it Chap. V. Of the proper Acts of God Creation and Preservation or Providence What is Creation That God created all things And how Of the Ministers of Gods Providence towards Inferiour Creatures the Angels of God Their nature and office towards man especially Chap. VI. Of the Works of God in this visible World Of the Six dayes work of God All things are good which were made by God Chap. VII Of the Creation of man in particular according to the Image of God Of the Constitution of him and of the Original of his Soul contrary to Philosophers and the Errors of Origen concerning it The Image wherein it consists principally Chap. VIII Of the Second General Act of God towards the Creature especially Man his Providence Aristotles Opinion and Epicurus his rejected What is Providence Three things propounded of Providence And first the Ground of it the knowledge of God How God knoweth all things future as present Of Necessity and Contingencies how they may consist with Gods Omniscience Chap. IX The method of enquiring into the Nature and Attributes of God Vorstius his grounds of distinguishing the Attributes of God from his Nature examined Of the Decrees of God depending on his Understanding and Will Of knowledge of Intelligence Vision and the supposed Middle knowledge The Impertinency of this middle knowledge invented in God How free Agents can be known by God in their uncertain choice Indifferent actions in respect of Man not so in respect of God All vision in God supposes certainty in the thing known Chap. X. Four Doubts cleared concerning the Knowledge and Decrees of God and free Agents and contingent Effects How man that infallibly acts is responsable for his Actions The frivolous Evasion of the said difficulties by them of Dort Chap. XI Of the Execution of Gods Providence in the Predestination and Reprobation of Man How the Decrees and Providence of God are distinguished The Reason and Method of Gods Decrees Righteousness is the effect and not cause of Predestination to Life Predestination diversly taken in Scripture as also Election and Vocation God predestinates no man simply to Death without consideration of Evil foregoing as Calvin and some others would have it Chap. XII Of Gods Providence in the Reprobation and Damnation of Man Preterition is without any cause personal but the corruption of the Mass of Humane Nature Damnation alwayes supposes sin Chap. XIII The occasion of treating of sin here What sin is What Evil Monstrousness in things natural and Evil in moral things illustrate each other Sin no positive or real thing God the direct cause of no evil St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans makes nothing for the contra-Remonstrants literally and primarily taken Chap. XIV Of Sin more particularly And first of the fall of Adam Of Original Sin wherein it consisteth and how it is traduced from Father to Children The Proofs of it The nature and evils of it And that it is cured in Baptism That Natural Concupiscence hath not the nature of Sin after Baptism Chap. XV. Of the Restitution of Man after sin The Means and Motives thereunto In what manner Christs Mediation was necessary to the reconciling of Man to God Socinus his Opinion of Christs mediation refuted That Christ truely and properly satisfied by his Death and Passion for us Chap. XVI Of the Nature and Person of the Mediatour between God and Man In the beginning was the Word proved to be spoken of Christ and that he had a being before he was incarnate The Union of two Natures in Christ explained Christ a Mediatour by his Person and by his Office and this by his Sacrificing himself The Scriptures proving this Chap. XVII How Christ was Mediatour according to both Natures Calvins Opinion and others stated Of the effect of Christs Mediation and the extent thereof Of the Designation and Application of Christs death Of the sufficiencie and efficacie of Christs death How Christs death becomes effectual to all The necessity of Gods Grace to incline the will of man to embrace Christ Of the efficacie as well as sufficiencie of Gods Grace on the Will of Man Several Gradations observed in the Grace of God Chap. XVIII Of the effect and benefit of Christs Mediation in suffering and rising again seen in the Resurrection of Man The necessity of believing a Resurrection The Reasons and Scriptural Testimonies proving a Resurrection Objections against the same answered Chap. XIX Of the most perfect effect of Christs Mediation in the salvation of man Several senses of Salvation noted That Salvation is immediately after death to them that truly dye in Christ And that there is no grounds in Antiquity or Scripture for that middle State called Purgatory The Proofs answered Of the Consequent of Roman Purgatory Indulgences The novelty groundlesness and gross abuse of them The Conclusion of the first part of this Introduction The Contents of the Second Part c. Chap. I. OF the worship of God wherein the Second Part of Christian Religion consists Of the necessity of worshipping God It is natural to worship God Socinus holding the contrary confuted Of the name of Religion the Nature of Religious worship wherein it consisteth Chap. II. Of the two parts of Divine worship Inward and Outward The Proof of Outward worship as due to God and that it is both due and acceptable to God Several Reasons proving bodily worship of God agreeable to him Wherein this bodily worship chiefly consists Certain Directions for bodily worship Exceptions against it answered Chap. III. Of the second thing considerable in Divine worship viz. The state wherein we serve God What is a state The formal cause of a state Divine Vowes What is a Vow The proper matter of Vows Evangelical Councils That it is lawful and useful to make Vows under the Gospel contrary to Peter Martyr The nature of Vowes explained Chap. IV. Of the matter of Vows in particular And first of the Virginal state that it is both possible and landable And that it is lawful to vow Celibacie or Widowhood No Presidents in the Old Testament favouring Virginity The Virgin Mary vowed not Virginity no Votary before the Annunciation Chap. V. Of the second State of special serving God the Clerical State or Ministerial Of the necessity and liberty of singleness of Life in a Clergy-man The Opinion and custom of Antiquity concerning it That it is in the power of the Church at this day to restrain or permit the marriage of Priests The Conveniences and Inconveniences of wedded Life in Priests Chrysostom's Judgment of Marriage and Virginity recited Chap. VI. Of the third State of serving God a Life Monastical That it is not only lawful but may be profitable also The Exceptions of Mr. Perkins against it examined The abuses of Monastical Life touched That it is lawful to vow such a kind of Life duly regulated Chap. VII Of Religious worship the third thing considerable in it viz. The Exercise of it in the several kinds
they do not believe contrary to the Faith of the Church It may be said that Baptism alone is sufficient to distinguish such implicit believers from Heathens which I grant as to the Essence or nature of Christianity but not to the Life and exercise of a Christian for that as St. Paul hath by his word and example certified us is by the Faith Col. 2. 20. of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us Therefore as I am so charitable to all well-disposed Christians to be perswaded there is no necessity for all to have either the like measure or manifestation of Faith in any one point of Faith our Saviour Christ requiring Faith but as a grain Math. 17. 20. of Mustard-seed sometimes so am I to all Churches as to be perswaded That they all require and that in all a some measure of Faith explicite as necessary to Salvation and that besides this Believing as the Church believes For in truth this is nopoint of Faith in the Actus Signatus or general notion though to believe the Church Catholick may be For who sees not a vast difference between believing the Church it self and believing what the Church believes And that may be compleated in believing the Being and Extent of it which is much short of the body of Faith which it receives and professes CHAP. XIV Of the Effects of True Faith in General Good Works Good Works to be distinguished from Perfect Works Actions good four wayes THere is a great difference between Good works and Perfect works For the first hath respect unto the thing done and the other unto the manner of doing it agreeable to all due forms and Circumstances And every work that is good is not Perfect though every work that is perfect must of necessity be Good And to the doing of a Good work there seems to be no more absolutely Act. 17. 11. Rom. 10. 17. Si Fidelis fecerit opus bonum hic ei prodest liberans eum a malis in illo saeculo ad percipiendum regnum coelesto magis autem ibi quam hîc Si autem Infidelis fecerit bonum opus hîc ei prodest opus ipsius hîc ei reddit Deus pro opere su◠In illo autem saeculo nihil ei prodest opus ipsius Opus imperfectum in Math. Hom. 26. required than that a man should act according to well informed and regulated reason and true affection So that the works of natural men may be good though heathens such as are Visiting the sick and relieving the poor defending the Fatherless and widow oppressed and especially such outward moral Acts as may be done by natural men tending to their Conversion and Salvation as willing hearing and equal judging of the doctrine of Faith even before actual Faith conceived for which St. Paul esteemed the Bereans praise worthy* So that they are not absolutely Splendid Sins for were it so they were by no means to be done and no man did well who before his Conversion went to hear Christ preach or gave any attentive ear to what St. Paul wrote or taught for want of Faith whereas we are taught by common reason as well as by St. Paul that Faith it self cometh by hearing of the word of God For how can any man possibly believe what he never heard of So then some duties and Acts are laudable and acceptable to God without Faith though not arising to the perfection of Evangelical Goodness by which a man pleaseth God and is acceptable unto him even to his Justification and Salvation There may therefore be distinguished a fourfould goodness in Actions 1. Natural when a man acteth agreeable to the perfection of the Rule of natural Beings as a man acteth agreeable to the perfection of the Rule of natural Beings as a man is said to walk well when he goes according to the nature of man and limps not nor halts and to write a good hand when his letters and words do answer exactly a Perfect Rule or Copie This Religion taketh no notice of at all 2. A man is said to do a Good Act when it is so morally and in its kind as tending to the honour of his Creator whose Instruments meer Moral men are in exercising his Paternal providence and to the benefit of others For it being the proper Character of God which is spoken of him by the Psalmist viz. Thou art Good and thou doest Good They whom God Psal 119. 68. chooseth and stirreth up to minister under him in good and useful things to the Communitie or any particular do that which is good however not absolute 3. There is a Religious or divine goodness in Actions which are done agreeable to the Revealed Will of God passing natures sagacitie or search And this is twofold Legal and Evangelical both exceeding the former but the one exceeded of the other viz. Legal of Evangelical Vere enim quando declinamus d malo facimus bonum quantum ad comparationem caeterorum hominum nolentium declinare à malo facere bonum dicuntur bona quae agimus quantum autem ad Veritatem secundum quod dic itur in hoc loco Quia unus est bonus bonum nostrum non est bonum Orig. Hom. 8. in Matthaeum For as Natural Acts are good done according to natures intention and institution by themselves but are not good compared with moral duty performed and moral Acts are Good in themselves but not so in respect of a Superiour Order and end of working instituted of God in his holy Law So are Legal Acts wrought according to Gods word given to the Israelites under that dispensation or Covenant as required of God and serving to those ends God propounded to himself and his people Wherefore it is that the Children of Israel revolting from God and forsaking that instituted worship of his Law are thus censured by the Prophet * Hos 8. 3. Hosea Israel hath cast off the thing that is good the enemie shall pursue him And St. Paul than whom no divine writer more opposes the Law occasion being offered yet giveth his suffrage †1 Tim. 1. 8. The Law is good if a man useth it Lawfully And the Gospel it self is not good unless used Lawfully Therefore were the works of the Law also good works within their bounds but not so compared with the Perfection of the Gospel but displeasing to God and pernicious to men who being delivered in the fulness of time by the coming of Christ from the Pedagogie and beggerly Elements of the Mosaical Law should presume to retain that vail which was done away in Christ and embrace those shadows the body Christ being present Hence it is that St. Paul as in many other places writing to the Corinthians speaketh thus at large The Letter killeth i. e. the Literal sense and observation of the 2 Cor. 3. 6. Old Law after the New became of force destroyeth rather than
