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
Christ and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation * Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God * For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off and to as many as the Lord our God shall call And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law that the man which doth those things shall live by them But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Death is swallowed up in victory O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. My yoke is easie and my burthen is light For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh hath for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit His Commandments are not grievous If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the attonement I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me My grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness Ask and you shall have seek and ye shall find knock and it shall be opened unto you To him that hath shall be given and he shall have more abundantly Having therefore these promises let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord. The PRAYER I. O Eternal God Lord of Heaven and Earth Father of Men and Angels we do adore thy infinite Goodness we revere thy Justice and delight in thy Mercies by which thou hast dealt with us not with the utmost right and dominion of a Lord but with the gentleness of a Father treating us like friends who were indeed thy enemies Thou O God didst see our follies and observe our weaknesses thou knowest the aversness of our nature to good and our proneness to commit vanity and because our imperfect obedience could not bring us to perfect felicity whither thou didst design us the great God of all the world was pleased to make a new Covenant with Man and to become a debtor to his servants Blessed be God and blessed be that Mercy which hath done so great things for us O be pleased to work that in us which thou expectest from us Let us not lose our title in the Covenant of Faith and Repentance by deferring the one or dishonouring the other but let us walk worthy of our vocation according to the Law of Faith and the Mercies of God and the Covenant of our Lord Jesus II. O Blessed Jesus never suffer us to abuse thy mercies or to turn thy Grace into wantonness Let the remembrance and sense of thy glorious favours endear our services and let thy goodness lead us to Repentance and our Repentance bring forth the fruits of godliness in our whole life Imprint deeply upon our hearts the fear and terror of thy Majesty and perpetually entertain our spirits with highest apprehensions of thy loving kindness that we may fear more and love more every day more and more hating sin crucifying all its affections and desires passionately loving holy things zealously following after them prudently conducting them and indefatigably persevering in them to the end of our lives III. O Blessed and Eternal God with thy spirit inlighten our understandings in the rare mysterious Secrets of thy Law Make me to understand all the most advantageous ways of duty and kindle a flame in my Soul that no difficulty or contradiction no temptation within or persecution without may ever extinguish Give me a mighty grace that I may design to please thee with my best and all my services to follow the best examples to do the noblest Charities to pursue all Perfection ever pressing forward to the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus Let us rather choose to die than to sin against our Consciences Let us also watch that we may omit nothing of our duty nor pretermit any opportunity by which thou canst be glorified or any Christian instructed comforted or assisted not resting in the strictest measures of Command but passing forward to great and prudent significations of love doing heroick actions some things by which thou mayest be greatly pleased that thou mayest take delight to pardon to sanctifie and to preserve thy servants for ever Amen CHAP. II. Of the Nature and Definition of Repentance And what parts of duty are signified by it in Holy Scriptures SECT I. THE Greeks use two words to express this duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post factum angi cruciari to be afflicted in mind to be troubled for our former folly it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Phavorinus a being displeased for what we have done and it is generally used for all sorts of Repentance but more properly to signifie either the beginnings of a good or the whole state of an effective Repentance In the first sence we find it in S. Mathew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye seeing did not repent that ye might believe him Of the second sence we have example in Judas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he repented too but the end of it was he died with anguish and despair and of Esau it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he found no place for an effective repentance but yet he repented too for he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fain would have had it otherwise and he sought it with tears which two do fully express all the meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is distinguished from the better and effective Repentance There is in this Repentance a sorrow for what is done a
rendred In him it is violent and hard a distinct period by it self without dependence or proper purpose against the faith of all copies who do not make this a distinct period and against the usual manner of speaking 2. This phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in 2 Cor. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not for that we would be unclothed and so it is used in Polybius Suidas and Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is eâ conditione for that cause or condition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quid ades are the words of the Gospel as Suidas quotes them 3. Although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom or in him yet it is so very seldom or infrequent that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification 4. If it did always signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in him which it does not yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do and which the Apostles discourse does infer for even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does divers times signifie forasmuch or for that as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 But 5. supposing all that can be and that it did signifie in whom yet the sence were fair enough as to the whole article for by him or in him we are made sinners that is brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners we are us'd like sinners by him or in him just as when a sinner is justified he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned though he really did sin oftentimes and this for his sake who is made righteousness to us so in Adam we are made sinners that is treated ill and afflicted though our selves be innocent of that sin which was the occasion of our being us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent But how this came to pass is told in the following words 11. For until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come By which discourse it appears that S. Paul does not speak of all minkind as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reach'd only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses This death was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinn'd not so capitally as he did For to sin like Adam is used as a Tragical and a high expression So it is in the Prophet They like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is They like Adam have transgressed and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam for Abel and Seth and Abraham and all the Patriarchs died Enoch only excepted and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world who generally sinn'd like Adam since it passed on and reigned upon less sinners * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams For God was so exasperated with Mankind that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinn'd not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatned had not suffer'd so severely * The case is this Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged all equally innocent equally culpable David took the five sons of Michal for she had left him unhandsomly Jonathan was his friend and therefore he spar'd his son Mephibosheth Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons whether David should take the sons of Michal or of Jonathan but it is likely that as upon the kindness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son so upon the just provocation of Michal he made that evil to fall upon them of which they were otherwise capable which it may be they should not have suffered if their Mother had been kind Adam was to God as Michal to David 12. But there was in it a further design for by this dispensation of death Adam was made a figure of Christ So the Apostle expresly affirms who is the figure of him that was to come that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam though they sinn'd less than Adam so life should be given to the followers of Christ though they were imperfectly righteous that is not after the similitude of Christs perfection 13. But for the further clearing the Article depending upon the right understanding of these words these two things are observable 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further than till Moses For after the giving of Moses's law death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression but by the sanction of Moses's law where death was anew distinctly and expresly threatned as it was to Adam and so went forward upon a new score but introduc'd first by Adam that is he was the cause at first and till Moses also he was in some sence the author and for ever after the precedent and therefore the Apostle said well In Adam we all die his sin brought in the sentence in him it began and from him it passed upon all the world though by several dispensations 2. In the discourse of the Apostle those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from Adam and therefore it did not come upon the account of Natural or Original corruption but they were consider'd as Sinners just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as merely children by title or spiritual birth and adoption but as just and faithful But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle as God gives to these life by Christ which is a greater thing than their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected so here also this part of Adams posterity was punish'd with death for their own sin but this death was brought upon them by Adam that is the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression 14. There is now remaining no difficulty but
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam and not to his Children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgment unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ of all is this By the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
elevation of it must of themselves fall to the ground it will also follow that it is Christ's body only in a mystical spiritual and sacramental manner 4. Secondly By what Argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words This is my body should be the words effective of conversion and consecration That Christ used these words is true and so he used all the other but did not tell which were the consecrating words nor appoint them to use those words but to do the thing and so to remember and represent his death And therefore the form and rites of consecration and ministeries are in the power of the Church where Christ's Command does not intervene as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion in Baptism Confirmation Penance Ordination c. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist S. Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing which of all the Saints hath left us for we are not content with these which the Apostles and the Evangelists mention but before and after we say other things which have great efficacy to this mystery But it is more material which Saint Gregory affirms concerning the Apostles Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodò orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer To which I add this consideration that it is certain Christ interposed no Command in this case nor the Apostles neither did they for ought appears intend the recitation of those words to be the Sacramental consecration and operative of the change because themselves recited several forms of institution in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark for one and Saint Luke and Saint Paul for the other in the matter of the Chalice especially and by this difference declared there is no necessity of one and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose 5. Thirdly If they make these words to signifie properly and not figuratively then it is a declaration of something already in being and not effective of any thing after it For else est does not signifie is but it shall be because the conversion is future to the pronunciation and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transubstantiated till the um in meum be quite out till the last syllable be spoken But yet I suppose they cannot shew an example or reason or precedent or Grammar or any thing for it that est should be an active word And they may remember how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and perswasion that their sins are pardoned saying that saith must suppose the thing done or their belief is false and if it be done before then to believe it does not do it at all because it is done already The case is here the same They affirm that it is made Christ's body by saying it is Christ's body but their saying so must suppose the thing done or else their saying so is false and if it be done before then to say it does not do it at all because it is done already 6. Fourthly When our blessed Lord took bread he gave thanks said Saint Luke and Saint Paul he blessed it said Saint Matthew and Saint Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making it Eucharistical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was consecrating or making it holy it was common bread unholy when he blessed it and made it Eucharistical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in Justin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and wine food made Eucharistical or on which Christ had given thanks Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi so Irenaeus and others and Saint Paul does promiscuously use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by benedictionem and therefore Saint Paul calls it the cup of blessing and in this very place of Saint Matthew Saint Basil reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in this following the old Greek Copies who so read this place or else by interpretation so rendring it as being the same and on the other side Saint Cyprian renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used in the blessing the Chalice by benedixit Against this Smiglecius the Jesuite with some little scorn sayes it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread and so it should be if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks were all one But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill not knowing or not remembring that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Saint Paul uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appease or propitiate our sins instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins and so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that by this means God also makes the bread holy blessed and eucharistical Now I demand what did Christ's blessing effect upon the Bread and the Chalice any thing or nothing If no change was consequent it was an ineffective blessing a blessing that blessed not if any change was consequent it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended that is that it might be Eucharistical and then the following words this is my body this is the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in my blood were as Cabasilas affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of history and narration and so the Syriack Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical 7. Fifthly The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministring man Justin Martyr calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nourishment made Eucharistical by prayer and Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread made a body a holy thing by prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen by the invocation and illumination of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed For the ancient Latine Church Saint Hierom reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests uses this expression for the honour of Priests above the other Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur by their prayers the body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament
corpus meum viz. spiritualiter than to say hoc est that is sub his speciebus est corpus meum And this was the sence of Ocham the Father of the Nominalists it may be held that under the species of bread there remains also the substance because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible and of all the manners this is most reasonable and more easie to maintain and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other Yet because of the determination of the Church viz. of Rome all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined 2. The case is clearer in the other kind as in transition I noted above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix I demand to what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic This does refer What it demonstrates and points at The text sets the substantive down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cup of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in his blood that is this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament I make it in my blood this is the Symbol what I do now in sign I will do to morrow in substance and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice Hoc potate merum So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine Drink this wine But by the way this troubled some body and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into Hunc potate meum but that the cheat was too apparent And if it be so of one kind it is so in both that is beyond all question Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum a most robustious argument By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cup cannot be meant the wine in the cup because it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for you referring to the cup for the word can agree with nothing but the cup therefore by the cup is meant not wine but blood for that was poured out To this I oppose these things 1. Though it does not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it must refer to it and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero Benè autem dicere quod est peritè loqui non habet definitam aliquam regionem cujus terminis septa teneatur Many more he cites out of Plato Homer and Virgil and me thinks these men should least of all object this since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses and all the world knows there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties hyperbata and Antipâ—oses But in the present case it is easily supplyed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequently understood and implyed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in my bloud which is shed for you 2. If it were referred to cup then the figure were more strong and violent and the expression less litteral and therefore it makes much against them who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament 3. To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards if it do not suppose a figure then there is no such thing as figures or words or truth or things 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark where the word is directly applyed to bloud S. Paul uses not the word and Bellarmine himself gives the rule verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco c. When one Evangelist is plain by him we are to expound another that is not plain and S. Basil in his reading of the words either following some ancienter Greek copy or else mending it out of the other Evangelists changes the case into perfect Grammar and good Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Thirdly symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup after Consecration that is in the whole use of them This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication so it should be read of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communication of the body of Christ as if he had said This bread is Christs body though there be also this mystery in it This bread is the communication of Christs body that is the exhibition and donation of it not Christs body formally but virtually and effectively it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam that is consignasse he communicated concord he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship the benefit of that communication and so is the cup of benediction that is when the cup is blessed it communicates Christs blood and so does the blessed bread for to eat the bread in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians they are the words of S. Austin Omnes de uno pane participamus so S. Paul we all partake of this one bread Hence the argument is plain That which is broken is the communication of Christs body But that which is broken is bread therefore bread is the communication of Christs body The bread which we break those are the words 7. Fourthly The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye declare the Lords death till he come and the same also vers 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread It is bread sacramental bread when the communicant eats it But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity calling things by their own plain names 8. Fifthly against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors 1. That the holy Eucharist or the sacred body is called bread because it is made of bread as Eve is
is either sepulchrum or sepultura the grave or the burial but either of them is a figure and it is so much used in sacramental and mystick propositions that they are all so or may be so ut baptismus sepulchrum sic hoc est corpus meum saith S. Austin And this is also observed in Gentile rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Homer The slain Lambs and the wine were the Sacrament the faithful oaths that is the rite and mysterie of their sanction they were oaths figuratively 6. Fourthly But to save the labour of more instances S. Austin hath made the observation and himself gives in a list of particulars solet autem res quae significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari septem spicae septem anni sunt non enim dixit septem annos significant multa hujusmodi Hinc est quod dictum erat Petra erat Christus non enim dixit Petra significat Christum sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non erat sed per significationem The thing which signifies is wont to be called by that which it signifies the seven ears of corn are seven years he did not say they signified seven years but are and many like this Hence it is said the rock was Christ for he said not the rock signifies Christ but as if the thing were that not which it were in his own substance but in signification Pervulgatum est in Scripturâ ut res figurata nomen habeat figurae saith Ribera That this is no usual thing is confessed on all hands So is that of Exodus the Lamb is the Passeover and this does so verifie Saint Austins words that in the New Testament the Apostles asked our Lord Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passeover that is the Lamb which was the remembrance of the Passeover as the blessed Eucharist is of the death of Christ. To this instance Bellarmine speaks nothing to purpose for he denies the Lamb to signifie the Passeover or the passing of the Angel over the houses of Israel because there is no likelihood between the Lamb and the Passeover and to make the business up he says the Lamb was the Passeover By some straining the Lamb slain might signifie the slaying the Egyptians and remember their own escape at the time when they first eat the Lamb But by no straining could the Lamb be the thing especially if for the dissimilitude it could not so much as signifie it how could it be the very same to which it was so extreamly unlike but he always says something though it be nothing to the purpose and yet it may be remembred that the eating the Lamb was as proper an instrument of remembrance of that deliverance as the eating consecrated bread is of the passion of our blessed Lord. But it seems the Lamb is the very passeover as the very festival day is called the Passeover so he And he says true in the same manner but that is but by a trope or figure for the feast is the feast of the Passeover if you speak properly it is the Passeover by a Metonymie and so is the Lamb. And this instance is so much the more apposite because it is the fore-runner of the blessed Eucharist which succeeded that as Baptism did Circumcision and there is nothing of sence that hath been or I think can be spoken to evade the force of this instance nor of the many other before reckoned 8. Fifthly And as it is usual in all Sacraments so particularly it must be here in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches that almost in every word there is plainly a trope For 1. Here is the Cup taken for the thing contained in it 2. Testament for the legacy given by it 3. This is not in recto but in obliquo This that is not this which you see but this which you do not see This which is under the species is my dody 4. My body but not bodily my body without the forms and figure of my body that is my body not as it is in nature not as it is in glory but as it is in Sacrament that is my body Sacramentally 5. Drink ye that is also improper for his blood is not drunk properly for blood hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the Paten that is is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread and therefore it is in the veins not separate say they and yet it is in the bread as it is in the chalice and in both as upon the Cross that is poured out so Christ said expresly for else it were so far from being his blood that it were not so much as the Sacrament of what he gave so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk because it is not separate from the body and in the bread it cannot be drunk because there it is not in the veins or if it were yet is made as a consistent thing by the continent but is not potable now that which follows from hence is that it is not drunk at all properly but figuratively and so Mr. Brerely confesses sometimes and Jansenius There is also an impropriety in the word given for shall be given is poured out for shall be poured out in broken for then it was not broken when Christ spake it and it cannot be properly spoken since his glorification Salmeron allows an Enallage in the former and Suarez a Metaphor in the latter Frangi cùm dicitur est Metaphorica locutio And this is their excuse why in the Roman missal they leave out the words which is broken for you for they do what they please they put in some words which Christ used not and leave out something that he did use and yet they are all the words of institution And upon the same account there is another trope in eat and yet with a strange confidence these men wonder at us for saying the sacramental words are tropical or figurative when even by their own confession and proper grounds there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety And then concerning the main predication This is my body as Christ called bread his body so he called his body bread and both these affirmatives are destructive of Transubstantiation for if of bread Christ affirmed It is his body by the rule of disparates it is figurative and if of his body he affirmed it to be bread it is certain also and confessed to be a figure Now concerning this besides that our blessed Saviour affirmed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven calling himself bread and in the institution calling bread his body we have the express words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ gave to his body the name of the Symbol and to the
