to be in regard of the world to come what would he have Christians to be but Libertines and Rebels True it is God imposeth it not as upon his subjects but tendreth it as to his rebels for the condition upon which they may become his subjects instead of his rebels And that is a just reason why it is called a Covenant rather than a Law And that reason justly reproves the Leviathans imagination that it can oblige neither more nor less than the Law of Nature For being positive as tendred by the meer will of God and upon what terms he pleased as the Precepts thereof which are Gods Laws to his Church and the institution of the Church it selfe is meerly positive there is no reason at all to presume that the moral Precepts which are in force under it are bounded by the Law of Nature Though whether it be so or not I undertake not here to determine But we know what S. Paul saith Rom. III. 27. Where is boasting It is shut out By what Law Not by the Law of works but by the Law of Faith That is by the Gospel which requireth that Faith of which I am inquiring wherein it consists for the condition of obtaining the promises which it tendreth And S. James 11. 8. 12. If ye fulfill the Royall Law which saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self ye do well And So speak ye and so do ye as being to be judged by the Law of Libertie For the liberty of being Gods subjects and under Gods royall Law the Gospel giveth Neither is S. Paul otherwise to be understood when he saith Rom. VIII 2. The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the Law of sin and of death The imbracing of the Gospel being the Law that is the condition upon which we become partakers of the Holy Ghost free from sin and from death And truly I cannot but pity the blindness of error so oft as I remember that I have heard Antinomians alledge the words of the Prophet Jer. XXXI 31 -34. quoted by the Apostle to show the difference between the first and second Covenant Heb. VIII 8 -11. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will settle with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers when I tooke them by the hand and brought them out of the Land of Aegypt for they abode not in my Covenant and I neglested them saith the Lord For this is the Covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord Putting my Laws into their mind I will also write them upon their hearts and I will be to them for their God and tâ—ey to me for my people Neither shall they teach every man his neighbour and every man his Brother saying Know the Lord For they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest I say I cannot but pity them that upon these words ground themselves that the Covenant of Grace is a meer free promise not onely freely made for so I say it is free for what but Gods goodness moved him to tender it but freely without condition contracted for at their hands For cannot God by his Prophet foretell the effect of the Covenant of Grace but he must be presumed to set down the terms of it And if he express them not there is he the less free to demand them when he tenders them Especially the Covenant it self being to remain a secret till Gods time to reveal it I say then that this Prophesie hath taken full effect in the lives of those who submitting themselves to the terms of Christianity have received of God the gift of the Holy Ghost to understand their profession that they might live according to it But that this gift of the Holy Ghost that is to say the habituall assistance thereof neither was due nor bestowed but upon supposition of Chnstianity professed by baptisme which God by our Lord Christ hath revealed to be the condition which he requireth of them that will injoy the same CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of chatechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case BUT I am now come to the argument that is to be drawn from the practise of the universall Church to my purpose And truly he that shall consider for what reason the Apostles should require those whom they had converted to be baptized will find himselfe intangled in rendring it unless he settle the ground of it upon the obligation of professing true Christianity And the effect of it in admitting to the unity of the Church which may require the performance and maintain the exercise of it And the consequence thereof they that are or shall be imployed by the Church to preach to unbelievers will find to be such that either they must insist upon the terms which I hold with them or they shall make them but aequivocall Christians That is such as may wear the Cross of Christ to man for a cognizance but not in the obligation of their hearts to God rather to suffer death than either to profess or act against that which he hath taught The next point in the visible practice of the Catholick Church is the custome of catechizing The circumstances whereof for time and manner though no man can mantain to have been the same in all Churches yet it may be argued to have been generally a time of triall for them that had been wonne to believe the truth of Christianity how they were likely to apply themselves to live like Christians and what assurance or presumption the Church might conceive that they would not betray the profession thereof And therfore I appeal to the common sense of all men whether they that exercised this course did not admit men to Christianity and baptism upon the condition of professing and undertaking so to do Besides those things which I alledged in the first Book in the Constitutions of the Apostles in the most ancient Canons of the Church and generally in all Church writers we read of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidelium In English the dismission of Scholars and the dismission of Believers Because during the Psalms during the reading of the Scriptures expounding the same reason was that learners should be present as well for their instruction in Christianity as for discharge of their â—uty in the praises of God and prayers to God Though the same prayers were not to be offered to God for Learners as for believers but they were to be dismissed with peculiar prayers of the Church for their particular estate such as yet are extant in the ancient Offices of the
how turn ye back againe to those weake and beggarly rudiments to which ye desire to be in bondage againe Ye observe dayes and monthes and seasons and yeares For the observation of legall Festivals according to the moneths and seasons of the yeares is indeed obedience to that God by whose Law the difference is made But when their conceits of themselves transports them to imagine that God esteems them for these things whereby he hath differenced them from other nations and that it cannot stand with that esteem that he should receive the Gentiles into favour upon undertaking that spirituall obedience which Christ publisheth not tying that to the same Worthily are they called by the Apostle weak and beggerly rudiments that did onely prepare them to this obedience by tying them to the true God and his outward service And is not the precept of circumcision in the first place which obliges to all the precepts and intitles to all the promises of this nature Hear S. Paul to the Philipians III. 3. 6. among whom this leaven began to spread◠We are the circumcision saith he that serve God in the Spirit and glory in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh Though I have confidence in the flesh also If any other man seem to have confidence in the flesh I more Circumcised the eighth day of the race of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin an Hebrew of Hebrews also concerning the Law a Pharisee as concerning zeal one that persecuted the Church as concerning righteousnesse that is by the law blamelesse Are not all these priviledges of that nation by virtue of Moses Law and of circumcision which obliges to it And is not that confidence of righteousnesse which is by the Law which S. Paul disclaimes though he claime as good a title to it as any Jew beside I say is not that it which moved the Jews out of zeal to the Law to persecute the Church And can that righteousnesse which moveth to persecute Christianity be thought to presuppose it Therefore what S. Paul meanes by confidence in the flesh we must learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews IX 9. 10. Where the tabernacle is called a Parable or figure for the then present time in which gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not profit him that ministred as to conscience being onely imposed upon meates and drinkes and severall Baptismes and righteousnesses of the flesh untill the time of reformation came Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those carnall and bodily rites which obtaine that carnall righteousnesse which answereth the carnall and earthly promises of the Law and were mistaken by them for meanes of obtaining resurrection unto life and the world to come which under the Law so given they had neverthelesse just cause to expect though not in consideration of such observations Another argument hereof we have from S. Paul which to me seems peremptory in that he opposeth that grace and faith whereby Christians are justified to those works which Gentiles by the Law and light of nature were able to do Which works certainly do not suppose Christianity Ephes II. 8 9. For by grace are ye saved through the Faith and that not of your selves it is Gods gift Not of workes least any man should glory There is nothing moremanifest then that the Church of the Ephesians when S. Paul wrote this Epistle was gathered of those that had been Gentiles as you may see by Ephes II. 11 12. III. 1 6. Wherefore when S. Paul sayes to them being presently Christians that they were not saved by works least they should glory it is manifest that his meaning is that their conversation before the Gospel came could not move and oblige God to provide them the meanes of Salvation which it tendereth Againe S. Paul exhorting Timothy to suffer hardship for the Gospel according to the power of God who saith he hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and the grace that is given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting ages 2 Tim. I. 9. speaketh of the same Ephesians whose Pastor Timothy was at that time But most fully Titus III. 4 7. But when the goodnesse and love to men of God our Saviour appeared not of workes which we had done in righteousnesse saved he us but according to his own mercy by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed upon us richly through our Saviour Jesus Christ that being justied by his grace we might become heirs of everlasting life according to hope For that those whom Titus had in charge were Christians converted for the most part of Gentiles appeares by the Apostles words Titus I. 10. For there be many and those rebellious vaine talkers and cheaters especially they of the circumcision whose mouthes must be stopped And in the words that goe next afore the passage alledged there is a lively description of the conversation of the Gentiles For of Jewes he could not have said We also were once foolish disobedient wandring out of the way in slaved to divers lusts and pleasures living in malice and envy hatefull and hating one another Titus III. 3. Seeing then that it concerns the Gentiles as well as the Jews which the Apostle argues that men are not justified by works but by grace and by faith it is manifest that he meanes such works as the Gentiles might pretend to no lesse then the Jews and that while they were Gentiles because he speakes of that estate in which the Gospel overtook them And therefore when S. Paul denies that men are justified by works he meanes those works which men are able to do before they are acquainted with the preaching of the Gospel whether by the light and Law of nature or by the meere instruction of Moses Law For though the law of Moses containe in it many morall precepts of true and inward and spirituall obedience the observation whereof is indeed the worship of God in Spirit and in truth Yet we must consider that the same precepts are part of the law of nature written in the hearts even of Gentiles And we must consider further that these precepts may be obeyed and done two severall wayes First as farre as the outward work and the kinde and object of it goes and further as farre as the reason of it derived from the will and command of God and the intention thereof directed to his honour and service Which purpose of heart cannot be in any man but him that loves God above this world making him the utmost end of all his actions I say then that of those morall precepts of Moses law which are parts of the law of nature the outward and bodily observation goes no further then the observation of other rituall and civil precepts of the same law And therefore is to be comprised in the account of those works of the Law by which S. Paul denies deservedly that we
