dissent from it I would certainly do it in those just measures which my duty on one side and the interest of truth on the other would require of me yet because I have no reason to disagree I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a Differing judgment from my Dear Mother which is the best Church of the world Indeed Madam I do not understand the words of the Article as most men do but I understand them as they can be true and as they can very fairly signifie and as they agree with the word of God and right reason But I remember that I have heard from a very good hand and there are many alive this day that may remember to have heard it talk'd of publickly that when Mr. Thomas Rogers had in the year 1584. published an exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles many were not only then but long since very angry at him that he by his interpretation had limited the charitable latitude which was allowed in the subscription to them For the Articles being framed in a Church but newly reformed in which many complied with some unwillingness and were not willing to have their consent broken by too great a straining and even in the Convocation it self so many being of a differing judgment it was very great prudence and piety to secure the peace of the Church by as much charitable latitude as they could contrive and therefore the Articles in those things which were publickly disputed at that time even amongst the Doctors of the Reformation such were the Articles of Predestination and this of Original sin were described with incomparable wisdom and temper and therefore I have reason to take it ill if any man shall deny me liberty to use the benefit of the Churches wisdom For I am ready a thousand times to subscribe the Article if there can be just cause to do it so often but as I impose upon no man my sence of the Article but leave my reasons and him to struggle together for the best so neither will I be bound to any one man or any company of men but to my lawful Superiors speaking there where they can and ought to oblige Madam I take nothing ill from any man but that he should think I have a less zeal for our Church than himself and I will by Gods assistance be all
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will believe them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility than the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psalm 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sinn'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an Original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's child was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punished For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an Original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sence of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sence of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sence without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the Chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present it runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more than by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise than by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions This I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather than arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endeavours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endeavours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sinn'd his descendants and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sence be said to have done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sinn'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgment unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgment passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgment to prevent a punishment or a less to fore-stall a greater in the same kind so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sinn'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adams sin had was only to bring in the reign of death which is already broken by Jesus Christ and at last shall be quite destroyed But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam formally and so as to be inherent in us is to say that we were made to do his action which is a perfect contradiction Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and
this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more than grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather than of children and a semination in the flesh and contrary to the spirit and such a thing which being mingled with sin produces univocal issues the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces and rather to be pardoned than allowed and if all Concupiscence be vicious then no marriage can be pure These things it may be have not been so much considered but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierome in Athenagoras and in S. Austin which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article and therefore was thought fit to be confuâ—ed by saying too much and that I conjecture right in this affair I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do when he is disingaged as in his books De civitate Dei but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis remissione which was written in his heat against the Pelagians he speaks quite contrary And who-ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius his two books de Nuptiis Concupiscentia to Valerius his three books to Marcellinus de peccatorum meritis remissione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to believe all that this excellent man wrote will not only find it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not always the best instrument to find out truth The same complaint hath been made of others and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose because besides what I have already said I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence nor against a much less than that which I have every where brought in this Article though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his and for Aquinas Lombard and Bonaventure your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin Knox and Buchannan with the Synod of Dort or the Scots Presbyteries I know they