his natural body then it was naturally broken and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body was delivered broken his bloud was shed Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally and then they were not true because his body was yet whole his bloud still in the proper channels or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sence and so it was true as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Passion 3. Secondly If Christ gave his body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory or it was not If it was not then it is not now and then their dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour which therefore would have been needless and ineffective so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine 4. Thirdly If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper and not only figuratively and in sacrament then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion but a real exhibition of it but that it was a Sacrament only appears by considering that it was then alive that the Passion was future that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament because it was before and the substance was to follow after 5. Fourthly If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance visible in his person invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understoood it in the literal sence when they saw his body stand by unbroken alive integral hypostatical 6. Fifthly If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament I demand whether it be as it was in the last Supper or as upon the Cross or as it is now in Heaven Not as in the last Supper for then it was frangible but not broken but typically by design in figure and in Sacrament as it is evident in matter of fact 2. Not as on the Cross for there the body was frangible and broken too and the blood spilled and if it were so now in the Sacrament besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible and to crucifie the Lord of life again it also were not the same body which Christ hath now for his Body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible and cannot be otherwise much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly and yet be the same body 3. Not as in Heaven where it is neither corruptible nor broken for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death neither were the words of Institution verified This is my body which is broken besides in this we have Bellarmines confession Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo But then if it be remembred that Christ hath no other body but that which is in Heaven and that can never be otherwise than it is and so it cannot be received otherwise properly it unanswerably follows that if it be received in any other manner as it must if it be at all it must be received not naturally or corporally but spiritually and indeed By a figure or a sacramental spiritual sence all these difficulties are easily assoiled but by the natural never 7. Sixthly At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist but it was not in remembrance of Christs death for it was future then and therefore not then capable of being remembred any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras and therefore never to be naturally verified but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence because then it was so and never else at that time it was future and now it is past and in both it is relative to his death therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sence for that as it could not be remembred then so neither broken now that is nothing of it is natural but it is wholly ritual mysterious and sacramental For that this was the sacrament of his death appears in the words of Institution and by the preceptive words Do this in remembrance of me And in the reason subjoyned by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when Christ said This is my body given or broken on my part taken eaten on yours it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacramental image of his death to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body that so the substance should become his own shadow the natural presence be his own Sacrament or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more that as Christ in Heaven represents his death in the way of intercession so do we by our ministery but as in Heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified a rememoration of his crucifixion of his death passion by which he reconciled God and man so it is in the Sacrament after our manner This is my body given for you that is This is the Sacrament of my death in which my body was given for you For as Aquinas said in all sciences words signifie things but it is proper to Theology that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signifie something beyond it This is my body are the sacramental words or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental it must therefore signifie something beyond these words and so they do for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only or his blood but it is ex parte rei a Sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation or an exhibition of it as it became beneficial to us that
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
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
found out a remedy for those of old so he will also for the poor misled people of Ireland and will take away the evil minds or the opportunities of the Adversaries hindring the people from Instruction and make way that the Truths we have here taught may approach to their ears and sink into their hearts and make them wise unto Salvation Amen A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND PART I. The INTRODVCTION THE Questions of difference between Our Churches and the Church of Rome have been so often disputed and the evidences on both sides so often produc'd that to those who are strangers to the present constitution of affairs it may seem very unnecessary to say them over again and yet it will seem almost impossible to produce any new matter or if we could it will not be probable that what can be newly alledged can prevail more than all that which already hath been so often urged in these Questions But we are not deterr'd from doing our duty by any such considerations as knowing that the same Medicaments are with success applied to a returning or an abiding Ulcer and the Preachers of God's Word must for ever be ready to put the People in mind of such things which they already have heard and by the same Scriptures and the same Reasons endeavour to destroy their sin or prevent their danger and by the same word of God to exstirpate those errors which have had opportunity in the time of our late disorders to spring up and grow stronger not when the Keepers of the field slept but when they were wounded and their hands cut off and their mouths stopp'd lest they should continue or proceed to do the work of God thoroughly A little warm Sun and some indulgent showers of a softer Rain have made many weeds of erroneous Doctrine to take root greatly and to spread themselves widely and the Bigots of the Roman Church by their late importune boldness and indiscreet forwardness in making Proselytes have but too manifestly declar'd to all the World that if they were rerum potiti Masters of our affairs they would suffer nothing to grow but their own Colocynths and Gourds And although the Natural remedy for this were to take away that impunity upon the account of which alone they do encrease yet because we shall never be Authors of such Counsels but confidently rely upon God the Holy Scriptures right Reason and the most venerable and prime Antiquity which are the proper defensatives of truth for its support and maintenance yet we must not conceal from the People committed to our charges the great evils to which they are tempted by the Roman Emissaries that while the King and the Parliament take care to secure all the publick interests by instruments of their own we also may by the word of our proper Ministery endeavour to stop the progression of such errors which we know to be destructive of Christian Religion and consequently dangerous to the interest of Souls In this procedure although we shall say some things which have not been alwayes plac'd before their eyes and others we shall represent with a fittingness to their present necessities and all with Charity too and zeal for their souls yet if we were to say nothing but what hath been often said already we are still doing the work of God and repeating his voice and by the same remedies curing the same diseases and we only wait for the blessing of God prospering that importunity which is our duty according to the advice of Solomon In the Morning sow thy seed and in the Evening withhold not thy hand for thou knowest not whether shall prosper either this or that or whether they both shall be alike good CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive SECT I. IT was the challenge of Saint Augustine to the Donatists who as the Church of Rome does at this day inclos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands but where Donatus is Co-heir Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets out of the Psalms out of the Gospel it self or out of the Letters of the Apostles Read it thence and we believe it Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith the Old and New Testament the words of Christ and the words of the Apostles For nothing else can be the Foundation of our Faith whatsoever came in after these foris est it belongs not unto Christ To these we also add not as Authors or Finishers but as Helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the Sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God in the Ages next after the Apostles Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private Opinion even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of doctrine and sound words which was at first delivered to the Saints and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosome of Christ and seal'd the true Faith with their lives and with their deaths and by both gave testimony unto Jesus and had from him the Testimony of his Spirit And this method of procedure we now chuse not only because to them that know well how to use it to the Sober and Moderate the Peaceable and the Wise it is the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity Indeed the present Roman Doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best Antiquity and with how ill success their Quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages every inquiring Man may easily discern But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages where secular interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now although things being thus it will be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then
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
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