principles to spirituall good can no way impeach it as coming from the constitution of our nature supposing the ornaments and additions of grace to be removed The opinion of the fulfilling of Gods Law by Christians supposes that the remaines of concupiscence in the regenerate and the immediate effects thereof in the first motions to sinne which cannot be prevented are not against Gods Law but onely besides it From whence it will follow that he who of his free will imbraces Christianity and perseveres in the good works which it injoyneth meriteth of justice the reward of the Life to come And truly for my part I cannot deny that all this is justly pleaded against those that are of this opinion and cannot by them justly be answered But that this opinion is injoyned by the Church of Rome I cannot understand seeing divers learned Doctors of the Schools alledged by Doctor Field for the opposition which he maketh to this opinion and that very truly and justly shewing infallibly that the contrary opinion is allowed to be maintained in the communion of the Church of Rome And that nothing hath been done since the authors whom he alledgeth to make this unlawfull to be held amongst them I suppose it will be enough to produce the decree of the Council of Trent since which it is evident that it is lawfull among them to maintaine that concupiscence is originall sinne For though the decree declareth that the Church never understood concupiscence in the regenerate to be truly and properly sinne but to be so called as proceeding from sinne and inclining to sinne Yet in as much as it is one thing to speak of concupiscence in the regenerate another in the unregenerate and in as much as it is one thing to declare the sense of the Church according to the opinion of the Synode another to condemn the contrary sense as opposite to the Faith it is manifest that this declaration condemns not those that hold originall concupiscence to be originall sinne but onely shewes that they could not answer the difficulty of originall sinne in the regenerate On the other side it cannot be justly said so farre as I understand that those of the Reformation do affirme that the grace given to Adam at his creation was due to his nature in this sense and to this effect as if they did intend to deny that he was created in such an estate and to such a condition of happinesse as the principles and constitution of his nature do not necessarily require But onely this That the gifts which by his creation he stood indowed with were necessary to the purchase of that happinesse which he that is to say his nature was created to whereupon they are justly called the indowments of nature Here I must not omit the opinion of Catharinus in the Council of Trent That Adam received originall righteousnesse of God in his own name and the name of his posterity to be continued to them he obeying God Whereupon his disobedience iâ— in Law their disobedience though in nature onely his and the act of his transgression imputed to them is their originall sinne as personall as the penalties of it No otherwise then Levâ— paid Tithes in Abraham Many passages of S. Augustine he had to alledge for this as also a Text of the Prophet Osee and another of Ecclesiasticus But especially the expresse words of S. Paul That by the inobedience of one man many are made sinnerâ— And That by sinne death came into the world which surely came into the world by the actuall transgression of Gods commandment Alledging that Eve found not her self naked till Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit Nor had originall sin been had the matter rested there And by this reason he thought he avoided a difficulty not to be overcome otherwise how the lust of generation can give a spirituall staine to the soul which must needs be carnall if it come from the flesh And by this meanes nothing but an action which transgresseth Gods Law shall be sinne which all men understand by that name This opinion the History saith was the more plausible among the Prelates there as not bred Divines but Canonists or versed in businesse and so best relishing that which they best understood to wit the conceit of a civile contract with Adam in behalfe of his posterity as well as himself To give a judgement of this opinion I shall do no more but remit the reader to those Scriptures which I have produced to shew that there is such a thing as originall sinne concluding that the nature of it wherein it consists must be valued by the evidence of it whereby it appeares that it is It will then be unavoidable that when death is the effect of sinne because righteousnese is the cause of life as Adams sinne is the cause of his death so the death of his posterity depends upon their own unrighteousnesse Why else should Christianity free us from death as hath been shewed Why should S. Paul complain of the Law that he found in his members opposing the Law of righteousnesse why should the flesh fight with the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh be opposite to the fruits of the Spirit but that the same opposition of sinne to righteousnesse is to be acknowldged in the habituall principles as in the actuall effects which proceed from the same As for that onely text of S. Paul in which he could find any impression of his meaning if the reader observe the deduction whereby I have shewed that S. Pauls discourse obliged him to set forth the ground whereupon the coming of Christ and his Gospel became necessary to the salvation both of the Jews and Gentiles he will easily find that the question is of the effective not of the formall cause that S. Paul is not ingaged to shew wherein that source of sinne which our Lord Christ came to cure consisteth but from whence it proceedeth True it is when the posterity suffers losse of estate and honour for the Fathers treason it may properly be said that the Fathers crime is imputed to the posterity Not because any reason can indure that what is done by one man should be thought to be done by another but because the effect of what one man does may justly be either granted to or inflicted upon another whether for the better or for the worse As in a civile state suppose the Laws make treason to forfeit lands and honours which every man sees are held by virtue of the Lawes that posterity which hath no right to them but from predecessors and the obligation which they had to maintaine the state should forfeit them by the act of predecessors is a thing not strange but reasonable Though so that the forfeiture may transgresse the bounds of reason and humanity if the Law should not allow posterity or kindred to live in that state to which predecessors have forfeited when there is so much cause to believe that the
Certainly the word Do this is that which the whole action is grounded upon as pretending to execute it and therefore the effect of it so far as consecrating the Eucharist is already come to passe when the Church may say This is our Lords Body this is his bloud as our Lord said This is my body this is my bloud But the strength of this resolution I confesse lies in the consent of the Church and those circumstances visible in the practice thereof which to them that observe them with reason are manifest evidences of this sense I have observed in a Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church p. 347-370 the passâ—ges of divers of the most ancient Writers of the Church in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving thanks is put for consecrating the Eucharist Unto which adde the words of Irenaeus in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 20. concerning the then Bishop of Rome Anicetus when Polycarpus was there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hee gave way to Polycarpus to celebrate the Eucharist For seeing that this Sacrament that is the Elements consecrated are called the Eucharist all over the Church from this thanks-giving the act thereof passing upon them to give them by way of Metonymie this name What can be more reasonable than to grant that it is this act and not the rehersal of the words of the Gospel which relate what our Lord did and said in instituting as well as celebrating it by which the consecâ—ation is performed Though on the oâ—her side I insist that these words have alwayes been rehearsed by the Church in consecrating the Eucharist and ought still to be frequented and among them those which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body This is my bloud which now the whole School thinks to be the onely operâ—tive words in that change which the making of the Elemâ—nts to become the Sacrament imports I have also showed in the same place that S. Paul when hee saith 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. For if thou blesse by the Spirit hee that fills the place of an Idâ—ot or private perâ—on how shall hee say the Amen upon this thanks-giving For hee knoweth not what thou sayest For thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified by blessing and giving thanks means the consecrating of the Eucharist which thoâ—e that hâ—d the grâ—ce of Languages among the Corinthians undertook then to do in unknown tongues and are therefore reproved by the Apostle Because it may appear by the constant practice of the whole Church that it ended with an Amen of the people which S. Paul therefore calls the Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that was used in that case And also that when hee writeth to Timothy I exhort therefore first of all to make supplications prayers intercessions thanks-givings for all men For Kings and all that are in eminence that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and gravity hee intends to châ—rge that at the celebration of the Eucharist which here hee calleth Thanks-givings prayers be made as for all states of men so especially for publick Powers and Princes Because S. Augustine S. Ambrose and the Author de Vocatione Gentium I. 12. do expresly testifie unto us that the custome which the Church then and always afore and since hath had to do this came from this Ordinance of S. Paul and containeth the fulfilling of it And because it is manifest by all the forms of Liturgie in all Churches that are yet extant and by the mention made of the maner of it upon occasion in the writings of the Fathers that the Eucharist was never to be celebrated without prayer for all states of Christs Church And this indeed is a great part of the evidence which I pretend There are extant yet in several Languages several Liturgies that is forms of that complete Service of God by Psalmes and Lessons and Sermons and Prayers the Crown whereof was the Eucharist as that of S. Mark of S. James of S. Peter S. Basil S. Chrysostome which are the forms that were used in their Churches of Alexandria Jerusalem Rome Caesarea Constantinople though not as they had from the beginning appointed but as Prelates of authority and credit had thought fit to adde to or take froâ— or châ—nge that which they from the beginning had appointed There is besides the Canon of the Roman Masse that is the Canonical or Regular Prayâ—r which the Eucharist is consecrated with which is the same in Latine with that of S. Peter in Greek upon the mater as of a truth the Greek is but the Translation of the Latine it seems for the use of these Greeks in Italy that follow the Church of Rome and that of S. Ambrose at Milane three translated out of Arâ—biâ—k by the Mâ—ronites at Rome the Ethiopick translated â—into Latine many Canons called by them Anaphora in the Maronites Missal lately printed at Rome in the Syriack one of the Christians of S. Thomas in the East-Indies in Latine In all these you shall observe a Prayer to begin where the Deacon formerly saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts the people answered Habemus ad Dominum Wee lift them up unto the Lord. The subject of it is at least where any length is allowed it to praise God for creating the world and maintaining Man-kind through his providence with the fruits of the earth Then after acknowledgement of Adams Fall for using first those means of reclaiming Man-kind unto God which wee find by the Scriptures that it pleased God to use under the Law of Nature first by the Patriarches then under the Law of Moses by the Prophets then sending our Lord Christ to redeem the world Upon which occasion rehearsing how hee instituted the Eucharist at his last Supper prayer is made that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may sanctifie them to become the body and bloud of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with his Grace This being so visible in so many of these Liturgies shall wee say that all that followes after the Deacons warning let us give thanks makes up that which the ancient Church after S. Paul by a peculiar term of art as it were calls the Eucharist or Thanksgiving Or that the Sacrament which taketh the name from it is consecrated onely by rehearsing those words which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body this is my bloud Especially all reason in the world inforcing that the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being that which God promiseth upon the observation and performance of his institution and appointment cannot be ascribed to any thing else In the Latine Masse before the rehersal of the Institution they pray thus Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis
and ruled the whole Church and might as easily make his corruptions generall as Christ Christianity But if it were meerly their saying to make it a Tradition of the Apostles what shall we say of Pelagius For they must pardon me who think that the hatred of his Heresie brought the baptism of Infants into force More generall it might deservedly make it For by the condemning of his Heresie the danger of Infants going out of the world was conâ—eâ—â—ed But it was the Baptism of Infants being in force afore that made his opinion an Heresie as making the necessity of Baptism visible as supposed by all Christians and therefore the truth of Original sin Pelagius was not so very a fool as they imagine If all the knowledge that a man of his time could get by seeing all parts of the Church would have served for an exception to the authority of the baptism of Infants he might have wrangled with his adverse party about the exposition of those Scriptures which are alleadged in the point till this day and his opinion have found footing in the Church But because he could not sâ—op mens eyes so as not to see what they saw we may for wantonnesse betray the cause of God by letting the interpretation of the Scriptures loose to every mans fancy which God had appointed to be confined within the Tradition of his Apostles but they could not chuse but condemn that position which the visible practice of the Church proclaimed to be Heresie Thus farre then I proceed upon the Tradition of the Apostles to make the Baptism of Infants necessary in case of necessity that is of danger of death But I that condemn not the ancients for disputing that it ought not to be generall nor the Greek Church for reserving it till years of discretion supposing the means of it reasonably secured in that case am not like to attribute the necessity of baptizing all Infants which the present Laws of the Church do introduce to the tradition of the Apostles but to the original power of the Church founded upon the constitution thereof in determining the circumstances of those offices which being incumbent upon the Church are not determined by any law of either of his Apostles For though I take not upon me to say that there can no reason be given why this particular should not now be so determined as we see it is who do acknowledge great reasons to have been alleadged by the ancients to the contrary for their time yet I see so many ways for the misunderstanding and the neglect of Christianity to creep upon the Church that I cannot see sufficient reason why the Church should trust the conscience of particular Christians whom it concerned to see to the baptism of all Infants that might come into that case now that the world was come into the Church and that therefore the Church could not have the like presumption of the conscience of all that professed Christianity in the discharge of an office of that concernment to that which it might reasonably have while it was under persecution and men could not be thought to imbrace Christianity but for conscience sake And therefore as I do maintain it alwaies to have been within the lawfull power of the Church to make a generall Law as now it is so I must averre that there was just reason and ground for the exercise of that power in determining this point whither as in the East with some toleration of those whom they had confidence in for seeing to the baptizing of their Infants in danger of death or generally as in the West to see the occasion of mischiefe and scandall prevented by doing it presently after birth And therefore those that forsake the unity of the Church â—ather then be subject to a Law which it may lawfully make as I have showed if that which hath been resolved of the difference between Heresie and Schism be true cannot avoid being schismaticks As for the ground of that opinion which moves them to break up the seal of God marked upon those that are baptized unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity by baptizing them anew to the hope of salvation without the obligation of Christianity whether they are to be counted Hereticks therefore or not let who will dispute This I may justly inferre they take as sure a course to murther the souls of those whom they baptize again as of those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized There remains two questions which seem to make this resolution hard to believe If there be no salvation without Baptism no not for the Infants of Christians it is demanded what becomes of their souls and whither they go I must needs allow that those ancient and later Divines alledged by Cassander and our Hooker after him had reason to entertain a charitable hope of the happinesse of those who being prevented by the inevitable casualties of mans life of attaining the Sacrament of Baptism are accompanied out of the world by the prayers of Christian Parents commending them to God with the same affections wherewith they alwaies vowed them to God by bringing them to Christianity so soon as they should become capable to be instructed in it But if I will stand to the bounds of Gods revealed will I must also say that this hope is presumed without book that is without any Law of God to warrant the effect of it For if God promise the Kingdom of heaven to Infants that depart after Baptism as the reasons premised and the practice of the Church make evidence nothing hindreth the mercy of God to extend to those that depart without it where nothing hindreth the power of his grace to regenerate without the Sacrament those whom he hath not expressed that he will not regenerate But this shall not proceed from any obligation of his Covenant of Grace nor tend to make good the evidence thereof which the practice of the Church createth And therefore shall make onely a presumption of what may be and not of what is I find that Arminius had further a doubtful conceit that all Infants departing without Baptism are to be saved by the virtue of Gods second Covenant and the death of Christ upon which it is grounded God having extended both as farre as sinne by the first Adam extendeth But the publication of the second Covenant and the intent of Christs death upon which it is grounded being conditional as hath been showed I suppose it is not enough to intitle Infants to the benefit thereof that they never did any thing to refuse it Otherwise what cause is there why all the Gentiles that go out of the world without hearing of Christianity should not be saved by virtue of it notwithstanding all that they sinne against the Law of nature Because the New Covenant is to take effect where it is not refuted and sinnes against the Law of nature cannot be constrained as a refusall of the
Of the Prophets and righteous men under the Law Abraham and Rahab the harlot justified by Workes if justified by Faith The promises of the Gospel depend upon works which the Gospel injoyneth The Tradition of the Church 52 CHAP. X. What Pelagius questioneth concerning the Grace of Christ what Socinus further of the state of Christ before his birth The opposition between the first and second Adam in S. Paul evidenceth original sinne Concupisence in the unregenerate and the inability of the Law to subdue it evict the same The second birth by the holy Ghost evidenceth that the first birth propagateth sin 66 CHAP. XI The old Testament chargeth all men as well as the wicked to be sinful from the wombe David complaineth of himself as born in sin no lesse then the Wise man of the children of the Gentiles How Leviticall Laws argue the same And temporal death under the Old Testament The book of Wisdome and the Greek Bible 76 CHAP. XII The Heresie of Simon Magus the beginning of the Gnosticks That they were in being during the Apostles time Where and when the Heresie of Cerintâ—us prevailed and that they were Gnosticks The beginning of the Encratites under the Apostles It is evident that one God in Trinity was then glorified among the Christians by the Fulnesse of the Godhead which they introduced in stead of it 80 CHAP. XIII The Word was at the beginning of all things The apparition of the old Testament Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters The word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name No Angel honoured as God under the New Testament The Word was with God at the beginning of all things as after his return 89 CHAP. XIV The Name of God not ascribed to Christ for the like reason as to creatures The reasons why the Socinians worship Christ as God do confute their limitations Christ not God by virtue of his rising again He is the Great God with S. Paul the true God with S. John the onely Lord with S. Jude Other Scriptures Of the form of God and of a servant in S. Paul 94 CHAP. XV. Not onely the Church but the World was made by Christ The Word was made flesh in opposition to the Spirit How the Prophets how Christians by receiving the Word of God are possessed by his Spirit How the title of Sonne of God importeth the Godhead How Christ is the brightnesse and Image of God 100 CHAP. XVI The testimonies of Christs Godhead in the Old Testament are first understood of the figures of Christ Of the Wisdome of God in Solomon and elsewhere Of the writings of the Jewes as well before as after Christ 112 CHAP. XVII Answer to those texts of Scripture that seem to abate the true Godhead in Christ Of that creature whereof Christ is the first-born and that which the Wisdome of God made That this beliefe is the originall Tradition of the Church What means this dispute furnisheth us with against the Arians That it is reason to submit to revelation concerning the nature of God The use of reason is no way renounced by holding this Faith 116 CHAP. XVIII The necessity of the grace of Christ is the evidence of Original sinne How the exaltation of our Lord depends upon his humiliation and the grace of Christ upon that All the work of Christianity is ascribed to the grace of Christ Gods predestination manifesteth the same 133 CHAP. XIX Evidences of the same in the Old Testament Of Gods help in getting the Land of Promise and renewing the Covenant And that for Christs sake That Christianity cannot stand without acknowledging the grace of Christ The Tradition of the Church In the Baptism of Infants In the Prayers of the Church In the decrees against Pelagius and other records of the Church 140 CHAP. XX. Wherein Original sinne consisteth What opinions are on foot That it is not Adams sinne imputed to his posterity Whether man were at the first created to a supernatural end or not An estate of meer nature but innocent possible Original sinne is concupisence How Baptism voids it Concerning the late novelty in the Church of England about Original sinne 151 CHAP. XXI The opinion that makes the Predestination of mans will by God the sourse of his freedom And wherein Jansenius differs from it Of necessity upon suppositiou and absolute The necessity of the Will following the last dictate of the understanding is onely upon supposition As also that which Gods foresight creates The difference between indifferent and undetermined 163 CHAP. XXII The Gospel findeth man free from necessity though not from bondage Of the Antecedent and consequent Will of God Praedetermination is not the root but the rooting up of Freedom and Christianity Against the opinion of Jansenius 170 CHAP. XXIII A man is able to do things truly honest under Originall sinne But not to make God the end of all his doing How all the actions of the Gentiles are sinnes They are accountable onely for the Law of nature How all men have or have not Grace sufficient to save 181 CHAP. XXIV Though God determineth not the will immediately yet he determineth the effect thereof by the means of his providence presenting the object so as he foresees it will chuse The cases of Pharoah of Solomon of Ahab and of the Jews that crucified Christ Of Gods foreknowledge of future conditionalls that come not to passe The ground of foreknowledge of future contingencies Difficult objections answered 189 CHAP. XXV The grounds of the difference between sufficient and effectual How naturall occasions conduce to supernatural actions The insufficience of â—ansenius his doctrine Of sufficient grace under the Law of Moses and Nature 202 CHAP. XXVI Predestination to grace absolute to glory respective Purpose of denying effectuall Grace absolute of punishing respective The end to which God predestinates is not the end for which he predestinates Grace the reward of the right use of Grace How much of the question the Gospel dètermines not That our indeavours are ingaged no lâ—sse then if predestination were not it determineth Of the Tradition of the Church and of Semipelagians Predestinatians and Arminians 212 CHAP. XXVII The question concerning the satisfaction of Christ with Socinus The reason why Sacrifices are figures of Christ common to all sacrifices Why and what Sacrifices the Fathers had what the Law added Of our ransom by the price of Christs propitiatory Sacrifice 233 CHAP. XXVIII Christ took away our sinne by bearing the punishment of it The Prophesie of Esay LIII We are reconciled to God by the Gospel inconsidâ—cation of Christs obedience The reconcilement of Jews and Gentiles Men and Angels consequent to the saâ—e Of purging and expiating sinne by Christ and making propitiation for it Of Christs dying for us 238 CHAP. XXIX The grant of Grace in consideration of Christ supposes satisfaction made by him for sinne Neither
