or successors of the injur'd person for in those sins very often the curse descends with the wrong So long as the effect remains and the injury is complained of and the title is still kept on foot so long the son is tied to restitution But even after the possession is setled yet the curse and evil may descend longer than the sin as the smart and the aking remains after the blow is past And therefore even after the successors come to be lawful possessors it may yet be very fit for them to quit the purchase of their fathers sin or else they must resolve to pay the sad and severe rent-charge of a curse 98. VI. In such cases in which there cannot be a real let there be a verbal and publick disavowing their fathers sin which was publick scandalous and notorious We find this thing done by Andronicus Palaeologus the Greek Emperor who was the son of a bad Father and it is to be done when the effect was transient or irremediable 99. VII Sometimes no piety of the children shall quite take off the anger of God from a family or nation as it hapned to Josiah who above all the Princes that were before or after him turned to the Lord. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal In such a case as this we are to submit to Gods will and let him exercise his power his dominion and his kingdom as he pleases and expect the returns of our piety in the day of recompences and it may be our posterity shall reap a blessing for our sakes who feel a sorrow and an evil for our fathers sake 100. VIII Let all that have children endeavour to be the beginners and the stock of a new blessing to their family by blessing their children by praying much for them by holy education and a severe piety by rare example and an excellent religion And if there be in the family a great curse and an extraordinary anger gone out against it there must be something extraordinary done in the matter of religion or of charity that the remedy be no less than the evil 101. IX Let not the consideration of the universal sinfulness and corruption of mankind add confidence to thy person and hardness to thy conscience and authority to thy sin but let it awaken thy spirit and stir up thy diligence and endear all the watchfulness in the world for the service of God for there is in it some difficulty and an infinite necessity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Electra in the Tragedy Our nature is very bad in it self but very good to them that use it well Prayers and Meditations THE first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed and was overcome and so be all they that are born of him Thus infirmity was made permanent And the law also in the heart of the people with the malignity and root so that the good departed away and the evil abode still Lo this only have I found that God hath made man upright but they have sought many inventions For there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me Purge me with hysop and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me The fool hath said in his heart There is no God they are corrupt they have done abominable works there is none that doth good The Lord looked down from Heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God They are all gone aside they are all become filthy There is not one that doth good no not one O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Sion when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people Jacob shall rejoyce and Israel shall be glad Man dieth and wasteth away yea man giveth up the ghost and where is he For now thou numbrest my steps Dost thou not watch over my sin my transgression is seal'd up in a bag and thou sewest up iniquity Thou destroyest the hope of man Thou prevailest against him for ever and he passeth thou changest his countenance and sendest him away But his flesh upon him shall have pain and his soul within him shall mourn What is man that he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous Behold he putteth no trust in his Saints yea the Heavens are not clean in his sight How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like water Trouble and anguish shall make him afraid They shall prevail against him as a King ready to battel For he stretcheth out his hand against God and strengthneth himself against the Almighty Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity for vanity shall be his recompence Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing no not one I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin and defiled my horn in the dust My face is foul with weeping and on my eye-lids is the shadow of death Not for any injustice in my hand also my prayer is pure Wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death I thank God I am delivered through Jesus Christ our Lord. But now being made free from sin and become servants of God ye have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life For the wages of sin is death But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof For sin shall not have dominion over you for ye are not under the law but under grace The PRAYER O Almighty God great Father of Men and Angels thou art the preserver of men and the great lover of souls thou didst make every thing perfect in its kind and all that thou didst make was very good only we miserable creatures sons of Adam have suffered the falling Angels to infect us with their leprosie of pride and so we entred into their evil portion having corrupted our way before thee and are covered with thy rod and dwell in a cloud of thy displeasure behold me the meanest of thy servants humbled before thee sensible of my sad condition weak and miserable sinful and ignorant full of need wanting thee in all things and neither able to escape death without a Saviour nor to live a life of holiness without thy Spirit O be pleas'd to give me a portion in the new birth break off the bands and fetters of my sin cure my evil inclinations correct my indispositions and natural averseness
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
advices with the saying of Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is as damnable to indulge leave to our selves to sin little sins as great ones A man may be choaked with a raisin as well as with great morsels of flesh and a small leak in a ship if it be neglected will as certainly sink her as if she sprung a plank Death is the wages of all and damnation is the portion of the impenitent whatever was the instance of their sin Though there are degrees of punishment yet there is no difference of state as to this particular and therefore we are tied to repent of all and to dash the little Babylonians against the stones against the Rock that was smitten for us For by the blood of Jesus and the tears of Repentance and the watchfulness of a diligent careful person many of them shall be prevented and all shall be pardoned A Psalm to be frequently used in our Repentance for our daily Sins BOW down thine ear O Lord hear me for I am poor and needy Rejoyce the soul of thy servant for unto thee O Lord do I lift up my soul. For thou Lord art good and ready to forgive and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee Teach me thy way O Lord I will walk in thy truth unite my heart to fear thy Name Shall mortal man be more just than God shall a man be more pure than his Maker Behold he put no trust in his Servants and his Angels he charged with folly How much less on them that dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust which are crushed before the moth Doth not their excellency which is in them go away They die even without wisdom The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Moreover by them is thy servant warned and in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his errors Cleanse thou me from my secret faults keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins let them not have dominion over me then shall I be upright and I shall be innocent from the great transgression O ye sons of men how long will ye turn my glory into shame how long will ye love vanity and seek after leasing But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself The Lord will hear when I call unto him Out of the deep have I called unto thee O Lord Lord hear my voice O let thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss O Lord who may abide it But there is mercy with thee therefore shalt thou be feared Set a watch O Lord before my mouth and keep the door of my lips Take from me the way of lying and cause thou me to make much of thy law The Lord is full of compassion and mercy long-suffering and of great goodness He will not alway be chiding neither keepeth he his anger for ever Yea like as a Father pitieth his own children even so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him For he knoweth whereof we are made he remembreth that we are but dust Praise the Lord O my soul and forget not all his benefits which forgiveth all thy sin and healeth all thine infirmities Glory be to the Father c. The PRAYER O Eternal God whose perfections are infinite whose mercies are glorious whose justice is severe whose eyes are pure whose judgments are wise be pleased to look upon the infirmities of thy servant and consider my weakness My spirit is willing but my flesh is weak I desire to please thee but in my endeavours I fail so often so foolishly so unreasonably that I extreamly displease my self and I have too great reason to fear that thou also art displeased with thy servant O my God I know my duty I resolve to do it I know my dangers I stand upon my guard against them but when they come near I begin to be pleased and delighted in the little images of death and am seised upon by folly even when with greatest severity I decree against it Blessed Jesus pity me and have mercy upon my infirmities II. O Dear God I humbly beg to be relieved by a mighty grace for I bear a body of sin and death about me sin creeps upon me in every thing that I do or suffer When I do well I am apt to be proud when I do amiss I am sometimes too confident sometimes affrighted If I see others do amiss I either neglect them or grow too angry and in the very mortification of my anger I grow angry and peevish My duties are imperfect my repentances little my passions great my fancy trifling The sins of my tongue are infinite and my omissions are infinite and my evil thoughts cannot be numbred and I cannot give an account concerning innumerable portions of my time which were once in my power but were let slip and were partly spent in sin partly thrown away upon trifles and vanity and even of the hasest sins of which in accounts of men I am most innocent I am guilty before thee entertaining those sins in little instances thoughts desires and imaginations which I durst not produce into action and open significations Blessed Jesus pity me and have mercy upon my infirmities III. TEACH me O Lord to walk before thee in righteousness perfecting holiness in the fear of God Give me an obedient will a loving spirit a humble understanding watchfulness over my thoughts deliberation in all my words and actions well tempered passions and a great prudence and a great zeal and a great charity that I may do my duty wisely diligently holily O let me be humbled in my infirmities but let me be also safe from my enemies let me never fall by their violence nor by my own weakness let me never be overcome by them nor yet give my self up to folly and weak principles to idleness and secure careless walking but give me the strengths of thy Spirit that I may grow strong upon the ruines of the flesh growing from grace to grace till I become a perfect man in Christ Jesus O let thy strength be seen in my weakness and let thy mercy triumph over my infirmities pitying the condition of my nature the infancy of grace the imperfection of my knowledge the transportations of my passion Let me never consent to sin but for ever strive against it and every day prevail till it be quite dead in me that thy servant living the life of grace may at last be admitted to that state of glory where all my infirmities shall be done away and all tears be dried up and sin and death shall be no more Grant this O most gracious God and Father for Jesus Christ his sake Amen Our Father c. CHAP. IV. Of Actual single Sins and what Repentance is proper to them SECT I. 1. THE