Denis means that death is the end of all the agonies of this life A goodly note and never revealed till then and now as if this were a good argument to encourage men to contend bravely and not to fear death because when they are once dead they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life indeed you may go to worse and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges see the words of S. Dionys They that live a holy life looking to the true promises of God as if they were to behold the truth it self in that resurrection which is according to it with firm and true hope and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death as to an end of all holy contentions now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true and that they who had contended here and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition should be told that now they shall go to worse he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comforters No the servant of God coming to the end of his own troubles viz. by death is filled with holy gladness and with much rejoycing ascends to the way of Divine regeneration viz. to immortality which word can hardly mean that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire The words of Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of those Questions and Answers imputed to him affirms that presently after the departure of the soul from the body a distinction is made between the just and the unjust for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them the souls of the just to Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades the invisible region or Hell Against these words because they pinch severely E. W. thinks himself bound to say something and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says after our departure presently there is a separation made he answers that Justin Matyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgment for so it seems he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presently after death to mean the day of judgment of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing And whereas Justin Martyr says that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise E. W. answers 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven no Justin says into Paradise true but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell that is a place of bliss the region of the blessed But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise That 's the next answer which the very words of Justin do contradict There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved This is the separation which is made one is carried to Paradise the other to a place in hell But these being such pitiful offers at answering the Gentleman tries another way and says 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis that Justin Martyr and many other of the Fathers affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life To this I answer that one opinion does not contradict another for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places and have antepasts of joy and comforts yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antedate the final sentence and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of Piety as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety yet as these do not hinder but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval They can both consist together and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers And methinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions for he quotes him saying there is a double beatitude the one imperfect of soul only the other consummate and perfect of soul and body The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub Altare c. The other perfect joy the glory of the resurrection c. But it matters not what is said or how it be contradicted so it seem but to serve a present turn But at last if nothing of this will do these words are not the words of Justin for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos To which I answer it matters not whether they be Justins or no But they are put together in the collection of his works and they are generally called his and cited under his name and made use of by Bellarmine when he supposes them to be to his purpose However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox and so esteem'd in the Church and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors well but how is this against Purgatory says E. W. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory To this I answer that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books he might have been questioned and followed Mr. Whites fortune And he adds it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion that is Purgatory might be after the day of judgment for so Origen held that all the fires are Purgatory and the Devils themselves should be sav'd Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the Dissuasive cares not to answer by a condemned heresie rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England But however the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so that they thrust him into a corner for in these receptacles the godly have joy and they enter into them as soon as they die and abide there till the day of judgment S. Ambrose is so full pertinent and material to
of Valentinian hath these words Blessed is he truly who even in his old age hath amended his error Blessed is he who even just before the stroke of death turns his mind from vice Blessed are they whose sins are covered for it is written Cease from evil and do good and dwell for evermore Whoever therefore shall leave off from sin and shall in any age be turned to better things he hath the pardon of his former sins which either he hath confessed with the affections of a penitent or turned from them with the desires of amends But this Prince hath company enough in the way of his obtaining pardon For there are very many who could in their old age recal themselves from the slipperiness and sins of their youth but seldom is any one to be found who in his youth with a serious sobriety will bear the heavy yoke And I remember that when Faustus Bishop of Rhegium being asked by Paulinus Bishop of Nola from Marinus the Hermit whether a man who was involved in carnal sins and exercised all that a criminous person could do might obtain a full pardon if he did suddenly repent in the day of his death did answer peevishly and severely and gave no hopes nor would allow pardon to any such Avitus the Archbishop of Vienna reproved his pride and his morosity and gave express sentence for the validity of such a repentance and that Gentleness hath been the continual Doctrine of the Church for many Ages insomuch that in the year 1584. Henry Kyspenning a Canon of Xant published a Book intituled The Evangelical Doctrine of the meditation of death with solid exhortations and comforts to the sick from the currents of Scripture and the Commentaries of the Fathers where teaching the sick man how to answer the objections of Satan he makes this to be the fifteenth I repent too late of my sins He bids him answer It is not late if it be true and to the Thief upon the Cross Christ said This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise And afterwards a short prayer easily pierceth Heaven so it be darted forth with a vehement force of the spirit Truly the history of the Kings tells that David who was so great a sinner used but three syllables for he is read to have said no more but Peccavi I have sinned For S. Ambrose said The flame of the sacrifice of his heart ascends up to Heaven Because we have a merciful and gentle Lord and the correction of our sins needs not much time but great fervour And to the same purpose are the words of Alcuinus the Tutor of Charles the Great It behoves us to come to repentance with all confidence and by faith to believe undoubtedly that by repentance our sins may be blotted out Etiamsi in ultimo vitae spiritu commissa poeniteat although we repent of our sins in the last breath of our life Now after all these grounds of hope and confidence to a sinner what can be pretended in defiance of a sinful life and since men will hope upon one ground though it be trifling and inconsiderable when there are so many doctrinal grounds of hopes established propositions parts of Religion and Articles of faith to rely upon for all these particulars before reckoned men are called upon to believe earnestly and are hated and threatned and despised if they do not believe them what is there left to discourage the evil lives of men or to lessen a full iniquity since upon the account of the premises either we may do what we list without sin or sin without punishment or go on without fear or repent without danger and without scruple be confident of Heaven And now if Moral Theologie relie upon such notices as these I thought my work was at an end before I had well finished the first steps of my progression The whole summ of affairs was in danger and therefore I need not trouble my self or others with consideration of the particulars I therefore thought it necessary first to undermine these false foundations and since an inquiry into the minutes of conscience is commonly the work of persons that live holily I ought to take care that this be accounted necessary and all false warrants to the contrary be cancell'd that there might be many idonei auditores persons competent to hear and read and such who ought to be promoted and assisted in their holy intendments And I bless God there are very many such and though iniquity does abound yet Gods grace is conspicuous and remarkable in the lives of very many to whom I shall design all the labours of my life as being dear to God and my dear Brethren in the service of Jesus But I would fain have the Churches as full as I could before I begin and therefore I esteem'd it necessary to publish these Papers before my other as containing the greatest lines of Conscience and the most general cases of our whole life even all the doctrine of Repentance upon which all the hopes of man depend through Jesus Christ. But I have other purposes also in the publication of this Book The Ministers of the Church of Rome who ever love to fish in troubled waters and to oppress the miserable and afflicted if they differ from them in a proposition use all the means they can to perswade our people that the man that is afflicted is not alive that the Church of England now it is a persecuted Church is no Church at all and though blessed be God our Propositions and Doctrines and Liturgie and Communion are sufficiently vindicated in despite of all their petty oppositions and trifling arrests yet they will never leave making noises and outcries which for my part I can easily neglect as finding them to be nothing but noise But yet I am willing to try the Rights and Excellencies of a Church with them upon other accounts by such indications as are the most proper tokens of life I mean propositions of Holiness the necessities of a holy life for certainly that Church is most to be followed who brings us nearest to God and they make our approaches nearest who teach us to be most holy and whose Doctrines command the most excellent and severest lives But if it shall appear that the prevailing Doctrines in the Church of Rome do consequently teach or directly warrant impiety or which is all one are too easie in promising pardon and for it have no defences but distinctions of their own inventing I suppose it will be a greater reproof to their confidence and bold pretensions than a discourse against one of their immaterial propositions that have neither certainty nor usefulness But I had rather that they would preach severity than be reprov'd for their careless propositions and therefore am well pleased that even amongst themselves some are so convinc'd of the weakness of their usual Ministeries of Repentance that as much as they dare they call upon the Priests to be
his children That ye should walk worthy of God who hath called you unto his Kingdom and glory * For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God And having an High Priest over the house of God Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water * Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering for he is faithful that promised * And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works * Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as ye see the day approaching For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins * but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries * He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses * Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God and if it first begin at us what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure And whatsoever we ask we receive of him because we keep his Commandments and do those things which are pleasing in his sight And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end to him will I give power over the Nations A Penitential Psalm collected out of the Psalms and Prophets HAVE mercy upon me O God according to thy loving kindness according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions For our transgressions are multiplied before thee and our sins testifie against us our transgressions are with us and as for our iniquities we know them In transgressing and lying against the Lord and departing away from our God speaking oppression and revolt conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falshood Our feet have run to evil our thoughts are thoughts of iniquity The way of peace we have not known we have made us crooked paths whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace Therefore do we wait for light but behold obscurity for brightness but we walk in darkness Look down from Heaven and behold from the habitation of thy Holiness and of thy Glory where is thy zeal and thy strength the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies towards me are they restrained We are indeed as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we all do fade as a leaf and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away But now O Lord thou art our Father we are the clay and thou our potter and we all are the work of thy hand Be not wroth very sore O Lord neither remember iniquity for ever behold see we beseech thee we are thy people Thou O Lord art our Redeemer thy Name is from everlasting O Lord Father and Governour of my whole life leave me not to the sinful counsels of my own heart and let me not any more fall by them Set scourges over my thoughts and the discipline of wisdom over my heart lest my ignorances encrease and my sins abound to my destruction O Lord Father and God of my life give me not a proud look but turn away from thy servant always a haughty mind Turn away from me vain hopes and concupiscence and thou shalt hold him up that is always desirous to serve thee Let not the greediness of the belly nor the lust of the flesh take hold of me and give not thy servant over to an impudent mind There is a word that is clothed about with death God grant it be not found in the portion of thy servant For all such things shall be far from the godly and they shall not wallow in their sins Though my sins be as scarlet yet make them white as snow though they be red like crimson let them be as wooll For I am ashamed of the sins I have desired and am confounded for the pleasures that I have chosen Lord make me to know mine end and the measure of my days what it is that I may know how frail I am and that I may apply my heart unto wisdom Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me O Lord let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me For innumerable evils have compassed me about mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to look up for they are more than the hairs of my head therefore my heart faileth me But thou O Lord though mine iniquities testifie against me save me for thy Name sake for our backslidings are many we have sinned grievously against thee But the Lord God will help me therefore shall I not be confounded therefore have I set my face like a flint and I know that I shall not be ashamed He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me The Lord God will help me who is he that shall condemn me I will trust in the Lord and stay upon my God O let me have this of thine hand that I may not lie down in sorrow S. Paul's Prayers for a holy life I. I BOW my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in Heaven and Earth is named that he would grant unto me according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man that Christ may dwell in my heart by faith that being rooted and grounded in love I may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge and may be filled with all the fulness of God through the same our most blessed Saviour Jesus Amen The Doxologie Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us Vnto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end Amen II. O MOST gracious God grant to thy servant to be filled with the knowledge of thy Will in all