Christ how farre it is declared to us by the Scriptures and original Tradition of the Church Knowing neverthelesse that this being resolved the rest of the controversie concerning the holy Trinity necessarily falls to the ground of it self as having nothing whereupon to subsist when the everlasting Godhead of Christ is once maintained afore Now the ready way that I can think of to go through so great a dispute as briefly as is possible is to take in hand first the point of originall sinne in which the dispute between Pelagius and Socinus on the one side and the Church on the other side is grounded For therefore I hope it will appear the shortest way to dispatch the whole dispute because that being decided together with that which dependeth upon it as incident to it concerning the state of our Lord Christ before his coming in the flesh the rest will appear to consist either in controversies of Divines or in mistakes and disputes about words I begin with S. Paul because he it is who having laid forth the necessity of Christianity to the salvation as well of Jewes as of Gentiles in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romanes and in the fourth chapter by the Example of Abraham confirmed the same Or if you please answered the objection concerning the salvation of the Fathers before and under the Law proceeds in the fifth Chapter to lay forth both the ground upon which it is effectuall which is the death of Christ and the ground upon which it was necessary which is the sinne of Adam Thus then saith S. Paul Rom. V. 12 13 14. Therefore as by one man sinne entered into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all in whome all sinned For untill the Law sinne was in the world Now sinne is not imputed where there is no Law And yet death raigned from Adam until Moses even upon them that had not sinned after the likenesse of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that is to come It is said that the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be translated in asmuch as all had sinned To signifie that Spirituall death came after Adam upon all that had sinned as Adam did inasmuch as they had sinned For as for bodily death they believe not no more then Pelagius that it was the punishment of Adams sinne but the condition of mans birth Onely the troubles the cares the sorrowes by which men come to their graves these as they acknowledge to be consequences as of Adams sinne so of all those sinnes whereby men follow and imitate Adam so they think to be meant by the sentence In the day wherein thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death But this is no lesse then to deny the literall sense of the Scripture which the Church hath received for one of Origens errors in the interpretation of the beginning of Genesis What is it else to say That Adam was liable to bodily death by nature but to spiritual death by sinne For it is manifest by the premises that through all the Old Testament the second death is no otherwise preached then under the figure of the first death and that by virtue of the ground laid from the beginning that the Covenant of Grace which tendreth life and death everlasting was onely intimated under the Covenant of nature which the Law only received and limited to the happiness of the land of promise as to the Israelits tendring expresly only blessings and mercies of this life to the civil and outward obedience of Gods commandments And can it be imagined that in the very first tender that God made to man of life in consideration of obedience and death of disobedience this life and this death must be understood to be the second when the obedience was onely in abstaining from the forbidden fruit What was then that fruit of the tree of Life by eating whereof they might have preserved themselves from death I aske not what it signified but what it was For all reason will require admitting the premises that it signified that whereby the soul escapes spirituall death But the same reason will inforce that it must be the fruit of a tree which so long as they eat not of the tree of knowledge they were licensed to eat to preserve them from bodily death Neither is there any difficulty in that they aske How all the posterity of Adam should have come by the fruit of that tree that grew no where but in the garden of Eden For I suppose it had been as easie to have planted all parts of the world with the same tree as with the posterity of Adam had he continued in obedience Who being not driven out of Eden as upon his disobedience but sending his posterity to do that in the rest of the world which he did there had made all the world Eden by placing the Paradise of God wheresoever innocence dwelt In this case I see not why any man should take care for the tree of Life that no posterity of Adam might die No more then what should become of that innocent posterity which when it had so planted the World the counsel of God concerning the propagation of man kind may well be thought to have been come to ripenesse The Socinians indeed do alledge Josephus who speaking of the tree of life doth not say that it should have made man immortall but onely that it should have made him live to very great yeares But that is of no consequence In regard that it is not expressed in the Scripture that God would have had man live everlastingly upon the earth had he lived in obedience For supposing that it was a question among the Pharisees to which sect it appeares Josephus inclined most whether so or whether God would translate them to a heavenly life after a time of obedience here which to the Pharisees that acknowledge the resurrection and the world to come must needs seem credible enough it is no marvaile that Josephus should say That by virtue of the tree of life they had lived to a very great age though in case not translated they might as well have lived alwayes by virtue of it But let us hear S. Paul 1 Cor. XV. 21 22. For since by man came death by man also came the resurrection of the dead For as by Adam all died so by Christ shall all be made alive Is there any rising from bodily death but by Christ I say not any rising in the quality of those in whom the Spirit of Christ dwelleth of whom S. Paul saith that He who raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you Rom. VIII 11. But setting aside this quality it is the coming of Christ and his trump that raiseth againe even those that shall rise to judgement And can it for all this be doubted whether that life was lost by Adams fall which the rising of Christ shall
restore And supposing that Christ raises onely those that are Christs as S. Paul speaks it is their bodies that he raises at last and that from that death which came by Adam Seeing then it cannot be doubted that S. Paul when he saies that by one man came death meanes the death of the body and seeing death passed upon all it is manifest that Adams sin passed upon all upon whom the death passed which it brought after it For otherwise how can it be said sinne came into the world by one man Is it possible to imagine that all men should propose to themselves to imitate the sinne of Adam Not possible Supposing all Adams posterity sinners to God they may be understood all to have imitated their first Father Adam two wayes For in as much as they sinne against God as he first did they may be said to imitate him in doing the like of that which he did though they had no knowledge of what he did much lesse propose to themselves his example to do that wherein they are said to imitate him in sinning against God This I confesse may truly be said but not to S. Pauls purpose Who intends not to say wherein sinne consists as to say in doing what Adam did But from whence it proceeds that from thence he may shew how it is taken away Now if it be said that all men in sinning do imitate Adam as proposing his example to themselves in the nature of a motive so that therefore it might be said that sinne came into the world by one man and death by sin which the Apostles discourse requires This would be evidently false In as much as the greatest part of the sinnes of mankinde are and have been committed by them that never knew what Adam did so farre from proposing to themselves to do the like So that it cannot be avoided that by the sinne of Adam all sinne came into the world as well as all death And therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth to signifie in whom that is through whom all have sinned as Acts V. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the faith of his name 1 Cor. VIII 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall perish through thy knowledge For if it be said that it is not a handsome manner of speech that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom should relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man which it stands in such a distance from Let him be sure that there is nothing more ordinary in S. Pauls language then such transpositions And seeing death which I have shewed the Apostle speakes of hath equally passed upon all mankind it would be very impertinent to say that it passed upon all men in as much as every man had sinned And truly though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie in Greek in as much as all had sinned or so farre as every man had sinned or because all had sinned to wit in Adam by the same reason as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the language of the Poets signifies the same as in the beginning of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it seems to me evident that the sinne which S. Paul speakes of when he saies that Through the disobedience of one man sin came into the world and death by sinne is the sinne that every man does in the world And therefore when it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning must be through whom all men have sinned those sins which themselvs do For seeing there was mention of one man afore by whom sinne came into the world it is more reasonable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be personall relating to that one man through whom all have sinned then reall to signifie because all had sinned And so it is not said by these wordes that all Adams posterity did commit the sinne of Adam in his committing of it But it is said that all the sinne that Adams posterity commits comes by the meanes of Adams sinne that is originall sinne is not expresly but metonymically not formally but fundamentally signified in that all sinne is affirmed to come from that of Adam and evicence also in that death is said to come by it That which hath been said makes me stand astonished to see a Doctor of the Church of England acknowledge no further signification of the Apostles words As by one man sinne came into the world and death by sinne and so sinne passed upon all in whom all have sinned But this That Adam sinned first and so all his posterity after him So that by one man sinne came into the world because coming upon all it must needs come first upon the first Not because his sinne had any influence upon others to cause their sinnes For seeing Pelagius whom it concerned so much to maintaine that Adams sinne did no harme to his posterity having made it the ground of his Heresie could not neverthe lesse put off the force of these words without a shift of imitation though so pittifully â—ame that it could not reach the farre greater part of his posterity It may justly seem strange that he who pretends not to go any thing so farre as Pelagius should not allow that sense of them which Pelagius could not refuse But if he oversee that which obliged Pelagius to grant that they intend to set forth the meanes by which sinne came into the world the observing of it will be enough to exclude his devise For to let passe that which is peremptory in them the comparison between the first and second Adam by whom this Doctor will not deny the righteousnesse of Christians to come otherwise then as the first righteous whatsoever Pelagius or Socinus doe because I cannot void that issue in this place The very processe of S. Pauls dispute having first convicted both Jewes and Gentiles of sin then Chap. IV. shewed how that faith which he preached promiseth righteousnesse requireth us to understand that he comes now to set forth by what meanes this sinne on the one side and this righteousnesse on the other comes into the world Neither will the words of the text be so satisfied wherein we find the same sense repeated in divers expressions which are not all capeable of that equivocation whereof these words by one mans disobedience are For S. Paul saith not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man but according to the reasons premised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through whom all have sinned and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that is through the transgression of that one and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement to condemnation out of one besides on the otherside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift through Grace Rom. V. 12 15 16. And this shall serve for the present to shew how unable this conceit is to stand against the evidence of the words Reserving that which is most peremptory in the matter and the consequence of it till I come to shew that our Lord Christ