hath instituted Government in General but not limited it to any one kind but left it to the wisdom and choice of men to pitch upon what Government best agrees with a Nation But to what mens wisdom to some few or to many or to all men of that Nation All or the major part have no wisdom nor possibility to choose Few or many choosing doth manifest injustice to the others But what needs repetition of what is said quite opposite to all this This therefore is only here to be added That the supposition here made is utterly false and incongruous to the nature of all things else constituted by God and contrary to the course of nature and Gods manner of working which apparently is not to begin with Generals and so to proceed to Particulars but first he makes Particulars â—nd creates only Individuums single beings and by a necessary consequence whatever existence the General Nature hath it borroweth from thence As God did not at first make man in General and then left some body else as they thought to make Adam and Eve and the rest nor did he irst and only make a living Creature in General and then left the Angels or some other unknown Creatures to us to make what special Animals they pleased out of that but he first made Adam and so mans nature was made He first made the Sun and Moon so far as we read and upon that followed that he made great Lights And the like method must of necessity be acknowledg'd in Gods Institutions Moral and Civil and he must inevitably so far as humane wit can reach first ordain some one Government in particular before he could be said to be the Author of Government generally taken Now if it doth not at all appear That God had any more than a common hand whereby evil as well as good doth spring up in the World in the institution of any more than one sort of Government and that he did particularly pitch upon one and gave instances and intimation of his choice of one and nothing can be alleadged in behalf of the opposite to that as proceeding in any direct special manner from him then will the form of Government we now seek after commend it self unto us And this we shall do by giving the Divine Prerogatives which Monarchical Government hath above others invented by man to stand in competition with it And this not by wading deep or wandring far into an uncertain and tedious Disputation of finding out reasons on both sides which may seem to commend and prefer one above another and so consequently to conclude a divineness in one especially but by certain visible indications and motives evidencing this to every imprejudic'd mind And they are these First Consider we that simple and imperfect Regiment which is Natura enim commenta est Regeâ—â— quod ex aliis animalibus licet cognoscere ex apibus quarum regi amplissimum cubile est medióque ac tutissimo loco Seneca de Clement lib. 1. cap. 9. Vide etiam Hieron Epist 4. Isidorum Pelusiat Epist lib. 2. ep 216. Origen cont Cels lib. 4. pag. 217. Basil Ma. Hom. 8. in Hexaem Chrysost in Rom. Serm. 23. pag. 189. found in Animals and there will appear a resemblance of this Monarchical power only as in herds of Deer and Cattle and Bees in which is observed the Superiority of one over all so far as there is any subjection at all Yea St. Cyprian and divers other Fathers writing against Gentile Idolatry do prove the Monarchy of God over all the World from the Unity of Inanimate things as the Sun in the firmament raigning as it were over all the other Celestial Bodies Secondly The more proper and refined Law of Nature written in mens heart and inclining them to this kind of Government only do not a little argue the hand of God in its institution That being received for a Law of God natural to which all people without syncretizing consulting or combining mutually do consent and practise Now it is evident so far as any History doth inform us That all Nations were at first governed by a single person And whereas Nimrod is reported by some first to have usurped Regal Power over men because the Scriptures tell us how he was a mighty hunter before the Lord it hath more of phansie thaâ— substance in it Yet possibly he might be the first that collected many petty Princes of Families together constraining them to lay aside their Domestick Monarchy and to be subject unto him Or that he brought his neighbour Princes all to his Dominion and so became a Tyrant overthem And at this day if we advise with those People in both Indies discovered we shall find that they scarce ever heard of any other Government but that of Monarchy and that almost Paternal being extended to very few Persons compared with the multitude of which Kingdoms or Governments generally consist And in truth it may give some repuâ—e to the Government of many that Christian Religion favoureth it but it can give no credit to Christian Religion That it only practises and acknowledges a different way of Ruling people from all the known world besides For it will be hard to find any other but Regal Power out of Europe and in Europe not the tenth part owning Antimonarchical Government And of those that do differ from Monarchical Power not two agreeâ—ng in the same form but only negatively against a single Persons Suprenacy So that we may see they have no general Rule to go by but every Nation are a Rule to themselves Thirdly the Paternal Power being acknowledged to be natural and of Divine institution and differing from Monarchical and Regal but as Magis and Minus the lesser degree doth from the greater the thing is in a manner yielded But fourthly Divine Presidents and Examples do further confirm this and that taken from the Word of God in all which there is no mention at all made of any Government but Regal though not alwayes under that name For before the children of Israel went into Egypt the Father or Patriarch of them had this power without competitor In the the Captivity and Servitude of Egypt they had no publick Government besides that of the Kings of Egypt unless peradventure every Tribe had a Chief by succession over them without any Civil Autority From their departure out of Egypt to the death of Joshuah the Supremacie was in one notwithstanding subordinate Councels and Rulers constituted by Moses After Joshuah arose Judges by Gods special appointment not many at once thereby framing an Aristocracie but one Eminent person giving Law to all others And these differed from that of more formal Regal Persons instituted by God at the desire of the discontented people in that before Saul God kept the choice of their Governours more immediately in his own hand and ordained them Deliverers and Judges according to his pleasure and occasions offered which was the
require as absolute Righteous internal and external as man is able to attain to in this world and as the Law required though nor so as if without it there were no possibility of Salvation though for want of it there be a merit of dammation but the rigour is qualified and remitted to us upon the intuition of Christs merits who interposeth for us with God not to exempt us in any kind from any imaginable part or degree of Holiness competible to us but to mitigate and remove the displeasure of God justly conceived against us for not being perfect For it no wayes follows That because such a small proportion of Holiness shall be accepted and such a vast proportion of wickedness shall be forgiven and passed over through Gods free Grace in Christ therefore by the general tenour of the Gospel God requires no more of the one nor less of the other For if the Gospel be as sure it is a more holy Law than that of Moses Is it not so because it requires of those under it greater Holiness A third difference I find is That the Law promiseth Life upon condition of Works but the Gospel upon condition of our committing our selves to Christ by Faith This is very ambiguously spoken and inclining to a very bad sense For what Life and what works are we here to understand It is shewed above how ill-agreed wise Interpreters are Whether any life besides this present is promised by the Law as Mosaical and not Evangelical and with this imitation I profess the Negative Part. Again What works Are we not to understand Works brought in and appointed by Moses To these works are promised indeed Life answerable to thom i. e. temporal and no more But he that saith we attain Life by committing our selves to Christ by Faith doth certainly mean Life spiritual and eternal which vast diversity in the end and reward quite nulls the comparison And besides how by committing our selves to Christ by Faith So as that works of the Gospel and Faith should be laid aside Yes say they as to our Justification though not to the commendation and approbation of our Faith But the vanity of this we have already discovered where we have proved that there is no promise made to us under the Gospel of being justified by Faith that the works of Faith may not be as instrumental to our Justification and Salvation as the Act of Faith so much presumed upon and that the one is as derogatory to the fulness and freeness of Christs Grace and Gods Mercy as the other and no more A fourth difference is That the Law was written in Tables of Stone but the Gospel in the Tables of the Heart Jerem. 31. 33. 2 Corinth 3. 3. This hath a true sense and therefore may pass though lyable to just exceptions as taking the Scriptures in a sense scarce intended Fifthly They say The Law was instill'd into our Nature at our first Creation But the Gospel was above nature and given after the Fall But we are not to distinguish the part from the whole nor the inchoation of a thing from its perfection The Gospel was in more particulars of agreeing with the Law of Nature then the Law of Moses and given in substance before the Law of Moses and 't is these two whose differences are sought after at present In the sixth place it is rightly said that Moses was the Mediatour of the Old Law and Christ of the New by which they explain themselves That by Law they mean Moses his Law For Moses was not the Mediatour of the Law natural but Adam rather And truly in the seventh place it is said The Law was dedicated by the blood of Beasts but the Gospel by the blood of Christ But the conclusion to these viz. That the two Testaments the Law and the Gospel are two in nature substance and kind is so far only true as the Law is taken precisely for that introduced by Moses and not concretely and conjoyntly with that Covenant made between God and Adam after his Fall CHAP. XXXV Considerations on the Sacraments of the Law of Moses Of Circumcision Of the Reason Nature and Ends of it Of the Passover the Reason why it was Instituted Its Vse VVHAT is now said of the nature and distinction of the Covenants made between God and Man do serve much to the clearing of the Nature and Number of Sacraments here to be explained briefly For all Sacraments properly so called are of a Foederal nature between God and Man And this covenanting made by God and Man is signed sealed and confirmed by these Sacraments And therefore according to the variety of these Covenants is also the variety of the Sacraments unless we except that most ancient Covenant of all between God and Man before his Fall For while man retained those connatural Graces bestowed on him by God he needed no such outward helps as Signs and Sacraments to contain him in due obedience to him nor such signs of Gods promises to him being able to act more spiritually freely and perfectly then now But upon the disabling of his inward man by sin once committed and the hebetation of his mind it was no less than necessary that by his outward senses occasion should be offered to the increase of his knowledge fear love and faith in God which is done by the mediation of Sacraments instituted by God and these diversified according to the variety of the Oeconomie it pleased God to use to the World For under the Law of Nature before Moses or Abraham men stood obliged to serve and worship God And in this condition the Sacrifices given to God and Oblations were of the nature and force of Sacraments For whether by light of nature or by special precept men offered Sacrifice to God it is apparent that was rather a signal to testifie their revering his Majesty and duty to him than any actual absolute worship and to insinuate an absolute Dominion and Right God had to our own lives in that instead of them which were forfeited to God by sin we offered Beasts slain to him and to all things in the World in that was exhibited to him so far as might be and returned that which was received from him But to these before Abraham was added that of Circumcision and afterward that of the Passover But we must note that these two Sacraments as they were not originally or from the beginning instituted of God so neither to all men nor for all times And this will appear from the particular occasions taken and reasons rendered of their Ordination For when God commanded Abraham to circumcise his Son and himself and all the Males of his Family it was no sign at all of any thing of general concernment to mankind or of the Messias simply which was before promised but it was a sign only that the Messias should proceed out of his Loyns and Seed which was an extraordinary honour and singular priviledge conferred
