and not Man first by Baptism and then by Confirmation first by Water and then by the Spirit The Primitive Church had this Notion so fully amongst them that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement who was S. Paul's Scholar affirms That a man is made a perfect Christian meaning Ritually and Sacramentally and by all exterior solemnity by the Water of Baptism and Confirmation of the Bishop and from these words of Christ now alledged derives the use and institution of the Rite of Confirmation The same sence of these words is given to us by S. Cyprian who intending to prove the insufficiency of one without the other says Tunc enim plenè Sanctificari esse Dei filii possunt si Sacramento utroque nascantur cùm scriptum sit Nisi quis natus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu non potest intrare in regnum Dei Then they may be fully Sanctified and become the Sons of God if they be born with both the Sacraments or Rites for it is written Vnless a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The same also is the Commentary of Eusebius Emissenus and S. Austin tells That although some understand these words only of Baptism and others of the Spirit only viz. in Confirmation yet others and certainly much better understand utrumque Sacramentum both the Mysteries of Confirmation as well as Baptism Amalarius Fortunatus brings this very Text to reprove them that neglect the Episcopal Imposition of Hands Concerning them who by negligence lose the Bishop's presence and receive not the Imposition of his Hands it is to be considered lest in justice they be condemned in which they exercise Justice negligently because they ought to make haste to the Imposition of Hands because Christ said Vnless a man be born again of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And as he said this so also he said Vnless your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven To this I foresee two Objections may be made First That Christ did not institute Confirmation in this place because Confirmation being for the gift of the Holy Ghost who was to come upon none of the Apostles till Jesus was glorified these words seem too early for the consigning an Effect that was to be so long after and a Rite that could not be practised till many intermedial events should happen So said the Evangelist The Holy Ghost was come upon none of them because Jesus was not yet glorified intimating that this great Effect was to be in after-time and it is not likely that the Ceremony should be ordained before the Effect it self was ordered and provided for that the Solemnity should be appointed before provisions were made for the Mystery and that the outward which was wholly for the inward should be instituted before the inward and principal had its abode amongst us To this I answer First That it is no unusual thing for Christ gave the Sacrament of his Body before his Body was given the Memorial of his Death was instituted before his Death 2. Confirmation might here as well be instituted as Baptism and by the same reason that the Church from these words concludes the necessity of one she may also infer the designation of the other for the effect of Baptism was at that time no more produced than that of Confirmation Christ had not yet purchased to himself a Church he had not wrought remission of sins to all that believe on him the Death of Christ was not yet passed into which Death the Christian Church was to be Baptized 3. These words are so an institution of Confirmation as the sixth Chapter of S. John is of the blessed Eucharist It was designativa not ordinativa it was in design not in present command here it was preached but not reducible to practice till its proper season 4. It was like the words of Christ to S. Peter When thou art converted confirm thy Brethren Here the command was given but that Confirmation of his Brethren was to be performed in a time relative to a succeeding accident 5. It is certain that long before the event and Grace was given Christ did speak of the Spirit of Confirmation that Spirit which was to descend in Pentecost which all they were to receive who should believe on him which whosoever did receive out of his Belly should flow Rivers of Living Waters as is to be read in that place of S. John now quoted 6. This predesignation of the Holy Spirit of Confirmation was presently followed by some little antepast and donariola or little givings of the Spirit for our Blessed Saviour gave the Holy Ghost three several times First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscurely and by intimation and secret vertue then when he sent them to heal the sick and anoint them with Oil in the Name of the Lord. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more expresly and signally after the Resurrection when he took his leave of them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost And this was to give them a power of ministring Remission of sins and therefore related to Baptism and the ministeries of Repentance But Thirdly he gave it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more perfectly and this was the Spirit of Confirmation for he was not at all until now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Text The Holy Ghost was not yet So almost all the Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript and so S. Chrysostom Athanasius Cyril Ammonius in the Catena of the Greeks Leontius Theophylact Euthymius and all the Greek Fathers read it so S. Hierom and S. Austin among the Latines and some Latin Translations read it Our Translations read it The Holy Ghost was not yet given was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them as some few Greek Copies read it but the meaning is alike Confirmation was not yet actual the Holy Spirit viz. of Confirmation was not yet come upon the Church but it follows not but he was long before promised designed and appointed spoken of and declared * The first of these Collations had the Ceremony of Chrism or Anointing joyned with it which the Church in process of time transferred into her use and ministery yet it is the last only that Christ passed into an Ordinance for ever it is this only which is the Sacramental consummation of our Regeneration in Christ for in this the Holy Spirit is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present by his power but present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Gregory Nazianzen expresses it to dwell with us to converse with us and to abide for ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. Paul describes this Spirit of Confirmation the Spirit which he hath poured forth upon us richly or plentifully that is in great measures and to the full consummation of the
Disswasive from Popery The First Part. THE Introduction 285 Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive 286 Sect. 1. That our Religion is but that their Religion is not such is proved in general first from their challenging power of making new Articles and secondly from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory with some instances of their Innovating 286 2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles 290 3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences 291 4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory 294 5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation 297 6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion 30◠7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood 303 8. In requiring the adoration of Images 305 9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity 307 10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick 308 11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us that are direct impieties and certainly destroy good life 312 Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance 312 2. And Confession 315 3. Of Penances and Satisfactions 316 4 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences Contrition and Satisfaction 318 6. Satisfaction and habitual sins distinction of Mortal and Venial sins by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins and mistake in cases of Conscience 322 7. Their teaching now of late that a probable opinion for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient may in practice be safely followed 324 8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato 327 9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers 329 10. And of Exorcising possessed persons 333 11. Sacramentals such as Holy-water Paschal-wax Agnus Dei c. 336 12. The worship of Images is Idolatry and to worship the Host. 337 13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter 337 Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general and Monarchy in particular 340 Sect. 1. As equivocation mental reservation taught and defended by them c. 340 Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks dispensing with Oaths Dissolving the bonds of duty 341 They teach the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God and to dissolve contracts 2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority as to their Estates and Persons even in matters of Theft Murder and Treason c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession 343 3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope who can as they teach depose and excommunicate Kings and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings The Second Part of the Disswasive THe Introduction containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing 351 Lib. I. Sect. 1. Of the Church that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith Of Councils and their authority the Canon Law and the great contrariety in it Of the Pope of the notes of the Church 381 2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition 405 3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick as of the Trinity Paedo-Baptism Baptism by Hereticks and the Lords day 420 4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 436 5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine 446 First They do it and pretend to a power of doing it Secondly That it agrees with their interest so to do 452 6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii 454 First That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors Secondly That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works Thirdly They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too 7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity 459 8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 466 9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men 471 10. Of the Seal of Confession the First Instance 473 11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God 477 First For which there is no ground in holy Scripture 479 Secondly Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church 491 Lib. II. Sect. 1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages 495 2. Of Purgatory The testimonies of Roffensis Polyd. Virgil c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated 500 It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead 501 The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory 502 And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church 512 3. Of Transubstantiation wherein the authorities out of Scotus Odo Cameracensis Roffensis Biel Alph. à Castro Pet. Lombard Durandus Justine Martyr Eusebius S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation but brake up abruptly without making any Canons at all 516 4. Of the Half-Communion 528 Of the Decree of the Council of Constance 528. The authority of S. Ambrose 530. and S. Cyprian 531 5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue 532 S. Basils authority S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas Lyra. 6. Of the Worship of Images 535 1o. The Quotations vindicated 536. of S. Cyril Chrysostom Epiphanius Austin Council of Eliberis Nicene II. Francfort First The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540 Secondly They commanded that it should not be called a General Council ibid. Thirdly The acts of it are in the Capitular of the Emperor written in the time of the Synod 541 Of Tertullian 541. Clemens Alexandrinus 542. Origen 543. 2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered as of S. Basil S. Athanasius 544. S. Chrysostom 545. 3o. The truth confirmed 545 First Image-worship came from Simon Magus ibid. Secondly Heathens spake against it 546 Thirdly Christians did abominate it ibid. Fourthly The Heathens never charged the Christians with it ibid. Fifthly The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry 547 Sixthly The Second Commandment is against it ibid.