Church which they corrupted by denying these attributes to the man Jesus attributed the same things to him which they denying were therefore excluded out of the Church When S. John proceedeth saying We saw his glory as the glory of the onely begotten Sonne of God he refers to that which went afore he dwelt among us Now seeing it is so ordinary for the Jewes to call the majesty of God dwelling among men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word that S. John uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are obliged thereby to understand that the majesty of God dwelling among us in the tabernacle of Christs flesh bodily as figuratively it had done in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Jews declared it self notwithstanding by those glorious works which it wrought in his flesh to be what it was For the title of Sonne of God is given in the Old Testament to the Angels first and to the Messias when David saith Ps LXXXIX 18. I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the earth Whereby it is evident that this title in the Literall sense belonged first to David Of whom also he that will maintaine the difference between the literall and the Spirituall sense upon that ground which I setled before must maintaine those words of David Psal II. 7. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee To be said Now I suppose that those who expected the Messias to come as a temporall Prince to deliver the people of Israel from the yoke of their oppressors into the free use of that Law which they had received from God as did not onely the rest of the world when Christ came but even his own disciples before his rising againe could by no meanes be informed of that Spirituall kingdome which by the dwelling of the Word in our flesh was intended to be raised Which if it be true though they called the Messiah the Sonne of God as well as the Sonne of David yet is it impossible that they should conceive the same ground for which he is so called and by consequence understand the title in the same sense as we do And this difference of signification is necessary even in the understanding of the Gospel For when the Centurion saith at our Lords death Mark XV. 39. Of a truth this man was the Sonne of God It is not reasonable to imagine that he who dreamed not at all of his rising againe but was a meer heathen should call him the Sonne of God in that sense which we believe But either as Heathenisme allowed Sonnes of the Gods as some thinke or as by conversing with the Jews they had understood them to hold the Messias whom they expected to be the Sonne of God as Prince raised by God What shall we say then of the Apostles demand Vnto which of the angels said he at any time Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee When we find the title of Sonnes of God in the Old Testament attributed to Angels Surely it is necessary to have recourse to that sense in the which it was then known that Christians attributed this title to our Lord Still known by the honour which then and now the Church tendereth him according to it For what will all that Socinus acknowledgeth availe to make good the Apostles assumption when he saies that our Lord is the Sonne of God because conceived without man by the holy Ghost in the womb of a Virgine Is this any more then Adam may challenge for which he is called the Sonne of God Luke III. 38 For the effective cause entereth not into the nature of that which it produceth Neither importeth it any thing to the state of our Lord that he was conceived of the holy Ghost if we suppose nothing in him but a soul and a body which those that are born of man and woman have How then is the title of the Sonne of God incompetible to the Angels which Adam thus farre challenges If you look back upon the premises there remaines no doubt nor any way to escape it otherwise The holy Ghost overshadowing the blessed Virgine not onely workes the conception of a Sonne but dwells for ever according to the fullnesse of the Godhead in the manhood so conceived as by the nature of the Godhead planted in the Word which then came to dwell in the manhood so conceived Therefore that holy thing which is borne of the Virgine being called the Sonne of God is made so much above the Angels as the esteem which this name imports is above any thing that is attributed to them in the Scriptures Therefore is this Sonne of God honoured as God during his being upon earth by them that were instructed to understand the effect of it though they that were not disciples but took it onely for a title of the Messias which they knew he pretended to be perhaps conceived not so much by it Therefore our Lord himself poses the Pharisees how they would have David to understand the Messias to be his Lord whom they knew to be his Sonne Mat. XXII 42 45. Mark XII 35 37. Luke XX. 41 44. This is then that which S. Paul saith Col. I. 19. For in him it pleased God that all the fullnesse should dwell And Col. II. 9. 10. For in him dwelleth all the fullnesse of the Godhead bodily And Ye are filled through him Speaking of Christ I shewed you before that the heresies of that time some whereof it is manifest were then seducing the Colossians did all agree in preaching God the Father of all things to be unknown together with all that belonged to the compleating of the Godhead till they made him known And all this contrived by the devil to subvert the Faith of Christ by counterfeiting something like it in sound like false coyne to cozen the simple with Whereas therefore S. Paul here saith that the fullnesse of the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ And our Lord so often in S. Johns Gospel that the Father dwelleth in him and he in the Father And the fullnesse of the holy Ghost dwelleth in the Word incarnate as I shewed even now It is manifest that they laboured to introduce a counterfeit Fullnesse of the Godhead of their own devising into that esteem and worship which the fullnesse of the Godhead contained in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost preached by our Lord Christ and his Apostles challengeth And therefore that the fullnesse of the Godhead challenged by S. Paul to dwell in the flesh of Christ must stand in opposition to that fullnesse which these sects worshipped Being challenged by S. Paul as vindicating the Christian Faith from that corruption wherewith these Sects pretended to adulterate it And being challenged by those Sects in opposition to S. Paul and the Christian Faith which he vindicateth to rest in those whom they severally preached not in the Sonne and holy Ghost together with the Father as he maintaineth For when the fullnesse of
not did so order the meanes by which this obedience was effected or not that he might know that it would or would not come to passe And this preaching of the Gospel and the meanes and consequence of it being granted in consideration of Christ that the reason why such meanes was requisite is to be drawn from the fall of Adam and the corruption of mans nature by it And to this sense seeme the words of our Lord to belong John X. 28 29. I give my sheep eternal life nor shall they ever perish nor any man snatch them out of my hand My Father who gave me them is greatest of all nor can any man snatch them out of my Fathers hand Although it seems that he inlargeth the same sense to another effect John XVII 6 -12 I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world Thine they were and me thou gavest them and they have kept thy Word Now know they that whatsoever thou gavest me is from thee For the words that thou gavest me have I given them and they have received them and know of a truth that I am come forth from thee and thou hast sent me I ask for them I ask not for the world but for those that thou hast given me for they are thine And all mine are thine and thine mine and I am glorified in them And I am no more in the world but they are in the world and I come to thee Holy Father keep them in thy Name whom thou hast given me that they may be one as we When I was with them in the World I kept them in thy name These whom â—hou gavest me I kept nor is any of them lost but the Son of perdition that the Scripture may be fulfilled For afterwards it is said that our Lord spake to those that apprehended him to let his disciples go That the word which he had said might be fulfilled I have lost none of those whom thou gavest me John XVIII 9. But all this will not serve to make us believe that his then disciples alone were the men that the Father gave to Christ he having said expresly afterwards John XVII 20. I ask not for these alone but for those that shall believe in me through their word For this showes that he prayes for his then disciples in the common quality of disciples that is of Christians having other prayers to make for the world that is for those that were not As we see by and by John XVII 21. and Luke XXIII 34. But in that he saith so often that the Father had given them him from whose appointment the sufferings of Christ the power which he is advanced to the successe of the Gospel which he publisheth dependeth In that regard I conceive the helps of Gods grace by the second Adam whereby the breach made by the first is repaired necessarily to be implied in Gods giving unto our Lord Christ his disciples And of this sense much there is expressed by S. Paul Ephes I. 3. 11. Blessed God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that hath blessed us with every spirituall blessing in the heavens through Christ As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blamelesse before him in love Having foreappointed us to adoption to himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will To the praise of his glorious grace whereby he made us acceptable in the beloved Through whom we have redemption by his blood even the remission of â—â—nnes according to the riches of his grace which hath abounded to us in all wisdome and prudence Having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself at the dispensation of the fullnesse of times to restore all things both in heaven and in earth through Christ in whom also we have received our lots appoinâ—ed according to the purpose of him that effects all things according to the counsel of his will For not to insist upon the force of those terms and phrases which Saint Paul uses whatsoever blessings it may be said S. Paul hereby signifies to have been appointed to the Ephesians from everlasting as Christians I suppose it cannot be denied that he presupposes that they were also appointed from everlasting to be Christians to whom by so being those blessings should become due And all this so many times and so manifestly said to have been appointed in Christ or by Christ or through Christ that it cannot be questioned that not onely the Gospell by which they were brought to that estate but also the meanes that inforce it and the consequences whereby it takes effect all depend upon Christ and the consideration of his coming to destroy the works of the devil in our first parents CHAP. XIX Evidences of the same in the Old Testament Of Gods help in getting the Land of Promise and renewing the Covenant And that for Christs sake That Christianity cannot stand without acknowledging the grace of Christ The Tradition of the Church In the Baptisme of Infants In the Prayers of the Church In the decrees against Pelagius and other records of the Church IT remaineth now that I shew how the same truth is signified to us in the Old Testament whereof I will point out three sorts of passages tending to prove it and when they are put together making full evidence of it The first is of those wherein it is acknowledged that the inheritance of the Land of Promise is not to be ascribed to any merit or force of their own but to the goodnesse and assistance of God Then which nothing can be produced out of the New Testament more effectuall to shew that whatsoever tends to bring Christians to the kingdom of heaven is to be ascribed to the grace of God There being the same correspondence between the helps of spirituall Grace whereby Christians overcome their spirituall enemies and the help of God whereby the Israelites overcame the seven nations as between the kingdom of heaven and the land of Promise And therefore all those promises whereby God assures them of deliverance from their enemies and maintenance in the possession thereof all acknowledgements of Gods free gift whereby they held that inheritance argue no lesse concerning those helps whereby the children of the Church answering to the land of Canaan here are inabled to continue true spirituall members thereof and to attain the land of promise that is above I shall not need to produce many particulars of this nature whereof all the Old Testament affordeth good store That of Moses Deut. IX 3-8 I must not forget where assuring them of God to go along with them he warns them not to ascribe that favour to their one righteousnesse though he acknowledgeth that God imployes them to punish the seven nations but to his covenant with their Fathers And that God enabled them to cast