severely forbids every single action of sin so with greater caution he provides that we be not guilty of a sinful habit Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies we must not be servants of sin not sold under sin that sin have no dominion over us That is not only that we do not repeat the actions of sin but that we be not enslaved to it under the power of it of such a lost liberty that we cannot resist the temptation For he that is so is guilty before God although no temptation comes Such are they whom S. Peter notes that cannot cease from sin And indeed we cannot but confess the reasonableness of this For all men hate such persons whose minds are habitually averse from them who watch for opportunities to do them evil offices who lose none that are offer'd who seek for more who delight in our displeasure who oftentimes effect what they maliciously will Saul was Davids enemy even when he was asleep For the evil will and the contradicting mind and the spiteful heart are worse than the crooked or injurious hand And as grace is a principle of good so is this of evil and therefore as the one denominates the subject gracious so the other sinful both of them inherent that given by God this introduc'd by our own unworthiness * He that sins in a single act does an injury to God but he that does it habitually he that cannot do otherwise is his essential enemy The first is like an offending servant who deserves to be thrown away but in a vicious habit there is an antipathy The Man is Gods enemy as a Wolf to the Lamb as the Hyaena to the Dog He that commits a single sin hath stain'd his skin and thrown dirt upon it but an habitual sinner is an Ethiop and must be stay'd alive before his blackness will disappear 28. VIII A man is called just or unjust by reason of his disposition to and preparation for an act and therefore much more for the habit Paratum est cor meum Deus O God my heart is ready my heart is ready and S. John had the reward of Martyrdom because he was ready to die for his Lord though he was not permitted and S. Austin affirms that the continency of Abraham was as certainly crown'd as the continence of John it being as acceptable to God to have a chast spirit as a virgin body that is habitual continence being as pleasing as actual Thus a man may be a Persecutor or a Murtherer if he have a heart ready to do it and if a lustful soul be an Adulteress because the desire is a sin it follows that the habit is a particular state of sin distinct from the act because it is a state of vicious desires And as a body may be said to be lustful though it be asleep or eating without the sense of actual urtications and violence by reason of its constitution so may the soul by the reason of its habit that is its vicious principle and base effect of sin be hated by God and condemn'd upon that account 29. So that a habit is not only distinct from its acts in the manner of being as Rhetorick from Logick in Zeno as a fist from a palm as a bird from the egg and the flower from the gemm but a habit differs from its acts as an effect from the cause as a distinct principle from another as a pregnant Daughter from a teeming Mother as a Conclusion from its Premises as a state of aversation from God from a single act of provocation 30. IX If the habit had not an irregularity in it distinct from the sin then it were not necessary to persevere in holiness by a constant regular course but we were to be judg'd by the number of single actions and he only who did more bad than good actions should perish which was affirmed by the Pharisees of old and then we were to live or die by chance and opportunity by actions and not by the will by the outward and not by the inward man then there could be no such thing necessary as the Kingdom of Grace Christs Empire and Dominion in the soul then we can belong to God without belonging to his Kingdom and we might be in God though the Kingdom of God were not in us For without this we might do many single actions of vertue and it might happen that these might be more than the single actions of sin even though the habit and affection and state of sin remain Now if the case may be so as in the particular instance that the mans final condition shall not be determin'd by single actions it must be by habits and states and principles of actions and therefore these must have in them a proper good and bad respectively by which the man shall be judg'd distinct from the actions by which he shall not in the present case be judg'd All which considerations being put together do unanswerably put us upon this conclusion That a habit of sin is that state of evil by which we are enemies to God and slaves of Satan by which we are strangers from the Covenant of Grace and consign'd to the portion of Devils and therefore as a Corollory of all we are bound under pain of a new sin to rise up instantly after every fall to repent speedily for every sin not to let the Sun go down upon our wrath nor rise upon our lust nor run his course upon our covetousness or ambition For not only every period of impenitence is a period of danger and eternal death may enter but it is an aggravation of our folly a continuing to provoke God a further aberration from the rule a departure from life it is a growing in sin a progression towards final impenitence to obduration and Apostasie it is a tempting God and a despising of his grace it is all the way presumption and a dwelling in sin by delight and obedience that is it is a conjugation of new evils and new degrees of evil As pertinacy makes error to be heresie and impenitence makes little sins unite and become deadly and perseverance causes good to be crowned and evil to be unpardonable So is the habit of viciousness the confirmation of our danger and solennities of death the investiture and security of our horrible inheritance 31. The summ is this Every single sin is a high calamity it is a shame and it is a danger in one instant it makes us liable to Gods severe anger But a vicious habit is a conjugation of many actions every one of which is highly damnable and besides that union which is formally an aggravation of the evils there is superinduc'd upon the will and all its ministring faculties a viciousness and pravity which makes evil to be belov'd and chosen and God to be hated and despis'd A vicious habit hath in it all the Physical Metaphysical and Moral degrees of which it can be capable
to that sad state let the man hope as much as he can God forbid that I should be Author to him to despair The purpose of this discourse is that men in health should not put things to that desperate condition or make their hopes so little and afflicted that it may be disputed whether they be alive or no. 4. But this objection is nothing but a temptation and a snare a device to make me confess that the former arguments for fear men should despair ought to be answered and are not perfectly convincing I intended them only for institution and instruction not to confute any person or any thing but to condemn sin and to rescue men from danger But truly I do think they are rightly concluding as moral propositions are capable and if the consequent of them be that dying persons after a vicious life cannot hope ordinarily for pardon I am truly sorrowful that any man should fall into that sad state of things as I am really afflicted and sorrowful that any man should live vilely or perish miserably but then it ought not to be imputed to this doctrine that it makes men despair for the purpose and proper consequent of it is that men are warned to live so that they may be secur'd in their hopes that is that men give diligence to make their calling and election sure that they may take no desperate courses and fall into no desperate condition And certainly if any man preach the necessity of a good life and of actual obedience he may as well be charged to drive men to despair for the summ of the foregoing doctrine is nothing else but that it is necessary we should walk before God in all holy conversation and godliness But of this I shall give a large account in the Fifth Section Obj. 3. But if things be thus it is not good or safe to be a criminal Judge and all the Discipline of War will be unlawful and highly displeasing to God For if any one be taken in an act of a great sin and as it happens in War be put to death suddenly without leisure and space of repentance by the measures of this doctrine the man shall perish and consequently the power by which he falls is uncharitable I answer That in an act of sin the case is otherwise than in an habit as I have already demonstrated in its proper place It must be a habit that must extirpate a habit but an act is rescinded by a less violence and abode of duty and it is possible for an act of duty to be so heroical or the repentance of an hour to be so pungent and dolorous and the fruits of that repentance putting forth by the sudden warmths and fervour of the spirit be so goodly and fair as through the mercies of God in Jesus Christ to obtain pardon of that single sin if that be all II. But it is to be considered whether the man be otherwise a vicious person or was he a good man but by misfortune and carelesness overtaken in a fault If he was a good man his spirit is so accustomed to good that he is soon brought to an excellent sorrow and to his former state especially being awakened by the sad arrest of a hasty death and if he accepts that death willingly making that which is necessarily inforc'd upon him to become voluntary by his acceptation of it changing the judgment into penance I make no question but he shall find mercy But if the man thus taken in a fault was otherwise a vicious person it is another consideration It is not safe for him to go to war but the Officers may as charitably and justly put such a person to death for a fault as send him upon a hard service The doing of his duty may as well ruine him as the doing of a fault and if he be repriev'd a week he will find difficulty in the doing what he should and danger enough besides III. The discipline of war if it be only administred where it is necessary not only in the general rule but also in the particular instance cannot be reprov'd upon this account Because by the laws of war sufficiently published every man is sufficiently warned of his danger which if he either accept or be bound to accept he perishes by his own fault if he perishes at all For as by the hazard of his imployment he is sufficiently called upon to repent worthily of all his evil life past so is he by the same hazardous imployment and the known laws of war caution'd to beware of committing any great sin and if his own danger will not become his security then his confidence may be his ruine and then nothing is to be blam'd but himself IV. But yet it were highly to be wish'd that when such cases do happen and that it can be permitted in the particular without the dissolution of discipline such persons should be pitied in order to their eternal interest But when it cannot the Minister of justice is the Minister of God and dispenses his power by the rules of his justice at which we cannot quarrel though he cuts off sinners in their acts of sin of which he hath given them sufficient warning and hath a long time expected their amendment to whom that of Seneca may be applied Vnum bonum tibi superest repraesentabimus mortem Nothing but death will make some men cease to sin and therefore quo uno modo possunt desinant mali esse God puts a period to the increase of their ruine and calamity by making that wickedness shorter which if it could would have been eternal When men are incorrigible they may be cut off in charity as well as justice and therefore as it is always just so it is sometimes pity though a sad one to take a sinner away with his sins upon his head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When it is impossible to have it otherwise this is the only good that he is capable of to be sent speedily to a lesser punishment than he should inherit if he should live longer But when it can be otherwise it were very well it were so very often And therefore the customs of Spain are in this highly to be commended who to condemned criminals give so much respite till the Confessor gives them a benè discessit and supposes them competently prepared But if the Law-givers were truly convinced of this doctrine here taught it is to be hoped they would more readily practise this charity 57. Obj. 4. But hath not God promised pardon to him that is contrite A contrite and broken heart O God thou wilt not despise And I said I will confess my sins unto the Lord and so thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin And the prodigal was pardon'd immediately upon his confession and return Coeperat dicere mox illum pater complectitur said S. Basil His Father embraces him when he began to speak And S.