and the material part is opposed to it as less true or real The examples of this are not infrequent in Scripture The Tabernacle into which the high Priest entred was a type or a figure of Heaven Heaven it self is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Tabernacle and yet the other was the material part And when they are joyned together that is when a thing is expressed by a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 True is spoken of such things though they are spoken figuratively Christ the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world He is also the true vine and verè cibus truly or really meat and Panis verus è coelo the true bread from Heaven and spiritual goods are called the true riches and in the same Analogy the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true real and effective the other can be but the image and shadow of it something in order to this for if it were in the Sacrament naturally or corporeally it could be but in order to this spiritual celestial and effective presence as appears beyond exception in this that the faithful and pious communicants receive the ultimate end of his presence that is spiritual blessings The wicked who by the affirmation of the Roman Doctors do receive Christs body and blood in the natural and corporal manner fall short of that for which this is given that is of the blessings and benefits 7. So that as S. Paul said He is not a Jew who is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh But he is a Jew which is one inwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the real Jew and the true circumcision that which is of the heart and in the spirit and in this sence it is that Nathaniel is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and truly an Israelite so we may say of the blessed Sacrament Christ is more truly and really present in spiritual presence than in corporal in the Heavenly effect than in the natural being this if it were at all can be but the less perfect and therefore we are to the most real purposes and in the proper sence of Scripture the more real defenders of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament for the spiritual sence is the most real and most true and most agreeable to the Analogy and style of Scripture and right reason and common manner of speaking For every degree of excellency is a degree of being of reality and truth and therefore spiritual things being more excellent than corporal and natural have the advantage both in truth and reality And this is fully the sence of the Christians who use the Aegyptian Liturgy Sanctifica nos Domine noster sicut sanctificasti has oblationes propositas sed fecisti illas non fictas that 's for real quicquid apparet est mysterium tuum spiritale that 's for spiritual To all which I add the testimony of Bellarmine concerning S. Austin Apud Augustinum saepissimè illud solum dici tale verè tale quod habet effectum suum conjunctum res enim ex fructu aestimatur itaque illos dicit verè comedere corpus Christi qui utiliter comedunt They only truly eat Christs body that eat it with effect for then a thing is really or truly such when it is not to no purpose when it hath his effect And in his eleventh Book against Faustus the Manichee Chap. 7. he shews that in Scripture the words are often so taken as to signifie not the substance but the quality and effect of a thing So when it is said Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God that is corruption shall not inherit and in the resurrection our bodies are said to be spiritual that is not in substance but in effect and operation and in the same manner he often speaks concerning the blessed Sacrament and Clemens Romanus affirms expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is to drink the blood of Jesus to partake of the Lords immortality 8. This may suffice for the word real which the English Papists much use but as appears with less reason than the Sons of the Church of England and when the real presence is denied the word real is taken for Natural and does not signifie transcendenter or in his just and most proper signification But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantiâ suâ nobis adest In substance but after a sacramental manner which words if they might be understood in the sence in which the Protestants use them that is really truly without fiction or the help of fancy but in rei veritate so as Philo calls spiritual things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most necessary useful and material substances it might become an instrument of an united confession And this is the manner of speaking which S. Bernard used in his Sermon of S. Martin where he affirms In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam sed spiritualiter non carnaliter In the Sacrament is given us the true substance of Christs body or flesh but not carnally but spiritually that is not to our mouths but to our hearts not to be chewed by teeth but to be eaten by faith But they mean it otherwise as I shall demonstrate by and by In the mean time it is remarkable that Bellarmine when he is stating this question seems to say the same thing for which he quotes the words of S. Bernard now mentioned for he says that Christs body is there truly substantially really but not corporally Nay you may say spiritually and now a man would think we had him sure but his nature is labile and slippery you are never the nearer for this for first he says it is not safe to use the word spiritually nor yet safe to say he is not there corporally lest it be understood not of the manner of his presence but to the exclusion of the nature For he intends not for all these fine words that Christs body is present spiritually as the word is used in Scripture and in all common notices of usual speaking but spiritually with him signifies after the manner of spirits which besides that it is a cousening the world in the manner of expression is also a direct folly and contradiction that a body should be substantially present that is with the nature of a body naturally and yet be not as a body but as a spirit with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body In vain therefore it is that he denies the carnal manner and admits a spiritual and ever after requires that we believe a carnal presence even in the very manner But this caution and exactness in the use of the
called of Adam bone of his bone and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods or else because it sometimes was bread therefore so it is called after just as we say The blind see the lame walk the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes yet lest any others should be pleased with it I have this certain confutation of it that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body and the holy body never was bread not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change It cannot therefore be called bread unless it be bread at least not for this reason For if the body of Christ be not bread then neither ever was it bread neither was it made of bread and therefore these cannot be the reasons because they are not true But in the instances alledged the denomination still remains because the change was made in the same remaining matter or in the same person or they were to be so again as they were before nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist by their doctrine therefore these instances are not pertinent 2. Others answer that the holy Body is called Bread because it seems to be so just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates of Bulls of Serpents of Cherubims are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble I reply that well they may because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations no man will suppose them other than the pictures and so to speak is usual and common But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread unless it were bread indeed because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith but rather because it is like bread and all the world are apt to take it for such it ought to have been described with caution and affirmed to be Christ and God and not to be bread though it seem so But when it is often called Bread in Scripture which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery and is never called in Scripture the Son of God or God or Christ which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery it is certain that it is called bread not because it is like bread but because it is so indeed * And indeed upon such an answer as this it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon and no apple for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple it may be replyed then as now It is true they call it an apple because it is like an apple but indeed it is a Pigeon 3. Some of them say when it is called bread it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment but in general it means any food and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food Just as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven not meaning material bread but divine nourishment But this is the weakest of all because this which is called bread is broken is eaten hath the accidents of bread and all the signs of his proper nature and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like and not signify that to which it is so like * Besides this bread here signifies as wine or chalice does in the following words now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine that special manner of drink Christ himself being the Interpreter and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food 9. Sixthly If after the blessing the bread doth not remain but as they affirm be wholly annihilated then by blessing God destroys a creature which indeed is a strange kind of blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When God blesses he confirms his words with deeds and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses And certain it is that although blessing can change it it must yet change it to the better and so we affirm he does for the bread besides the natural being by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner but then it must remain bread still or else it receives not that increase and change but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing it is not Christs body in any sence nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed To which add the words of S. Austin Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi id est tendendi ad non esse He that is the fountain of all being is not the cause of not being much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be It follows therefore that by blessing the bread becomes better but therefore it still remains 10. Seventhly That it is bread of which Christ affirmed This is my body and that it is bread after consecration was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers In Trullo at Constantinople decreeing thus against the Aquarii In Sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus Christi offeratur ut ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinúm aquâ mixtum In the holy places or offices let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ as the Lord himself delivered that is bread and wine mingled with water So Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the food made eucharistical the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread No for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still and that for two reasons 1. Because still he calls it bread not common bread but extraordinary yet bread still Card. Perron says it follows not to say it is not common bread therefore it is bread so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham we might say they were not common men but it follows not that they were men at all So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus was no common Dove and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all I reply to this that of whatsoever you can say it is extraordinary in his kind of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind as concerning the richest scarlet if you say this is no ordinary colour you suppose it to be a colour so the Corinthian brass was no common brass and the Colossus was no common Statue and Christmas day is no