of us from Heaven they that say that not every solution or breaking of them is exclusive from Heaven which are the words of Bellarmine and the doctrine of the Roman Church must even by the consequence of this very gloss of his fall under the danger of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the false teachers or the breakers of them by false interpretation However fearful is the malediction even to the breakers of the least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the words of Theophylact he shall be last in the resurrection and shall be thrown into Hell for that is the meaning of least in the Kingdom of Heaven fortasse ideò non erit in regno coelorum ubi nisi magni esse non possunt said S. Austin least is none at all for into Heaven none can enter but they which are great in Gods account 19. VII Lastly God hath given us the perpetual assistances of his Spirit the presence of his grace the ministery of his word the fear of judgments the endearment of his mercies the admonition of friends the severity of Preachers the aid of Books the apprehension of death the sense of our daily dangers our continual necessities and the recollection of our prayers and above all he hath promised Heaven to the obedient which is a state of blessings so great and infinite as upon the account of them it is infinitely reasonable and just if he shall exact of us every sin that is every thing which we can avoid 20. Upon this account it is that although wise and prudent men do not despise the continual endearments of an old friend yet in many cases God may and doth and from the rules and proper measures of humane friendship to argue up to a presumption of Gods easiness in not exacting our duty is a fallacious proceeding but it will deceive no body but our selves 21. II. Every sin is directly against Gods law and therefore is damnable and deadly in the accounts of the Divine justice one as well though not so grievously as another For though sins be differenc'd by greater and less yet their proportion to punishment is not differenc'd by Temporal and Eternal but by greater and less in that kind which God hath threatned So Origen Vnusquisque pro qualitate quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit Si parum est quod peccas ferieris damnâ— minuti ut Lucas scripsit ut verò Matthaeus quadrantis Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod eâ—estitisti debitor solvere Non enim inde exibis nisi minima quaeque persolveris Every one according to the quantity and quality of his sin must pay his fine but till he hath paid he shall not be loosed from those fearful prisons that is he shall never be loosed if he agree not before he comes thither The smallest offence is a sin and therefore it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law a violation of that band by which our obedience unites us unto God And this the holy Scripture signifies unto us in various expressions For though the several words are variously used in sacred and profane writers yet all of them signifie that even the smallest sin is a prevarication of the Holy laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen calls sin which we render well by Transgression and even those words which in distinction signifie a small offence yet they also signifie the same with the greater words to shew that they all have the same formality and do the same displeasure or at least that by the difference of the words no difference of their natures can be regularly observed Sins against God only are by Phavorinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same word is also used for sin against our neighbours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thy brother sin against thee that is do thee injury and this is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 injustice But Demosthenes distinguishes injustice from sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary and involuntary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that does wrong willingly is unjust he that does it unwillingly is a sinner 22. The same indistinction is observable in the other words of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by S. Hierome used for the beginnings of sin Cum cogitatio tacita subrepit ex aliquâ— parte conniventibus nobis nec dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam when a sudden thought invades us without our advertency and observation and hath not brought forth death as yet and yet that death is appendent to whatsoever it be that can be signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may observe because the sin of Adam that called death upon all the world is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Ephesian Gentiles S. Paul said they had been dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in trespasses and sins and therefore it cannot hence be inferred that such little obliquities or beginnings of greater sins are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the law not against it for it is at least the word hinders not but it may be of the same kind of malignity as was the sin of Adam And therefore S. Austin renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delictum or offence and so do our Bibles And the same also is the case of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is attributed even to concupiscence or the beginnings of mischief by S. Paul and by S. Hierome but the same is used for the consummation of concupiscence in the matter of uncleanness by S. James Lust when it hath conceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum is the Latin word which when it is used in a distinct and pressed sence it is taken for the lesser sins and is distinguished from crimen Paulus Orosius uses it to signifie only the concupiscence or sinful thoughts of the heart and when it breaks forth to action he calls it a crime peccatum cogitatio concipit crimen verò non nisi actus ostendit and it was so used by the ancient Latins Peccatus it was called by them quasi pellicatus that inticing which is proper to uncleanness So Cicero in A. Gellius Nemo ita manifesto peccatu tenebatur ut cum impudens fuisset in facto tum impudentior videretur si negaret Thus the indistinction of words mingles all their significations in the same common notion and formality They were not sins at all if they were not against a Law and if they be they cannot be of their own nature venial but must be liable to that punishment which was threatned in the Law whereof that action is a transgression 23. II. The Law of God never threatens the justice of God never inflicts punishment but upon transgressors of his Laws the smallest offences are not only threatned but may be punished with death therefore
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
by the words of our blessed Saviour that the Devil is the Father of lies and therefore every one that tells a lie is of the Devil eátenus To which add also the words of S. John explicating his whole design in these and all his other words These things I write unto you that ye might not sin that is that ye might not do sinful actions for it cannot be supposed that he did not as verily intend to prevent every sin as any sin or that he would only have men to beware of habitual sins and not of actual single sins without which caution he could never have prevented the habitual To do sin is to do one or to do many and are both forbidden under the same danger 28. The same manner of expression in a differing matter hath a different signification To do sin is to do any one act of it but to do righteousness is to do it habitually He that doth sin that is one act of sin is of the Devil But he that doth righteousness viz. habitually he only is righteous The reason of the difference is this because one sin can destroy a man but one act of vertue cannot make him alive As a phial is broken though but a piece of its lip be cut away but it is not whole unless it be intire and unbroken in every part Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex qualibet particulari And therefore since he that does righteousness in S. John's phrase is righteous and yet no man is righteous for doing one act of righteousness it follows that by doing righteousness he must mean doing it habitually But because one blow can kill a man or wound him desperately therefore when S. John speaks of doing sin he means doing any sin any way or in any degree of act or habit For this is that we are commanded by the Spirit of Christ we must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 walk exactly not having spot or wrinkle or any thing of that nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and unblameable so must the Church be that is so must be all the faithful or the men and women of the Christian Church for the Church is nothing but a congregation or collective body of believing persons Christ therefore intending to represent the Church of God without spot or wrinkle or fault intends that all his servants should be so For let no man deceive himself Omnis homo qui post baptismum mortalia crimina commiserit hoc est homicidium adulterium furtum falsum testimonium vel reliqua crimina perpetravit unde per legem mundanam mori poterat si poenitentiam non egerit eleemosynam justam non fecerit nunquam habebit vitam aeternam sed cum Diabolo descendet ad inferna Every man who after his baptism hath committed mortal or killing sins that is to say murder adultery theft false witness or any other crimes which are capital by humane laws if he does not repent if he does not give just measures of alms he shall not have eternal life but with the Devil he shall descend into Hell This is the sad sentence against all single acts of sin in the capital or greater instances 28. But upon this account who can be justified who can hope for Heaven since even the most righteous man that is sinneth and by single acts of unworthiness interrupts his course of piety and pollutes his spirit If a single act of these great or mortal sins can stand with the state of grace then not acts of these but habits are forbidden and these only shut a man from Heaven But if one single act destroys the state of grace and puts a man out of Gods favour then no man abides in it long and what shall be at the end of these things 29. To this I answer that single acts are continually forbidden and in every period of their commission displease God and provoke him to anger To abide in any one sin or to do it often or to love it is against the Covenant of the Gospel and the essence and nature of repentance which is a conversion from sin to righteousness but every single act is against the cautions and watchfulness of repentance It is an act of death but not a state it is the way of death but is not in the possession of it It is true that every single act of fornication merits an eternal Hell yet when we name it to be a single act we suppose it to be no more that is to be rescinded and immediately cut off by a vigorous and proportionable repentance if it be not it is more than a single act for it is a habit as I shall remonstrate in the Chapter of Habits But then upon this account a single act of any sin may be incident to the state of a good man and yet not destroy his interests or his hopes but it is upon no other ground but this It is a single act and it does not abide there but passes immediately into repentance and then though it did interrupt or discompose the state of grace or the Divine favour yet it did not destroy it quite The man may pray Davids prayer I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost O seek thy servant for I do not forget thy Commandments 30. So that if a man asks whether a good man falling into one act of these great sins still remains a good man the answer is to be made upon this consideration He is a good man that is so sorry for his sin and so hates it that he will not abide in it and this is the best indication that in the act there was something very pitiable because the mans affections abide not there the good man was smitten in a weak part or in an ill hour and then repents for such is our goodness to need repentance daily for smaller things and too often for greater things But be they great or little they must be speedily repented of and he that does so is a good man still Not but that the single act is highly damnable and exclusive of Heaven if it self were not excluded from his affections but it does not the mischief because he does not suffer it to proceed in finishing that death which it would have effected if the poison had not been speedily expelled before it had seis'd upon a vital part 31. But secondly I answer that being in the state of grace is a phrase of the Schools and is of a large and almost infinite comprehension Every Christian is in some degree in the state of grace so long as he is invited to Repentance and so long as he is capable of the Prayers of the Church This we learn from those words of S. John All unrighteousness is sin and there is a sin not unto death that is some sorts of sins are so incident to the condition of men and their state of imperfection that the man who hath committed