are against me and therefore I reprove them for it but it is no disparagement to the truth that other men are in error And yet of all the School-men Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me for the proverbs sake for Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura Alexander of Hales would often say that Adam never sinn'd in Bonaventure But it may be he was not in earnest no more am I. The last thing your Lordship gives to me in Charge in the behalf of the objectors is that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity To this I answer That I know of no such thing God made a Covenant with Adam indeed and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity and yet did nothing but what was just but I find in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of Original Sin only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came but he did never exact it after Adam but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam that if he stood all his posterity should be I know not what and if he fell they should be in a damnable condition of this I say there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture that ever I could meet with if there had been any such Covenant it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated and caution given to all who were to suffer and abilities given to them to prevent the evil for else it is not a Covenant with them but a decree concerning them and it is impossible that there should be a Covenant made between two when one of the parties knows nothing of it I will enter no further into this enquiry but only observe that though there was no such Covenant yet the event that hapned might without any such Covenant have justly entred in at many doors It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity for that is certainly true and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evil that came actually upon his children Death is the wages of sin one death for one sin but not 10000 millions for one sin but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all in as much as all men have sinn'd But if from a sinning Parent a good child descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness than the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso is generis poenâ liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familiam datus qui verò morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui serò à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not always make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good child is born of a bad father like a healthful body from an ill-affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgment Other ways there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is Author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead Taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the ways by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no
children So that this Argument though sligthly passed over by the Anab. yet is of very great perswasion in this Article and so us'd and relied upon by the Church of England in her office of Baptism and for that reason I have the more insisted upon it Ad. 5. the next Argument without any alteration or addition stands firm upon its own basis Adam sinn'd and left nakedness to descend upon his posterity a relative guilt and a remaining misery he left enough to kill us but nothing to make us alive he was the head of mankind in order to temporal felicity but there was another head intended to be the representative of humane nature to bring us to eternal but the temporal we lost by Adam and the eternal we could never receive from him but from Christ onely from Adam we receive our nature such as it is but grace and truth comes by Jesus Christ Adam left us an imperfect nature that tends to sin and death but he left us nothing else and therefore to holiness and life we must enter from another principle So that besides the natural birth of Infants there must be something added by which they must be reckoned in a new account they must be born again they must be reckon'd in Chrst they must be adopted to the inheritance and admitted to the Promise and intitled to the Spirit Now that this is done ordinarily in Baptism is not to be denied for therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Font or Laver of regeneration it is the gate of the Church it is the solemnity of our admission to the Covenant Evangelical and if Infants cannot goe to Heaven by the first or natural birth then they must goe by a second and supernatural and since there is no other solemnity or Sacrament no way of being born again that we know of but by the ways of God's appointing and he hath appointed Baptism and all that are born again are born this way even men of Reason who have or can receive the Spirit being to enter at the door of Baptism it follows that Infants also must enter here or we cannot say that they are entred at all And it is highly considerable that whereas the Anab. does clamorously and loudly call for a precept for childrens Baptism this consideration does his work for him and us He that shews the way needs not bid you walk in it and if there be but one door that stands open and all must enter some way or other it were a strange perverseness of argument to say that none shall pass in at that door unless they come alone and they that are brought or they that lean on crutches or the shoulders of others shall be excluded and undone for their infelicity and shall not receive help because they have the greatest need of it But these men use Infants worse then the poor Paralytick was treated at the pool of Bethesda he could not be washed because he had none to put him in but these men will not suffer any one to put them in and untill they can goe in themselves they shall never have the benefit of the Spirit 's moving upon the waters Ad. 15. but the Anab. to this discourse gives onely this reply that the supposition or ground is true a man by Adam or any way of nature cannot goe to Heaven neither men nor Infants without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing but this is to be understood to be true onely ordinarily and regularly but the case of Infants is extraordinary for they are not within the rule and the way of ordinary