blessed Saviour Do this in memorial of me and this doing ye shew forth the Lords death till he come saith S. Paul 3. Secondly the second credibility that our blessed Saviours words are to be understood figuratively is because it is a Sacrament For mysterious and tropical expressions are very frequently almost regularly and universally used in Scripture in Sacraments and sacramentals And therefore it is but a vain discourse of Bellarmine to contend that this must be a proper speaking because it is a Sacrament For that were all one as to say he speaks mystically therefore he speaks properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for a Sacrament and all the Greek that is for it in the New Testament and when S. Paul tells of a man praying in the spirit but so as not to be understood he expresses it by speaking mysteries The mysterious and sacramental speaking is secret and dark But so it is in the sacrament or covenant of circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Covenant and yet it was but the seal of the Covenant if you believe S. Paul it was a Sacrament and a consignation of it but it is spoken of it affirmatively and the same words are used there as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places 4. And upon this account two other usual objections pretending that this being a Covenant and a Testament it ought to be expressed without a figure are dissolved For here is a Covenant and a Testament and a Sacrament all in one and yet the expression of them is figurative and the being a Testament is so far from supposing all expression in it to be proper and free from figure that it self the very word Testament in the institution of the holy Sacrament is tropical or figurative est Testamentum that is est signum Testamenti it is that is it signifies And why they should say that a Testament must have in it all plain words and no figures or hard sayings that contend that both the Testaments New and Old are very full of hard sayings and upon that account forbid the people to read them I confess I cannot understand Besides this though it be fit in temporal Testaments all should be plain yet we see all are not plain and from thence come so many suits of Law yet there is not the same reason in spiritual or divine and in humane Testaments for in humane there is nothing but legacies and express commands both which it is necessary that we understand plainly but in divine Testaments there are mysteries to exercise our industry and our faith our patience and inquiry some things for us to hope some things for us to admire some things to pry into some things to act some things for the present some things for the future some things pertaining to this life some things pertaining to the life to come some things we are to see in a glass darkly some things reserved till the vision of Gods face And after all this in humane Testaments men ought to speak plainly because they can speak no more when they are dead But Christ can for he being dead yet speaketh and he can by his Spirit make the Church understand as much as he please and he will as much as is necessary and it might be remembred that in Scripture there is extant a record of Jacobs Testament and of Moses which we may observe to be an allegory all the way I have heard also of an Athenian that had two sons and being asked on his deathbed to which of his two sons he would give his goods to Leon or Pantaleon which were the names of his two sons he only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but whether he meant to give all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon or to Pantaleon is not yet known And in the Civil Law it is noted that Testaments have figurative expressions very often and therefore decreed Non n. in causâ Testamentorum ad definitionem strictam sive propriam verborum significationem saith the Gloss utique descendendum est cum plerumque abusivè loquantur nec propriis vocabulis ac nominibus semper utantur Testatores l. non aliter Sect. Titius F. de legat fidei com And there are in Law certain measures for presumption of the Testators meaning These therefore are trifling arrests even a commandment may be given with a figurative expression and yet be plain enough such was that of Jesus Pray ye the Lord of the Harvest that he would send Labourers into his Harvest and that Jesus commanded his Disciples to prepare the Passeover and some others so Rent your hearts and not your garments c. And an article of faith may be expressed figuratively so is that of Christs sitting at the right hand of his Father And therefore much more may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mysterie and yet be plain enough Tropica loquutio cum fit ubi fieri solet sine labore sequitur intellectus said S. Austin l. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 37. Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a Thousand years together and yet admitted of figures in the institution and since these new men had the handling of it and excluded the figurative sence they have made it so hard that themselves cannot understand it nor tell one anothers meaning But it suffices as to this particular that in Scripture doctrines and promises and precepts and prophecies and histories are expressed sometimes figuratively Dabo tibi claves and Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis and The dragon drew the third part of the Stars with his tail and Fight the good fight of faith Put on the armour of righteousness and very many more 5. Thirdly And indeed there is no possibility of distinguishing sacramental propositions from common and dogmatical or from a commandment but that these are affirmative of a nature those of a mystery these speak properly they are figurative such as this Vnless a man be born of water and the Spirit be cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven The proposition is sacramental mystical and figurative Go and baptize that 's a precept therefore the rather is it literal and proper So it is in the blessed Sacrament the institution is in Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave to his disciples saying Take eat In these also there is a precept and in the last words Hoc facite this do in remembrance of me But the Sacramental proposition or the mystical which explicates the Sacrament is Hoc est corpus meum and either this is or there is no sacramental proposition in this whole affair to explicate the mysterie or the being a sacrament But this is very usual in sacramental propositions For so baptism is called regeneration and it is called a burial by S. Paul for we are buried with him in baptism then baptism
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for Saint Leo put in again That by these offices of holy attonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another Argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick Doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme Heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word but have left the whole fabrick of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great Authorities only one of them striving to find some fault sayes that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the Doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own Authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this Decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that Opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the Opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Vndequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of Antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he sayes that Pope Benedict the Eleventh affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the Decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the Acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the Decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the Doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors care not what they say insomuch that Saint Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the House of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this Opinion But that the present Doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new Article of Faith is therefore certain because it was no Article of Faith in Saint Austin's time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of Saint Austin The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. Chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best Armour in which they trusted and expounds the words of Saint Paul He shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which Saint Austin sayes is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to be so or it may never be found but lie hid then words signifie nothing yea but the doubting of Saint Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory but to the manner of the particular punishment viz. Whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames sayes E. W. A goodly excuse as if Saint Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their Springs or Fish-ponds to cool their tongues but Saint Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them and money in their purses This is too pitiful and strain'd an Answer the case being so evidently clear that the thing Saint Austin doubted of was since there was to some of the faithful who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons a Purgatory in this world even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd and therefore being lost so grieved for whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death that is whether besides the punishment suffered here they should not be punish'd after death how by grieving for the loss
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
state not at all fitted for Heaven but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell For even in innocent persons in Christ himself it was a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven he could not enter into the second Tabernacle that is into Heaven so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing the body of sin that is of infirmity he was first to lay aside and so by dying unto sin once he entred into Heaven according to the other words of S. Paul Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God it is a state of differing nature and capacity Christ himself could not enter thither till he had first laid that down as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses 9. This is the whole summ of Original sin which now I have more fully explicated than formerly it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it as to represent it to be a state of evil which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty and to be without excuse which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity and not unreasonable though in Scripture so much is not expressed yet now I must be more restrained and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine which the ignorance or the fancy or the interest or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine SECT II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin and how it is so 10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed to us so as to bring evil effects upon us For that which is inherent in us is a consequent only of Adam's sin but of it self no sin for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin the want of Original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these can be a sin in us but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be For the case is thus One half of Christians that dispute in this Article particularly the Roman Schools say that Concupiscence is not a sin but a consequent of Adam's sin The other half of Christians I mean in Europe that is the Protestants generally say That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin but formally no sin The effect of these is this That it is not certain amongst the Churches that either one or the other is formally our sin or inherent in us and we cannot affirm either without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference and therefore in the conference at Wormes and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together saying that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis cum concupiscentiâ But the Church of England defines neither but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin or inherent in us I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts The want of original righteousness is not a thing but the privation of a thing and therefore cannot be inherent in us and therefore if it be a sin at all to us it can only be such by imputation But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally because if it be at all it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin and unavoidable by us For though Scotus is pleased to affirm that there was an obligation upon humane nature to preserve it I doubt not but as he intended it he said false Adam indeed was tied to it for if he lost it for himself and us then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us for we could not be obliged to keep it unless we had received it but he was and because he lost