wonderful dangerous abuse of the Old Testaments Autority not to be content to admit an invalidity of proofs drawn from thence to confirm Evangelical Duties but to make it no small presumption against the Evangelicalness of any duty that it is first found in the Old Testament which is a gross abuse of Scripture especially by them who would be held enemies to Antimonians They ought therefore first of all to show that such things are purely Legal that is as the Law it self is Mosaical and Typical and Ceremonial before they can damn them there for no better reason but there they find them Add to this when we challenge them to the most ancient and manifold Presedents of the Christian Church who constantly made Vows of various natures to God they presently betake themselves to their common subterfuge pretence of appeal to the Word of God as a Rule and that without any respect to any not truly divine Guides otherwise directing And this they do as confidently as if it had been concluded out of Scripture to the contrary For in such cases indeed their appeal would be most just and reasonable but until that little better then ridiculous especially Scripture being before advised about and appearing not definitive in the case Antiquity and Holy precedents consulted with the better to know the mind of Scripture For instance that text of St. Paul to Timothy saith of young Widows They have damnation in themselves because 1 Tim. 5. 12. they have cast off their first Faith Many of late dayes interpret the Apostle to mean only the Faith of Christ in general Others understand him to speak of a Faith particularly made to Christ by the Order of Widows vowing singleness of life and in all reason this seems to be most favoured by the context But besides this appeal is made by the one party to the judgment of the ancient and holy Christians interpreting this both by their writings and practise as relating specially to the dedication of Widowhood to God After this fair dealing for men to declare they will be tryed by none but that which they know is the main thing in question is very vain and somewhat more They having no special text so interdicting such Vows as this is to commend them But the worst of it is this that if there were any way more perfect then that they have pitched on they should be sufferers in the good opinion of the world but that must by no means be endured And this at the end of all is the great absurdity they bring us to but surely not so great but both the Cause and Defenders of it may well show their face after all this granted and owned The second thing now in the third place to be touched is concerning the Nature of a Vow in it self viz. That so it is no proper act nor any proper part of Gods Service but the manner of it For to vow to God is an indifferent thing to Good or Evil. A man may as well vow to Gods dishonour as his glory It is therefore good or evil in relation to the matter about which the Vow is made For to vow Sacrifices under the Law and to vow Alms under the Gospel or Virginity or such like is no farther part of the Service of God then the thing it self tends to the worship of God and its nature and office is to bind to the true and due performance of a thing but not absolutely a duty in its self The principle doubt on the contrary may be that which is taken from that which a man devotes to God as an ingredient to all vows For when a man vows he of a free man makes himself servile and limited to one of those things to which formerly he was free And this we have shewed is an argument of some against vowing because it takes away the liberty God had given On the other side the contrary party may in my judgment turn it against them and make it an argument of worth and excellencie because it gives to God that which is to us most precious For when St. Paul saith If you may be free use it rather and stand fast in the liberty where with Christ hath made you free he undoubtedly means only in reference to man and then only when we really have and not presume only that we have such a liberty and when this liberty is that which pertaineth to the substance of the Gospel as most of those places alledged to found a liberty do aim at But do they think as it should seem that either Natural Civil or Evangelical Liberty is such a thing and so given unto us of God that we may not render it to him nor part with it again to him Is it too good or sacred to give him it from whom we received it Nay the more dear and precious it is to us the more acceptable it should be to him When we deny our selves the liberty he hath given us the better to serve him surely it is no less pleasing to God than to part with meat drink money and the time which he hath given us dedicating the same to him It is strange therefore next to monstrous that Christians should stumble so at the Scriptures and they especially who will scarce allow any man to be cunning in the Scriptures besides themselves or to be governed by them as they pretend to be as to make such fond conclusions from them the contrary to which is much the truer To give away our liberty to God is an excellent Sacrifice to him and they would prove out of Scripture we ought not to give it him at all For if they prove not this they prove nothing when they say we ought not to make vows to him because it takes away our liberty And therefore to the argument viz. that by this it should follow that vowing is in it self an act or part of Gods worship I answer That if any thing here be an act of worshipping God it is the giving up it self of our liberty and not the vowing to give it up for this is but the means and manner so to serve and worship God and not the worship it self And thus much Perkins Perkins Cases of Conscience Chap. 14. Lib. 2. acknowledges in vows about bodily exercises such as Fasting Prayers and Alms but likes not it so to be in other matters Indeed as he confusedly and crudely touches the point passing from the nature of a Vow in it self which was his question unto the matter he might very well write against some vows and prove them unlawful when the thing it self is unlawful to be done whether with or without a vow such as are ceremonial acts of the Law of Moses and moral evils against truth justice or piety it self And thus much of the form of vowing the lawfulness and uses in general CHAP. IV. Of the Matter of Vows in particular And first of the Virginal state that it is
saveth the observer of it but the Spirit i. e. the Spiritual Law giveth Life But if the ministration of death written and graven in Stones was glorious so that 7. the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his Countenance which glory was to be done away How shall not the ministration 8. of the Spirit be rather glorious For even that which was made glorious 10. had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth All this doth shew the great disparitie between the Law and the Gospel and the preheminence of This above That So be the Law in it self and for that season and for that people glorious and good yet upon the approach of the Gospel and its being in force all that perished and the works thereof no longer good works much less justifying because they were not done in Faith not in the Faith of Christ but in the Faith of Moses The principal then yea only Good works that are now of any account as to absolute acceptation at Gods hands are those which are done in an Evangelical manner Now the manner of acting thus Evangelically to the denomination of our works Good is thus described by St. Paul For by Grace are Ephes 2. 8. ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God Not 9. of works least any man should boast For we are his workmanship created in 10. Christ Jesus unto Good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Which certainly implieth that Grace being taken for the Gospel of Grace in opposition to the Law Christ in opposition to Moses and Faith to the belief of Moses Law we are no longer of the Old man but the New man we are created anew in Christ and that Good works from him and through Faith in him are they only that properly can be so called and to these we are fashioned and as it were created by the Gospel So that if we should describe Good works of Christians we may call them Acts done in the Faith of Christ according to the tenor of the Gospel as a Rule directing us to the manner and End of working Nevertheless though these be good and every Good and Faithful Christian stands obliged by vertue of his Holy Faith professed and the Covenant of Grace entred into with God under the Gospel and the hope of obtaining the special promises of the Gospel yet are they not in themselves Good as to the perfection prescribed by that Rule and in Justice might be exacted by God through the ordinarily inseparable defects from humane frailty so long as we are in this world And how far they avail it now follows to be examined CHAP. XV. Of the Effect of Good Works which is the Effect of Faith How Works may be denominated Good How they dispose to Grace Of the Works of the Regenerate Of the proper conditions required to Good Works or Evangelical SUpposing then that there are such works which both God and man esteem Good it is next to be sought into how far their Goodness does extend and of what efficacie they are or what are the Effects of them Remembring withall that here Faith is no way excluded but advanced rather seing Good works being the Effects of Faith the Effects of Good works must of necessity be likewise the Effects of Faith as the fruit ows no less to the Root which gives life and growth to the whole tree than it doth to the branch from which it immediately proceeds Yet is it here to be noted answerable to what is said before That all good works do not proceed from Faith For the works of the Gentiles have a real goodness in them and that much more than they of the Jew as they are Jewish and yet not done in Faith nor attaining to the Decorum or perfection of the Gospel and therefore frequently called sinful and no ways conducing directly to salvation or Justification as do the works wrought in Faith I say directly because as in nature a man is said to live the Life of a sensible Creature before he come to the perfection of humane nature so may there be a preparatory or previous goodness in the works of Infidels which may dispose to not merit the life or form of Faith But because the Regeneration called sometimes the Creation of the New man to shew the absoluteness and independence of the Divine power and pleasure in such Acts doth not proceed as nature doth For that which may be as predisposing is not simply requisite to the introducing the form of Spiritual Life but by the most free and powerful providence many are elected and brought to Spiritual Life without any such previous goodness And if we should grant natural or moral Justice were necessary as an Antecedent to Faith it would not follow that it were so by way of merit or disposing God to perfect that rude beginning with the accession of his Grace For we are to make a necessary difference between Preparation to Grace so much talked of For there is a preparation of a mans self or the subject which is to receive this holy impression and there is a preparation of the Agent which conferrs this by moving or inclining him to such an End I suppose the Schools and severer assertors of the Freeness of Gods Grace to which a man cannot by acts of nature dispose himself do mean the latter viz. that no man by any principle of nature or habits of virtue acquired and exercised according to the Rules of Justice and wisdom can thereby be said to have done any thing which of it self might incline God to regenerate him by his Grace For it seems to me keeping to the Rules and sense of Scripture as unlikely that a Christian should be author any more of Spiritual Life than a man is of his Natural But no man can with any sense be said to contribute to his natural Life no more can he to his Spiritual Life which is commonly called the First Grace But that the natural man living soberly Justly and temperately is not thereby in a greater readiness and less distant from the divine Grace perfecting the same were hard to affirm as well considering the method that God usually takes though not alwaies nor is bound to any is to proceed not per saltum as they say or from one extream to another on the suddain but by apt gradations as the encouragement is from hence given to immortality it self And yet as wood being orderly laid can never thereby merit or claim a kindling or as a conveiance of a great Mannor being fully and fairly drawn can never deserve nor so much as for its sake dispose the Lord whose it is to pass it away by setting his hand and seal to it so neither can any fair hand of natural works induce God to conferr on a man the State of Grace For this
to be for certain reasons they draw at their pleasure out of Scripture and the necessity of our knowledge of it which is as solid a way of proceeding as if I finding my self by natural sense cold another should attempt to demonstrate the contrary because it is Midsommer But this use we may yet make of Universality to jude of Catholickness of Faith taking it for the most constant for time place and persons according as all humane account requires to ascribe that to the more numerous and eminent which is strictly proper only to the whole entire Body as a Councel or Senate is said to decree a thing when the chiefest do so some dissenting surely this is a very probable argument of the Catholickness of that Faith and consequently that Church so believing But what we before observed must not be forgotten here viz. That in all such enquiries as these the Estimate must be taken from the whole Church passed as well as Present and that there is as well an Eminency of Ages as Persons to preponderate in this Case Lastly the advantage Negative from Universality is very considerable to discern the true Faith and Church from false because it is most certain if any Doctrine or Discipline shall be obtruded on the Church which cannot be made evident to have been actually received in the Church and not by colourable and probable conjectures and new senses of Scripture invented to that purpose in some former Age that is Heretical and Schismatical and in no good sense Catholick The last Note which we shall mention is Sanctity which we hold very proper to this end taken abstractedly from all Persons as considered in Doctrine and Principles For if any Church doth teach contrary to the Law of nature of moral vertues of Justice or the like we may well conclude that to be a false Church though it keeps it self never so strictly to the Rule of Scriptures in many or most other things For it is in the power of mans wit and may be in the power of his hands to devise certain Religious Acts and impose them on others which shall carry a greater shew of severity and sanctity than there is any grounds for in Scripture or Presidents in the best approved Churches and yet this is not true Holiness of Believers For to this is principally required that it be regulated and warranted by Gods holy Word Yet neither so directly and expresly as if it were unlawful to act any thing in order to Holiness without special precept from thence For I see no cause at all to reject the ancient distinction found frequently