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
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
it before a sinner can be tied to it For to have displeased God is a great evil but what is it to me if it will bring no evil to me It is a Metaphysical and a Moral evil but unless it be also naturally and sensibly so it is not the object of a natural and proper grief It follows therefore that the state of a repenting person must have in it some more causes of sorrow than are usually taught or else in vain can they be called upon to weep and mourn for their sins Well may they wring their faces and their hands and put on black those disguises of passion and curtains of joy those ceremonies and shadows of rich widows and richer heirs by which they decently hide their secret smiles well may they rend their garments but upon this account they can never rend their hearts 7. For the stating of this Article it is considerable that there are several parts or periods of sorrow which are effected by several principles In the beginning of our repentance sometimes we feel cause enough to grieve For God smites many into repentance either a sharp sickness does awaken us or a calamity upon our house or the death of our dearest relative and they that find sin so heavily incumbent and to press their persons or fortunes with feet of lead will feel cause enough and need not to be disputed into a penitential sorrow They feel Gods anger and the evil effects of sin and that it brings sorrow and then the sorrow is justly great because we have done that evil which brings so sad a judgment 8. And in the same proportion there is always a natural cause of sorrow where there is a real cause of fear and so it is ever in the beginning of repentance and for ought we know it is for ever so and albeit the causes of fear lessen as the repentance does proceed yet it will never go quite off till hope it self be gone and passed into charity or at least into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into that fulness of confidence which is given to few as the reward of a lasting and conspicuous holiness And the reason is plain For though it be certain in religion that whoever repents shall be pardoned yet it is a long time before any man hath repented worthily and it is as uncertain in what manner and in what measures and in what time God will give us pardon It is as easie to tell the very day in which a man first comes to the use of reason as to tell the very time in which we are accepted to final pardon The progressions of one being as divisible as the other and less discernible For reason gives many fair indications of it self whereas God keeps the secrets of this mercy in his sanctuary and draws not the curtain till the day of death or judgment 9. Add to this that our very repentances have many allays and imperfections and so hath our pardon And every one that sins hath so displeased God that he is become the subject of the Divine anger Death is the wages what death God please and therefore what evil soever God will inflict or his mortality can suffer and he that knows this hath cause to fear and he that fears hath cause to be grieved that he is fallen from that state of divine favour in which he stood secured with the guards of Angels and covered with Heaven it self as with a shield in which he was beloved of God and heir of all his glories 10. But they that describe repentance in short and obscure characters and make repentance and pardon to be the children of a minute and born and grown up quickly as a fly or a mushrome with the dew of a night or the tears of a morning making the labours of the one and the want of the other to expire sooner than the pleasures of a transient sin are so insensible of the sting of sin that indeed upon their grounds it will be impossible to have a real godly sorrow For though they have done evil yet by this doctrine they feel none and there is nothing remains as a cause of grief unless they will be sorrowful for that they have been pleased formerly and are now secured nothing remains before them or behind but the pleasure that they had and the present confidence and impunity and that 's no good instrument of sorrow Securitas delicti etiam libido est ejus Sin takes occasion by the law it self if there be no penalty annexed 11. But the first in-let of a godly sorrow which is the beginning of repentance is upon the stock of their present danger and state of evil into which by their sin they are fallen viz. when their guilt is manifest they see that they are become sons of death expos'd to the wrath of a provoked Deity whose anger will express it self when and how it please and for ought the man knows it may be the greatest and it may be intolerable and though his danger is imminent and certain yet his pardon is a great way off it may be Yea it may be No it must be hop'd for but it may be missed for it is upon conditions and they are or will seem very hard Sed ut valeas multa dolenda feres So that in the summ of affairs however that the greatest sinner and the smallest penitent are very apt and are taught by strange doctrines to flatter themselves into confidence and presumption yet he will have reason to mourn and weep when he shall consider that he is in so sad a condition that because his life is uncertain it is also uncertain whether or no he shall not be condemned to an eternal prison of flames so that every sinner hath the same reason to be sorrowful as he hath who from a great state of blessings and confidence is fallen into great fears and great dangers and a certain guilt and liableness of losing all he hath and suffering all that is insufferable They who state repentance otherwise cannot make it reasonable that a penitent should shed a tear And therefore it is no wonder that we so easily observe a great dulness and indifferency so many dry eyes and merry hearts in persons that pretend repentance it cannot more reasonably be attributed to any cause than to those trifling and easie propositions of men that destroy the causes of sorrow by lessening and taking off the opinion of danger But now that they are observed and reproved I hope the evil will be lessened But to proceed 12. II. Having now stated the reasonableness and causes of penitential sorrow the next inquity is into the nature and constitution of that sorrow For it is to be observed that penitential sorrow is not seated in the affections directly but in the understanding and is rather Odium than Dolor it is hatred of sin and detestation of it a nolition a renouncing and disclaiming it whose expression is a resolution never
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
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
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
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
and predispositions of the Suscipient If by the external work of the Sacrament alone how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists save that it is worse For they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect but in a Suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety Faith and Repentance though in a subject so disposed they say the Sacrament by its own virtue does it but this Opinion says it does it of itself without the help or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the mere reception But if the Sacrament does not doe its work alone but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the Suscipient then because Infants can neither hinder it nor doe any thing to farther it it does them no benefit at all And if any man runs for succour to that exploded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants have Faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to an answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all the experience in the world The summe of the Argument in short is this though under another representment Either Baptism is a mere Ceremony or it implies a Duty on our part If it be a Ceremony onely how does it sanctifie us or make the comers thereunto perfect If it implies a Duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot doe duty at all And indeed this way of ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance and Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are Seals and consignations of the Grace as it is said the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of time And this is clear in the perpetual analogie of Holy Scripture For Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyned with it in order to production of the end so mentioned Know ye not that as many as are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death There is the Mystery and the Symbol together and declared to be perpetually united 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of us who were baptized into one were baptized into the other not onely into the name of Christ but into his death also But the meaning of thi◠as it is explained in the following words of S. Paul makes much for our purpose For to be baptized into his death signifies to be buried with him in Baptism that as Christ rose from the dead we also should walk in newness of life That 's the full mystery of Baptism For being baptized into his death or which is all one in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the likeness of his death cannot goe alone if we be so planted into Christ we shall be partakers of his Resurrection and that is not here instanced in precise reward but in exact duty for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old man a destroying the body of sin that we no longer serve sin This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mystery Whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbol only a mere Ceremony an opus operatum a dead letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it Plainer yet Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new man But to put on this new man is to be formed in righteousness and holiness and truth This whole Argument is the very words of S. Paul The Major proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3.27 The Minor in Ephes. 4.24 The Conclusion then is obvious that they who are not formed new in righteousness and holiness and truth they who remaining in the present incapacities cannot walk in the newness of life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one member of the distinction used by S. Peter they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that Baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only Baptism that saves us And this is the case of children And then the case is thus As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Paedo-baptists they need Baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of Reason before the works of the Spirit before the operations of Grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life they are never the nearer From the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence though they die in puris naturalibus and Baptism will carry them no further For that Baptism that save us is not the onely washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of Reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evil And from thence I consider anew That all vows made by persons under others names stipulations made by Minors are not valid till they by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratifie them Why then may not Infants as well make the vow de novo as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo when they come to years of choice If the Infant vow be invalid till the Manly confirmation why were it not as good they staid to make it till that time before which if they do make it it is to no purpose This would be considered 32. And in conclusion Our way is the surer way for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their Faith is the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism a thing which is not in their power to acquire they being persons not yet capable of a Law is to affirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man Certainly it is much derogatory to God's Justice and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his Goodness 33. And therefore who-ever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of the Paedo-baptists and practise it accordingly they pollute the blood of the everlasting
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