it we also missed it that is are punished and feel the evil effects of it But besides all this the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges but not at all spoken of in Scripture save only that God made man upright that is he was brought innocent into the world he brought no sin along with him he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion all which we do not It is that which as Prosper describes it made a man expertem peccati capacem Dei for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough if he needed any besides his natural powers which we have not by nature but by another dispensation 11. Add to all this that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events tell us it is an aversion from God that is in effect a turning to the creature and differs no otherwise from concupiscence than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East that is just nothing It follows then that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin then so must the want of original righteousness because they are the same thing in real event and if that be no sin in us because it was only the punishment of his sin then neither is the other a sin for the same reason But then for Concupiscence that this is no sin before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity and of S. Austin himself Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si nunquam consentiremus ad malum Lib. 2. ad Julianum And it is infinitely against reason it should for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins therefore much less is the principle if the little emanations of it in them be innocent although there are some images of consent much more is that principle innocent before any thing of consent at all is applied to it By the way I cannot but wonder at this that the Roman Schools affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and not consented to by us but come upon us whether we list or no yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly which it is certain is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence But I add this also that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin if it were then it would follow that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence that is no
temptation but he offends God and then how we should understand S. James's rule that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation is beyond my reach and apprehension The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral and g. as it is good in Nature so it is not ill in manners the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil 34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation Viz. When it is so consented to when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam are to be renewed by the spirit of grace the effect of the second Adam which grace when we resist we do as Adam did and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us That was his sin and not ours but this is our sin and not his both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation but by one he deserved it and by the other we deserve it But then it is true that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality but in the same material part we do He left our Nature naked and for it he deserved Gods wrath if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature but then we deserve Gods wrath so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam but though he sinned in the first disrobing and we were imperfect by it yet we sin not till the second disrobing and then we return to the same imperfection and make it worse But I consider that although some Churches in their confessions express it yet the Church of England does not they add the word Eternal to Damnation but our Church abstains from that therefore Gods wrath and damnation can signifie the same that damnation does in S. Paul all the effects of Gods anger Temporal Death and the miseries of mortality was the effect of Adams sin and of our being reduc'd to the Natural and Corrupted or worsted state Or secondly they may signifie the same that hatred does in S. Paul and in Malachi Esau have I hated that is lov'd him less or did not give him what he was born to he lost the primogeniture and the Priesthood and the blessing So do we naturally fall short of Heaven This is hatred or the wrath of God and his Judgment upon the sin of Adam to condemn us to a state of imperfection and misery and death and deficiency from supernatural happiness all which I grant to be the effect of Adams sin and that our imperfect Nature deserves this that is it can deserve no better 35. And this infection of Nature Viz. This imperfection not any inherent quality that by contact pollutes the relatives and descendants but this abuse and reproach of our Nature this stain of our Nature by taking off the supernatural grace and beauties put into it like the cutting off the beards of Davids Embassadors or stripping a man of his robe and turning him abroad in his natural shame leaving him naked as Adam and we were But the word infection being metaphorical may aptly signifie any thing that is analogical to it and may mean a Natural habitude or inclination to forbidden instances But yet it signifies a very great evil for in the best Authors to be such by Nature means an aggravation of it So Carion in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man is very miserable or miserable by Nature and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you believe me to be such a man by Nature that I can speak nothing well 36. Doth remain yea in them that are regenerated That is all the baptized and unbaptized receive from Adam nothing but what is inclined to forbidden instances which is a principle against which and above which the spirit of God does operate For this is it which is called the lust of the flesh for so it follows whereby the lust of the flesh that is the desires and pronenesses to Natural objects which by Gods will came to be limited order'd and chastis'd curb'd and restrain'd 37. Called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is plain that the Church of England though she found it necessary to declare something in the fierce contention of the time in order to peace and unity of expression yet she was not willing too minutely to declare and descend to the particulars on either side and therefore she was pleas'd to make use of the Greek word of the sence of which there were so many disputes and recites the most usual redditions of the word 38. Which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affection some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God These several expositions reciting several things and the Church of England reciting all indefinitely but definitely declaring for none of them does only in the generality affirm that the flesh and spirit are contrary principles that the flesh resists the law of God but the spirit obeys it that is by the flesh alone we cannot obey Gods law naturally we cannot become the sons of God and heirs of Heaven but it must be a new birth by a spiritual regeneration The wisdom of the flesh that is Natural and secular principles are not apt dispositions to make us obedient to the law of God Sensuality that signifies an habitual lustfulness Desires signifie actual Lustings Affections signifie the Natural inclination now which of these is here meant the Church hath not declar'd but by the other words of the Article it is most probable She rather inclines to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by desires and sensuality rather than by affection or wisdom though of these also in their own sence it is true to affirm that they are not subject to the law of God there being some foolish principles which the flesh and the world is apt to entertain which are hindrances to holiness and the affection that is inclination to some certain objects being that very thing which the laws of God have restrained more or less in several periods of the world may without inconvenience to the Question be admitted to expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39. And although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized That is this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized nor to the regenerate that is when the new principle of grace and of the spirit is put into us we are reduced to as great a condition and as certain an order and a capacity of entring into Heaven as Adam was before his fall for then we are drawn from that mere natural state where Adam left us and therefore although these do die yet it is but the condition of nature not the punishment of the sin For Adams sin brought in Death and baptism and regeneration does not hinder
what made Adam sin when he fell If a fatal decree made him sin then he was nothing to blame Fati ista culpa est Nemo fit fato nocens No guilt upon mankind can lie For what 's the fault of destiny And Adam might with just reason lay the blame from himself and say as Agamemâ—on did in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not I that sinned but it was fate or a fury it was God and not I it was not my act but the effect of the Divine decree and then the same decree may make us sin and not the sin of Adam be the cause of it But if a liberty of will made Adam sin then this liberty to sin being still left us this liberty and not Adams sin is the cause of all our actual Concerning the other clause in the Presbyterian Article that our natural corruption in the regenerate still remains and is still a sin and properly a sin I have I confess heartily opposed it and shall besides my arguments confute it with my blood if God shall call me for it is so great a reproach to the spirit and power of Christ and to the effects of Baptism to Scripture and to right reason that all good people are bound in Conscience to be zealous against it For when Christ came to reconcile us to his Father he came to take away our sins not only to pardon them but to destroy them and if the regenerate in whom the spirit of Christ rules and in whom all their habitual sins are dead are still under the servitude and in the stocks of Original sin then it follows not only that our guilt of Adams sin is greater than our own actual the sin that we never consented to is of a deeper grain than that which we have chosen and delighted in and God was more angry with Cain that he was born of Adam than that he kill'd his Brother and Judas by descent from the first Adam contracted that sin which he could never be quit of but he might have been quit of his betraying the second Adam if he would not have despaired I say not only these horrid consequences do follow but this also will follow that Adams sin hath done some mischief that the grace of Christ can never cure and generation stains so much that regeneration cannot wash it clean Besides all this if the natural corruption remains in the regenerate and be properly a sin then either God hates the regenerate or loves the sinner and when he dies he must enter into Heaven with that sin which he cannot lay down but in the grave as the vilest sinner lays down every sin and then an unclean thing can go to Heaven or else no man can and lastly to say that this natural corruption though it be pardoned and mortified yet still remains and is still a sin is perfect non-sence for if it be mortified it is not it hath no being if it is pardoned it was indeed but now is no sin for till a man can be guilty of sin without obligation to punishment a sin cannot be a sin that is pardoned that is if the obligation to punishment or the guilt be taken away a man is not guilty Thus far Madam I hope you will think I had reason One thing more I did and do reprove in their Westminster Articles and that is that Original sin meaning our sin derived from Adam is contrary to the law of God and doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner binding him over to Gods wrath c. that is that the sin of Adam imputed to us is properly formally and inherently a sin If it were properly a sin in us our sin it might indeed be damnable for every transgression of the Divine Commandment is so but because I have proved it cannot bring eternal damnation I can as well argue thus This sin cannot justly bring us to damnation therefore it is not properly a sin as to say this is properly a sin therefore it can bring us to damnation Either of them both follow well but because they cannot prove it to be a sin properly or any other ways but by a limited imputation to certain purposes they cannot say it infers damnation But because I have proved it cannot infer damnation I can safely conclude it is not formally properly and inherently a sin in us Nec placet ô superi vobis cum vertere cuncta Propositum nostris