with the Fathers of the Church of duties of Precept and duties of Councel For there ever was and ought to be in Christs Church several ranks of Professours of Christs Religion whereof for instance some live more contemplative some more active lives But if all commendable and profitable States were under Precept then should all sin that do not observe the same but God hath taken a mean course in not commanding some things of singular use to the promoting of Piety in true Believers but commending the same unto us Such are Virginal chastity Monastick life Travelling painfully not only towards the salvatian of a mans own soul but of others likewise and certain degrees uncommanded of Duties commanded as of charity towards our Christian neighbours Watchings unto Prayer and spiritual Devotion which being prescribed no man can determine to what degree they are by God required of us precisely some therefore are left to the Freewill-offerings of devouter persons who thereby endeavour either to assure themselves more fully of their salvation or increase of the glory afterward to be received For as Christ tells us in the Gospel Much was forgiven to Mary because she loved much so shall much be given upon the same reason They therefore that teach contrary to such wholesome and useful means of Holiness as these or the like under perhaps vain suspicion of too great opinion may be had of their worthiness incur at least with me the censure of being enemies to the holiness of Christs Church and render their Churches more suspected for the opposing of them than others for approving or practising them The Holiness then of the Church commending it to the eye and admiration of the World doth consist in the divineness and spiritualness of its Doctrine and Ecclesiastical discipline in use in it exceeding moral civility For it may be that such a severe hand of civil Justice may be held over a people that they may live more orderly and inoffensively to the world than some true Christian Churches but if this be done as often it is out of civil Prudence natural Gravity or a disposition inclined rather to get an estate than riotously and vainly to spend on which brings such scandal to Religion then is not this a sign of a true Church or Christian because it proceedeth not from principles proper to Christian Religion but secular interest how specious soever it may appear to the World CHAP. XXXI Of the Power and Acts of the Church Where they are properly posited Of the Fountain of the Power denyed to the Church Neither Prince nor People Authour of the Churches Power But Christ the true Head of the Church The manner how Christs Church was founded Four Conclusions upon the Premisses 1. That there was alwayes distinction of Persons in the Church of Christ 2. The Church was alwayes administred principally by the Clergy 3. The Rites generally received in the Church necessary to the conferring Clerical Power and Office 4. All are Vsurpers of Ecclesiastical Power who have not thus received it In what sense Kings may be said to be Heads of the Church AFter the Church found and founded as abovesaid the special Acts thereof claim due consideration and the Power or Right of so acting And this Power we make two-fold in General Political and Mystical or Sacramental Of both which we must first enquire after the proper Subject before we treat of the proper Acts thereof That all Power which is given by Christ doth reside in the Church as its subject no man can or doth question But because the Church it self being as is said a Society united in one Faith and administred outwardly by Christian Discipline according to Christs mind admitteth of several senses and acceptations therefore it must be first understood which and in what sense is according to Christs intention the proper seat of this power And before we come to Scriptural grounds we take no small help in this Enquiry from the common state of all Government which we have already shown to be such as is not ascending but descending It cometh not originally nor can from the multitude or people who are the object of this power i. e. the Persons properly to be governed and not governing all the Examples of former Ages confirming not only the unnaturalness and unreasonableness but impossibility of the People governing
on him It was a sign likewise that his Seed were specially chosen to Gods favour to inherit that promised Land and many other temporal blessings which no wayes concerned other Nations It might have likewise many other moral purposes which are ingeniously sought out and largely prosecuted by others and especially Postillers 'T is true that many Nations observed this Rite of Circumcision but not by the appointment of God nor by their own invention but as transmitted to them from such who either descended from Abraham or received it from him Neither was it to such of the Nature of a Sacrament because not given them of God and having no promises annext to that Act in them but only as in Abraham For the Covenant that God made with mankind which we have call'd the Covenant of Works in opposition to that of Faith in Christ made after the Fall was made to Adam and all his for ever though all the Posterity of Adam reaped not the like visible benefit from it And this second Covenant received several additions according to the several Revelations it pleased God to make unto some part of mankind above others and that with Abraham and his Seed The first eminent Act of God was to Abraham himself when he gave him the Promise that the Messias should descend from him and gave him the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Rom. 4. 11. Faith which he had being uncircumcised c. Now what Faith was that which Abraham had before he was circumcised Not that which moved him to offer his Son Isaac to God and yet believe that he should inherit the blessings promised to him but it was that Faith which he had in the more ancient and general promise with Adam concerning the Messias For otherwise the Apostles argument to prove that we are justified by Faith and not by works of the Law would not hold good which in effect is this The same way that the Patriarchs and particularly your Father Abraham was justified the same way must ye be justifid too but Abraham was not justified by the works of the Law but by Faith in Christ v. 10 11 12 13. And this appeareth plainly For if Abraham were justified before the Law and before Circumcision then surely Circumcision and the works of the Law could not avail to his Justification For how was Faith reckoned to Abraham for righteousness In circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the sign of Circumcision as a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had being yet uncircumcised From whence it appeareth That what Covenant was made with Abraham by Circumcision was not absolutely a new Covenant but a special Priviledge and Interest given to him in that long before made with Adam after his breaking the first Covenant of Obedience and Works And thus we see the nature and end of the first Sacrament given to the Jews before Christ Circumcision And the second Sacrament of Note was much of the same nature as not being given to make an absolute generally new Covenant with Mankind but only to signifie the peculiar Right that People had to the general Covenants above others that as Gods First-born sons of all Nations they should have a double portion of that Grace which was common otherwise to all And farther an addition of Temporal blessings was made sure to them by it upon the due observation of those Rites and Laws given them And this blessing was twofold hereby signified First that passed in delivering them so eminently and miraculously from the destroying Angel who killed the First-born of the Aegyptians and brought them from that tedious and grievous bondage by which they were oppressed And therefore it was called the Passover The second consisted in an Assurance of the promised Possessions in the Land of Canaan Now besides these litteral significations and ends there were two other Spiritually intimated by them relating to the Gospel and its Services And they were the remission of sins in Baptism and the right to heaven and bliss after death by the participation of the means of Salvation the Mannah of his Word and the Sacraments of his Promises Baptism and the Holy Eucharist CHAP. XXXVI Of the Evangelical Sacraments Of the various application of the name Sacrament Two Sacraments Vnivocally so called under the Gospel only The others Equivocally Five conditions of a Sacrament Of the reputed Sacraments of Orders Matrimony and Extream Vnction in particular AS under the Old Testament There were some special Sacraments and properly so called besides many others which by mens interpretation rather than Gods Institution were so called as the Tree of Life in Paradise Noahs Ark Passing through the Red Sea the Brasen Serpent and the like so also under the Gospel as St. Paul saith There are Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God So are there Sacraments many and many Sacramental things but to us there are but two Sacraments properly so called Baptism and the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord. Therefore purposing to speak of all the reputed as well as real Sacraments of the Gospel because though not Sacraments yet very Sacred and deserving well to be understood we shall divide them into equivocal or improper and univocal or proper Sacraments Of the former rank we make Orders sacred Matrimony Penitence or Repentance Confirmation and extream Unction Of the latter sort are Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Now to understand the just reason of this discrimination between Sacraments it is necessary that we pitch upon some general Definition of a true Sacrament by which as a Light and Rule the False are to be examined and judged And therefore shall resume our Definition before laid down of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by God to produce an invisible grace in the soul of man which we have already defended But if men will religiously contend about words it cannot be denyed That many of the Ancient and Holy Fathers and the perpetual language of the Church have accustomed themselves to call many more things than Two or Seven or perhaps Seven times seven Sacraments because they do contain something sacred and mysterious in them but yet amount not to the perfection either of our received two Sacraments or perhaps of the other five And so long as men hold to the true and real Sacraments and have the due use of them it matters not much if they give the Name Praelect de Sacram. Qu. 6. c. 1. Sacrament unto those things which are not worthy of it as Whitaker hath well said But the Reasons against more than two Sacraments in the proper sense may be these First That we read not of the institution of any more than two by God or Christ in the New Testament and of these two clear evidence there is found as may more fully be seen when we come to treat of them Nay
a man never was inserted into that Stock is more properly called Atheism or Heathenism or Privative and then is called Apostasie which is a professed renunciation of the Faith once received Or this Division is Partial and so it takes the name of Heresie upon it Schism then must needs be an outward Separation from the Communion of the Church But when we say Schism is a Separation we do not mean so strictly as if it consisted in the Act of Separating so much as the State For we do not call any man a Schismatique who sometimes refuses to communicate with the Church in its outward worship though that done wilfully is a direct way to it as all frequented Actions do at length terminate in habits of the same Nature but it is rather a State of separation and of Dissolution of the continuitie of Church in a moral or divine sense not natural which we seek into at present This Separate State then being a Relation of Opposition as the other was of Conjunction the Term denominating and signallizing both is to be enquired unto And that is insinuated alreadie and must needs be the Church and that as that is united unto Christ or the true Church For there is no separation from that which really is not though it may seem to be It must therefore be a true Church from whence Schismatical separation is made So far do they confute and confound themselves who excuse their Schismaticalness from that which principally constitutes Schism and Schismaticks viz. an acknowledgement of that to be a true Church from which they divide themselves and separate Again We are to note that Separation is either of Persons and Churches in Co-ordination or subordination according to that excellent and ancient distinction of Optatus saying It is one thing for a Bishop to communicate Optatus Mileviâ—â—â— Cont. Parmen Lib. 3. Aldâ— with a Bishop and another for a Lay man or the Inferiour Clergy to communicate with the Bishop And this because what may perhaps justifie a Non-communion with Co-ordinate Persons or Churches which have no autority one over another wil not excuse Subordinate Persons or Churches owing obedience to their Superiours from Schism From whence it is manifest that though all Schism be a Separation yet all Separation is not a Schism And though there may be many and just causes for a Separation there can be no cause to justifie a Schism For Schism is in its nature A studious Separation or State Separate against Christian Charity upon no sufficient Cause or grounds It must be affected or Studious because if upon necessity or involuntary the Diâ—junction of Churches is rather a punishment than a sin and an Infelicity rather than Iniquity as in the dayes of Anastatius the Emperour as Evagrius relates it Who so violently persecuted the Catholick Church in behalfe of the Eutychian Evagrius Hist Eccl. L. C. 30. Heresie that it was crumbled as it were into several parcels And the Governours could not communicate one with