and wine as ever and rob God of his honour For if the Priest erres in reciting the words of consecration by addition or diminution or alteration or longer interruption if he do but say Hoc est corpus meum for corpus meum or meum corpus for corpus meum or if he do but as the Priest that Agrippa tells of that said Haec sunt corpora mea lest consecrating many hosts he should speak false Latin if either the Priest be timorous surprized or intemperate in all these cases the Priest and the People too worship nothing but bread And some of these are the more considerable I mean those defectibilities in pronunciation because the Priest always speaking the words of consecration in a secret voice not to be heard None of the people can have any notice whether he speaks the words so sufficiently as to secure them from worshipping a piece of bread If none of all these happen yet if he do not intend to consecrate all but some and yet know not which to omit * if he do intend but to mock * if he be a secret Atheist * a Moor * or a Jew * if he be an impious person and laugh at the Sacrament * if he do not intend to do as the Church does * that is if his intention be neither actual nor real then in all these cases the people give Divine worship to that which is nothing but bread * But if none of all this happen yet if he be not a Priest quod saepe accidit saith Pope Adrianus VI. in quaest quodlib q. 3. it often happens that the Priest feigns himself to celebrate and does not celebrate or feigns himself to celebrate and is no Priest * if he be not baptized rightly * if there was in his person as by being Simoniack or irregular a bastard or bigamus or any other impediment which he can or cannot know of if there was any defect in his Baptism or Ordinations or in the Baptism and Ordination of him that ordained him or in all the succession from the head of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Apostles that first began the Series in all these cases it cannot but be acknowledged by their own doctrine that the consecration is invalid and ineffective the product is nothing but a piece of bread is made the object of the Divine worship Well! suppose that none of all this happens yet there are many defects in respect of the matter also as if the bread be corrupted * or the wine be vinegar * if it be mingled with any other substance but water * or if the water be the prevailing ingredient or if the bread be not wheat or the wine be of soure or be of unripe grapes in all these cases nothing is changed but bread remains still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread and meer wine and yet they are worshipped by Divine adoration 3. Thirdly When certain of the Society of Jesuits were to die by the Laws of England in the beginning of King James his reign it was ask'd them whether if they might have leave to say Masse they would to the people standing by for the confirmation of their doubt and to convert them say these words unless this whole Species you see in the Chalice be the same blood which did flow out of the side of the Crucifix or of Christ hanging on the Cross let there be no part for me in the blood of Christ or in Christ himself to eternal ages and so with these words in their mouthes yield to death They all denied it none of them would take such a Sacrament upon them And when Garnet that unhappy man was tempted to the same sence he answered that a man might well doubt of the particular No man was bound to believe that any one Priest in particular now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively But that the bread is transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other This I receive from the relation of a wise Prelate a great and a good man whose memory is precious and is had in honour But the effect of this is that Transubstantiation supposing the doctrine true as it is most false yet in practice is uncertain but the giving it Divine worship is certain the change is believed only in general but it is worshipped in particular concerning which whether it be any thing more than bread it is impossible without a revelation they should know These then are very ill and deeply to be considered for certain it is God is a jealous God and therefore will be impatient of every incroachment upon his peculiar And then for us as we must pray with faith and without doubting so it is fit we should worship and yet in this case and upon these premises no man can chuse but doubt and therefore he cannot he ought not to worship Quod dubitas ne feceris 4. I will not censure concerning the men that do it or consider concerning the action whether it be formal idolatry or no. God is their Judge and mine and I beg he would be pleased to have mercy upon us all but yet they that are interested for their own particulars ought to fear and consider these things 1. That no man without his own fault can mistake a creature so far as to suppose him to be a God 2. That when the Heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon they did it upon their confidence that they were gods and would not have given to them Divine honours if they had thought otherwise 3. That the distinction of material and formal idolatry though it have a place in Philosophy because the understanding can consider an act with his error and yet separate the parts of the consideration yet hath no place in Divinity because in things of so great concernment it cannot but be supposed highly agreeable to the goodness and justice of God that every man be sufficiently instructed in his duty and convenient notices 4. That no man in the world upon these grounds except he that is malicious and spightful can be an Idolater for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him he can be no Idolater if he have not he is spightful and malicious and then all the Heathens are also excused as well as they 5. That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime then the persecuters that killed the Apostles thinking they did God good service and Saul in blaspheming the religion and persecuting the servants of Jesus and the Jews themselves in crucifying the Lord of life who did it ignorantly as did also their Rulers have met with their excuse upon the same account And therefore it is not safe for the men of the Roman communion to take anodyne medicines and Narcoticks to make them insensible of the pain for it will not cure their disease Their doing it upon the stock of
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
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
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
There was here no remedy no second thoughts no amends to be made But because much was not required of him and the Commandment was very easie and he had strengths more than enough to keep it therefore he had no cause to complain God might â—nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works because it was at first infinitely toleâ—â—ble But 2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard and by degrees beâ—â—â—e impossible not only because mans fortune was broken and his spirit troubled 〈◊〉 his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin but because man upon â—â—e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations and consequently had new duties and obligations and men hindred one another and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty However because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments first to Noah then to Abraham and then to his posterity and by this time they were very many And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works 3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea said S. Ambrose the Commandments were so many and great that it was impossible they should be kept For at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made But I said 4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot How justly will appear in the sequel but the reasonableness of it was in this that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses recollecting their inadvertencies uniting their distractions For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke but by threatnings and severities And this is the account S. Paul gives of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law was a Schoolmaster that is had a temporary authority serving to other ends with no final concluding power It could chastise and threaten but it could not condemn it had not power of eternal life and death that was given by other measures But because the world was wild and barbarous good men were few the bad potent and innumerable and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity it was necessary that God should superinduce a law and shew them the rod and affright and check their confidences left the world it self should perish by dissolution The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works Some little it had of repentance Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly And as it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience But this would not do it The promises were temporal and that could not secure obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance the law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the Temporal only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity 5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel For they were used to severe laws that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel to which eternally they would have shut their ears unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear And therefore S. Paul also calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pedagogie or institution leading unto Christ. 6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ as having commission to open the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance For the law called for exact obdience but ministred no grace but that of fear which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience All therefore were here convinced of sin but by this Covenant they had no hopes and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better according to that saying of S. Paul The Scripture concludes all under sin that is declares all the world to be sinners that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe This S. Bernard expresses in these words Deus nobis hoc fecit ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet Christi avidiores nos faceret Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ. 7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works that is of exact obedience they must perish for ever or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission that is such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God and Gods Mercy to Man and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus the Covenant of Repentance 8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall For as soon as the first Covenant the Covenant of works was broken God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man But this should be acted and published in its own time not presently In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance 9. Adam confessed his sin and repented Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters he called upon them to repent but because they did not God brought upon them the floud of waters For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him And in all ages in all periods and with all men God did deal by this measure and excepting that God in some great cases or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law but for long and great prevarications of it and when
highest punishment such as are idle words and the like Now first I suppose that the two latter will be sound to be both one For either God hath not forbidden idleness or falseness or he hath made no restraint at all upon words but left us at liberty to talk as we please for if he hath in this case made a law then idle words either cannot pretend to an excuse or it must be for the smalness of the matter or else it must fall in with the first and be excused because they cannot always be attended to 29. Now concerning the first sort of venial sins it is not a kind of sins but a manner of making all sins venial that is apt for pardon for by the imperfection of the agent or the act all great sins in their matter may become little in their malice and guilt Now these are those which Divines call sins of infirmity and of them I shall give an account in a distinct Chapter under that title 30. Concerning the second i. e. sins venial for the smalness of the matter I know none such For if the matter be a particular that God hath expresly commanded or forbidden respectively it is not little but all one to him as that which we call the greatest But if the particular be wholly relating to our neighbour the smalness of the matter does not absolutely make the sin venial for amongst us nothing is absolutely great or absolutely little but in comparison with something else and if a vile person had robb'd the poor woman that offered two mites to the treasury of the Temple he had undone her a farthing there was all her substance so that the smalness of the matter is not directly an excuse If a man had robb'd a rich man of a farthing he had not indeed done him so great a mischief but how if the rich man was not willing to part with his farthing but would be angry at the injury is it not a sin because the theft was small No man questions but it is It follows therefore that the smalness of the matter cannot make a sin venial but where there is a leave expresly given or justly presumed and if it be so in a great matter it is as little a sin as if the matter were small that is none at all 31. But now concerning the third which the Roman Schools dream of sins venial in their own nature and in their whole kind that is it which I have been disputing against all this while and shall now