erroribus addere crimen Nor did it please our God when that our state Was chang'd to add a crime unto our fate I have now Madam though much to your trouble quitted my self of my Presbyterian opponents so far as I can judge fitting for the present but my friends also take some exceptions and there are some objections made and blows given me as it happened to our Blessed Saviour In domo illorum qui diligebant me in the house of my Mother and in the societies of some of my Dearest Brethren For the case is this They joyn with me in all this that I have said viz. That Original sin is ours only by imputation that it leaves us still in our natural liberty and though it hath devested us of our supernaturals yet that our nature is almost the same and by the grace of Jesus as capable of Heaven as it could ever be by derivation of Original righteousness from Adam In the conduct and in the description of this Question being usually esteemed to be only Scholastical I confess they as all men else do usually differ for it was long ago observed that there are sixteen several famous opinions in this one Question of Original sin But my Brethren are willing to confess that for Adams sin alone no man did or shall ever perish And that it is rather to be called a stain than a sin If they were all of one mind and one voice in this Article though but thus far I would not move a stone to disturb it but some draw one way and some another and they that are aptest to understand the whole secret do put fetters and bars upon their own understanding by an importune regard to the great names of some dead men who are called masters upon earth and whose authority is as apt to mislead us into some propositions as their learning is useful to guide us in others but so it happens that because all are not of a mind I cannot give account of every disagreeing man but of that which is most material I shall Some learned persons are content I should say no man is damned for the sin of Adam alone but yet that we stand guilty in Adam and redeemed from this damnation by Christ and if that the Article were so stated it would not intrench upon the justice or the goodness of God for his justice would be sufficiently declared because no man can complain of wrong done him when the evil that he fell into by Adam
than the damning of those many souls occasionally but yet certainly and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodness to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unless he had furnished these men with an infallible judgment and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never do it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designs of which I think no Arguments can make us certain what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unless the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believed with the Articles Apostolical and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider 13. But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unless a new building be to be made the foundation is the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himself yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary belief to all which are the only foundation they cannot be several in several Ages and to several persons Nay the sentence and declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produced or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habit of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more than the act of the visive faculty can add visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and required of us to believe we need not we cannot go any farther for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as far off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be believed by all that know them yet it is not necessary all should know them and that all should know them in the same sence and interpretation is neither probable nor obligatory but therefore since these things are to be distinguished by some differences of necessary and not necessary whether or no is not the declaration of Christ and his Apostles affixing salvation to the belief of some great comprehensive Articles and the act of the Apostles rendring them as explicite as they thought convenient and consigning that Creed made so explicite as a tessera of a Christian as a comprehension of the Articles of his belief as a sufficient disposition and an express of the Faith of a Catechumen in order to Baptism whether or no I say all this be not sufficient probation that these only are of absolute necessity that this is sufficient for meer belief in order to Heaven and that therefore whosoever believes these Articles heartily and explicitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint John's expression is God dwelleth in him I leave it to be considered and judged of from the premises Only this if the old Doctors had been made Judges in these Questions they would have passed their affirmative for to instance in one for all of this it was said by Tertullian Regula quidem fidei una omnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis c. Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis operante scil proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei This Symbol is the one sufficient immoveable unalterable and unchangeable rule of Faith that admits no increment or decrement but if the integrity and unity of this be preserved in all other things men may take a liberty of enlarging their knowledges and prophecyings according as they are assisted by the grace of God SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 1. AND thus I have represented a short draught of the Object of Faith and its foundation the next consideration in order to our main design is to consider what was and what ought to be the judgment of the Apostles concerning Heresy For although there are more kinds of vices than there are of vertues yet the number of them is to be taken by accounting the transgressions of their vertues and by the limits of Faith we may also reckon the Analogy and proportions of Heresy that as we have seen who was called faithful by the Apostolical men we may also perceive who were listed by them in the Catalogue of Hereticks that we in our judgmenâ—s may proceed accordingly 2. And first the word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently in a good sence for a Sect or Division of Opinion and men following it or sometimes in a bad sence for a false Opinion signally condemned but these kind of people were then call'd Antichrists and false Prophets more frequently than Hereticks and then there were many of them in the World But it is
acts of their own promote the hope of their own Salvation which men of reason and choice may by acts of vertue and election it is more agreeable to the goodness of God the honour and excellencey of the Sacrament and the necessity of its institution that it should in Infants supply the want of humane acts and free obedience which the very thing itself seems to say it does because its effect is from God and requires nothing on man's part but that its efficacy be not hindered And then in Infants the disposition is equal and the necessity more they cannot ponere obicem and by the same reason cannot doe other acts which without the Sacraments doe advantages towards our hopes of heaven and therefore have more need to be supplied by an act and an Institution Divine and supernatural 7. And this is not onely necessary in respect of the condition of Infants incapacity to doe acts of grace but also in obedience to Divine precept For Christ made a Law whose Sanction is with an exclusive negative to them that are not baptized Vnless a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven If then Infants have a capacity of being coheirs with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father as Christ affirms they have by saying for of such is the kingdom of heaven then there is a necessity that they should be brought to Baptism there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized and all persons not spiritual from the kingdom of heaven 8. But indeed it is a destruction of all the hopes and happiness of Infants a denying to them an exemption from the final condition of Beasts and Insectils or else a designing of them to a worse misery to say that God hath not appointed some externall or internall means of bringing them to an eternall happiness Internall they have none for Grace being an improvement and heightning the faculties of nature in order to a heightned and supernatural end Grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties who can doe no natural acts of understanding And if there be no externall means then they are destitute of all hopes and possibilities of Salvation 9. But thanks be to God he hath provided better and told us accordingly for he hath made a promise of the Holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men The Promise is made to you and to your children said S. Peter the Promise of the Father the Promise that he would send the holy Ghost Now if you ask how this Promise shall be conveyed to our children we have an express out of the same Sermon of S. Peter Be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost So that therefore because the Holy Ghost is promised and Baptism is the means of receiving the Promise therefore Baptism pertains to them to whom the Promise which is the effect of Baptism does appertain And that we may not think this Argument is fallible or of humane collection observe that it is the Argument of the same Apostle in express terms For in the case of Cornelius and his Family he justified his proceeding by this very Medium Shall we deny Baptism to them who have received the gift of the holy Ghost as well as we Which Discourse if it be reduced to form of Argument says this They that are capable of the same Grace are receptive of the same sign But then to make the Syllogism up with an Assumption proper to our present purpose Infants are capable of the same Grace that is of the Holy Ghost for the Promise is made to our children as well as to us and S. Paul says the children of believing parents are holy and therefore have the Holy Ghost who is the Fountain of holiness and sanctification Therefore they are to receive the sign and the seal of it that is the Sacrament of Baptism 10. And indeed since God entred a Covenant with the Jews which did also actually involve their children and gave them a sign to establish the Covenant and its appendant Promise either God does not so much love the Church as he did the Synagogue and the mercies of the Gospel are more restrained then the mercies of the Law God having made a Covenant with the Infants of Israel and none with the children of Christian Parents or if he hath yet we want the comfort of its consignation and unless our children are to be baptized and so intitled to the Promises of the new Covenant as the Jewish babes were by Circumcision this mercy which appertains to Infants is so secret and undeclared and unconsigned that we want much of that mercy and outward testimony which gave them comfort and assurance 11. And in proportion to these Precepts and Revelations was the practice Apostolicall For they to whom Christ gave in Precept to make Disciples all nations baptizing them and knew that nations without children never were and that therefore they were passively concerned in that commission baptized whole Families particularly that of Stephanas and divers others in which it is more then probable there were some Minors if not sucking babes And this practice did descend upon the Church in after-Ages by tradition Apostolicall Of this we have sufficient Testimony from Origen Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare and S. Austin Hoc Ecclesia à majorum fide percepit And generally all Writers as Calvin says affirm the same thing For nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat From hence the Conclusion is that Infants ought to be baptized that it is simply necessary that they who deny it are Hereticks and such are not to be endured because they deny to Infants hopes and take away the possibility of their Salvation which is revealed to us on no other condition of which they are capable but Baptism For by the insinuation of the Type by the action of Christ by the title Infants have to Heaven by the precept of the Gospel by the energy of the Promise by the reasonableness of the thing by the infinite necessity on the Infant 's part by the practice Apostolicall by their Tradition and the universal practice of the Church by all these God and good people proclaim the lawfulness the conveniency and the necessity of Infants Baptism 12. To all this the Anabaptist gives a soft and gentle Answer that it is a goodly harangue which upon strict examination will come to nothing that it pretends fairly and signifies little that some of these Allegations are false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient 13. For the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandment goe along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose For the Deluge of waters and the Ark of Noah were a figure of