thence forth to recover man from the labor of sinne to which when he became mortall he was condemned to Paradise from whence he had been expulsed And therefore our Lord Christ according to S. Peter 1 Pet. IV. 18 19 20. going out of the world by that Spirit whereby he was made alive when he had been put to death in the flesh to wit speaking in his Apostles preached to the Spirits in prison that had been disobedient in the days of Noe Converting the Gentiles by the gift of his Spirit granted upon his sufferings who had refused the same in Noe the Preacher of righteousnesse 1 Pet. II. 5. When God said My Spirit shall no more strive with man Gen VI. 2. For the pilgrimage of the Patriarchs the Promise of the Land of Canaan the Law given by Moses was all but the further limitation and rule of that outward and civile conversation under which the traffique of Christianity was then driven by Prophets who spake by Gods Spirit This Reason Socinus being obliged to miskenne by making our Lord Christ a meer man cannot give that account of the grace of Christ before his coming which the Church doth Acquiting thereby my position That the Law covenanteth expresly onely for the Land of Promise of all suspicion of compliance with his intentions By this you see that Pelagius and Socinus both are carried out of the way of Christianity because they will not acknowledge the decay of mankind by the fall of Adam and the coming of Christ to repair it But those of Marseilles and the parts adjoyning in France that formalized themselves against S. Augustines doctrine of Predestination and effectuall Grace freely and heartily acknowledging Originall sin seem to have justified only upon the true interest of Christianity in that free will which the Covenant of Grace necessarily supposeth though mistaking their way out of humane frailty they failed of the truth though they parted with Pelagius They made faith or at least the beginning of faith and of will to beleive to repent and to turn unto God the work of free will in consideration whereof God though no way tied so to do grants the help of his Grace and Spirit to performe the race of faith Most truly maintaining according to that vvhich hath been professed in the beginning of this book that the act of true Faith is an act of mans free will which God rewardeth with his free Grace To wit with the habituall gift of his spirit inabling true believers to go through with that Faith which thereby they undertake as I have shewed you both these elsewhere Most expresly acknowledging the preaching of the Gospel going before in which whatsoever help the coming of our Lord Chirst hath furnished to move and winne the world to believe is involved But miskenning the grace of the Gospel granted by God in consideration of his obedience to make him a Church that might honour him for it If Pelagius acknowledged no more in the coming of Christ then to make his message appear to be true so that the imbracing of it might oblige God to grant his grace by preventing it with an act of free will complying with it The reason was not because this very tender being the purchase of our Lord Christs free obedience could be subject to any merit of man But because he was engaged to maintaine that we are borne in the same estate in which Adam was made needing nothing but Gods declaration of his will and pleasure towards the fulfilling of it But for them who acknowledge the decay of our nature by the fall of Adam and the coming of our Lord to repair the breaches of it to ascribe the grace which God furnisheth those that believe with for the performing of that which by believing they undertake to the act of freewill in believing which themselves acknowledge to be prevented by so many effects of Christs coming as the preaching of his Gospel necessarily involveth and which the Scriptures so openly acknowledge to be prevented by the Grace of his Spirit purchased by his sufferings must needs argue a great deal of difficulty in the question which the worse divines they appear must needs justifie them to be much the better Christians And indeed there is great cause to excuse them as farre as reason will give leave in a case wherein the Fathers that went afore Pelagius seem to be ingaged with them For it is ordinary enough to read them exhorting to lay out the indeavovrs of free will expecting the assistance of Gods Grace to the accomplishment of that which a man purposes And besides S. Augustine who acknowledges that before the contest with Pelagius he did think faith to be the act of free will which God blesseth with Grace to do as he professeth It cannot be denied that S. Jerome so great an enemy to the Pelagians with some others have expressed that which amounts to it But it is true on the other side that the same Fathers do frequently acknowledge the beginning as well as the accomplishment of our salvation to the grace of God Which is not onely an obligation so to expound their sayings when they set free will before grace as supposing the cure thereof begunne by Grace But also a presumption that those who expresse not the like caution are no otherwise to be understood Especially supposing expresly the motives of faith provided by the holy Ghost granted in consideration of our Lords sufferings in virtue whereof the resolution which is taken for the best must of necessity proceed though by the operation of the same Spirit whereby they are advanced and furnished It is therefore no doubt a commendable thing to excuse the writings of that excellent person John Casiane so farre as the common Faith will give leave as you may see the learned Vossius doth as speaking ambiguously in setting grace before free will sometimes as well as other whiles free will before Grace For Faustus his book De libero arbitrio I cannot say the same though I must needs have that respect for his Christian qualities which the commendations that I read of him in Sidoius Apollinaris deserve For besides that the stile of it is generally such as seems to make free will the umpire between the motions of grace and of sinne which ascribes the ability of well doing to God but the act to our selves that the Fathers under the Law of nature were saved by free will he delivers expresly with Pelagius An oversight grosse enough in any man that shall have considered upon what terms Christianity is to be justified against the Jews out of the Old Testament There is therefore appearance enough that the II Council of Orange which finally decreed against the heresie of Pelagius was held expresly to remove the offenses which that book had made And evidence enough that the articles of it are justified by the tradition of the whole Church For those prayers of the Church that way and subject of
Catechising which the Church tendered those who stood for Baptisme the subject of that Thanksgiving which the Eucharist was consecrated with do more effectually evidence the common sense of Christians in the mater of our common Christianity then the sayings of divines being solicitous so to maintaine the grace of God that the free will of man which the interest of our common Christianity equally obligeth us justly to maintaine may suffer no prejudice How much more when it is to be justified that those sayings of divines expounded by other sayings of their owne and principles evidently acknowledged by themselves can create no other sense then the necessity of preventing grace might the Church be able and obliged to proceed to those decrees Though as for the persons whom we do not find involved in any further censure then the mark set upon their writings by the See of Rome as there is cause to think that respect was had to them because their principles did not really ingage them in any contradiction to the faith of the Church So is there cause to think that being better informed in it by the treaty of that Council they surceased for the future all opposition to the decrees of it For the evidence of that which hath been said in the point of fact I remit the reader to my author so oft named with these considerations pointing out the consequence of each particular His ingenuity learning and diligence is such that I have neither found my self obliged to quarrel at any thing that he hath delivered in point of historicall truth nor to seek for more then he hath laid forth And by that which hath been said we presume not that the preaching of the Gospel is not the grace of Christ which Pelagius acknowledged necessary to salvation but that the determination of the will to imbrace that grace which the grace of the gospel tendereth is not effected by the will alone without those helps of grace which are granted in consideration of Christ though depending upon the preaching of the Gospel and the reasons and motives which it tendereth to imbrace it Here then you see I might have made a great book to set forâ—h those things which are commonly alledged by those that write of the great dispute between grace and free will now on foot to show what the Church insisted upon and what reasons it did proceed upon against Pelagius But because there is no question made of all this by those that deny the consequences of it it shall serve my turne to have pointed out the reasons of those consequences and now to take notice of this great dispute which is come in my way so crosse that it is not possible for me to voide the difficulties which I have undertaken concerning the Covenant of Grace without voiding of it For having first shewed that the condition which the Covenant of Grace requires on our part consists in an act of mans free will to imbrace and persevere in Christianity till death And now that man is not able to perform this condition without the help of Gods grace by Christ The question is at the height how the act of free will depends upon Gods free grace and a man becomes intitled to the promise for doing that which without the help of Gods grace he cannot do And this the greater because if the help of grace determine the free will of them that imbrace and persevere in Christianity so to do then it seems the sinne and damnation of those that do not so is to be imputed to the want of those helps and Gods appointment of not giving them to those that have them not CHAP. XX. Wherein Originall sinne consisteth What opinions are on foot That it is not Adams sinne imputed to his posterity Whether man were at the first created to a supernaturall end or not An estate of meer nature but innocent possible Originall sinne is Concupiscence How Baptisme voids it Concerning the late novelty in the Church of England about Originall sinne THIS inquiry must begin with the question about originall sinne wherein it consists because thereupon depends the question of the effect and consequence thereof which is to say what is the estate wherein the Gospel of Christ overtakes the naturall man For it is well enough known that there is a question yet on foot in the Church Whether Originall sinne do consist in Concupiscence or in the want of Originall righteousnesse which having been planted in our first parents their posterity ought to have And whosoever thinks there can be little difficulty in this dispute little considers the difficulty that S. Augustine found in satisfying the Pelagians how Concupiscence can be taken away by Baptisme which all Christians find to remaine in the regenerate Seeing there can be no question made that Originall sin is taken away by Baptisme Christianity pretending to take away all sinne and Baptisme being the solemn execution of Christianity that is the solemn profession of the Christian faith This is evidently the onely difficulty that driveth so many of the Schoole Doctors to have recourse not onely to S. Anselms devise of the want of originall righteousnesse but to another more extravagant speculation of a state of pure nature which God might have created man in had he not thought more fit of his goodnesse to create him in a state of supernaturall grace that is to say indowed with those gifts and graces that might inable him to attaine that happinesse of the world to come which is now promised to Christians This state of pure nature they hold to be liable to concupiscence as the product by consequence of the principles of mans nature compounded of a materiall and spirituall a mortall and immortall substance and originally inclined the one to the sensual good of the body the other to the spiritual good of the soul here which the eternal good of it is consequent to in the world to come The nature of man liable to this condition they say was prevented by supernaturall grace as a bridle to rule and moderate the inclination of nature not to come into effect so long as so over-ruled But so that this grace being forfeited by the rebellion of Adam consequently it came into effect without more adoe and that by consequence originall sinne cannot consist in this opposition between the inclinations to sensuall and spirituall good which man hath but in the want of that grace from whence it proceedeth This controversie Doctor Field in his learned work of the Church counteth to be of such consequence that he maintaineth all the difference which the Reformation hath with the Churche of Rome about Justification free will the merit of good works and the fulfilling of the Law and the like to be grounded upon it so that there can be no cause of difference supposing it to be set aside His reason is because the opinion of Justification by inherent righteousnesse supposes that the reluctation of our sensuall