another but the Eastern and Western and African Churches were broke asunder Which farther shews that all Criminal Separation which we make Synonimous with Schism must likewise be an Act proceeding from the persons to separated and not the Act of another For no man can make another a Schismatick any more than he can make him a Lyar or a drunkard without his consent For if the Governours of one Church expeâ— out of Communion another upon no just grounds the Church thus separated is not the Schismatick but the other as appears from the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Cappadocia in St Cyprian concerning Pope Stephen advising him he should noâ— be too busie or presumptious in separating others lest he thereby separated himself so that if the Schism had broke out upon no good grounds he who was the Architect of it Separated himself as all others do and it is impossible any man should make though he may declare another a Schismatique any more than he can make him erre without his consent or be uncharitable Yet do they err also that from hence conclude that the Formal reason of Schism consists in Separating a mans self for it is rather the material Cause than formal The formal Cause being as in all other things the very Constitution it self with unreasonableness and uncharitableness No man can make another involuntarily an Heretick And therefore no man can make another a Schismatick All the Guilt redounding to the Agent noâ— Patient in such cases So that it is scarce worth the Enquiring Who began the breach of unity as it outwardly appears but who is actually and Really First divided from Christs Church For they surely are the proper Schismaticks though the name may stick closer to others To understand this we may consider that there is a Vertual Schism and a Formal Schism A Vertual Schism I call real division from Christs Church though it comes not to an open opposition to it or Defiance of it so that where ever is any heresie or considerable Errour nourished or maintained in a Church there is to be found a Schismatick also in reality though not in formality the reason hereof is well expressed by and may best come from the hand of an Adversary to u thus judiciously enquiring It is demanded first saith he Whether Schismaticks be Hereticks Answer The Common opinion Azâ—rius Inst Moral Tom. 1. Lib. 3. C. 20. of the Interpreters of the Canon Law and of the Summists is that the Heretick differs from the Schismatick in that Every Heretick is a Schismatick but not on the contrary Which they prove because the term Shismatick signifies Division But every Heretick turns away separates divides himself from the Church This is very plain and reasonable and so is the consequence from hence That where the Body is so corrupt as to be really infected with notorious errors there it is really so far as it is erroneous separated from the true Church and where it is so far separated from the true Church so far it is Schismatical And when a Church is thus far really Schismatical little or no Scruple is to be made of an outward Separation neither can a guilt be affixed unto it And on the other side if no such real separation and antecedent Guilt can be found in a Church in vain do diverse betake themselves to that specious Shift and evasion that they were cast out and went not out willingly from a Church and that they are willing to return but are not suffered For undoubtedly the very supposition is insincere and faulty that they forsook not the Church before they were ejected And the expulsion followed separation and dissention from it and was not rather the Effect than Cause of them as are all excommunications rightly used For to those that pretend they were turned out do not the doors stand open to receive them and that with thanks if they please to re-enter and re-unite themselves What do they here
How can any man be said to be afflicted for his loss of a great empire or riches unless he knew that he once was possessed of them or they were at least his by Right How can any pain trouble a man which he feels not And if he feels it not how can it be a punishment to him And to this I add the Scripture saying God made man according to his own Image in Genesis Gen. 1. 26. Jam. 3. 9. and in St. James's Epistle After the similitude of God How is it less than blasphemous that a sinful guilty creature such as man must needs be having a wicked Spirit put into him should be said to be according to Gods Image or likeness And how can it consist with the Scripture elsewhere saying God made man upright but they have found out many inventions Eccles 7. 29. For though the Evil Spirit supposed to be put into man were the Author of its own wickedness yet when once that was so wicked for to put it into man is to make man wicked Now this Image of God so much spoken of in Scripture and treated of by Divines to the great honour of Man we may understand to consist in these five things Principally 1. Wisdom and Knowledg 2. Liberty of Will 3. Justice and Holiness 4. Immortality 5. Dominion For when we speak of the Image of God in Man we must be sure not to confound it with that proper to Christ the Image of God For first that of man was made as we have heard that of God Christ was neither made nor created but begotten and that not by way of Carnal Generation but purely divine and Spiritual Secondly That was as well Eternal in respect of what is past as what was to come But the Image of God in Man only everlasting as to the future time Thirdly That of Christ was immediate but that of Man mediate So that he is not the Image of God but as he is the Image of his more express and Natural Image Christ and that first as is said in Wisdom Christ being primarily called the Wisdom of his Father and deriving of the same to us For as St. John saith Of John 1. 16 his fulness have all received and Grace for Grace And God creating all things through his Natural Word his Son signified by that Metaphorical word expressed in the Book of Genesis did in particular through him communicate that Wisdom unto Adam which he excelled in at his first Institution whereby it was natural to him to understand the natures of all Creatures Earthly as well from their Causes from whence they proceeded as from their effects proceeding from them which latter is the principal means of attaining that remainder and as it were ruins of a more perfect Body of knowledg in Adam which we are capable of in the state we now are And not only Natural things but Supernatural also as God and the Holy Spirits were much more perfectly known to him than to us So that the knowledg of the First man exceeded all after him Christ the Second Adam only excepted in these three things First in the manner of enjoying that knowledg which he had it being not acquired by tedious and experimental discursiveness observations or reasoning within himself but by a divine illumination which was not given him after the manner of Revelations given by God to some of his eminent Servants transiently not to continue or to descend to others but it was by way of a connatural habit which should have passed to his posterity Secondly the object of this knowledg or extent of it transcended that of Man now adayes stretching it self to heavenly as well as Earthly things and the minuter things lying hid from us Thirdly It differed in the manner and perfection as being more accurate and less Fallible than ours The Second thing shining eminently in Adam was Liberty of will whereby he resembled his Creatour who is the only absolute and Free Agent For there was no natural inclination nor temptation in him to err or offend in choosing the Evil and refusing Good according to that of Syracides God himself made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his Councel c. Leaving it equally in his power and choice to turn to the Eccles 15. 14. Right hand or to the Left to stand or fall And not only freely to do what he did though propelled thereunto but freely to Act or not to act which is the perfectest and most proper freedom of all From this twofold perfection of the Understanding and Will arose a Third which was perfect Innocency and Holiness which by some is called Original Justice and by others Original Grace both ayming at the same thing For Original Justice or Righteousness it may be called because it was not acquired but connatural and simultaneous to the Being of Man Again It was Grace because though it pleased God to create man with it yet he might also have created him without it and it was separable from him and so not intrinsick to his very nature Which is yet thus further to be understood that it were most absurd and blasphemous to believe that God could make a man a sinner without any precedent or concurrent act of his own will or without this original innocency and Justice for as nothing but God can proceed immediately and directly from Gods hand so neither could man as he was the effect of God be any otherwise than Good This then may be called his natural and Original Justice and Goodness and Original Grace also in some sense because though all the works of God must needs be good as his yet man for example might not have been so perfect either in his understanding and will and yet have retained innocency And this was the Grace of God Besides which may probably be asserted another Grace which to the bare stock of Nature thus put together by God superadded a more special and Free Grace called though not very properly the Grace of Sanctification not as it is in us purifying and restoring us in some competent manner to what hath been decayed or depraved by the fraud and power of the Devil in us or our own vile hearts and affections but by way of Preservation preventing the evils and dangers unto which we were subject Now this as it is called Grace because it was not necessarily due to nature So was it called Natural or Original because God conserred the same at our first being and would so have continued it had we not abused and forfeited the same And from hence sprang a Fourth beam of the bright Image of God in man viz. Immortality as an appendage to the said Natural Justice and a reward of the perseverence in it For God saying In the day thou eatest Gen. 2. 17. thereof the tree of the knowledg of Good and Evil Thou shalt surely die did imply that so long as he persevered in due
subjection and obedience to his will he should not dye So that Adam was not simply and in his own nature immortal as were Angels and immaterial Spirits but by this Supernatural Priviledg and Grace of Justice given of God whereby he was well able to persevere in that state of Holiness and secure himself from falling into sin And a sufficient argument of the former is that Man before his fall did or was to eat and drink as appeareth from the indulgence of God to him saying Of every tree of the Garden Gen. 2. 16. thou mayst eat Now eating and drinking do necessarily of themselves inferr such an alteration both in the body eating and eaten as tendeth to corruption and therefore a more immediate hand and power of God was required to obviate that propensity And the manner of propagation being contrary to the imagination of some of the Ancients by that natural way that now it is though much purer prove the same inclination to dissolution and the necessity of a Divine Grace to secure man from Corruption And thirdly it is proved from the manner of the Fall which spoiled us not of any thing natural in a proper sense to us but lost to us the Supernatural Aids which otherwise should never have forsaken us Lastly a Fifth Beam of the Image of God in man was and is the Dominion he hath over the inferiour Creatures and the subserviency of them to him For this an express Charter is given to him as Gods Vicegerent on Earth in Genesis in this manner And God blessed them and God said unto Gen. 1. 28 them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the Sea and over the foul of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth Which Right of Rule was not altogether extinguished after the Fall but as experience sheweth that man partly by strength and partly by wit and understanding bringeth all things under him so the Scripture affiâ—meth Every Jam. 3. 7. kind of Beasts and of Birds and things in the sea is tamed and hath been tamed of Mankind And after the Flood God in especial manner re-enstated man in his right of dominion saying The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the Earth and upon every Foul Gen. 3. 2. of the Air upon all that moveth upon the Earth and upon all the Fishes of the Sea into your hand are they delivered CHAP. VIII Of the Second General act of God towards the Creature especially Man his Providence Aristotles opinion and Epicurus's rejected What is Providence Three things propounded of Providence And First the Ground of it the Knowledge of God How God knoweth all things future as present Of Necessity and Contingencies how they may consist with Gods Omniscience THUS far of the Power of God exemplified chiefly in man It follows now that we speak of the Second General Act of God towards the Creature and specially Man known to be his Providence The Providence of God is one of those things Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. pag. 547. Vid Theodor. Haereticar Fabul L. 5. C. 10. saith Clemens Alexandrinus of which to desire a demonstration or proof is most absurd it so manifestly displaying itself over the whole Universe And therefore next to that opinion of Epicurus denying God to take any Care of things in the world lest it should trouble him too much is that of Aristotle in absurdity and impiety that his Care and providence extended no farther than the Heavens committing as it were the management of this inferiour world to inferiour Officers both so unworthy of wise men to affirm that we shall bestow no other confutation of them than what obliquely may be inferred from the positive assertion of this divine Attribute of God For God being in Being and Power infinite and as the Apostle saith upholding all things by the word of his Power that is meer will Heb. 4. 