Baptism said Peter and if therefore the circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a prodigie ratherthen a Rite The Paschall Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism does to Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Paschall Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kinde And even in the very instance of this Argument supposing a correspondence of analogie between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of identity For although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to children and yet Baptism onely to men of reason Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body and if it leaves a character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign itself is For both which reasons it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the spirit Since therefore the reason of this parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the Type And the case is clear in the Bishop's Question to Cyprian for why shall not Infants be baptized just upon the eighth days as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one circumstance which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite why shall it not infer all And then also Females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogie from the Type to the Anti-type by way of letter and spirit and signification and as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the adherencies of Baptism And therefore as Infants were Circumcised so spiritual Infants shall be Baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore babes had the ministry of the Type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children in malice for unless you become like one of these little ones you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven said our Blessed Saviour and then the Type is made compleat And this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive Church for in the Age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent to them their duty that though in age and understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice But to infer the sense of the Paedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Austin whose device it was and men use to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a mere conjecture 14. And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments as with this For from the action of Christ's blessing Infants to infer they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments The Conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized But let this be as weak as its enemy yet that Christ did not baptize them is an Argument sufficient that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by Baptism he passed his act of grace upon them by benediction and imposition of hands 15. And therefore although neither Infants nor any man in puris naturalibus can attain to a supernatural end without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing ordinarily and regularly yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not the Argument is invalid And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so we are sure God will doe them no injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help 16. And therefore let them be pressed with all the inconveniences that are consequent to Original sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the mercy and absolute goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorifie him with a free obedience Quid ergò festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum was the question of Tertullian lib. de Bapt. He knew no such danger from their Original guilt as to drive them to a Laver of which in that Age of innocence they had no need as he conceived And therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for tongue and heart and Faith and predispositions to Baptism for what need all this stir As Infants without their own consent without any act of their own and without any exteriour solennity contracted the guilt of Adam's sin and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any solennity or act of their own or of any other men for them by the second Adam by the redemption of Jesus Christ by his righteousness and mercies applied either immediately or how or when he shall be pleased to appoint And so Austin's Argument will come to nothing without any need of Godfathers or the Faith of any body else And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution that therefore he hath tied himself to it Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself But nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction The conceit is poor and low and the action consequent to it is too bold and venturous Mysterium meum mihi filiis domûs meae Let him doe what he please to Infants we must not 17. Onely this is certain that God hath as great care of Infants as of others and because they have no capacity of doing such acts as may be in order to acquiring Salvation God will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither
brows we shall eat bread and 't is commanded that if they do not work they shall not eat there being certain laws and conditions of eating I will give to my labourers and hirelings but therefore my child shall have none for be you sure if I give to my child no man's-meat yet God will take as great â—are of Infants as of others and God will by his own immediate mercy keep them alive as long as he hath intended them to live but to say that therefore he will doe it by externall food is no good argument unless God could not doe it without such means or that he had said he would not To this I suppose any reasonable person would say I have given sufficient answer if I tell him that the argument is good that the Infants must eat man's food although God can keep them alive without it and although he hath not said that he will not keep them alive without it I say the argument is good because he hath given them this way and though he could give them another and did never say he would not give them another yet because he never did give them another it is but reasonable that they should have this To the last clause of this number viz. why cannot God as well doe his mercies to infants now immediately as he did before the institution either of Circumcision or Baptism I answer that I know no man that says he cannot but yet this was not sufficient to hinder babes from Circumcision and why then shall it hinder them from Baptism For though God could save Infants always without Circumcision as well as he did sometime yet he required this of them and therefore it may be so in Baptism this pretence notwithstanding Ad 7. This number speaks to the main inquiry and shews the commandement Vnless a man be born of water and of the spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven This precept was in all Ages expounded to signifie the ordinary necessity of Baptism to all persons and nisi quis can mean Infants as well as men of age and because it commands a new birth and a regeneration and implies that a natural birth cannot intitle us to Heaven but the second birth must Infants who have as much need and as much right to heaven as men of years and yet cannot have it by natural or first-birth must have it by the second and spiritual and therefore all are upon the same main account and when they are accidentally differenced by age they are also differenced by correspondent accidental and proportionable duties but all must be born again This birth is expressed here by water and the Spirit that is by the Spirit in baptismal water for that is in Scripture called the Laver of a new birth or regeneration Ad 18. But here the Anab. gives us his warrant Though Christ said None but those who are born again by Water and the Spirit shall enter into Heaven he answers fear it not I will warrant you To this purpose it was once said before Yea but hath God said In the day ye shall eat thereof ye shall die I say ye shall not die but ye shall be like Gods But let us hear the answer First It is said that Baptism and the Spirit signifie the same thing for by water is meant the effect of the Spirit I reply that therefore they do not signifie the same thing because by water is meant the effect of the Spirit unless the effect and the cause be the same thing so that here is a contradiction in the parts of the Allegation But if they signifie two things as certainly they do then they may as well signifie the sign and the thing signified as the cause and the effect or they may mean the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as it is most agreeable to the whole analogie of the Gospel For we are sure that Christ ordained Baptism and it is also certain that in Baptism he did give the Spirit and therefore to confound these two is to no purpose when severally they have their certain meaning and the Laws of Christ and the sense of the whole Church the institution and the practice of Baptism make them two terms of a relation a sign and a thing signified the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament For I offer it to the consideration of any man that believes Christ to have ordained the Sacrament of Baptism which is most agreeable to the institution of Christ that by water and the spirit should be meant the outward element and inward grace or that by water and spirit should be meant onely the Spirit cleansing us like water But suppose it did mean so what would be effected or perswaded by it more then by the other If it be said that then Infants by this place were not obliged to Baptism I reply that yet they were obliged to new birth nevertheless they must be born again of the Spirit if not of water and the Spirit and if they are bound to be regenerate by the Spirit why they shall not be baptized with water which is the symbol and Sacrament the vehiculum and channel of its ordinary conveyance I profess I cannot understand how to make a reasonable conjecture But it may be they mean that if by water and the Spirit be onely meant Spiritus purificans the cleansing purifying Spirit then this place cannot concern Infants at all But this loop-hole I have already obstructed by placing a bar that can never be removed For it is certain and evident that regeneration or new birth is here enjoyned to all as of absolute and indispensable necessity and if Infants be not obliged to it then by their natural birth they goe to Heaven or not at all but if Infants must be born again then either let these adversaries shew any other way of new birth but this of water and the Spirit or let them acknowledge this to belong to infants and then the former discourse returns upon them in its full strength So that now I shall not need to consider their parallel instance of being baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire For although there are differences enough to be observed the one being onely a Prophecy and the other a Precept the one concerning some onely and the other concerning all the one being verified with degrees and variety the other equally and to all yet this place which in the main expression I confess to have similitude was verified in the letter and first signification of it and so did relate to the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in the likeness of tongues of fire but this concerns not all for all were not so baptized And whereas it is said in the Objection that the Baptist told not Christ's Disciples but the Jews and that therefore it was intended to relate to all it was well observed but to no purpose for Christ at that time had no