dispensation and therefore there being no command for them to be baptized there will be some other way to supply it extraordinarily To this I reply that this is a plain begging of the question or a denying the conclusion for the Argument being this that Baptism being the ordinary way or instrument of new birth and admission to the Promises Evangelical and supernatural happiness and we knowing of no other and it being as necessary for Infants as for men to enter some way or other it must needs follow that they must goe this way because there is a way for all and we know of no other but this therefore the presumption lies on this that Infants must enter this way They answer that it is true in all but Infants the contradictory of which was the conclusion and intended by the argument For whereas they say God hath not appointed a rule and an order in this case of Infants it is the thing in question and therefore is not by direct negation to be opposed against the contrary Argument For I argue thus Whereever there is no extraordinary way appointed there we must all goe the ordinary but for Infants there is no extraordinary way appointed or declared therefore they must goe the ordinary and he that hath without difference commanded that all Nations should be baptized hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons and they may as well say that they are sure God hath not commanded women to be baptized or Hermaphrodites or eunuchs or fools or mutes because they are not named in the precept for sometimes in the Census of a nation women are no more reckoned then children and when the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt were numbred there was no reckoning either of women or children and yet that was the number of the Nation which is there described But then as to the thing itself whether God hath commanded Infants to be baptized it is indeed a worthy inquiry and the summe of all this contestation but then it is also to be concluded by every Argument that proves the thing to be holy or charitable or necessary or the means of Salvation or to be instituted and made in order to an indispensable end For all commandments are not expressed in imperial forms as we will or will not thou shalt or shalt not but some are by declaration of necessity some by a direct institution some by involution and apparent consequence some by proportion and analogy by identities and parities and Christ never expresly commanded that we should receive the Holy Communion but that when the Supper was celebrated it should be in his memorial And if we should use the same method of arguing in all other instances as the Anabaptist does in this and omit every thing for which there is not an express Commandment with an open nomination and describing of the capacities of the persons concerned in the Duty we should have neither Sacrament nor Ordinance Fasting nor Vows communicating of Women nor baptizing of the Clergy And when Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized it could never upon their account have been told that he was obliged to Baptism because though Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize others yet he no way told them that their Successors should be baptized any more then the Apostles themselves were
of whom we reade nothing in Scripture that either they were actually baptized or had a commandment so to be To which may be added that as the taking of Priestly Orders disobliges the suscipient from receiving Chrism or Confirmation in case he had it not before so for ought appears in Scripture to the contrary it may excuse from Baptism But if it does not then the same way of arguing which obliges women or the Clergy to be baptized will be sufficient warrant to us to require in the case of Infants no more signal precept then in the other and to be content with the measures of wise men who give themselves to understand the meaning of Doctrines and Laws and not to exact the tittles and unavoidable commands by which fools and unwilling persons are to be governed lest they die certainly if they be not called upon with univocal express open and direct commandments But besides all this and the effect of all the other Arguments there is as much command for Infants to be baptized as for men there being in the words of Christ no nomination or specification of persons but onely in such words as can as well involve children as old men as Nisi quis and omnes gentes and the like Ad 16. But they have a device to save all harmless yet for though it should be granted that infants are press'd with all the evils of original sin ye there will be no necessity of Baptism to Infants because it may very well be supposed that as Infants contracted the relative guilt of Adam's sin that is the evils descending by an evil inheritance from him to us without any solemnity so may Infants be acquitted by Christ without solemnity or the act of any other man This is the summe of the 16 th Number To which the Answer is easie First that at the most it is but a dream of proportions and can infer onely that if it were so there were some correspondency between the effects descending upon us from the two great Representatives of the world but it can never infer that it ought to be so For these things are not wrought by the ways of Nature in which the proportions are regular and constant but they are wholly arbitrary and mysterious depending upon extrinsick causes which are conducted by other measures which we onely know by events and can never understand the reasons For because the sin of Adam had effect upon us without a Sacrament must it therefore be wholly unnecessary that the death of Christ be applied to us by Sacramental ministrations If so the Argument will as well conclude against the Baptism of men as of Infants for since they die in Adam and had no solemnity to convey that death therefore we by Christ shall all be made alive and to convey this life there needs no Sacrament This way of arguing therefore is a very trifle but yet this is not As Infants were not infected with the stain and injured by the evils of Adam's sin but by the means of natural generation so neither shall they partake of the benefits of Christ's death but by spiritual regeneration that is by being baptized into his death For it is easier to destroy then