may be acceptable in Jesus Christ. If I perish I perish I have deserved it but I will hope for mercy till thy mercy hath a limit till thy goodness can be numbred O my God let me not perish thou hast no pleasure in my death and it is impossible for man to suffer thy extremest wrath Who can dwell with the everlasting burning O my God let me dwell safely in the embraces of thy sweetest mercy Amen Amen Amen CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin and whether or no or how far we are bound to repent of it SECT I. 1. ORIGINAL sin is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sin of Adam which was committed in the Original of mankind by our first Parent and which hath influence upon all his posterity Nascuntur non propriè sed originalitèr peccatores So S. Austin and therefore S. Ignatius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old impiety that which was in the original or first Parent of mankind 2. This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more A certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality was inflicted on him and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness that is in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men For as God was not bound to give what he never promised viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life so neither does it appear in that angry entercourse that God had with Adam that he took from him or us any of our natural perfections but his graces only 3. Man being left in this state of pure Naturals could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion cannot be acquir'd by any natural means Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness obtain Heaven by desert or by any natural efficiency for it is a gift still and it is neque currentis neque operantis neither of him that runneth nor of him that worketh but of God who freely gives it to such persons whom he also by other gifts and graces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it 4. What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence we know not God hath no where told us and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conjectures But after his fall we find no sign of any thing but of a common man And therefore as it was with him so it is with us our nature cannot go to Heaven without the helps of the Divine grace so neither could his and whether he had them or no it is certain we have receiving more by the second Adam than we did lose by the first and the sons of God are now spiritual which he never was that we can find 5. But concerning the sin of Adam tragical things are spoken it destroyed his original righteousness and lost it to us for ever it corrupted his nature and corrupted ours and brought upon him and not him only but on us also who thought of no such thing an inevitable necessity of sinning making it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry or to be sick and die and the conâ—equent of these things is saddest of all we are born enemies of God sons of wrath and heirs of eternal damnation 6. In the meditation of these sad stories I shall separate the certain from the uncertain that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexions upon Godâ— honour and the reputation of his justice and his goodness I shall do it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly dispute in this Question right or wrong according as it happens 7. By one man sin came into the world That sin entred into the world by Adam is therefore certain because he was the first man and unless he had never sinn'd it must needs enter by him for it comes in first by the first and Death by sin that is Death which at first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly and to the Woman to be subject to her Husband These things were so before and would have been so for the Apostle pressing the duty of subjection gives two reasons why the woman was to obey One of them only was derived from this sin the other was the prerogative of creation for Adam was first formed then Eve so that before her fall she was to have been subject to her husband because she was later in being she was a minor and therefore under subjection she was also the weaker vessel But it had not been a curse and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature 8. Death passed upon all men That is upon all the old world who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam And therefore S. Paul adds that for the reason In as much as all men have sinned If all men have sinned upon their own account as it is certain they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sons and daughters sinned after him and so died in their own sin by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural and a death which their own sins deserved but yet which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so S. Hierome 9. But this is not thought sufficient and men do usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam and in him we all by interpretation sinned and therefore think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all men have sinned ought to be expounded thus Death passed upon all men In whom all men have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinn'd and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punish'd and liable to eternal damnation And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him 10. Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry if it be observed that the words being read Forasmuch as all men have sinned beat a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible if it be
and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin He says their meaning cannot extend to Christ for he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 born to sin but he is natura ad peccandum natus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nature born to sin who by the choice of his own will is author to himself to do what he list whether it be good or evil The following words are eaten out by time but upon this ground whatever he said of Infants must needs have been to better purposes than is usually spoken of in this Article 2. Heirs of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heirs of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrews So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that deserve death or are condemned to die Thus Judas Iscariot is called The son of perdition and so is that saying of David to Nathan The man that hath done this shall surely die In the Hebrew it is He is the son of death And so were those Ephesians children or sons of wrath before their conversion that is they had deserv'd death 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customs and evil habits And so Suidas expounds the word in this very place not only upon the account of Grammar and the use of the word in the best Authors but also upon an excellent reason His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle says we were by nature children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such but it means an abiding and vile habit a wicked and a lasting custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Custom is like Nature For often and always are not far asunder Nature is always Custom is almost always To the same sence are those words of Porphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancients who lived likest to God and were by nature the best living the best life were a golden generation 4. By nature means not by birth and natural extraction or any original derivation from Adam in this place for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after but by nature signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Greek Scholiast renders it really beyond opinion plenè omnino intirely or wholly so the Syriack and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase Gal. 4.8 Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods that is which really are none And as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israelites in the days of their rebellion a wicked stubborn people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falsehood But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sence and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them 51. But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God that is bastards and not sons heirs of Hell and damnation full of sin and vile corruption when the holy Scriptures propound children as imitable for their pretty innocence and sweetness and declare them rather heirs of Heaven than Hell In malice be children and unless we become like to children we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven Heaven is theirs God is their Father Angels are appropriated to them they are free from malice and imitable by men These are better words than are usually given them and signifie that they are beloved of God not hated design'd for Heaven and born to it though brought thither by Christ and by the Spirit of Christ not born for Hell that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels not for innocent babes This does not call them naturally wicked but rather naturally innocent and is a better account than is commonly given them by imputation of Adams sin 52. But not concerning children but of himself S. Paul complains that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted There is a law in my members bringing me into captivity to the law of sin and many other words to the same purpose all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded is nothing but a temptation to evil life and a patron of impiety Concerning which I have in the next Chapter given account and freed it from the common abuse But if this were to be understood in the sence which I there reprove yet it is to be observed in order to the present Question that S. Paul does not say This law in our members comes by nature or is derived from Adam A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious custom and that may be as prevalent as Nature and more because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their nature than have cured their vicious habits * Add to this that S. Paul puts this uneasiness and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law and of his not being under Christ not upon the account of Adams prevarication as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter 53. As easie also it is to understand these words of S. Paul without prejudice to this Question The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither indeed can he know them meaning as is supposed that there is in our natures an ignorance and averseness from spiritual things that is a contrariety to God But it is observable that the word which the Apostle uses is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not properly rendred Natural but Animal and it certainly means a man that is guided only by natural Reason without the revelations of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Suidas An animal man that is a Philosopher or a rational man such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers upon the stock and account of the learning of all their Schools could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel mysteries as of God incarnate Christ dying Resurrection of the body and the like For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animal and another word used often by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritual and are states of evil or of imperfection in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God For animality which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation is a state privatively oppos'd to the
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
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