Disciples But he told it to the Jews and yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire but it is meant onely that that glorious effect should be to them a sign of Christ's eminency above him they should see from him a Baptism greater then that of John And that it must be meant of that miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost and not of any secret gift or private immission appears because the Baptist offered it as a sign and testimony of the prelation and greatness of Christ above him which could not be proved to them by any secret operation which cometh not by observation but by a great and miraculous mission such as was that in Pentecost So that hence to argue that we may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the fire as through the water is a false conclusion inferred from no premisses because this being onely a Prophecy and inferring no duty could neither concern men or children to any of the purposes of their Argument For Christ never said Vnless ye be baptized with fire and the Spirit ye shall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven but of water and the Spirit he did say it therefore though they must pass through the water yet no smell of fire must pass upon them But there are yet two things by which they offer to escape The one is that in these words Baptism by water is not meant at all but Baptism by the Spirit onely because S. Peter having said that Baptism saves us he addes by way of explication not the washing of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God plainly saying that it is not water but the Spirit To this I reply that when water is taken exclusively to the Spirit it is very true that it is not water that cleanses the Soul and the cleansing of the body cannot save us but who-ever urges the necessity of Baptism urges it but as a necessary Sacrament or Instrument to convey or consign the Spirit and this they might with a little observation have learned there being nothing more usual in discourse then to deny the effect to the instrument when it is compared with the principle and yet not intend to deny to it an instrumental efficiency It is not the pen that writes well but the hand and S. Paul said It is not I but the grace of God and yet it was gratia Dei mecum that is the principal and the less principal together So S. Peter It is not water but the Spirit or which may come to one and the same not the washing the filth of the flesh but purifying the conscience that saves us and yet neither one nor the other are absolutely excluded but the effect which is denied to the instrument is attributed to the principal cause But however this does no more concern Infants then men of age for they are not saved by the washing the body but by the answer of a good conscience by the Spirit of holiness and sanctification that is water alone does not doe it unless the Spirit move upon the water But that water also is in the ministery and is not to be excluded from its portion of the work appears by the words of the Apostle The like figure whereunto even Baptism saves us c. that is Baptism even as it is a figure saves us in some sense of other by way of ministery and instrumental efficiency by conjunction and consolidation with the other but the ceremony the figure the Rite and external ministery must be in or else his words will in no sense be true and could be made true by no interpretation because the Spirit may be the thing figured but can never be a figure The other little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that these words were spoken before Baptism was ordained and therefore could not concern Baptism much less prove the necessity of baptizing Infants I answer that so are the sayings of the Prophets long before the coming of Christ and yet concerned his coming most certainly Secondly They were not spoken before the institution of Baptism for the Disciples of Christ did baptize more then the Baptist ever in his life-time they were indeed spoken before the commission was of baptizing all nations or taking the Gentiles into the Church but not before Christ made Disciples and his Apostles baptized them among the Jews And it was so known a thing that great Prophets and the Fathers of an Institution did baptize Disciples that our Blessed Saviour upbraided Nicodemus for his ignorance of that particular and his not understanding words spoken in the proportion and imitation of custome so known among them But then that this Argument which presses so much may be attempted in all the parts of it like Souldiers fighting against Curiassiers that try all the joynts of their armour so doe these to this For they object in the same number that the exclusive negative of Nisi quis does not include Infants but onely persons capable for say they this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism then the parallel words of Christ Nisi comâ—deritis unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion c. With this Argument men use to make a great noise in many Questions but in this it will signifie but little First Indeed to one of the Roman Communion it will cause some disorder in this Question both because they think it unlawfull to give the holy Communion to Infants and yet that these words are meant of the holy Communion and if we thought so too I do not doubt but we should communicate them with the same opinion of necessity as did the Primitive Church But to the thing itself I grant that the expression is equal and infers an equal necessity in their respective cases and therefore it is as necessary to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud as to be baptized but then it is to be added that eating and drinking are metaphors and allusions us'd onely upon occasion of Manna which was then spoken of and which occasioned the whole discourse but the thing itself is nothing but that Christ should be received for the life of our Souls as bread and drink is for the life of our bodies Now because there are many ways of receiving Christ there are so many ways of obeying this precept but that some way or other it be obeyed is as necessary as that we be baptized Here onely it is declared to be necessary that Christ be received that we derive our life and our spiritual and eternall being from him now this can concern Infants and does infer an ordinary necessity of their Baptism for in Baptism they are united to Christ and Christ to them in Baptism they receive the beginnings of a new life
First-fruits and in these things was the Fountain of the Sacraments and Spiritual Grace and the great Exemplar of the Oeconomy of the Church For Christ was nullius poenitentiae debitor Baptism of Repentance was not necessary to him who never sinn'd but so it became him to fulfil all righteousness and to be a pattern to us all But we have need of these things though he had not and in the same way in which Salvation was wrought by him for himself and for us all in the same way he intended we should walk He was Baptized because his Father appointed it so we must be baptized because Christ hath appointed it and we have need of it too He was Consecrated to be the great Prophet and the great Priest because no man takes on him this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron and all they who are to minister in his Prophetical office under him must be consecrated and solemnly set apart for that ministration and after his glorious example He was Anointed with a Spiritual Unction from above after his Baptism for after Jesus was baptized he ascended up from the waters and then the Holy Ghost descended upon him It is true he receiv'd the Fulness of the Spirit but we receive him by measure but of his fulness we all receive grace for grace that is all that he receiv'd in order to his great work all that in kind one for another Grace for Grace we are to receive according to our measures and our necessities And as all these he receiv'd by external ministrations so must we God the Father appointed his way and he by his Example first hath appointed the same to us that we also may follow him in the regeneration and work out our Salvation by the same Graces in the like solemnities For if he needed them for himself then we need them much more If he did not need them for himself he needed them for us and for our Example that we might follow his steps who by receiving these exterior solemnities and inward Graces became the Author and finisher of our Salvation and the great Example of his Church I shall not need to make use of the fancy of the Murcosians and Colabarsians who turning all Mysteries into Numbers reckoned the numeral letters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made them coincident to the α and ω· but they intended to say that Christ receiving the Holy Dove after his Baptism became all in all to us the beginning and the perfection of our Salvation here he was confirm'd and receiv'd the ω to his α the Consummation to his Initiation the completion of his Baptism and of his Headship in the Gospel But that which I shall rather add is what S. Cyril from hence argues When he truly was baptized in the River of Jordan he ascended out of the waters and the Holy Ghost substantially descended upon him like resting upon like And to you also in like manner after ye have ascended from the waters of Baptism the Vnction is given which bears the image or similitude of him by whom Christ was anointed that as Christ after Baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him went forth to battel in the Wilderness and overcame the adversary so ye also after Holy Baptism and the mystical Vnction or Confirmation being vested with the Armour of the Holy Spirit are enabled to stand against the opposite Powers Here then is the first great ground of our solemn receiving the Holy Spirit or the Unction from above after Baptism which we understand and represent by the word Confirmation denoting the principal effect of this Unction Spiritual Strength Christ who is the Head of the Church entred this way upon his duty and work and he who was the first of all the Church the Head and great Example is the measure of all the rest for we can go to Heaven no way but in that way in which he went before us There are some who from this Story would infer the descent of the Holy Ghost after Christ's Baptism not to signifie that Confirmation was to be a distinct Rite from Baptism but a part of it yet such a part as gives fulness and Consummation to it S. Hierom Chrysostom Euthymius and Theophylact go not so far but would have us by this to understand that the Holy Ghost is given to them that are baptized But Reason and the Context are both against it 1. Because the Holy Ghost was not given by John's Baptism that was reserv'd to be one of Christ's glories who also when by his Disciples he baptiz'd many did not give them the Holy Ghost and when he commanded his Apostles to baptize all Nations did not at that time so much as promise the Holy Ghost he was promis'd distinctly and given by another Ministration 2. The descent of the Holy Spirit was a distinct ministery from the Baptism it was not only after Jesus ascended from the waters of Baptism but there was something intervening and by a new office or ministration For there was Prayer joyn'd in the ministery So S. Luke observes while Jesus was praying the Heavens were open'd and the Holy Spirit descended for so Jesus was pleas'd to consign the whole Office and Ritual of Confirmation Prayer for invocating the Holy Spirit and giving him by personal application which as the Father did immediately so the Bishops do by Imposition of hands 3. S. Austin observes that the apparition of the Holy Spirit like a Dove was the visible or ritual part and the voice of God was the word to make it to be Sacramental accedit verbum ad elementum â—it Sacramentum for so the ministration was not only perform'd on Christ but consignâ—d to the Church by similitude and exemplar institution I shall only add that the force of this Argument is established to us by more of the Fathers S. Hilary upon this place hath these words The Fathers voice was heard that from those things which were consummated in Christ we might know that after the Baptism of water the Holy Spirit from the gates of Heaven flies unto us and that we are to be anointed with the Vnction of a celestial glory and be made the Sons of God by the adoption of the voice of God the Truth by the very effects of things prefigur'd unto us the similitude of a Sacrament So S. Chrysostom In the beginnings always appears the sensible visions of Spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding of an incorporeal nature that if afterwards they be not so done that is after the same visible manner they may be believ'd by those things which were already done But more plain is that of Theophylact The Lord had not need of the descent of the Holy Spirit but he did all things for our sakes and himself is become the First-fruits of all things which we afterwards were to receive that he might become the