to make alive a single crime of one man was enough to ruine him and his posterity but to restore us it became necessary that the Son of God should be incarnate and die and be buried and rise again and intercede for us and become our Law-giver and we be his subjects and keep his Commandments There was no such order of things in our condemnation to death must it therefore follow that there is no such in the justification of us unto life To the first there needs no Sacrament for evil comes fast enough but to the latter there must goe so much as God please and the way which he hath appointed us externally is Baptism to which if he hath tied us it is no matter to us whether he hath tied himself to it or no for although he can goe which way he please yet he himself loves to goe in the ways of his ordinary appointing as it appears in the extreme paucity of Miracles which are in the world and he will not endure that we should leave them So that although there are many thousand ways by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself yet he will bring no soul to himself by ways extraordinary when he hath appointed ordinary and therefore although it be unreasonable of our own heads to carry Infants to God by Baptism without any direction from him yet it is not unreasonable to understand Infants to be comprehended in the duty and to be intended in the general precept when the words do not exclude them nor any thing in the nature of the Sacrament and when they have a great necessity for the relief of which this way is commanded and no other way signified all the world will say there is reason we should bring them also the same way to Christ. And therefore though we no ways doubt but if we doe not our duty to them God will yet perform his mercifull intention yet that 's nothing to us though God can save by miracle yet we must not neglect our charitable ministeries Let him doe what he please to or for Infants we must not neglect them Ad 6. The Argument which is here described is a very reasonable inducement to the belief of the certain effect to be consequent to the Baptism of Infants Because Infants can do nothing towards Heaven and yet they are designed thither therefore God will supply it But he supplies it not by any internall assistances and yet will supply it therefore by an externall But there is no other externall but Baptism which is of his own institution and designed to effect those blessings which Infants need therefore we have reason to believe that by this way God would have them brought Ad 17. To this it is answered after the old rate that God will doe it by his own immediate act Well I grant it that is he will give them Salvation of his own goodness without any condition on the Infants part personally performed without Faith and Obedience if the Infant dies before the use of Reason but then whereas it is added that to say God will doe it by an externall act and ministery and that by this Rite of Baptism and no other is no good Argument unless God could not doe it without such means or said he would not The Reply is easie that we say God will effect this grace upon Infants by this externall ministery not because God cannot use another nor yet because he hath said he will not but because he hath given us this and hath given us no other For he that hath a mind to make an experiment may upon the same argument proceed thus God hath given bread to strengthen man's heart and hath said that in the sweat of our
treating our friends One sort of men say that we are to expect that our friends should value us as we value our selves which if it were to be admitted will require that we make no friendships with a proud man and so far indeed were well but then this proportion does exclude some humble men who are most to be valued and the rather because they undervalue themselves Others say that a friend is to value his friend as much as his friend values him but neither is this well or safe wise or sufficient for it makes friendship a mere bargain and is something like the Country weddings in some places where I have been where the bridegroom and the bride must meet in the half way and if they fail a step they retire and break the match It is not good to make a reckoning in friendship that 's merchandise or it may be gratitude but not noble friendship in which each part strives to out-do the other in significations of an excellent love And amongst true friends there is no fear of losing any thing But that which amongst the old Philosophers comes nearest to the right is that we love our friends as we love our selves If they had meant it as our Blessed Saviour did of that general friendship by which we are to love all mankind it had been perfect and well or if they had meant it of the inward affection or of outward justice but because they meant it of the most excellent friendships and of the outward significations of it it cannot be sufficient for a friend may and must sometimes do more for his friend than he would do for himself Some men will perish before they will beg or petition for themselves to some certain persons but they account it noble to do it for their friend and they will want rather than their friend shall want and they will be more earnest in praise or dispraise respectively for their friend than for themselves And indeed I account that one of the greatest demonstrations of real friendship is that a friend can really endeavour to have his friend advanced in honour in reputation in the opinion of wit or learning before himself Aurum opes rura frequens donabit amicus Qui velit ingenio cedere rarus erit Sed tibi tantus inest veteris respectus amici Carior ut mea sit quà m tua famatibi Lands gold and trifles many give or lend But he that stoops in fame is a rare friend In friendships Orb thou art the brightest Star Before thy fame mine thou preferrest far But then be pleased to think that therefore I so highly value this signification of friendship because I so highly value humility Humility and Charity are the two greatest graces in the world and these are the greatest ingredients which constitute friendship and express it But there needs no other measures of friendship but that it may be as great as you can express it beyond death it cannot go to death it may when the cause is reasonable and just charitable