further conclude against by arguments more practical and moral For if we consider what are those particulars which these men call venial sins in their whole kind and nature we shall find that Christ and they give measures differing from each other The Catalogues of them I will take from the Fathers not that they ever thought these things to be in their nature venial for they that think so of them are strangers to their writings and to this purpose Bellarmine hath not brought one testimony pertinent and home to the question but because they reckon such Catalogues of venial sins which demonstrate that they do mean sins made venial by accident by mens infirmity by Gods grace by pardon by repentance and not such which are so in their own nature But the thing it self will be its own proof 32. S. Austin reckons Vanas cachinnationes in escis aviditatem immoderatiorem appetitum in vendendis emendis rebus charitatis vilitatis vota perversa usum matrimonii ad libidinem judicia apud infideles agitare Dicere fratri Fatue Vain laughter greediness in meat an immoderate or ungovern'd appetite perverse desires of dearness and cheapness in buying and selling commodities the use of marriage to lustfulness and inordination to go to law before the unbelievers to call our brother Fool. S. Hierome reckons jestings anger and injurious words Caesarius Arelatensis the Bishop reckons excess in eating and drinking idle words importune silence to exasperate an importunate begger to omit the fasts of the Church sleepiness or immoderate sleeping the use of a wife to lustfulness to omit the visitation of the sick and of prisoners and to neglect to reconcile them that are at variance too much severity or harshness to our family or too great indulgence flattery talkings in the Church poor men to eat too much when they are brought rarely to a good table forswearings unwary perjury slander or reproaches rash judgment hatred sudden anger envy evil concupiscence filthy thoughts the lust of the eyes the voluptuousness of the ears or the itch of hearing the speaking filthy words and indeed he reckons almost all the common sins of mankind S. Bernard reckons stultiloquium vaniloquium otiosè dicta facta cogitata talking vainly talking like a fool idle or vain thoughts words and deeds These are the usual Catalogues and if any be reckoned they must be these for many times some of these are least consented to most involuntary most ready less avoidable of the lightest effect of an eternal return incurable in the whole and therefore plead the most probably and are the soonest likely to prevail for pardon but yet they cannot pretend to need no pardon or to fear no damnation For our blessed Saviour says it of him that speaks an angry word that he shall be guilty of hell fire Now since we find such as these reckon'd in the Catalogue of venial sins and S. Austin in particular calls that venial to which our blessed Saviour threatned hell fire it is certain he must not mean that it is in its own nature venial but damnable as any other but it is venial that is prepared for pardon upon other contingencies and causes of which I shall afterwards give account In the mean time I consider 33. VI. When God appointed in the Law expiatory Sacrifices for sins although there was enough to signifie that there is difference in the degrees of sin yet because they were eodem sanguine eluenda and without shedding of blood there was no remission they were reckon'd in the same acounts of death and the Divine anger And it is manifest that by the severities and curse of the Law no sin could escape For cursed is he that continues not in every thing written in the law to do them The Law was a Covenant of Works and exact measures There were no venial sins by vertue of that Covenant for there was no remission and without the death of Christ we could not be eased of this state of danger Since therefore that any sin is venial or pardonable is only owing to the grace of God to the death of Christ and this death pardons all upon the condition of Faith and Repentance and pardons none without it it follows that though sins differ in degree yet they differ not in their natural and essential order to death The man that commits any sin dies if he repents not and he that does
repent timely and effectually dies for none The wages of sin is death of sin indefinitely and therefore of all sin and all death for there is no more distinction of sin than death only when death is threatned indefinitely that death is to be understood which is properly and specifically threatned in that Covenant where the death is named as death temporal in the Law death eternal under the Gospel 34. And thus it appears in a very material instance relating to this question for when our blessed Saviour had threatned the degrees of anger he did it by apportioning several pains hereafter of one sort to the several degrees of the same sin here which he expresses by the several inflictions passed upon Criminals by the Houses of Judgment among the Jews Now it is observable that to the least of these sins Christ assigns a punishment just proportionable to that which the gloss of the Pharisees and the Law it self did to them that committed Murther which was capital He shall be guilty of judgment so we read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is in the Greek He shall be guilty in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in the Court of Judgment the Assembly of the twenty three Elders and there his punishment was death but the gentlest manner of it the decapitation or smiting him through with the sword and therefore the least punishment hereafter answering to death here can mean no less than death hereafter * And so also was the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that calls Racha shall be guilty that is shall be used as one that stands guilty in the Sanhedrim or Council meaning that he is to die too but with a severer execution by stoning to death this was the greatest punishment by the houses of judgment for Crucifixion was the Roman manner These two already signifie Hell in a less degree but as certainly and evidently as the third For though we read Hell-fire in the third sentence only yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no otherwise signifies Hell than the other two by analogy and proportionable representment The cause of the mistake is this When Christ was pleased to add yet a further degree of punishment in hell to a further degree of anger and reproach the Jews having no greater than that of stoning by the judgment of the Sanhedrim or Council he would borrow his expression from that which they and their Fathers too well understood a barbarous custome of the Phoenicians of burning children alive in the valley of Hinnom which in succession of time the Hellenists called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not much unlike the Hebrew word and because by our blessed Lord it was used to signifie or represent the greatest pains of hell that were spoken of in that gradation the Christians took the word and made it to be its appellative and to signifie the state or place of the damned just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the garden of Eden is called Paradise But it was no more intended that this should signifie Hell than that any of the other two should The word it self never did so before but that and the other two were taken as being the most fearful things amongst them here to represent the degrees of the most intolerable state hereafter just as damnation is called death the second death that because we fear the first as the worst of present evils we may be affrighted with the apprehensions of the latter From this authority it follows that as in the Law no sins were venial but by repentance and sacrifice so neither in the Gospel are they not in their own nature not by the more holy Covenant of the Gospel but by repentance and mortification For the Gospel hath with greater severity laid restraint upon these minutes and little particles of action and passion and therefore if in the law every transgression was exacted we cannot reasonably think that the least parts of duty which the Gospel superadded with a new and severer caution as great and greater than that by which the law exacted the greatest Commandments can be broken with indemnity or without the highest danger The law exacted all its smallest minutes and therefore so does the Gospel as being a Covenant of greater holiness But as in the law for the smaller transgressions there was an assignment of expiatory rites so is there in the Gospel of a ready repentance and a prepared mercy 37. VII Lastly those sins which men in health are bound to avoid those sins for which Christ did shed his most precious blood those sins which a dying man is bound to ask pardon for though he hopes not or desires not to escape temporal death certain it is that those sins are in their nature and in the Oeconomy or dispensation of the Divine threatnings damnable For what can the dying man fear but death eternal and if he be bound to repent and ask pardon even for the smallest sins which he can remember in order to what pardon can that repentance be but of the eternal pain to which every sin by its own demerit naturally descends If he must repent and ask pardon when he hopes not or desires not the temporal it is certain he must repent only that he may obtain the eternal And they that will think otherwise will also find themselves deceiv'd in this * For if the damned souls in hell are punish'd for all their sins then the unpardon'd venial sins are there also smarted for But so it is and so we are taught in the doctrine of our great Master If we agreee not while we are in the way we shall be cast into the eternal prison and shall not depart thence till we have paid the uttermost farthing that is ever for our smallest sins if they be unremitted men shall pay in hell their horrible Symbol of damnation And this is confessed on all hands that they who fall into hell pay their sorrows there even for all But it is pretended that this is only by accident not by the first intention of the Divine justice because it happens that they are subjected in such persons who for other sins not for these go to hell Well! yet let it be considered whether or no do not the smallest unremitted sins increase the torments of hell in their proportion If they do not then they are not at all punished in hell for if without them the perishing soul is equally punished then for them there is no punishment at all But if they do increase the pains as it is certain they do then to them properly and for their own malignity and demerit a portion of eternal pains is assigned Now if God punishes them in hell then they deserv'd hell if they be damnable in their event then they were so in their merit for God never punishes any sin more than it deserves though he often does less But to say that this is
guilt of the many single actions because this customary swearing cannot be accounted so bad as it is by the value and baseness of the single actions which are scarce considered very often not known not noted at all not attended to but therefore they have their load by being effects of a cursed habit and custom Here the habit is worse than the action and hath an evil of its own 18. V. A vicious habit hath in it this evil appendage that in every instant of its abode it keeps us out of Gods favour we are in perpetual danger and under the eternal arrest of death even without the actions of sin without pleasure or possessing any of its base◠interests It was a horrible foolery which Appianus tells of Lentulus Spinther and Dolabella that when Caesar was kill'd in the Senate they drew their swords and ran about the streets as if they had done the fact supposing it to be great and glorious quibus gloriâ quidem frui non contigit sed poenas dederunt easdem cum sontibus they lost their hopes of same but yet they were punished for the fact So useless and yet so pernicious a thing is a vicious habit a man may pay the price of his lust when he thinks not of it and perish for all that he was willing to enjoy though he did not what he would This is that by which Divines use to reconcile the justice of God with the infliction of eternal pains upon temporal and transitory actions There is in unrepenting or habitual sinners an eternal spring or principle of evil and they were ready for ever to have sinned and for this preparation of mind to have sinn'd for ever it is by them affirm'd to be just to punish them for ever Now this is not true in the single actions and interruptions of grace by sin but in the habitual sinner it is more reasonable Such are they of whom the Apostle speaks They were past feeling and yet were given up unto uncleanness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies the beginnings or little images of lust which as they are first in the introduction of lust so in such persons they are the only remains of the old man He cannot sin as he used to do not by his action but he sins by his habit 19. The summe is this If to love God to delight in him to frequent holy offices to love his service to dwell in God to have our conversation in heaven