supposes a state of excellency beyond our power but not beyond our aims Thus we must endeavour to avoid all sin and to master all our infirmities because to do so is the nobleness of a Christian courage and that design which is the proper effect of Charity which is the best of Christian graces But we cannot resolve to do it because it is beyond all our powers but may endeavour it and resolve to endeavour it but that 's all we can do But if to resolve be a duty then to perform it is a greater and if a man cannot be the child of God without resolving against all the habits of sin then neither can he be his child unless he actually quit them all 58. But then if from acting our resolution we be hindred by passion and violent desires we are plainly in the state of immortification Passion is the Ruler and as the first step of victory is to keep those passions and appetites from doing any Criminal action abroad so the worst they can do is to engage and force the man to sin and that against his will even whether he list or no. But concerning this Article we are intirely determin'd by the words of S. Paul He that is in Christ hath crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts that is the passions and desires of the flesh are mortified in all the regenerate and therefore a state of passion is a state of death But whatever the principle be yet we must be infinitely careful we do not mistake a broken resolution for an intire piety He that perpetually resolves and yet perpetually breaks his resolution does all the way sin against his conscience and against his reason against his experience and against his observation and it will be a strange offer at an excuse for a man to hope for or to pretend to pardon because be sinned against his Conscience 59. There is in this Article some little difference in the case of young persons the violence of whose passions as it transports them infallibly to evil so it helps to excuse some of it but this is upon a double account 1. Because part of it is natural naturale vitium aetatis the defect and inherent inclination of their age 2. And because their passions being ever strongest when their reason is weakest the actions of young men are imperfect and incomplete For deliberation being nothing else but an alternate succession of appetites it is an unequal entercourse that a possessing natural promoted passion should contest against a weak over-born beginning unexperienc'd uninstructed reason this alternation of appetites is like the dust of a ballance weighing against a rock the deliberation it self must needs be imperfect because there is no equality And therefore the Roman Lawyers did not easily upon a man under twenty five years of age inflict punishment at least not extreme They are the words of Tryphonius In delictis autem minor annis xxv non meretur in integrâ—â— restitutionem utique atrocioribus nisi quatenus interdum miseratio aetatis ad mediocrem poenam judicem produxerit This I say is only a lessening of their fault not imputing it God is ready to pity every thing that is pitiable and therefore is apt to instruct them more and to forbear them longer and to expect and to assist their return and strikes them not so soon nor so severely but what other degrees of pardon God will allow to their infirmities he hath no where told us For as to the whole it is true in all laws Divine and Humane In criminibus quidem aetatis suffragio minores non juvantur etenim malorum mores infirmitas animi non excusat Infirmity of mind does not excuse evil manners and therefore in criminal actions young persons are not excus'd by their age In delictis aetate neminem excusari constat said Diocletian and Maximianus The age excuses not well may it lessen but it does not quite extinguish the guilt 60. VIII The greatness or violence of a temptation does not excuse our sin or reconcile it to the state of grace and an actual consistence with Gods favour The man that is highly tempted and so falls cannot say it was by an unavoidable infirmity For God never suffers any man to be tempted above his strength and therefore when he suffers him to fall into a great trial he hath before-hand prepared him with great aids and a temptation is not such a formidable thing to a considering Christian. All that it can say is nothing but that sin is pleasant and suppose that true yet so is drink to an hydropick person and salt meats to a phantastick stomach and yet they that are concerned do easily abstain from these temptations and remember that it is a greater pleasure to be in health than with a little cold water or a broil'd fish to please their palate and therefore a temptation which can be overcome by an argument from so small an interest cannot stand the shock of a Noble and a Christian resolution and discourse But every temptation puts on its strength as the man is Sometimes a full meal will not prejudice our health and at another time half so much would be a surfeit and some men take cold with leaving off a half-shirt who at another time might leave off half their clothes The indisposition is within and if men did not love to be tempted it would not prevail at all Wine is no temptation to an abstemious man nor all the beauties of Potiphars wife to Joseph the Devil could not prevail with such trifles but half such an offer would overthrow all the trifling purposes of the effeminate To say that such a temptation is great is to say that you love the sin too well to which you are tempted For temptations prevail only by our passions and our appetites leave to love the sin and the temptation is answered but if you love it then complain of nothing but thy self for thou makest the temptation great by being in love with life and sin by preferring vanity before eternal pleasures In the Apophthegms of the Egyptian Anachorets I read of one who had an apparition in the likeness of Christ. A vain and a proud person would have hugg'd himself and entertain'd the illusion But he shutting his eyes said I shall see Christ in Heaven it is enough for me to hope and to believe while I am on earth This or the like did and did not prevail by our weaknesses not by their own strength and to pretend the strength of a temptation is to say we are to be excused because we love sin too well and are too much delighted with baser objects and we cannot help it because we love to die 61. IX The smallest instance if it be observed ceases to be a sin of infirmity because by being observ'd it loses its pretence and excuse for then it is done upon the account of the will For here the
could not absolve such persons in plain speaking seems to mean that since the Church ministers nothing of her own but is the Minister of the Divine mercy she had no commission to promise pardon to such persons If God had promised pardon to such Criminals it is certain the Church was bound to preach it but if she could not declare preach or exhibite any such promise then there was no such promise and therefore their sending them to God was but a put off or a civil answer saying that God might do it if he please but he had not signified his pleasure concerning them and whether they who sinn'd so foully after Baptism were pardonable was no where revealed and therefore all the Ministers of Religion were bound to say they were unpardonable that is God never said he would pardon them which is the full sence of the word Vnpardonable For he that says any sin is unpardonable does not mean that God cannot pardon it but that he will not or that he hath not said he will 25. And upon the same account it seem'd unreasonable to S. Ambrose that the Church should impose penances and not release the penitents He complain'd of the Novatians for so doing Cùm utique veniam negando incentivum auferant poenitentiae The penitents could have little encouragement to perform the injunctions of their Confessors when after they had done them they should not be admitted to the Churches communion And indeed the case was hard when it should be remembred that whatsoever the Church did bind on Earth was bound in Heaven and if they retain'd them below God would do so above and therefore we find in Scripture that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give repentance being the purpose of Christ's coming and the grace of the Gospel does mean to give the effect of Repentance that is pardon And since Gods method is such by giving the grace and admitting us to do the duty he consequently brings to that mercy which is the end of that duty it is fit that should also be the method of the Church 26. For the ballancing of this Consideration we are further to consider that though the Church had power to pardon in all things where God had declar'd he would yet because in some sins the malice was so great the scandal so intolerable the effect so mischievous the nature of them so contradictory to the excellent laws of Christianity the Church many times could not give a competent judgment whether any man that had committed great sins had made his amends and done a sufficient penance and the Church not knowing whether their Repentance was worthy and acceptable to God she could not pronounce their pardon that is she could not tell them whether upon those terms God had or would pardon them in the present disposition 27. For after great crimes the state of a sinner is very deplorable by reason of his uncertain pardon not that it is uncertain whether God will pardon the truly penitent but that it is uncertain who is so and all the ingredients into the judgment that is to be made are such things which men cannot well discern they cannot tell in what measures God will exact the Repentance what sorrow is sufficient what fruits acceptable what is expiatory and what rejected according to the saying of Solomon Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin they cannot tell how long God will forbear at what time his anger is final and when he will refuse to hear or what aggravations of the crime God looks on nor can they make an estimate which is greater the example of the sin or the example of the punishment And therefore in such great cases the Church had reason to refuse to give pardon which she could minister neither certainly nor prudently nor as the case then stood safely or piously 28. But yet she enjoyn'd Penances that is all the solemnities of Repentance and to them the sinners stood bound in Earth and consequently in Heaven according to the words of our blessed Saviour but she bound them no further She intended charity and relief to them not ruine and death eternal On this she had no direct power and if the penitent were obedient to her Discipline then neither could they be prejudic'd by her indirect power she sent them to God for pardon and made them to prepare themselves accordingly Her injunction of Penances was medicinal and her refusing to admit them to the Communion was an act of caution fitted to the present necessities of the Church Nonnullae ideò poscunt poenitentiam ut statim sibi reddi communionem velint Hae non tam se solvere cupiunt quà m sacerdotem ligare Some demand penances that they may have speedy communion These do not so much desire themselves to be loosed as to have the Priest bound that is such hasty proceedings do not any good to the penitent but much hurt to him that ministers This the Primitive Church avoided and this was the whole effect which that Discipline had upon the souls of the penitents But for their Doctrine S. Austin is a sufficient witness Sed neque de ipsis â—riminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sanctâ Ecclesiâ Dei desperanda est misericordia agentibus poenitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati They ought not to despair of Gods mercy even to the greatest sinners if they be the greatest penitents that is if they repent according to the measure of their sins Only in the making their judgments concerning the measures of Repentance they differ'd from our practices Ecclesiastical Repentance and Absolution was not only an exercise of the duty and an assisting of the penitent in his return but it was also a warranting or ensuring the pardon which because in many cases the Church could not so well do she did better in not undertaking it that is in not pronouncing Absolution 29. For the pardon of sins committed after Baptism not being described in full measures and though it be sufficiently signifi'd that any sin may be pardon'd yet it not being told upon what conditions this or that great one shall the Church did well and warily not to be too forward for as S. Paul said I am conscious to my self in nothing yet I am not hereby justified so we may say in Repentance I have repented and do so but I am not hereby justified because that is a secret which until the day of Judgment we shall not understand for every repenting is not sufficient He that repents worthily let his sin be what it will shall certainly be pardon'd but after great crimes who does repent worthily is a matter of harder judgment than the manners of the present age will allow us to make and so secret that they thought it not amiss very often to be backward in pronouncing the Criminal absolved 30. But then all this whole affair must needs be a mighty arrest to
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