forfeiture may be an instruction to them if once they believe that it was by just Law This justice then and the ground of it is the onely reason why the predecessors fault is truly said to be imputed to his posterity But between God and mankind in the forfeit of Adam by the precept given him there cannot be understood any contract by virtue whereof posterity that did not the act can be liable to the punishment of it And therefore we must distinguish between the imputing of one mans sinne to another formally so as to punish a man for another mans sin which if he concurred to the act may be just otherwise not And effectively in the nature of a meritorious cause which reduceth it self to the effective when in consideration of one mans sinne another is made subject to that evil which he should have been free from otherwise And according to this distinction though the posterity of Adam is liable to much evill in consideration of his sin yet is not this evil properly the punishment of it but the effect of the same will of God in propagating mankind with the staine of concupiscence which takes place in maintaining understanding creatures to do all that sinne which God might have hindred them from doing had he not thought it better to draw good out of evil then utterly to prevent it And this is no more then the correspondence between the first and second Adam which S. Paul proceeds upon Rom. V. inferreth For I have shewed already that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed to any man formally and immediately so as to say that any man is justified by Gods deputing our Lord Christ for his benefit personally excluding those for whom he was not deputed And I have shewed againe that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to all Christians effectively and in the nature of a meritorious cause In as much as have shewed that those helps of grace without which no man is able to imbrace Christianity as it is to be imbraced are granted by God in consideration of his merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose And that which remaineth for me to shew in due place is this That that disposition which qualifieth for the promises of the Gospel being brought to passe in any man by those helps obliges not God to grant those promises which the Gospel rewards it with by any worth in it self but by virtue of Gods grace in consideration of Christs merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose By which correspondence it may appear that those who can perswade themselves that the posterity of Adam are bound to answer for the sin of his fall as their own act cannot stand bound to acknowledge a Christian to whom the merits of the sufferings of Christ are imputed upon the same terms obliged to any condition upon which his right to the promises of the Gospel can depend being once due to him by virtue of Christs merits and sufferings deputed to be personally his As on the contrary those that acknowledge the merits and sufferings of Christ to be justly imputed to the persons of those whom he was sent to redeem cannot stand bound to acknowledge the posterity of the first Adam to be liable to concupiscence by his fall seeing the coming of Christ for the redemption of those whom God thereby should please to exempt from the common imputation thereof would be no lesse effectuall to the voiding of that condemnation which it contracted then supposing what ever disease of our nature concupiscence coming in by his fall may signifie So that supposing the immediate and personall imputation of the fall of Adam to all his posterity of the merits and suffering of Christ to all those for whom they are appointed the evil which mankind suffereth by the meanes of Adams fall is properly the punishment of his sinne the good which it receiveth by the meanes of Christs sufferings is the reward of it nor can have any dependance upon any act of his free will Otherwise then as that which God worketh by him not as that which he requireth at his hands But supposing the meritorious imputation of Adams fall and Christs righteousnesse the evil which his posterity lies under by meanes of it will not be properly the punishment of sinne because not the recompense of the evill which a man does by the evil which he suffers though properly a penalty because an evil inflicted in consideration of sinne Now supposing that Adam understood the precept In the day thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death to condemn his posterity as well as himself it is manifest notwithstanding that the obligation thereof was not by virtue of his accepting of it and contracting upon it but originall by virtue of that being which God had bestowed and therefore taking hold of all his posterity on whom he meant to bestow it Wherefore though it is handsomly called by S. Augustine and others a Covenant of God with mankind which being transgressed by Adam forfeited the benefit thereof to his posterity Yet to speak properly it was the meer appointment of God in that which lay in his power and right to appoint that the uprightnesse wherein Adam was created should descend to his posterity he continuing in it otherwise the propagation thereof should be maintained the uprightnesse failing Nor can any man think strange that Christianity should oblige us to believe this if we consider the many and strange extravagances which those who either acknowledge not Christianity or have fallen from it do runne into by not resting in it The Epicureans and as some think the Peripateticks denying Providence the Stoicks Free-will and so the same providences The Pythagoreans whom the Platonicks are intangled with and the ancient Gnosticks Marcionites and Manichees manifestly imitate setting up two Gods one the author of evil the other of good the Heathen worshipping in effect the devil whom those Sects set up under the Name of author of evil the Jews and Mahumetanes if they have any thing to say to the originall of evil in mankind to whose use God hath commended the world being obliged to say that it comes from the fall of Adam Pelagians and Socinians not confessing what Jewes and Mahumetanes cannot deny but not able to give any account why the noble creature of mankind should be so overspread with evil coming from a good God and accountable for his own actions The question thus stated and Christianity tendring first the fall of bad angels and the seducing of Adam by their malice and in consequence thereunto of the greatest part of mankind to the worship of evil angels by whom they were seduced excepting those whom God dealt with by his word ministred by angels first then by his Sonne whose Gospel now is preached I suppose there is nothing wanting to evidence either the truth or obligation of it though those that preach it are not inabled to evidence why God pleased to suspend the
24. Col. III. 9 10. Therefore man was first created in that righteousnesse and true holinesse to which Christians are renewed which renewing is called therefore the new man by S. Paul To this it may be answered on behalf of the other part That the dominion over the creatures belonges to the image of God in man according to the words of Moses Let us make man after our image and likenesse and let him bear rule over the fishes of the Sea and therefore God requireth a mans bloud of his brother and of beasts because he was made in the image of God Gen. IX 6. So that the image of God remaineth true righteousnes and holines being lost And therefore it seemeth that according to the natural state of man he is made according to Gods image in regard of this dominion over the creatures But according to that spirituall estate which the Gospel calleth us to much more in regard of the dominion over sin and concupiscence which the spirit of righteousnesse and true holinesse bringeth with it Though both derivative from the image of God in Christ to whom the Apostle Heb. II. 6-9 ascribeth that dominion as to the second Adam which the Psalmist setteth forth in the first Psal VIII 5-8 And if it be said as I said it may be that the precept given to them forbidding the fruit of the tree of knowledge is manifestly carnall and concerning their nature it is easie to say on the other side that the garden and those trees and therefore the precept concerning them are not understood if they be not taken as Symbolicall and mysticall to signifie that which S. Augustine in two words of free will and Christ comprehendeth That as the source of death is to satisfie the appetite of our owne particular profit or pleasure so to satisfie the appetite of that true goodnesse which that Word or Wisdome of God which now incarnate is our Lord Christ teacheth is the fountain of Life Not as if there were not two such fruits one granted to preserve life the other forbidden on paine of death But because they not onely did signifie which the other opinion may grant but also were understood by Adam to signify more as I have said As for the giving of names to living creatures which is commonly made an argument of more then humane wisdome in Adam to wit from Gods Spirit I conceive the other side may say That no names can signify the natures of things but some sensible properties by which they are known and discerned So that to give names ingeniously argues no more then taking due notice of those things which sense discovers to be most remarkable in each kinde And that not above the pitch of nature But when Adam saies This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh And Therefore shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh And S. Paul thereupon Ephes V. 30. This mystery is great but I mean as to Christ and the Church There is appearance that the Fathers have reason to suppose Adam a Prophet not onely to say the words which foretell the coming of Christ and the effect of it but also to understand the meaning which they contained Not as if he foresaw the incarnation of Christ which supposed his own fall But because by that word of God which spoke to him in his transe he understood that his posterity should be united and maried to God And yet on the other side it may be said without prejudice to Christianity that though this is certainly the mysticall sense of these words yet it is no more necessary that Adam when he spoke them should understand it then that the rest of those who were figures of Christ by their actions in the Old Testament did understand that they were so much lesse wherein that figure consisted Last of all it seems strange that Adam should so easily be cast down with so slight a temptation supposing that he was indowed with that divine wisdome which Gods Spirit giveth which will be no such marvaile if we suppose him to know no more then the conduct of his naturall life in Paradise might require Which notwithstanding this is no such advantage as it may seem For as the description of Paradise and the two trees and the precept concerning them so is also the temptation delivered in Symbolicall terms under the figure of that which concerned the preservation of their life representing all that may move the Sons of the first Adam to fall away from God And whatsoever be the reason that it is called the tree of knowledge to be like unto God and that by a way of such knowledge as should not depend on Gods will but their own choice may easily be understood to be the most dangerous temptation that an estate of so much advantage was capeable of how difficult so ever it be to understand by the words how they might believe it to depend upon eating the forbidden fruit And as the state of meer nature requiring the knowledge of so few things as the leading of such a life in obedience to God required must needs inferre that simplicity and innocence that made them more liable to be tempted So a state of supernaturall knowledge by the Spirit of God withdrawing their consideration from inferior things of this world to be conversant about the matters of God they might be exposed to temptation as well by not attending as by not apprehending the things of the world As on the other side they were fortified against it no lesse by that innocence and simplicity which made them not sensible of that which provoketh it then by that resolution of Gods Spirit which set them above it These being the considerations which appear to me in those things which the Scriptures propose unto us of this estate I will not stick to say that I hold the common opinion to be the more probable for two reasons The first Because it seemeth to me farre more consequent to the effect of mans fall which is the losse and want of spirituall grace necessary to the conduct of him in his spirituall life here to eternall life in the world to come that he should have transgressed and forfeited the meanes thereof then onely that innocence that should have inabled him to yeeld God obedience onely in an estate of meer nature and to the purpose of it Secondly because I find it to be received by the Fathers of the Church after S. Irenaeus who seemeth to have delivered it in expresse and clear terms And yet I must say on the other side that I find it no reason to count it a matter of Faith but onely the more reasonable supposition among divines So that the matter of Faith concerning originall sinne is more easily understood to depend upon it and more reasonably inferred from it and maintained by it Not onely because you see the reasons out of the Scriptures