3. and pleasure declared it were ridiculous to conceive any toil or labour in Gods conservation and administration of all the things in the world As it were most absurd to say that the glorious body of the Sun and the influences thereof should be be disparaged in giving vertue unto Gnats and Nits and pittiful weeds growing out of the earth and not confining it self to more high and excellent Offices But Providence is as Boetius defines it that Boetius de Consolat Lib. 4. Pros 6. Highest Reason residing in that Supream Prince of all things which disposes all things And surely if God did not foul his fingers or degrade himself in making man as well as Angels and Beasts as well as Man and Earth and Water and Air as well as Beasts and that to us there may be such things which we call clean and unclean but to God there is no such distinctions in the natures of things then truly could it be no blemish to him to regard them being made And if to make them was no labour properly so called though it is so termed by the Scripture for our instruction to preserve them can be nothing of molestation to God My Father worketh Joh. 5. 17 hitherto and I work saith Christ of God and himself in St. John meaning nothing more than a continued Creation as Conservation is well called by Philosophers or an Act of Providence proportionable to the Act of Creation infinitely â—asie to God as well as Effectual towards the Creature The thing then being thus declared and supposed we shall consider it in this threefold manner First in the foundation and Ground or Prepararation of his Divine Providence Secondly in the Execution of it Thirdly in the Object of it And concerning the First Providence being an Act of infinite Supream wisdom as Boetius saith doth suppose knowledg in God And the exercise or Execution hereof implies a Will in God so inclined And the Object the Effect of both For as the Apostle saith Who hath resisted his will Rom. 9. 19. And as to the Knowledg of God it hath been before shewed how it must be commensurate unto God himself and that is Infinite He must be and is Omniscient And therefore well hath Lactantius said If there be Lactan. de Iâ—a Cap. 9. a God certainly he is Providential as God neither can Deity be otherwise ascribed to him but as he retaineth things past knows things present and foresees things future or to come And truly I cannot but here insert besides my General purpose the most excellent saying of the Heathen Salust It Salust ad Câ—sar de Repub. Ordinan appears to one as a certain truth that the Divine Nature inspects the life of all Mortals and that neither the Good nor Evil Acts of men go for nothing but naturally there follows different rewards for Good and Evil men This Reward is that outward ground inferring Providence but the Inward taken from
a good event in general if not particular we are now to satisfie our selves What that we call Evil and Sin is And what relation God hath to it First then we are to note that Evil and Sin differ only as Genus and Species so that all Sin is Evil but all Evil is not Sin Evil is that which is contrary to nature or natural Good Sin is that which is contrary to grace and moral good And that which is contrary to the order rule and form of Nature is called Monstrous that which is contrary to the Rule of Justice and Holiness is called Sin And as monstrosity in nature is divided into defects and excesses So Sin in morality is divided into Omissions and Commissions And of neither of these can God be said to be the Authour or Nature under him For if Nature according to Philosophers which is but Gods Instrument doth not intend monstrous effects much less may God be said so to do whose acts are alwayes more constant and steady the higher they are and nearer to himself For to give an instance when we see a want of a limb in a monstrous birth it may so far be imputed to Divine Providence that it could not so happen without the knowledge and consent of the Supream Cause in whose power it was to have disposed outward and second causes to the effecting of a regular and perfect work yet directly and with a positive purpose to have assisted in the production of such a Monster we cannot safely nor wisely say seeing the denyal of that ordinary and more necessary concurrence to such an end is altogether sufficient to it and such defects arise not from Gods positive Will to have them so but from his not willing to have them otherwise There may seem somewhat more difficulty in Monsters in excess when any Creatures have more parts than are naturally proper to them as four hands or three leggs and the like But this proves not any direct intention to this but only an intention not to keep things in their proper limits and to their Rule A Master or Father when he holds not a severe hand over his child or servant cannot but by inference and consequence be said to be the cause of the exorbitant carriages of them because though he wills not to prevent such mischiefs he doth not will they should be God in like manner willeth redundance of matter as a thing real and positive but that it should meet together as to constitute such an unnatural effect is rather the suspence and with-holding his Providence then the exercising of the same This I premise as leading to the due apprehension of Moral Evil which to hold as such to have a positive Existence in the world is inevitably to become Manichean and to make God the Authour of sin as St. Austin in these words declareth Here we are to be careful that we fall not into the Herisee of the Manichees who said there was a certain Nature of Evil and a certain people of darkness with their Princes And afterward So they erre so they are blinded so they make themselves the people Gentem Tenebrarum of darkness by believing that which is false against him who created them for every Creature is good but it is corrupted by the depraved will of Man Thus he and were it so that Evil had a positive being from whom could it proceed but from God And it is repugnant to the Nature of the good God to be the Author of any thing simply Evil so far the Manicheans were in the right therefore they that hold this must with the Manichees invent and introduce another God I know the modern defenders of the positive nature of sin alledge several Schoolmen and some Fathers for the same but I know there are more express testimonies of the Ancient against it and the Modern of any account had either another sense than we now state the doubt in or must be rejected with their Relater It is not a place here to examine and encounter all nor to alledge the Reasons or Authorities to the contrary which might easily be done Only that Argument taken from the distinction of Sins of Omission and Commission deserves to be considered For say they if Sins of Omission consist only in defect of duty and are thereby distinguished from of Commission which are such as not only fall short of what is due but act the quite contrary as when a man instead of praying and praising God contumeliously abuses his Name and Worship this hath more in it than a meer negation or privation of good Thus indeed it seems but thus it is not For both these are evil upon the account of privation and the absence of good the difference only is in this that in sins of Omission the privativeness or negation is immediately seated in the Subject owing such an Act and in such a manner and here in no Action at all but the absence of it which renders a man and denominates him immediately evil or defective But in sins of Commission the case is far otherwise for here privation or defect relateth not immediately to the Subject as the Man himself but to the Action it self and by that is the Man made guilty and evil because though the act be in its nature positive yet is defective as to its circumstances according to which it ought to be performed For when God hath appointed and Justice and Reason directeth that a man should observe in his action such a time and season and such a place and have respect to such a person such a manner and measure and he neglecteth all or any of these doth he not plainly offend in the negative though the act it self be in nature positive But in the case we are about the Nature as we said of things is not to be valued but the Morality and the Morality may be evil when the Nature is good and the Morality may be privative when the Act is positive Hatred of God is an act of Man than which none can be instanced in to contain more evil or malice Therefore as this is an act Natural and Vital it is good and hath God for its direct and first cause but as this act is directed to God and so relates to a wrong object so it is evil and hath neither countenance nor concurrence from him For as is above-touched we are to distinguish Omne bonum viva substantia est vita est Vita autem Christus Omne autem malum sine substantia est nihil est tamen perdere protest Opus Imperf in Matth. Hom. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil 2. in Act. Apost Anselmus de Casu Diaboli Tom. 3. the Act of Sin from the Sin of the Act and that upon the received Maxime amongst the Philosophers That all Evil is in somewhat that is Good for having no subsistence of it self it must rest upon some other thing that hath a
or equity of it or not saying Nay but O man What art thou that replyest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made me thus Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour No man that acknowledges and every Christian must acknowledge the like and greater power and prerogative in God over Man than the Potter hath of his clay can deny that God may order the work of his hands as he pleases neither can he deny but the drift of the Apostle in this comparison was to show the absolute power and dominion of God over all Creatures and therefore let them see how they aggravate matters of this nature and multiply fond ratiocinations which they cannot but know agree not with St. Pauls stating and decision of this Question I do freely grant the adverse Party that St. Paul doth not at all concern himself with that kind of Predestination Election or Vocation as very many confidently presume he doth in his Eighth and Ninth Chapters to the Romans I mean not particular or personal Prae-determination and the like the whole letter and the occasion of his discourse there being concerning the Election of the Gentile Church and the uncessant protection thereof against all threatnings and Oppositions and disputing the equity of Gods deserting the Jewish Church yet thus far his argument being general holds good in particular persons that if it be free to God without any just exceptions to choose and leave a Church or Nation at his pleasure and according to the counsel of his own will it is also reasonable and just for him to favour or show disfavour to any single person in like acts of his Providence without being called in question for what he doth or not doth CHAP. XIV Of Sin more particularly And first of the Fall of Adam Of Original sin wherein it consisteth and how it is traduced from Father to children The Proofs of it The Nature and Evils of it And that it is cured in baptism That Natural Concupiscence hath not the Nature of Sin after baptism BY what is said competent satisfaction may be had in that mystery of Gods Providence in the fall and sin of the first Man created as we have shewed in such perfection of natural Faculties and divine Grace the reason absolute and demonstrative whereof cannot be rendred by the witâ— of Man viz. Why God should make such a fine and exquisite piece and deliver it over presently to ruin and loss It may suffice that God was not the direct cause of such his Fall by impelling him though his Free-will embracing the Temptation he was privy to his errour As it was in that memorable case of the death of Benhadad King of Syria in the second of the Kings when Hazael was sent to enquire Whether he should recover 2 Kings 8. 10. of that Sickness The Prophet Elisha answered Go say unto him thou mayest certainly recover how be it the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely dye And this was the true case of Adam whom God knew to have full power certainly to stand and yet he knew he would surely fall As therefore God in that case spake after the method and manner of mans apprehension so he here acted In that he first said the King might surely recover and this was according to the common order of natural Causes which then were upon him in his sickness which were such as were easily resisted and like to have no such effect But then God withal beholding that which was not seen of man perhaps not thought on by the Actour himself at that time he saw withal a necessary dependencie and connexion between another cause and that effect which followed and so declared surely the contrary to the other In like manner God beholding Adam in that integrity and vigour of gifts and Graces with which he had furnished him saw him in a certain condition to persevere in that state but seeing withal the future outward cause of Temptation he might well see the effect what it would be infallibly So that when we say a thing is contingent we cannot say so in respect of all causes but in respect of some special cause to which in our opinion and observation such an effect may seem properly to belong For it is a true Axiome amongst Logicians All causes accidental are reducible to proper and direct causes So that there was no necessity by Gods appointment of Adams Fall as he was framed of God but somewhat might occurr outwardly which by Gods permission might have as certain effect upon the will of Man though Free of it self and indifferent as had the wet cloath laid by Hazael 2 Kings 8. 15. upon the face of Benhadad this only excepted That what natures simple Act did in this the will of man combining freely against himself with those outward causes suffered in that The thing therefore principally to be here enquired after is rather about the Nature of this Sin in Adam and the Effects thereof And as to the former it is to be observed That what was in him an Actual sin became in us an Original and what was free to him to be subject to it or void of it becomes necessary to us and inevitable It might be called in some sense an Original sin in him as it was the first in nature and time he stood guilty of but not as if his Nature was from the beginning so corrupt as to dispose him unto it Again in him it was of it self purely sinful and a transgression of Gods Law upon which followed evil effects but in us it seems to partake originally of both sin and punishment but chiefly of this latter For though they speak truly in the larger sense who make three things proper and inseparable from Sin Guilt Stain and Punishment yet restraining our selves to the true Nation of it there are these two things only essential to it The matter it self which is the evil act committed against the Law of God or which commeth to the same omitted contrary to the same And the manner or formality of it which consisteth in the perversness and pravity of the will which is so essential to it that it both distinguishes the errours of rational men from them of beasts and mad-men and them of the same Man from one another so that what was done voluntarily and freely differs wholly from that done with incogitancie so not affected for then the will concurs with it and infects it and without any intention so to do as to point of moral Goodness or Evil. And according to the bent or averseness of the will to evil commonly are estimated the degrees of evil But though in Adam all these things concurred to the heightening of his Actual sin yet in those that inherit that evil from him the sin must needs be much less in Nature and lighter because