to lay up our treasure and our hopes and our heart there to have no thoughts no designs no imployment but for God and for religion be more acceptable to God than to do single actions of a prosperous piety upon so many sudden resolutions and the stock of an alternate and returning duty Then by the same reason is it infinitely more displeasing to God to be a servant under Gods Enemy and our own to be in slavery to sin subordinate to passion ruled by chance and company to be weary of well doing to delight in sin according to the inner man this I say must be an infinite aberration and aversion from God a contradiction to all our hopes and that in Theology signifies the same effect as a vicious habit does in nature For they are the same thing and have only different conceptions and formal notices as the patience of Job differs from the patience of S. Laurence as natural vertue from the same grace in a Christian so does a natural habit of vice in its moral capacity differ from our aversion from God I mean in the active sence which if it be not a distinct state of sinfulness distinct from the guilt of sinful actions yet it is at least a further degree of the same guiltiness and being criminal and either of them both do sufficiently evince the main question As the charity and devotion of Cornelius was increased by passing into a habit of these graces and as the piety of him a Jewish Proselyte the habitual piety was mended by his being a Christian So the single actions of vice pass a great guilt but there is more contracted by the habitual vileness and that habit is made worse by being an opposition to and an alienation from God But of this I am now to give more special accounts 3. Of the relative capacity of sinful Habits in reference to God 20. I. This is it that contains the strictness of the main Queston For a sinful habit is a state of ungraciousness with God and sin is possessed of our love and choice Therefore in vain it is to think a habit innocent because it is a natural product of many single actions Every proper action of the will is a natural production of the will but it is nevertheless voluntary When the understanding hath practically determined the will it is natural for the will to choose but yet such a choice is imputable to the will and if it be not good is reckoned as a sin So it is in vicious habits they are natural effects of many single actions but then it is also to be remembred that their seat is the will and whatsoever is naturally there is voluntary still A habit of sinning cannot remain at all but by consent and by delight by love and adhesion The habit is radicated no where but in the will except it be by subordination and in the way of ministeries It follows therefore that every vicious habit is the prolongation of a sin a continuing to love that which to love but once is death For every one that hath a vicious habit chooses his sin chearfully acts it frequently is ready to do it in every opportunity and at the call of every temptation and according as these things are in every one so is the degree of his habit Now since every one of these which are the constituent parts of a habit implies a readiness and apt choice of the will to sin it follows evidently that the capacity of a vicious habit by which it relates to God consisting of so much evil and all of it voluntary upon the stock of its own nature and constitution is highly and chiefly and distinctly sinful Although the natural facility is naturally and unavoidably consequent to frequent sinful actions yet it is also voluntary for the habit is not contracted nor can it remain but by our being willing to sin and delighting in the ways of error 21. II. Now if we look into the fountains of Scripture which is admirable in the description of vertue and vice we shall find that habitual sin is all that evil which is to be avoided by all men that have in them the hopes of life It is the prevailing of sin it is that by which sins come to their height it is the debauching of the will and understanding it is all that which can be signified by those great expressions by which holy Scripture describes those great evils which God hates It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
shall all likewise perish Neither does God exacting or describing Repentance in several lines use any respect of persons but with the same measures he will deal with all For when there is a difference in the Divine mercy it is in giving time and grace to repent not in sparing one and condemning another who die equally criminal and impenitent Those little lines of hopes are not upon either of these foundations For whatsoever is known or revealed is against these persons and does certainly condemn them Why then are they bidden to hope and repent I answer once for all It is upon something that we know not And if they be not sav'd we know not how they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular When S. Peter had declar'd to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness and yet made him pray if peradventure the thought of his heart might be forgiven him he did not by any thing that was reveal'd know that he should be pardoned but by something that he did not know there might be hope It is at no hand to be dissembled out of tenderness and pity to such persons but to be affirmed openly there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any degree confident But he that hath a deadly wound whom the Chirurgeons affirm to be hopeless yet is willing to receive Cordials and to be dress'd 2. If in the measures of life and death which are described in large characters there be any lines so indefinite and comprehensive that they who preach and declare the doctrines do not fully take in all that God intends upon the account of our weakness and ignorance there may be some little rushes and twiggs to support their sinking hopes For although the matters of duty and the conditions of life and death are so plain and legible that we can all understand our obligation yet things are seldome so described that we can give the final sentence concerning others There is a secret in these things which nothing shall open but the day of Judgment No man may judge his brother that is no man can or ought to say This man is damn'd and yet we know that he that dies an impenitent Traytor or Rebel or adulterer is damn'd But yet that Adulterous Natta or the Rebel Cinna or the Traytor sâ—â—ti line is actually damn'd that we know not The reason is because our duty is described for us to guide and walk our selves by not to judge and sentence others And even the judgment of the Church who hath authority to judge and sentence yet it is only for amendment it is universal it is declarative it is conditional not personal final decretory and eternal For otherwise does man judge otherwise does God II. There is some variety in the case and in the person and in the degrees of Repentance There is a period beyond which God will not admit a man to pardon but when it is we know not There is a minimum Religionis the least measure of Religion the lowest degree of acceptability but what it is we cannot tell There is also a proper measure for every one but no man can fathom it And the duties and parts of Repentance consist in the terms of a great distance and latitude and we cannot tell when a man first begins to be safe and when he is newly escaped from the regions of sin and when he begins his state of grace Now as God abates great measures of his wrath and forgives all that is past if we return betimes and live twenty years in piety and repentance so he does if the man do so nineteen years and eighteen and still shortning till you come to a year or any the least time that can do the work of Repentance and exterminate his vicious habit Now because Abraham begg'd for the pardon of Sodom if there should be found fifty righteous there and then abated five and then five more and then ten more till he came to ten alone and it is supposed that Abraham first gave out and that God would have pardon'd the City for one righteous mans sake if Abraham had still persevered to ask if any man will suppose that it may be done so in the abatements of time to be made to a returning sinner though I say it is a strange diminution to come from years to one day yet I will say nothing against it but that length or shortness of time makes nothing to the mercies of God but it makes very much to the duty of man because every action requires some time and every habit much more Now we have reason to say that the condition of a dying penitent after a whole wicked life is desperate because so far as we understand things habits are not to be extinguish'd and the contraries acquir'd but with long time and study But if there be any secret way by which the Spirit of God does work faster and produce undiscerned miracles we ought to adore that goodness by which it is so and they that can believe this may hope the other In the mean time neither the one nor the other is revealed and so it stands as it did in the whole Question IV. We find in the instance of Abrahams faith that against hope he believed in hope that is that he had great arguments on both sides and therefore that in defiance of one he would hope in the other because this could not fail him but the other could If it can be brought to pass that a dying man can hope after a wicked life it is a hope against hope and of this all that I can say is that it is no contradiction in the thing to affirm that a dying penitent who hath contracted vicious habits hath not time left him to perform that repentance which God requires of habitual sinners under the pains of eternal death and yet to bid such a person do what he can do and pray if peradventure God will be intreated Because that little hopes which he is bid to have are not warranted or relying upon pretence of any particular revelation contrary to the so many expressions of severe duty and stricter conditions but are plac'd upon the foundation of the Divine Power and such little proportions and similitudes of things and guesses and conjectures of kind persons as can only be sufficient to make the dying man try what can be done V. The first ages of the Church did exactly use this method of Doctrine and Discipline In some cases whereof I shall afterwards give account they refus'd to declare them pardon'd to minister Gods pardon to dying penitents but yet would not bid them despair but refer them to the Divine judgment which if it be reduc'd to the causes of things if we believe they proceeded reasonably must mean this that they knew of no revelation concerning the pardon of such persons but whether God would or no pardon
them they knew not but bid them hope well And when they did admit dying penitents to the peace of the Church they did it de benè esse that it might do as much good as it could But they knew not what that was Poenitentiam dare possumus securitatem dare non possumus They are S. Austins words Now if I were to ask of him an account it would be in the same way of objection as I am now â—ntying For did God promise pardon to dying penitents after a wicked life or are there fearful threatnings in Scripture against such sinners as certainly all in their case are or hath God said nothing at all concerning them If God did promise pardon to such then why did not the Church give security as well as penance If God did threaten fearfully all such persons why do they admit such to repentance whom God will not admit to pardon but hath threatned with eternal death If he hath said nothing of them they are to be judged by the measures of others and truly that will too sadly ring their passing-bell For men in health who have contracted vicious habits cannot be pardoned so long as their vicious habit remains and they know that to overcome and mortifie a vicious habit is a work of time and great labour and if this be the measure of dying penitents as well as of living and healthful they will sink in judgment that have not time to do their duty But then why the Church of those ages and particularly S. Austin should hope and despair at the same time for them that is knew no ground of revelations upon which to fix any hope of pardon for them and yet should exhort them to Repentance which without hopes of pardon is to no purpose there is no sensible account to be given but this that for ought they knew God might do more than they knew and more than he had promised but whether he would or not they knew not but by that means they thought they fairly quit their hands of such persons VI. But after all this strict survey of answers if we be called to account for being so kind it must be confess'd that things are spoken out of charity and pity more than of knowledge The case of these men is sad and deplorable and it is piety when things are come to that state and saddest event to shew mercy by searching all the corners of revelation for comfort that God may be as much glorified and the dying men assisted as much as may be I remember the Jews are reproved by some for repeating the last verse but one in the book of Isaiah and setting it after the last of all That being a verse of mercy this of sorrow and threatning as if they would be