and religious and yet if there be any thing greater than to suffer death and pain and shame to some are more insufferable a true and noble friendship shrinks not at the greatest trials And yet there is a limit even to friendship It must be as great as our friend fairly needs in all things where we are not tied up by a former duty to God to our selves or some pre-obliging relative When Pollux heard some body whisper a reproach against his Brother Castor he killed the slanderer with his fist that was a zeal which his friendship could not warrant Nulla est excusatio si amici causâ peccaveris said Cicero No friendship can excuse a sin And this the braver Romans instanced in the matter of duty to their Country It is not lawful to fight on our friends part against our Prince or Country and therefore when Caius Blosius of Cuma in the sedition of Gracchus appeared against his Country when he was taken he answered That he loved Tiberius Gracchus so dearly that he thought fit to follow him whithersoever he led and begg'd pardon upon that account They who were his Judges were so noble that though they knew it no fair excuse yet for the honour of friendship they did not directly reject his motion but put him to death because he did not follow but led on Gracchus and brought his friend into the snare For so they preserved the honours of friendship on either hand by neither suffering it to be sullied by a soul excuse nor yet rejected in any fair pretence A man may not be perjured for his friend I remember to have read in the History of the Low-Countries that Grimston and Redhead when Bergenapzoom was besieged by the Duke of Parma acted for the interest of the Queen of England's forces a notable design but being suspected and put for their acquittance to take the Sacrament of the Altar they dissembled their persons and their interest their design and their religion and did for the Queens service as one wittily wrote to her give not only their bodies but their souls and so deserved a reward greater than she could pay them I cannot say this is a thing greater than a friendship can require for it is not great at all but a great villany which hath no name and no order in worthy entercourses and no obligation to a friend can reach as high as our duty to God And he that does a base thing in zeal for his friend burns the golden thred that ties their hearts together it is a conspiracy but no longer friendship And when Cato lent his wife to Hortensius and Socrates lent his to a merry Greek they could not amongst wise persons obtain so much as the fame of being worthy friends neither could those great Names legitimate an unworthy action under the most plausible title It is certain that amongst friends their estates are common that is by whatsoever I can rescue my friend from calamity I am to serve him or not to call him friend there is a great latitude in this and it is to be restrained by no prudence but when there is on the other side a great necessity neither vicious nor avoidable A man may chuse whether he will or no and he does not sin in not doing it unless he have bound himself to it But certainly friendship is the greatest band in the world and if he have professed a great friendship he hath a very great obligation to do that and more and he can no ways be disobliged but by the care of his Natural relations I said Friendship is the greatest band in the world and I had reason for it for it is all the bands that this world hath and there is no society and there is no relation that is worthy but it is made so by the communications of friendship and by partaking some of its excellencies For Friendship is a transcendent
teaching us But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints in certain extraordinary Images or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary or make Vows to persons of whose state or place or capacities or condition we have no certain revelation We are sure we do well when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour but they who also worship what seems to be Bread are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled as it is in the question of the Real Presence as it is taught by the Church of England So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution and taking half instead of all Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves Unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the Commandments in Faith in Hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supreme you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen rather weakly than maliciously and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life and in the Day of your Death and in the Day of Judgment If you will not yet I have freed mine own Soul and done an act of Duty and Charity which at least you are bound to take kindly if you will not entertain it obediently Now let me add this That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle and in that too which I intend them that is so as to be an Objection obliging you to return under the pain of folly or heresie or disobedience according to the subject matter And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration yet if it be desired I shall represent them to your eye so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings The first is Where was your Church before Luther Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture or right Reason or Universal Tradition you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us is eternally true and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors But if you still ask where it was before Luther I answer it was there where it was after even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and I know no warrant for any other Religion And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England I shall tell you it is unreasonable because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions till you made many things necessary to be professed which are not lawful to be believed For if we believe your superinduc'd follies we shall do unreasonably unconscionably and wickedly but the questions themselves are so useless abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us that it had been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church and multiplied