of no personal concurrence to such deformity Yet not so neither but that it justly is denominated Sin from the very nature and effects of it For seeing whatever is in the Will must be good or evil and if the Will be found crooked perverse or averse to that it ought to incline to this is contrary to Gods institution and Law and whence ever this proceeds from an immediate act of our own or by traduction from others seeing it is found in the Will it must needs be contrary and consequently odious to God and in conclusion sinful Again as the fountain poisons and corrupts all streams flowing from thence so the Will being thus corrupt and naturally thus ill inclined all the other defects even in his body as well as soul contracted by this fall are as so many deformities in man which render him deservedly hated of God seeing such disparity and unlikeness to the worse to that which he first fram'd Thirdly Original sin in Man hath this more of disorder in it that it not only is a corruption of the will and thereby a deformity and vitiosity in the inferiour parts and faculties but it is of ill consequence For if this depravation went no farther than that evil born with us if it stand there and wrought no more evil the nature of it had been less sinful and more tolerable but being of an active nature and having taken up the chiefest room in the soul of Man it disposeth and impelleth to more mischief in actual transgressions As a Garrison held by a Rebel doth not only offend Sacred Majesty by standing out against him it self but when it finds it self strong enough and hath opportunity sallies out and makes invasion upon its proper Soveraign and offers actual and active violence against him So by this Original Evil first possessing the Soul doth Concupiscence stir and act by outward practises contrary to the Law and Will of God And therefore when St. Austin saith alledged by the corrupters of this Doctrine of Original Corruption They are born not properly but originally evil he no wayes contradicts his own Doctrine whereby he most of all farther explained and maintained this Original sin being the first that gave the name Original to that Pravity in man For true it is that that only is called properly Original Sin which Adam and Eve in person committed and were not subject to by nature as their Posterity are because it was the first in respect of mankind as well in order of time as nature and causality Again though this be traduced unto us his Off-spring and be the cause and fountain of all other sins actually committed afterward and for the same causes may rightly be called Original yet considering that this Evil thus vitiating our nature had no consent of our personal will we neither understood it nor any wayes affected it it cannot be so properly called sin as others which we act knowingly and willingly our selves For nothing is in strict way a sin which we do not consent unto in some manner either immediately or in its remoter causes And this doth yet farther appear because no man is bound to repent properly of Original sin Proper Repentance being an Act contrarying and reversing so far as in us lyes some evil by us done and not suffered involuntarily But Original sin is rather suffered than acted by the children of Adam Yet though in the severst sense we cannot be said to repent of Original sin we are bound to exercise some Act of Repentance for the same As grief and sorrow of mind and heart for the evil we lye under Confession and Recognition of our sad state before God Imploration of his mercie and favour to remove the same from us and restore us to our pristine innocencie and integrity For this those many places of Scripture describing this Evil do seem to require at our hand And no where doth the Scripture more fully declare this unto us than in the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans which because Socinus and such as plough with his Heifer and are tickled with his pretty phansies in eluding the Apostles meaning and the constant interpretation of the most Ancient and Modern Expositours we shall more particularly consider It is undeniable that St. Paul Rom. 5. amplifying the grace of God and benefits unto mankind even the Gentiles by Christ Jesus doth there make a comparision from the Twelfth verse to the end of the Chapter of the first and second Adam and of the Evil we sustained by the first Man Adam and the benefits we receive by the second Man Christ To this he supposes the ground of his Comparison which is this that By one v. 12. man Sin entred into the world and death by Sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is made no more of than that Adam being the first Man in the world and sinning Sin must needs enter first into the world by him if he sinned first and that death followed upon that sin of Adam But if this be all how come the effects to exceed the cause and death to extend farther than sin For it is not only said that death entred into the world in seizing upon that single Malefactour Adam but So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned where two things are to be noted First the note of dependance and consequence So. For if St. Paul had meant that Adam by himself and only for himself introduced death wherefore serves the tearm So which is a certain indication of the manner how death came into the world upon all persons and as much as if it had been said Adam first sinning and bringing death into the world so it was that this death fell upon all men for that all have sinned Now it is certain that all that dye have not sinned personally and therefore Secondly the Note So must also ralate to the Cause of that death which was sin and is as much as Adam sinning his Posterity also sinned and became obnoxious to death For to say as some eminently learned and useful otherwise in their Doctrine of Repentance Death passed upon all i. e. say they Upon all the whole world who were drowned in the floud of Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam is as much as if another Scholiaâ—t like him had said That is upon all Senacheribs Armies before Jerusalem in the dayes of Hezekiah or Upon all the Romans in the battle of Canna with Hannibal For it is certain that all men dye and it is no less certain that all men without exception died not in the floud And therefore what is added upon these words In as much as all have sinned that by them is meant All have sinned upon their own account we have already shown that it is not absolutely true and therefore cannot be St. Pauls meaning For all that dye have not as did Adam or following Adams
example sinned Infants dying prove the contrary Yet I cannot deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have another signification than is given by some who would have it as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom and not as our Translation hath it faithfully In as much This the Apostles doctrine is confirmed by what follows For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no v. 13. 14. Law Nevertheless sin reigning from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression These words as by very many and in diverse manners so by the same hand are thus hal'd to this erroneous construction St. Paul does not speak of all mankind as if the Evil occasioned by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reached only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses But the more exact and literal enquiry into the Apostles meaning will quite overthrow this presumptuous conjecture which is occasioned from a mis-translation or mis-understanding of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which signifying the same thing i. e. Until are thought to be intended exclusively of the time to come when they as the like do but intend such a tearm signally as a most considerable Period and not as the ultimate they drive at As 't is commonly understood of Josephs not Matth. 1. ult knowing Mary until she had brought forth her first-born And this will be evident to him that compareth the use of those words in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses and the drift of the Apostle which plainly to discover will satisfie any doubter and answer all objections and other glosses It is this here as generally to lay before the Jewes to whom St. Paul principally designs his discourse the imperfection of that Law which was by Moses delivered unto them and upon which they so confidently rest that neither the Law of God written in mens hearts before Moses nor the Law then lately delivered by Christ was of any account with them but Moses his Law must carry it from all Justification must be by that and the Vertue of the Messias himself depended on that So that in effect they thought nothing sin but what transgressed the Law of Moses St. Paul argues against this saying For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no Law which is as much as to have said Ye ought not so much to stand upon your Mosaical Law For that is not the only judge or tryal of sin seeing sin was in the world until the Law that is all the time from Adam to your Law but sin is not imputed when there is no Law but sin was imputed and punished too For v. 14. death reigned from Adam to Moses Now if there was such punishment as death then surely there must be a Transgression and if there be such a Transgression there must be also a Law which is so transgressed And therefore if such a Law then surely Moses his Law was not that only Law nor most ancient Now to draw nearer to our present Case on whom fell this punishment of death the Apostle answers On all without exception Even on them which could only be doubted of that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression What is meant by this That is saith our Authour Who sinned not so capitally For to sin like Adam is used as a tragical and high expression Hos 6. 7. They like men have sinned in the Hebrew it is Like Adam Of this I grant thus much That Adams sin was the greatest that ever was committed since all things duly weighed and therefore it may well stand for a most heinous sin and therefore Job likewise saith by way of abhorrence and purgation If I covered my sin as Adam Job 31 33. One main circumstance aggravating Adams sin was that he would have hid it as himself out of Gods eyes and defended himself when he was convinced but how he repented the Scripture is silent But that the degree of sin cannot be the ground of comparison but the very nature of sin and kind is plain from the subject thus punished by death For had they been only men of years who could choose the good and refuse the evil then indeed less might have been objected against that interpretation but it being manifest that death reigned over Infants also who committed no sin as did Adam therefore another sense must be found which answers the full intent of the Apostles argument and it can be no other than this That by similitude here he means the like in nature and not only in degree For Infants who are punished with death have not sinned as did Adam Adams sin was a sin properly so called and Actual but Children who dye sin not so but are subject to that we call Original sin which being such a corruption as defaceth the Image of God and as it were clips his Royal Coyn and allayes it with baser mettal than he ordained man to consist of may cause him justly to be rejected Nay which is much more and granted surely unadvisedly as inconsistently with the principles of this Authour the guilt of Adams Actual sin as in himself was such that it discended to the sons of him before the Floud For sayes he They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinned not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatened had not suffered so severely This is more than what the strictest defenders of Original sin dare affirm viz. That God should take an occasion of punishing one man for anothers fault when he did in no manner partake of the sin Surely if nothing of the Offence had descended to the Posterity of Adam nothing of the punishment should have touched them Next to the comparison here made by the Apostle between acts of Adam and the acts of Christ and the effects and events of one and the other is the comparison between the persons to whom these on both sides extended and sheweth that the remedy by Christ was proportionable altogether to the mischief occasioned by Adam For saith the Apostle As by the offense of One judgment came upon All men to condemnation even so by the Righteousness of One the free gift came upon All men unto justification Rom. 5. 18 19. of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous There seems in these two verses to be some contrariety in that first it is said that Judgment came upon all and the Free gift upon all and yet afterward there is a restriction unto many and not all concerned in the sin Therefore it is to be observed That in the first place the