more merciful than God himself and thought it unfit to end so excellent a book with so sad a cursing Indeed Gods ways are best and his measures the surest and therefore it is not good to promise where God hath not promised and to be kind where he is angry and to be free of his pardon where he hath shut up and seal'd his treasures But if they that say God hath threatned all such sinners as dying penitents after wicked life are and yet that they must not despair are to be reproved as too kind then they much more who confidently promise heaven at last It is indeed a compliance with humane misery that makes it fit to speak what hopeful things we can but if these hopes can easily be reproved I am sure the former severity cannot so easily be confuted That may this cannot 31. I. But now things being put into this constitution the inquiry into what manner of Repentance the dying penitent is oblig'd to will be of no great difficulty Qui dicit omnia nihil excipit He that is tied to all can be excus'd from none All that he can do is too little if God shall deal with him according to the conditions of the Gospel which are describ'd and therefore he must not inquire into measures but do all absolutely all that he can in that sad period Particularly 32. II. Let him examine his Conscience most curiously according as his time will permit and his other abilities because he ought to be sure that his intentions are so real to God and to Religion that he hath already within him a resolution so strong a repentance so holy a sorrow so deep a hope so pure a charity so sublime that no temptation no time no health no interest could in any circumstance of things ever tempt him from God and prevail 33. III. Let him make a general confession of the sins of his whole life with all the circumstances of aggravation let him be mightily humbled and hugely ashamed and much in the accusation of himself and bitterly lament his folly and misery let him glorifie God and justifie him confessing that if he perishes it is but just if he does not it is a glorious an infinite mercy a mercy not yet revealed a mercy to be look'd for in the day of wonders the day of judgment Let him accept his sickness and his death humbly at the hands of God and meekly pray that God would accept that for punishment and so consign his pardon for the rest through the blood of Jesus Let him cry mightily unto God incessantly begging for pardon and then hope as much as he can even so much as may exalt the excellency of the Divine mercy but not too confidently lest he presume above what is written 34. IV. Let the dying penitent make what amends he can possibly in the matter of â—eal injuries and injustices that he is guilty of though it be to the ruine of his estate and that will go a great way in deprecation Let him ask forgiveness and offer forgiveness make peace transmit charity and provisions and piety to his relatives 35. V. Next to these it were very fitting that the dying penitent did use all the means he can to raise up his spirit and do internal actions of Religion with great fervour and excellency To love God highly to be ready to suffer whatsoever can come to pour out his complaints with great passion and great humility adding to these and the like great effusions of charity holy and prudent undertakings of severity and Religion in case he shall recover and if he can let him do some great thing something that does in one little body of action signifie great affections any heroical act any transportation of a holy zeal in his case does help to abbreviate the work of many years If these things be thus done it is all that can be done at that time and as well as it can be then done what the event of it will be God only knows and we all shall know at the day of Judgment In this case the Church can give the Sacrament but cannot give security Meditations and Prayers to be used in all the
and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced Now my Lord I had thought I had been secured in the Article not only for the truth of the Doctrine but for the advantages and comforts it brings I was confident they would not because there was no cause any men should be angry at it For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe and less gentle That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways of being damned that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness and that they should desire to see an angry countenance and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism should for ought they know die eternally and be damned and that themselves should consent to it and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures and evil portions to their children they might have complained but to complain because I say God is just to all and merciful and just to infants to fret and be peevish because I tell them that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God is a thing that may well be wondred at My Lord I take a great comfort in this that my doctrine stands on that side where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently and they that speak otherwise in this Article are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes And after great and laborious devices they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely but I will prejudice no mans opinion I only will defend my own because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God who will defend and accept me in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth Now my Lord I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published Others think it not true The first are the wise and few the others are the many who have been taught otherwise and either have not leisure or abilities to make right judgments in the question Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me Concerning the other your Lordship in great humility and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction which I could be obliged to by the interest of any Christian vertue In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship I have published these ensuing Papers hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed however I have done all that I could and all that I am commanded and all that I was counselled to And as I submit all to Gods blessing and the events of his providence and Oeconomy so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship CHAP. VII A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin SECT I. Of the Fall of Adam and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs. IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing though he said many others in it less certain Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum noâ—ius nihil ad intelligendum secretius The article we all confess but the manner of explicating it is not an apple of knowledge but of contention Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity For the Doctrine of Original sin as I have explicated it is taxed of Singularity and Novelty and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned or consented to and that we take false measures of these Appellatives reckoning that new that is but renewed and that singular that is not taught vulgarly or in our own Societies Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges and though I do confess and complain of it that the usual affirmations of Original sin are a popular error yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine that it prevailed by prejudice and accidental authorities but after such prevailing it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority I shall explicate and state the Question that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion nor any offence taken by error and misprision It is not therefore intended nor affirmed that there is no such thing as Original sin for it is certain and affirmed by all Antiquity upon many grounds of Scripture That Adam sinned and his sin was Personally his but Derivatively ours that is it did great hurt to us to our bodies directly to our souls indirectly and accidentally 2. For Adam was made a living soul the great representative of Mankind and the beginner of a temporal happy life and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him or implied but when he sinned he was thrown from thence and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy This we find in the story the reasonableness of the parts of which teaches us all this doctrine To which if we add the words of S. Paul the case is clear The first Adam was made a living soul The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from Heaven As is the earthly such are they that are earthly and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly and as we have born
state not at all fitted for Heaven but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell For even in innocent persons in Christ himself it was a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven he could not enter into the second Tabernacle that is into Heaven so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing the body of sin that is of infirmity he was first to lay aside and so by dying unto sin once he entred into Heaven according to the other words of S. Paul Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God it is a state of differing nature and capacity Christ himself could not enter thither till he had first laid that down as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses 9. This is the whole summ of Original sin which now I have more fully explicated than formerly it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it as to represent it to be a state of evil which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty and to be without excuse which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity and not unreasonable though in Scripture so much is not expressed yet now I must be more restrained and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine which the ignorance or the fancy or the interest or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine SECT II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin and how it is so 10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed to us so as to bring evil effects upon us For that which is inherent in us is a consequent only of Adam's sin but of it self no sin for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin the want of Original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these can be a sin in us but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be For the case is thus One half of Christians that dispute in this Article particularly the Roman Schools say that Concupiscence is not a sin but a consequent of Adam's sin The other half of Christians I mean in Europe that is the Protestants generally say That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin but formally no sin The effect of these is this That it is not certain amongst the Churches that either one or the other is formally our sin or inherent in us and we cannot affirm either without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference and therefore in the conference at Wormes and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together saying that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis cum concupiscentiâ But the Church of England defines neither but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin or inherent in us I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts The want of original righteousness is not a thing but the privation of a thing and therefore cannot be inherent in us and therefore if it be a sin at all to us it can only be such by imputation But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally because if it be at all it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin and unavoidable by us For though Scotus is pleased to affirm that there was an obligation upon humane nature to preserve it I doubt not but as he intended it he said false Adam indeed was tied to it for if he lost it for himself and us then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us for we could not be obliged to keep it unless we had received it but he was and because he lost it we also missed it that is are punished and feel the evil effects of it But besides all this the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges but not at all spoken of in Scripture save only that God made man upright that is he was brought innocent into the world he brought no sin along with him he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion all which we do not It is that which as Prosper describes it made a man expertem peccati capacem Dei for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough if he needed any besides his natural powers which we have not by nature but by another dispensation 11. Add to all this that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events tell us it is an aversion from God that is in effect a turning to the creature and differs no otherwise from concupiscence than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East that is just nothing It follows then that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin then so must the want of original righteousness because they are the same thing in real event and if that be no sin in us because it was only the punishment of his sin then neither is the other a sin for the same reason But then for Concupiscence that this is no sin before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity and of S. Austin himself Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si nunquam consentiremus ad malum Lib. 2. ad Julianum And it is infinitely against reason it should for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins therefore much less is the principle if the little emanations of it in them be innocent although there are some images of consent much more is that principle innocent before any thing of consent at all is applied to it By the way I cannot but wonder at this that the Roman Schools affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and not consented to by us but come upon us whether we list or no yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly which it is certain is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence But I add this also that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin if it were then it would follow that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence that is no