the dangers of damnation and pretend new necessities and have introduc'd new Articles and affright the simple upon new pretensions and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles and invent new Sacramentals constituting Ceremonies of their own head and promise grace along with the use of them as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit and teach for doctrines the commandments of men and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition and have made a strange Body of Divinity therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams but our Faith was completed at first it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints and can be no more for ever So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions It was long before they were questions at all and when they were made questions they remained so a long time and when by their several pieces they were determined this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power and when God gave opportunity then the yoke was broken and this is the whole progress of this affair But if you will still insist upon it then let the matter be put into equal balances and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for
2. § 6. It destroys holy life ibid. That one may satisfie for the sins of another is the Roman doctrine 322 c. 2. § 6. That habits of sins are no sins held by them 322 § 6. The Pope is to be obeyed according to the doctrine of the Romanists though he command sin 345. Nectarius abolished the custom of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. Between the least mortal and the greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. The falseness of that Proposition That natural Corruption in the regenerate still remains and is in them a sin 876. How these words Sin and Sinner are sometimes used in Scripture 712 n. 16.885 898 902. Sins are not equal 611 n. 5. How they are made greater or less ibid. No sin is venial 613 n. 9 10. The smallest sins are destructive of our friendship with God 614 n. 12. The Doctors of the Roman Church do not rightly define venial sins ibid. The smallest is against Charity 618 n. 24. The smallest sin is a turning from God 619 n. 26. The smaller the sin the less excusable if done with observation 619 620 n. 27. Sins differ in degree but not in their essential order to punishment 621 622 n. 33. Among the Ancients the distinction of sins into mortal and venial meant not a distinction of kind but degree 627 625 n. 44. Some sins destroy not holiness 626 n. 45. The distinction of sins into mortal and venial cannot have influence on us to any good purposes 626 n. 46. Whether every single act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour 640 n. 22. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination 641 n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual 641 n. 24. Single acts of mortal sin displease God and are forbidden but are not a state of death 642 n. 29. What repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. How a single act of sin sometimes is habitual 648 n. 49. The word Sin often in Scripture used for the punishment of sin 711 n. 15. Leaving of sin the best sign of hating it 829. How sin can be consistent with the regenerate state 783. He that leaves a sin out of fear may be accepted 785. The violence of the temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 793. Of the pardon of sins after Baptism 802. Some sins styled unpardonable but in a limited sense 806 n. 22. 814 n. 57 59. God punishes not one sin with another 859 n. 112. One sin may cause or procure another ibid. Every sin is directly against God's Law and therefore is damnable 617 n. 21. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. He that commands another man to sin is not guilty of that man's sin but of his own command 640 n. 20. What sins are damnable in the single act 640 sect 2. per tot There is no natural necessity of sinning lies upon any man 755 n. 15. The Principles by which sin pollutes the manners of men 727 n. 66. The sinner's unwillingness to sin does not always lessen his sin but aggravate it sometimes 784 n. 36. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. The whole nature of mankind in its universal capacity cannot be guilty of sin 765 n. 29. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. What kind of inclination to evil is sin ibid n. 33. How we are sinners in Adam 752 n. 12. Sins of Infirmity Of them Chap. 8. per tot That which some men call a state of infirmity is a state of sin and death 779. Sins Venial No sin is properly venial 613 n. 9 10. Venial sins distinguished into such as are venial by the imperfection of the Agent or the smalness of the matter or venial in the whole kind 620 n. 28. That no sins are venial in their nature or whole kind 620 n. 31. No sins are venial but by Repentance 626 n. 44.622 n. 34. The absurdity of the Roman Doctrines concerning venial sins 624 n. 39. The inconveniences following from the doctrine of venial sins 623 n. 35. The Roman Doctors do not rightly define venial sins 614 n. 12. It is not safe to enquire into the veniality of a sin before we commit it 627 n. 57 53. What sins are venial cannot be known to us 627 n. 47. We should have judged some sins venial if it had not been otherwise revealed in Scripture 627 n. 48. Sins that we account in their nature venial by their multitude become damnable 629 n. 52. The means of expiating venial sins appointed by some Roman Doctors 631 n. 57. Sins are made greater or less by complication 612 n. 6 7. Three degrees of venial sins 628 n. 28. That distinction opposed 620 n. 28 29. sequ The mischief that is consequent to the distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial 610 and 623 n. 36. sequ What Repentance is to expiate venial sins 630 631 632 n. 56 57 58. sequ There is some degree of veniality in every sin till it come to an unpardonable estate 626 n. 44. Venial means either actually pardoned or onely pardonable 626 n. 44. Sins are venial in relation to the state of Grace and Repentance 628 n. 47. Sinner How every sinner is God's enemy 602 n. 11. God is ready to forgive all and the greatest sinners 801 n. 5. How the word Sinner is sometimes used in Scripture 712 n. 16. and 885 898 902. Saint Chrysostome's notion of a Sinner 760 n. 