which Seneca noted but could give no reason of No man saith he is of a good mind before he is of a bad one we are all prevented And in the same place he saith No body is with difficulty reduced to Nature but he that hath made a defection from it Now supposing that God made all things perfect and instituted the nature of man more inclinable to acts agreeable to that perfection than to the contrary whence can it come that contrariwise Man naturally inclineth to that which is base and unworthy and is hardly taken off that corrupt way of acting contrary to reason and vertue and reduced to a perfection becoming his Institution and End but that the very principle of his nature is hurt and the root corrupt And because nothing can be Author of its own Principles by which it subsists no man can be said by his own act to have corrupted them Indeed we say a Man is of corrupt Principles when he hath contracted some evil habits disposing to wickedness but that is accessorie and not innate to him And if it be farther urged That no man can be guilty by anothers fault nor corrupted by anothers principle it is answered as before so long as it is only that others and not his own in some degree For as Thomas hath distinguished There is a Principle of Nature and a Principle of a Person and a Sin of Nature and a Sin of a Person Adam had not only principles whereby he himself subsisted but also was the principle of all his Successours So that Original sin was as well the sin of the one as the other So that from the depraved will of Adam as the first principle of all came the corruption of the Will of all Whereupon speaking strictly as we have said this Original sin is not properly sin in the Infant but a want of Original Justice seizing him and exposing him to destruction as Thomas and Catharinus also have taught which two are the effects of the sin of Adam upon himself and children but the very formal Reason of sin in his Posterity For where as some say It is natural Concupiscence moving to Evil and others That it is the absence of Divine Justice and Grace they differ rather in the niceties of speech than in the matter it self For to me it seems that the loss of Divine Perfection and Grace superadded to the nature of Man whereby he was abundantly able to secure himself and glorifie God in that state of happiness most neerly expresses the nature of it as in the sons of Adam For in Adam himself it was actual disobedience but Concupiscence inordinate doth rather express the consequence of it For upon that desolation in the soul of Man quickly arose a disorder of the inferiour Affections which by a general name is called Concupiscence or Lust by the Apostle in his Seventh Chapter to the Romans And Natural it is called because as out of the cursed ground sprang up briers thorns weeds and thistles where more useful fruit of the earth was intended so upon this curse of mans soul Evil motions arose to the hurrying him to Actual sin being themselves really sinful Again it is observable for the true resolution of the Question That there is commonly an ambiguity in this tearm Concupiscence it being sometimes taken for the act and exercise of that vitious principle in man fallen and sometimes for the Pravitie and degenerate temper of the soul making it prone to actual sins This latter is that which is properly called Original Sin though more properly Original unholiness or want of that instituted Integrity with which man was at first endowed and in it three things are to be considered First the privation of Supernatural Good Secondly Proneness to unnatural Evil against God Thirdly Odiousness and Culpableness before God who must needs be offended at the sight of so much deformity in his Creature contrary to his first Institution of it and Intention though this evil habitude should never break out into actual Rebellion against him by the exercise or putting it in execution by actual Concupiscence against the Law of God St. James seemeth Jam. 1. 14. to justifie this distinction where he saith Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed This gives us the original Lust or Concupiscence which inclines and moves to sin and to this is it to be imputed that a man so easily is withdrawn from truth and righteousness and noble acts becoming his high nature He goeth on Then when Lust hath conceived it bringeth forth Sin c. that is when the Radical Concupiscence or Concupiscibleness in man becomes impregnated and matured by outward opportunities and occasions of sinning it bringeth forth into outward act sin and the event and consequence of this sin is death So that the innate Lust lurking in the Soul and not actuated by outward occasions either inwardly to effect and desire or outwardly to act sin is not properly sin but metonymically only either as it is the effect of Adams sin or the cause of our sins but it is properly odious to God and exposing us to his heavy wrath so far at least as is seen in the deprivation of that be atitude to which man was at first designed And this exactly agrees with the nature of that sin For as that which was in Adam was actual disobedience in his Posterity is only want of that perfection which was due to their nature So Adam not only incurred the loss of that bliss he was capable of and in the ready way to enjoy but likewise the punishment of Sense answerable to his Sin of Commission and his Posterity was made subject to the punishment and loss of Gods favour and that bliss they were in Adam once ordained unto But when their Sins become Actual they are subject to punishment of Pain and torment for the same And by this the way is well prepared to make answer to that common doubt concerning the effect of Baptism and the state of the Regenerate in reference to Original sin and Concupiscence viz. whether Concupiscence remaining after Baptism in the Regenerate be sin or not Scriptures are alledged with great colour on both sides It is observed by Bishop Davenant that St. Paul calls Original Concupiscence sin in fourteen Davenant Deâ—â—rm â— several places in his sixth seventh and eighth Chapter to the Romans which if so Original sin it self must needs be oftner mentioned in Scripture than will be granted by many For mine own particular I see none of those places so exprest in the description of it that the law of Sin the Body Lex Peccati est violentiâ— consuctudinis qua trabit tenetur etiam invitus animus â—â— merito quo in cam volens illabitur Aug. in Confess Lib 3 c. 5. of Sin the Law of the Members the Lust of the Mind and Flesh and some other expressions to the same effect may not be
understood as well of an evil habit and inveterate custome acquired of sinning which is wont to give Law to the Reason and Mind of Man as of Original sin we now speak of contra-distinct to it were it not that the stream of Ancient and Modern Interpreters hath given another sense not with modesty to be opposed Therefore yielding those many places to be meant of Concupiscence natural we are to distinguish answerable to what is abovesaid with the Bishop between Inhabiting Concupiscence and Actual Concupiscence And herein a little vary from him if he doth mean that those places are to be applyed to Concupiscence resident only and not actuated But of this latter he seems to speak and no doubt so is St. Paul to be understood and not of the other And without all doubt Concupiscence coming to act inwardly in the mind by coveting only inordinately or outwardly by executing the evil purposes of the mind are sin even in the most Regenerate And when this becomes a habit then it is called by St. Paul to the Romans The Old Man and the Body of Sin But when the Rom. 6 6. remains of that inhabiting Concupiscence which only can be properly called Original never come after the death and burial with Christ in baptism as the Apostle speaks often to recover new life and motions by Rom. 6. 3 4. Colos 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. conceiving new warmth from outward temptations as in Infants dying before they come to be actual sinners and in those of riper years immediately after their baptism it cannot properly be said to be sin or to expose to damnation as all sin properly so called doth St. Austin quoted by that learned Bishop plainly affirmeth thus much saying Tale Aug. lib. 6. c. 5. In Julian tantum malum and such and-so great Evil as that Original only because it is in a man would oblige us to death and drag us to the last death but that its chain was broken in baptism All this we subscribe to and do profess that the hold Original sin had over us is loosed by Baptism Yet we profess with Thomas also quoted that when ever such Concupiscence comes into the Will be it of Regenerate or Unregenerate it puts on the nature of sin But we suppose the remains of that Original Evil to contain themselves where Baptism left them and not to proceed farther For this God certainly hates I mean progress of Concupiscence and as it is well argued God cannot hate any thing but sin But after Regeneration by Baptism or restauration to the vertue and power of Baptism and the benefit thereof by Repentance the Sin in kind as Lust Envie Murder Malice is odious unto God but as it relates to the Person once guilty of it it is no longer odious unto God why because it is covered it is pardoned it is not imputed it is as if it had not been For otherwise it could not be said Blessed is the man whose transgression Psal 32. 1 2. is forgiven whose sin is covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity and in whose spirit there is no guile But St. Paul to the Corinthians having recited those notorious sins unto which unmortified and unregenerate men were subject and guilty of adds And such were some 1 Cor. 6. 11. of you but ye are washed but ye are sactified but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of his Grace Meaning that upon their conversion unto Christ their washing in Baptism their having received the Holy Ghost they were acquitted from their former sins and judged innocent and pure before him And the Author to the Hebrews tells us Hebr. 9. 26. how Christ as an High Priest once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself And to what end should any man multiply Texts to prove this to them who will affirm that all sin is damnable and grant that the Regenerate are not in a state of Damnation then surely they are not properly sinners or guilty I speak of the state of Remission and Absolution and as such as all Infants baptised are And the grown Christian because he may and is most prone to incur new sins after such absolution and purgation is not therefore to be said not to have been truly absolution and purgation is not therefore to be said not to have been truly freed from the guilt of sin passed before his baptism and thorow repentance For that this may happen experience and the testimony of St Peter witnesseth For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world 2. Pet. 2. 20. through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ they are again entangled therein and overcome the latter end is worse with them than the beginning And what do they but in effect come off from their opinion of sinfulness in that Concupiscibleness rather than Concupiscence in the Regenerate who after all plainly grant that there is no guilt remaining in it of it self and thus answer the argument which proveth that it is no such sin as they hold because Original sin is the death of the soul and makes a man an enemy to God but Concupiscence in the Regenerate doth not this thus Original sin doth not cause spiritual death but only as it is linked with guilt but pardon being obtained in Baptism the guilt is taken away and makes not any man lyable to wrath but as he is found in the old Adam so soon as a man is of the number of the Regenerate he is found in the new Adam i. e. in Christ Now would it be known how any thing of the true nature of sin may be separated from guilt which is too hard for me to apprehend they being so intimately coupled together and convertible that as there cannot be conceived any guilt without sin so neither any sin without guilt And if they say the guilt is done away in Baptism or Repentance I will say the sin is done away too and maintain it If they had distinguished between the effects and fruits of Original sin and the sin it self the matter had been much plainer and easier and by their manner of proceeding in this Question it should seem they only drive at this For I grant what they allow that Baptism doth not free from all corruption of Original sin such as are blindness of the Mind and debility of the Will to embrace good entirely and infirmities of the body which by a Metonymie are called sin sometimes but the guilt it must necessarily or do nothing at all but what Calvine and Perkins and Cartwright and many dancing after their Pipe to the scandal of the Sacraments and the Reformation admit us into the outward communion of the Church and signifie the pardon of our sins from all eternity without including Baptism or Repentance which is made no more then a sign too I conclude this