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
is guilty of murder and cannot pretend infirmity for his excuse because in an action of so great consequence and effect it is supposed he had time to deliberate all the foregoing parts of his life whether such an action ought to be done or not or the very horror of the action was enough to arrest his spirit as a great danger or falling into a river will make a drunken man sober and by all the laws of God and Man he was immur'd from the probability of all transports into such violences and the man must needs be a slave of passion who could by it be brought to go so far from reason and to do so great evil * If a man in the careless time of the day when his spirit is loose with a less severe imployment or his heart made more open with an innocent refreshment spies a sudden beauty that unluckily strikes his fancy it is possible that he may be too ready to entertain a wanton thought and to suffer it to stand at the doors of his first consent but if the sin passes no further the man enters not into the regions of death because the Devil entred on a sudden and is as suddenly cast forth But if from the first arrest of concupiscence he pass on to an imperfect consent from an imperfect consent to a perfect and deliberate and from thence to an act and so to a habit he ends in death because long before it is come thus far The salt water is taken in The first concupiscence is but like rain water it discolours the pure springs but makes them not deadly But when in the progression the will mingles with it it is like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or waters of brimstone and the current for ever after is unwholsome and carries you forth into the dead Sea the lake of Sodom which is to suffer the vengeance of Eternal fire But then the matter may be supposed little till the will comes For though a man may be surprised with a wanton eye yet he cannot sight a duel against his knowledge or commit adultery against his will A man cannot against his will contrive the death of a man but he may speak a rash word or be suddenly angry or triflingly peevish and yet all this notwithstanding be a good man still These may be sins of Infirmity because they are imperfect actions in the whole and such in which as the man is for the present surpris'd so they are such against which no watchfulness was a sufficient guard as it ought to have been in any great matter and might have been in sudden murders A wise and a good man may easily be mistaken in a nice question but can never suspect an article of his Creed to be false a good man may have many fears and doubtings in matters of smaller moment but he never doubts of Gods goodness of his truth of his mercy or of any of his communicated perfections he may fall into melancholy and may suffer indefinite fears of he knows not what himself yet he can never explicitely doubt of any thing which God hath clearly revealed and in which he is sufficiently instructed A weak eye may at a distance mistake a man for a tree but he who sailing in a storm takes the Sea for dry land or a mushrome for an oak is stark blind And so is he who can think adultery to be excusable or that Treason can be duty or that by persecuting Gods Prophets he does God good service or that he propagates Religion by making the Ministers of the Altar poor and robbing the Churches A good man so remaining cannot suffer infirmity in the plain and legible lines of duty where he can see and reason and consider I have now told which are sins of infirmity and I have told all their measures For as for those other false opinions by which men flatter themselves into Hell by a pretence of sins of infirmity they are as unreasonable as they are dangerous and they are easily reproved upon the stock of the former truths Therefore 55. VI. Although our mere natural inclination to things forbidden be of it self a natural and unavoidable infirmity and such which cannot be cured by all the precepts and endeavours of perfection yet this very inclination if it be heightned by carelesness or evil customs is not a sin of infirmity Tiberius the Emperor being troubled with a fellow that wittily and boldly pretended himself to be a Prince at last when he could not by questions he discovered him to be a mean person by the rusticity and hardness of his body not by a callousness of his feet or a wart upon a finger but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His whole body was hard and servile and so he was discovered The natural superfluities and excrescencies that inevitably adhere to our natures are not sufficient indications of a servile person or a slave to sin but when our natures are abused by choice and custom when the callousness is spread by evil and hard usages when the arms are brawny by the services of Egypt then it is no longer infirmity but a superinduc'd viciousness and a direct hostility When nature rules grace does not When the flesh is in power the spirit is not Therefore it matters not from what corner the blasting wind does come from whence soever it is it is deadly Most of our sins are from natural inclinations and the negative precepts of God are for the most part restraints upon them Therefore to pretend nature when our selves have spoil'd it is no excuse but that state of evil from whence the Spirit of God is to rescue and redeem us 56. VII Yea but although it be thus in nature yet it is hop'd by too many that it shall be allowed to be infirmity when the violence of our passions or desires overcomes our resolutions Against this I oppose this proposition When violence of desire or passion engages us in a sin whither we see and observe our selves entring that violence or transportation is not our excuse but our disease and that resolution is not accepted for innocence or repentance but the not performing what we did resolve is our sin and the violence of passion was the accursed principle 57. For to resolve is a relative and imperfect duty in order to something else It had not been necessary to resolve if it had not been necessary to do do it and if it be necessary to do it it is not sufficient to resolve it And for the understanding of this the better we must observe that to resolve and to endeavour are several things To resolve is to purpose to do what we may if we will some way or other the thing is in our power either we are able of our selves or we are help'd No man resolves to carry an Elephant or to be as wise as Solomon or to destroy a vast Army with his own hands He may endeavour this for To endeavour sometimes
does but declare it so it effects it not 71. VIII And after all it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie If therefore they do pardon the sin yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner And if the words can effect more they may be changed to signifie what they do effect for to signifie is less than to effect Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution I do by the power committed unto me change thy Attrition into Contrition The answer to this is not yet made for their pretence is so new and so wholly unexamined that they have not yet considered any thing of it It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful material and practical question that no such words were instituted by Christ nor any thing like them no such were used by the Primitive Church no such power pretended And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements and distances from the spirit of Christianity is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life it is a device only to advance the Priests office and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar and fell the art and transmit it in an hour it is a device to make dispositions by art and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God so they pay regard to the Priest But I shall need to oppose no more against it but those excellent words and pious meditation of Salvian Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus It is not a light contrition by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire SECT VI. Of Penances or Satisfactions 72. IN the Primitive Church the word Satisfaction was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance according to those words of Lactantius Poenitentiam proposuit ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus veniam consequamur He propounded repentance that if we confessing our sins to God make amends or satisfaction we may obtain pardon Where it is evident that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word a full payment to the Divine Justice but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault and a begging pardon Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent if satisfaction signifie rigorously When the whole debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed To confess their sins to be sorrowful for them to express their sorrow to punish the guilty person to do actions contrary to their former sins this was their amends or Satisfaction and this ought to be ours So we find the word used in best Classick Authors So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo Quin ego illum aut deseram Aut satisfaciat mihi atque adjuret insuper Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit i. e. I will leave him unless he give me satisfaction and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid which he spake against my innocence for that was the form of giving satisfaction to wish it undone or unspoken and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong as we find it in Terence Adelph Ego vestra haec novi nollem factum jusjurandum dabitur esse te indignum injuriâ hâc Concerning which who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio Exomologesis or Confession was the word which as I noted formerly was of most frequent use in the Church Si de exomologesi retractas gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them extinguishes the flames of Hell So Tertullian The same with that of S. Cyprian Deo patri misericordi precibus operibus suis satisfacere possunt They may satisfie God our Father and merciful by prayers and good works that is they may by these deprecate their fault and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins Peccatum suum satisfactione humili simplici confitentes So Cyprian confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction plainly intimating that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance according to the present usages of their Churches as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere To cut off the causes of sins and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations is the satisfaction of repentance and like this is that of Lactantius Potest reduci liberari si eum poeniteat actorum ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo The sinner may be brought back and freed if he repents of what is done and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur non quidem ut ignaro sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur confessione poenitentia nascitur penitentiâ Deus mitigatur we must confess our sins to God not as if he did not know them already but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession by confession our repentance hath birth and production and by repentance God is appeased 73. Things being thus we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools about the just value of every work and how much every penance weighs and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works that in justice he must take off so much as we put on and is tied also to take our accounts Certain it is if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance Therefore it were better that we should do what we can and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of
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