22. Sorrow Concerning it as it is a fruit of Repentance 845 n. 74. Rules concerning sorrow as it is a part of Repentance 859. A Caution to those that minister comfort to such as are afflicted with immoderate sorrow for their sins 852 n. 95. Sorrow for sin is but a sign or instrument of Repentance 853 n. 99. Cautions concerning the measure of this sorrow 860. Penitential sorrow is rather in the understanding then in the affections 823 n. 12. There is no Repentance without sorrow 821 n. 50.828 n. 24. Penitential sorrow is odium rather then dolor 823 n. 12. We must not account of our sorrow in repentance by the measure of sense but Religion 823 n. 15. External expressions of sorrow and the like are not necessary to the integrality of Repentance 824 n. 17. The usefulness of sensual sorrow in Repentance 826 n. 20. Of that device to be sorrowful that they cannot sorrow 827 n. 22. Directions to a Penitent when he finds not his sorrow proportionable to his desires of Repentance 850 n. 88. Penitential sorrow should be rather natural and constant then solemn 851 n. 89. Soul That Proposition Anima est tota in toto tota in qualibet parte corporis in what sense it is true 242 § 11. Silhon thinks a moral demonstration to
the Question in hand and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis that nothing can be said against it His words are these therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fighting that they may not impugn each other and because it is a certain port to them who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest and because it makes not our state worse but such as it finds every one such it reserves him to the future judgment and nourishes him with rest and withdraws him from the envy of present things and composes him with the expectation of future things E. W. thinking himself bound to say something to these words answers It is an excellent saying for worse he is not but infinitely better that quit of the occasions of living here is ascertain'd of future bliss hereafter which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter Read it and say afterwards if I say not true It is well put off But there are very many that read him who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says and withal such he hopes to escape But as to the thing That death gives a man advantage and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter but of that whole book But not for that reason only is a man the better for death but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity nay it does not alter him at all as to that for as death finds him so shall the judgment find him and therefore not purified by Purgatory for such he is reserved and not only thus but it cherishes him with rest which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory Now all these last words and many others E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of as not being for his purpose But he that pleases to see more may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise S. Gregorie's saying that after this life there is no purgation can no way be put off by any pretences For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories it is certain he did not believe the Roman for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving yet as by fire was to be perform'd at the day of judgment and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation and that after this world there is no purgation could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory S. Hilary and S. Macarius speak of two states after death and no more True says E. W. but they are the two final states That is true too in some sence for it is either of eternal good or evil but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham or to a place of pain where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day S. Hilary's words are these There is no stay or delaying For the day of judgment is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham viz. the bosome of Abraham or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment These words need no Commentary He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory will be a most mighty man in controversie And so also are the words of S. Macarius when they go out of the body the quires of Angels receive their souls and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world and so lead them to the Lord. Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Ancient Church I summ them up with the saying of S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not death that happens to the righteous but a translation For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things which are prepared for them Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson in his querela defunctorum and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell rest and labor horrid torments and great joy I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo which one of my adversaries could not find because the Princes was mistaken It is the 91. Epistle so known and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd but he knew where to find them The words are these But if any of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition or frailty that which abiding in the body he hath not received being out of the flesh he cannot Now against these words of S. Leo set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome that what is not finished of penances here a man may pay in Purgatory and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholick Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint because the distinction is but new and modern But this testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony That which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd out of the body cannot that is when the soul is gone out of the body as death finds them so shall the day of judgment find them And this was the sence of the whole Church for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains or if there be there is no â—ase of them before the day of judgment and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors or else they must shew that ever any one Catholick Father did teach that after death
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so