believed by the same simplicity it is taught when we do not call that a mystery which we are not able to prove and tempt our faith to swallow that whole which reason cannot chew One thing I am to observe more before I leave considering the words of the Apostle The Apostle here having instituted a comparison between Adam and Christ that as death came by one so life by the other as by one we are made sinners so by the other we are made righteous some from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said thus Christ and Adam are compared therefore as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really Sinners our righteousness by Christ is more than imputed and therefore so is our unrighteousness by Adam to this besides what I have already spoken in my humble addresses to that wise and charitable Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester delivering the sence and objections of others in which I have declared my sence of the imputation of Christs righteousness and besides that although the Apostle offers a similitude yet he finds himself surprised and that one part of the similitude does far exceed the other and therefore nothing can follow hence but that if we receive evil from Adam we shall much more receive good from Christ besides this I say I have something very material to reply to the form of the argument which is a very trick and fallacy For the Apostle argues thus As by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous and that is very true and much more but to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is to invert the purpose of the Apostle who argues from the less to the greater and to make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the less in matter of power is as if one should say If a child can carry a ten pound weight much more can a man and therefore whatsoever a man can do that also a child can do For though I can say If this thing be done in a green tree what shall be done in the dry yet I must not say therefore If this be done in the dry tree what shall be done in the green For the dry tree of the Cross could do much more than the green tree in the Garden of Eden It is a good argument to say If the Devil be so potent to do a shrewd turn much more powerful is God to do good but we cannot conclude from hence but God can by his own mere power and pleasure save a soul therefore the Devil can by his power ruine one In a similitude the first part may be and often is less than the second but never greater and therefore though the Apostle said As by Adam c. So by Christ c. Yet we cannot say as by Christ so by Adam We may well reason thus As by Nature there is a reward to evil doers so much more is there by God but we cannot by way of conversion reason thus As by God there is an eternal reward appointed to good actions so by Nature there is an eternal reward for evil ones And who would not deride this way of arguing As by our Fathers we receive temporal good things so much more do we by God but by God we also receive an immortal Soul therefore from our Fathers we receive an immortal Body For not the consequent of a hypothetical proposition but the antecedent is to be the assumption of the Syllogism This therefore is a fallacy which when those wise persons who are unwarily perswaded by it shall observe I doubt not but the whole way of arguing will appear unconcluding Object 6. But it is objected that my Doctrine is against the ninth Article in the Church of England and that I hear Madam does most of all stick with you Of this Madam I should not now have taken notice because I have already answered it in some additional papers which are already published but that I was so delighted to hear and to know that a person of your interest and piety of your zeal and prudence is so earnest for the Church of England that I could not pass it by without paying you that regard and just acknowledgment which so much excellency deserves But then Madam I am to say that I could not be delighted in your zeal for our excellent Church if I were not as zealous my self for it too I have oftentimes subscribed that Article and though if I had cause to dissent from it I would certainly do it in those just measures which my duty on one side and the interest of truth on the other would require of me yet because I have no reason to disagree I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a Differing judgment from my Dear Mother which is the best Church of the world Indeed Madam I do not understand the words of the Article as most men do but I understand them as they can be true and as they can very fairly signifie and as they agree with the word of God and right reason But I remember that I have heard from a very good hand and there are many alive this day that may remember to have heard it talk'd of publickly that when Mr. Thomas Rogers had in the year 1584. published an exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles many were not only then but long since very angry at him that he by his interpretation had limited the charitable latitude which was allowed in the subscription to them For the Articles being framed in a Church but newly reformed in which many complied with some unwillingness and were not willing to have their consent broken by too great a straining and even in the Convocation it self so many being of a differing judgment it was very great prudence and piety to secure the peace of the Church by as much charitable latitude as they could contrive and therefore the Articles in those things which were publickly disputed at that time even amongst the Doctors of the Reformation such were the Articles of Predestination and this of Original sin were described with incomparable wisdom and temper and therefore I have reason to take it ill if any man shall deny me liberty to use the benefit of the Churches wisdom For I am ready a thousand times to subscribe the Article if there can be just cause to do it so often but as I impose upon no man my sence of the Article but leave my reasons and him to struggle together for the best so neither will I be bound to any one man or any company of men but to my lawful Superiors speaking there where they can and ought to oblige Madam I take nothing ill from any man but that he should think I have a less zeal for our Church than himself and I will by Gods assistance be all
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will believe them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility than the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psalm 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sinn'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an Original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's child was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punished For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an Original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sence of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sence of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sence without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the Chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present it runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more than by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise than by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions This I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather than arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endeavours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endeavours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sinn'd his descendants and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sence be said to have done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sinn'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgment unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgment passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgment to prevent a punishment or a less to fore-stall a greater in the same kind so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sinn'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adams sin had was only to bring in the reign of death which is already broken by Jesus Christ and at last shall be quite destroyed But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam formally and so as to be inherent in us is to say that we were made to do his action which is a perfect contradiction Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and
this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more than grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
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
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
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
he reveres And this liberty I now take is no other than hath been used by the severest Votaries in that Church where to dissent is death I mean in the Church of Rome I call to witness those disputations and contradictory assertions in the matter of some articles which are to be observed in Andreas Vega Dominicus à Soto Andradius the Lawyers about the Question of divorces and clan destine contracts the Divines about predetermination and about this very article of Original sin as relating to the Virgin Mary But blessed be God we are under the Discipline of a prudent charitable and indulgent Mother and if I may be allowed to suppose that the article means no more in short than the office of Baptism explicates at large I will abide by the trial there is not a word in the Rubricks or Prayers but may very perfectly consist with the Doctrine I deliver But though the Church of England is my Mother and I hope I shall ever live and at last die in her Communion and if God shall call me to it and enable me I will not refuse to die for her yet I conceive there is something most highly considerable in that saying Call no man Master upon earth that is no mans explication of her articles shall prejudice my affirmative if it agrees with Scripture and right reason and the doctrine of the Primitive Church for the first 300 years and if in any of this I am mistaken I will most thankfully be reproved and most readily make honourable amends But my proposition I hope is not built upon the sand and I am most sure it is so zealous for Gods honour and the reputation of his justice and wisdom and goodness that I hope all that are pious unless they labour under some prejudice and prepossession will upon that account be zealous for it or at least confess that what I intend hath in it more of piety than their negative can have of certainty That which is strain'd and held too hard will soonest break He that stoops to the authority yet twists the article with truth preserves both with modesty and Religion One thing more I fear will trouble some persons who will be apt to say to me as Avitus of Vienna did to Faustus of Rhegium Hic quantum ad frontem pertinent quasi abstinentissimam vitam professus non secretam crucem sed publicam vanitatem c. That upon pretence of great severity as if I were exact or could be I urge others to so great strictness which will rather produce despair than holiness Though I have in its proper place taken care concerning this and all the way intend to rescue men from the just causes and in-lets to despair that is not to make them do that against which by preaching a holy life I have prepar'd the best defensative yet this I shall say here particularly That I think this objection is but a mere excuse which some men would make lest they should believe it necessary to live well For to speak truth men are not very apt to despair they have ten thousand ways to flatter themselves and they will hope in despight of all arguments to the contrary In all the Scripture there is but one example of a despairing man and that was Judas who did so not upon the stock of any fierce propositions preach'd to him but upon the load of his foul sin and the pusillanimity of his spirit But they are not to be numbred who live in sin and yet sibi suaviter benedicunt think themselves in a good condition and all them that rely upon those false principles which I have reckoned in this Preface and confuted in the Book are examples of it But it were well if 〈◊〉 would distinguish the sin of despair from the misery of despair Where God hath 〈◊〉 us no warrant to hope there to despair is no sin it may be a punishment and to hope 〈◊〉 may be presumption I shall end with the most charitable advice I can give to any of my erring Brethren 〈◊〉 no man be so vain as to use all the wit and arts all the shifts and devices of the world 〈…〉 may behold to enjoy the pleasure of his sin since it may bring him into that condition that it 〈◊〉 be disputed whether he shall despair or no. Our duty is to make our calling and electioâ—â— sure which certainly cannot be done but by a timely and effective repentance But they that will be confident in their health are sometimes pusillanimous in their sickness presumptious in sin and despairing in the day of their calamity Cognitio de incorrupto Dei judicio in multis dormit sed excitari solet circa mortem said Plato For though 〈◊〉 give false sentences of the Divine judgments when their temptations are high and their 〈◊〉 pleasant yet about the time of their death their understanding and notices are awakened 〈◊〉 they see what they would not see before and what they cannot now avoid Thus I have given account of the design of this Book to you Most Reverend Fatâ—â—â— and Religious Brethren of this Church and to your judgment I submit what I have here discoursed of as knowing that the chiefest part of the Ecclesiastical office is conversant about Repentance and the whole Government of the Primitive Church was almost wholly imployed in ministring to the orders and restitution and reconciliation of penitents and therefore you are not only by your ability but by your imployment and experiences the most competent Judges and the aptest promoters of those truths by which Repentance is made most perfect and unreprovable By your Prayers and your Authority and your Wisdom I hope it will be more and more effected that the strictnesses of a holy life be thought necessary and that Repentance may be no more that trifling little piece of duty to which the errors of the late Schools of learning and the desires of men to be deceiv'd in this article have reduc'd it I have done thus much of my part toward it and I humbly desire it may be accepted by God by you and by all good men JER TAYLOR VNVM NECESSARIVM OR The DOCTRINE and PRACTICE OF REPENTANCE CHAP. I. The Foundation and Necessity of Repentance SECT I. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing the Covenant of Works IN the first entercourse with Man God made such a Covenant as he might justly make out of his absolute dominion and such as was agreeable with those powers which he gave us and the instances in which obedience was demanded For 1. Man was made perfect in his kind and God demanded of him perfect obedience 2. The first Covenant was the Covenant of Works that is there was nothing in it but Man was to obey or die but God laid but one command upon him that we find the Covenant was instanced but in one precept In that he fail'd and therefore he was lost
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