reconciling of penitents in the Primitive Church was not done by the Bishop or Priest only but sometimes by Deacons as appears in Saint Cyprian and sometimes by the people as it was allowed by S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian and was frequently permitted to the Confessori in the times of persecution and may be done by an unbaptized Catechumen as S. Austin affirms The result of which is that this absolution of penitents in the Court Christian was not an act of Priestly power incommunicably it was not a dispensation of the proper power of the Keys but to give or not to give the Communion that was an effect of the power of the Keys that was really properly and in effect the Ecclesiastical absolution for that which the Deacons or Confessors the Laicks or Catechumens did was all that and only that which was of rite or ceremony before the giving the Communion therefore that which was besides this giving the Communion was no proper absolution it was not a Priestly act indispensably it might be done by them that were no Priests but the giving of the Communion that was a sacerdotal act I mean the consecration of it though the tradition of it was sometimes by Deacons sometimes by themselves at home This therefore was the dispensation of the Keys this was the effect of the powers of binding and loosing of remitting or retaining sins according as the sence and practice of the Church expounded her own power The prayers of the Priest going before his ministration of the Communion were called absolution that is the beginning and one of the first portions of it absolutio Sacerdotalium precum so it was called in ancient Councils the Priest imposed hands and prayed and then gave the Communion This was the ordinary way But there was an extraordinary 55. For in some cases the imposition of hands was omitted that is when the Bishop or Priest was absent and the Deacon prayed or the Confessor but this was first by the leave of the Bishop or Priest for to them it belong'd in ordinary And 2. this was nothing else but a taking them from the station of the penitents and a placing them amongst the faithful communicants either by declaring that their penances were performed or not to be exacted 56. For by this we shall be clear of an objection which might arise from the case of dying penitents to whom the Communion was given and they restored to the peace of the Church that is as they supposed to Gods mercy and the pardon of sins for they would not chuse to give the Communion to such persons whom they did not believe God had pardoned but these persons though communicated non tamen se credant absolutos sine manus impositione si supervixerint were not to suppose themselves absolved if they recovered that sickness without imposition of hands said the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage by which it should seem absolution was a thing distinct from giving the Communion 57. To this I answer that the dying penitent was fully absolved in case he had receiv'd the first imposition of hands for repentance that is if in his health he submitted himself to penance and publick amends and was prevented from finishing the impositions they supposed that desire and endeavour of the penitent man was a worthy disposition to the receiving the holy Communion and both together sufficient for pardon but because this was only to be in the case of such intervening necessity and God will not accept of the will for the deed but in such cases where the deed cannot be accomplished therefore they bound such penitents to return to their first obligation in case they should recover since God had taken off their necessity and restored them to their first capacity And by this we understand the meaning of the third Canon of the first Arausican Council They who having received penance depart from the body it pleases that they shall be communicated sine reconciliatoriâ manus impositione without the reconciling imposition of hands that is because the penitential imposition of hands was imposed upon them and they did what they could though the last imposition was not though the last hand was not put upon them declaring that they had done their penances and completed their satisfactions yet they might be communicated that is absolved Quod morientis sufficit consolationi This is enough to the comfort of the dying man according to the definition of the Fathers who conveniently enough called such a Communion their Viaticum their Passe-port or provision for their way For there were two solemn impositions of hands in repentance The first and greatest was in the first admission of them and in the imposition of the Discipline or manner of performing penances and this was the Bishops office and of great consideration amongst the holy Primitives and was never done but by the superior Clergy as is evident in Ecclesiastical story The second solemn imposition of hands was immediately before their absolution or Communion and it was a holy prayer and publication that he was accepted and had finished that processe This was the less solemn and was ordinarily done by the superior Clergy but sometimes by others as I have remonstrated other intermedial impositions there were as appears by the Creber recursus mentioned in the third Council of Toledo above cited the penitents were often to beg the Bishops pardon or the Priests prayers and the advocations and intercessions of the faithful but the peace of the Church that is that pardon which she could minister and which she had a promise that God would confirm in Heaven was the Ministery of pardon in the dispensation of the Sacrament of that body that was broken and that blood that was poured forth for the remission of our sins 58. The result is That the absolution of sins which in the later forms and usages of the Church is introduced can be nothing but declarative the office of the preacher and the guide of souls of great use to timorous persons and to the greatest penitents full of comfort full of usefulness and institution and therefore although this very declaration of pardon may truly and according to the style of Scripture be called pardon and the power and office of pronouncing the penitents pardon is in the sence of the Scripture and the Church a good sence and signification of power as the Pharisees are said â—o justifie God when they declare his justice and as the preacher that converts a sinner is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to save a soul from death yet if we would speak properly and as things are in their own nature and institution this declarative absolution is only an act of preaching or opening and reading the Commission an effect of the Spirit of prudence and government entring upon the Church but the power of the Keys is another thing it is the dispensing all those rites and ministeries by
which Heaven is opened and that is the word and baptism at the first and ever after the holy Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord and all the parts of the Bishops and Priests advocation and intercession in holy prayers and offices 59. But as for the declarative absolution although it is rather an act of wisdom than of power it being true as S. Hierome said that as the Priests of the Law could only discern and neither cause nor remove leprosies so the Ministers of the Gospel when they retain or remit sins do but in the one judge how long we continue guilty and in the other declare when we are clear and free yet this very declaration is of great use and in many cases of great effect For as God did in the case of David give to the Prophet Nathan a particular special and extraordinary commission so to the Ministers of the Gospel he gives one that is ordinary and perpetual He had a prophetical evidence but these have a certainty of faith as to one of the propositions and as to the other some parts of humane experience to assure them 1. of Gods gracious pardon to the penitent and 2. of the sincerity of their repentance and therefore can with great effect minister to the comfort of sad and afflicted penitents This does declare the pardon upon observation of the just grounds and dispositions but the dispensation of Ecclesiastical Sacraments does really minister to it not only by consigning it but as instruments of the Divine appointment to convey proper mercies to worthily disposed persons 60. II. But the other great thing which I was to say in this Article is this That the judicial absolution of the Priest does effect no material event or change in the penitent as to the giving the pardon and therefore cannot be it which Christ intended in the giving those excellent powers of remitting and retaining sins Now upon this will the whole issue depend Does the Priest absolve him whom God condemns God is the supreme Judge and though we may minister to his judgment yet we cannot contradict it or can the Priest condemn him whom God absolves That also is impossible He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me and if God be with us who can be against us Or will not God pardon unless the Priest absolves us That may become a sad story For he may be malicious or ignorant or interested or covetous and desirous to serve his own ends upon the ruine of my soul and therefore God dispenses his mercies by more regular just and equal measures than the accidental sentences of unknowing or imprudent men If then the Priest ministers only to repentance by saying I absolve thee what is it that he effects For since Gods pardon does not go by his measures his must go by Gods measures and the effect of that will be this God works his own work in us and when his Minister observes the effects of the Divine grace he can and ought to publish and declare to all the purposes of comfort and institution that the person is absolved that is he is in the state of grace and Divine favour in which if he perseveres he shall be saved But all this while the work is supposed to be done before and if it be the Priest hath nothing left for him to do but to approve to warrant and to publish And the case in short is this 61. Either the sinner hath repented worthily or he hath not If he hath then God hath pardoned him already by vertue of all the promises Evangelical If he hath not repented worthily the Priest cannot ought not to absolve him and therefore can by this absolution effect no new thing The work is done before the Priestly absolution and therefore cannot depend upon it Against this no Sect of men opposes any thing that I know of excepting only the Roman Doctors who yet confess the argument of value if the penitent be contrite But they add this that there is an imperfect Contrition which by a distinct word they call Attrition which is a natural grief or a grief proceeding wholly from fear or smart and hath in it nothing of love and this they say does not justifie the man nor pardon the sin of it self But if this man come to the Priest and confess and be absolv'd that absolution makes this attrition to become contrition or which is all one it pardons the mans sins and though this imperfect penitent cannot hope for pardon upon the confidence of that indisposition yet by the Sacrament of Penance or Priestly absolution he may hope it and shall not be deceived 62. Indeed if this were true it were a great advantage to some persons who need it mightily But they are the worst sort of penitents and such which though they have been very bad yet now resolve not to be very good if they can any other way escape it and by this means the Priests power is highly advanc'd and to submit to it would be highly necessary to most men and safest to all But if this be not true then to hope it is a false confidence and of danger to the event of souls it is a nurse of carelesness and gives boldness to imperfect penitents and makes them to slacken their own piety because they look for security upon confidence of that which will be had without trouble or mortification even the Priests absolution This therefore I am to examine as being of very great concernment in the whole article of Repentance and promised to be considered in the beginning of this Paragraph SECT V. Attrition or the imperfect Repentance though with Absolution is not sufficient 63. BY Attrition they mean the most imperfect Repentance that is a sorrow proceeding from fear of Hell a sorrow not mingled with the love of God This sorrow newly begun they say is sufficient for pardon if the sins be confest and the party absolved by the Priest This indeed is a short process and very easie but if it be not effectual and valid the persons that rely upon it are miserably undone Here therefore I consider 64. I. Attrition being a word of the Schools not of the Scripture or of antiquity means what they please to have it and although they differ in assigning its definition yet it being the least and the worst part of repentance every action of any man that can in any sence be said to repent upon consideration of any the most affrighting threatnings in the Gospel cannot be denied to have attrition Now such a person who being scar'd comes to confess his sin may still retain his affections to it for nothing but love to God can take away his love from evil and if there be love in it it is Contrition not Attrition From these premises it follows that if the Priest can absolve him that is attrite he may pardon him who hath affections to sin still remaining that is one who