therefore supposing man created to supernaturall happinesse the supposition of pure nature with that concupiscence which the principles thereof not prevented by any provision of Gods to the contrary would produce is no way allowable For who shall take upon him to charge God with laying an obligation of attaining supernaturall happinesse upon him whom by inbred concupiscence he should make utterly unable to attain it This being said for the fuller understanding of the said opinion I may now further take upon me not onely that by the resolution premised that endlesse dispute about the indowments which Adam was first created with is easily determinable but also there is a firme ground laid upon which the difference between naturall and supernaturall may be setled among divines For alwayes a state of meer nature being understood to be possible whether we believe that man was actually setled in it or not it is no hard matter to say that whatsoever was requisite to inable man to live in obedience to God for the attaining of immortality in it all this and nothing else is to be understood to be naturall As requisite to the indowment of man supposed to be set in that state That supernaturall which is requisite to the advancement of him to supernaturall happinesse by inabling him to tender unto God that spirituall obedience of righteousnesse and true holinesse to which he stands obliged by so high a calling Whereupon as supposing that man was created to this happinesse it cannot be doubted that he stood indowed with capacities proportionable to that obedience which it requires So in as much as those capacities were not absolutely due to his nature which might have been created in another estate they are absolutely to be counted supernaturall and of grace But in as much as they depend upon a former grace of God which is that gracious purpose of advancing man to a capacity of supernaturall happinesse they may be counted due to his nature not as necessary consequences of the constitution thereof but of that estate which the free and gracious purpose of God designed for it In the mean time the contradiction between reason and sense being so consequent to the constitution of mans nature that it was notwithstanding in Gods appointment to prevent the coming of it to effect and the obedience of God requiring that it should be prevented man being otherwise unable perfectly to performe it whether in the state of meer nature of grace requisite it is that the rebellion of the sensuall appetite against the reason be accounted the consequence of his fall not the condition in which he was created And upon these terms it is easy to assigne the difference between originall uprightnesse and supernaturall grace in Adam supposing that he was created to supernaturall happinesse and therefore in supernaturall grace For seeing man might have been created in an estate of meer nature in which though destitute of grace yet he had not been destitute of righteousnesse Though we suppose that he was indeed created in the state of grace yet may we easily distinguish between that uprightnesse which his nature necessarily required and that spiritual holinesse whereby it stood advanced to that capacity of true happinesse which Gods free Grace designed for it And howsoever these termes may have been used among divines yet the occasion of misunderstanding them being thus cleared nothing hinders the free gift by which it was advanced to be signified by the name of grace the necessary uprightnesse of nature by the terme of originall righteousnesse These things premised it will be no difficult thing to resolve that it is all one whether we say that originall sinne is concupiscence or that it is the want of originall righteousnesse with concupiscence For as in all actuall or habituall sinnes which as more subject to sensible experience are much better known to us there is a want of straightnesse or uprightnesse wherein their being sinne consisteth because the Law of God traces us a straight way to walk which they transgresse But there is also some action or habit wherein this crookednesse is understood to subsist though indeed consisting in the meer want of uprightnesse it subsisteth not at all but is meer nothing So it is necessary to conceive something positive to which the want of originall righteousnesse may be attributed neither can the nature of sinne be understood in the state which we are born to otherwise And seeing the nature of originall sin is necessarily habituall because we have excluded the imputation of Adams first sinne it remaines that the appetite or inclination of nature to that which appeareth to be good be the subject to which this perverseâ—esse is attributed as subsisting in it Now the appetite or inclination which we have to that which appeares to be good is not called concupiscence at large unlesse we understand further that it tendeth to injoy that which of it self is good out of order and without measure For this inclination of the appetite as no man will deny to be against Gods Law that supposes it to be a straight rule no more will â—e deny that upon these suppositions it is properly called concupiscence So that this one terme of concupiscence expresseth as much as the want of originall uprightnesse with concupiscence and giveth not that occasion of mistake which the using of more words doth In asmuch as he that hears of the want of originall righteousnsse with concupiscence hath occasion to understand the want of uprightnesse and concupiscence to be two things whereas indeed as hath been said there can be no more in the matter but onely a positive inclination to things that appeare good deprived and destitue of that order and measure which the Law of God requireth And herewith agrees that description of Originall sinne in the confession of Ausburg which hath been the subject of so much debate among the Divines of the Empire That this want of originall righteousnesse is an horrible blindnesse and disobedience Which is to be destitute of that light and knowledge of God which should have been in mans nature remaining intire to be destitute of that uprightnesse which consists in perpetuall obedience in true pure and soveraigne love of God and the like gifts of intire nature For let no man think them so simple as to imagine that Originall sinne consists in actuall ignorance and actuall hatred and disobedience to God which are themselves no ways original but acknowledge a source from whence they proceed But desiring to make their meaning more palpable to gross understandings they were not afraid to incurre an exception which the captious might make as if they understood no difference between those consequences and productions whereby it becomes visible and the sourse of them which the question properly concerns For as concerning ignorance and being destitute of that light and knowledge of God which the state of uprightnesse must have injoyed I find no necessity to think that Adam upon his fall
to the nature of Originall sin that God might have made man from the beginning with concupiscence For Originall sinne must of necessity be that evil which we are born with in consideration of Adams sinne And therefore whatsoever we might have been born with seeing that actually and de facto we are born with concupiscence in consideration of Adams sinne who otherwise should have been born with that uprightnesse in which he was made Originall sinne must needs be that which we are now born with though supposing that we had been originally made with it it had not been Originall sinne For the absurdity of this consequence tends to shew that the supposition of meer nature is impossible and presses not me which believe it so to be And now to that novelty in the doctrine of the Church of England that hath caused so much offense because allowing some points of it not to prejudice the common â—aith it is requisite that I freely distinguish my self from that which I allow not I say briefly That if that excellent doctor and those who finde themselves offended at his doctrine will give me leave to interpret one point to distinguish one term of his opinion I shall heartily wish that the offense thereof may cease It is in that he saith that concupiscence was before the fall though much increased by it And I would have it said that all the inclinations of the sensuall appetite were before the fall but the disorder of them seeking satisfaction without rule or measure by it The word Concupiscence being capable of both significations For it is manifest that Adam as we do consisted of flesh and Spirit taking flesh for the substance not the perverse inclination of the flesh and Spirit for the substance of his own not the grace of Gods Spirit of soul and body of a spirituall and carnal substance The appetite of the principal part tending to that which is excellent by nature but the baser part having an appetite proper to the nature of it whereof reason from which all order rule and measure proceeds is no ingredient But it is necessary to say that God who requires the sensual appetite to be subject to the principal part of the soul as the reason to God had provided such an estate for such a creature wherein it might be in the power of reason to give order rule and measure to the motions of the sensuall appetite Otherwise the mortifying of concupiscence being the work of Christianity it will necessarily follow that the coming of Christ was to furnish that grace by which Christians may mortify that which God had created which our common faith admitteth not And therefore it is no otherwise to be admitted that concupiscence is increased by the fall of Adam then as that may be said to be increased which being moderate afore is since become immoderate For seeing that concupiscence being once free of the command of reason and the rule and measure which it might have from thence can have no other bounds then those which in this estate it acknowledgeth which is to be utterly boundlesse so farre as it is consistent with it self and as the satisfaction of severall passions appears not incompetible there is no reason why it should be ascribed to the fall once granting it to be the condition of Gods creature Which without the fall must needs have profited to that horrible confusion in humane affaires the contrariety whereof to the excellence of mans nature reason discerns and therefore religion reasonably introduces the fall to give a reason for it If the supposition of pure nature would indure that man though created liable to concupiscence by virtue of some contrary indowment might be preserved from the effect of it And that the effect of Adams fall were to make that frustrate and void I should not think that supposition any way prejudicial to the Christian Faith But in regard that the supposition admitteth no such indowment because it must be a gift of grace which would destroy the supposition of meer nature therefore it is denyed that God supposing that integrity in Adam which the Christian faith requireth could create him in this state of meer nature If this Doctor had said or could have said That concupiscence being a naturall consequence of mans composition was prevented of coming to act and effect by eating the fruit of the tree of life ordained to that purpose That the leaves thereof were in this regard healing to the nations And that the grace of Christ was dispensed by that meanes in that estate as now by the Sacrament of the Eucharist I might say this were a novelty among divines but I could not say that it were destructive to the Faith But if the coming of Christ be not to repaire the fall of the first Adam I cannot see how the Faith is secure As for the term of sin when he denieth that this concupiscence can be properly sin which is neither the act of sin nor any propensity created by custome of sinning but bred in our nature whereof there is no other instance but it self I confesse when the question comes to the signification of words and the property of it which may alwaies be endlesse because the question is only whether my sense shall give Law to your language or your sense to mine which it is not necessary to insist upon when the faith is secured on both sides I count it alwaies hard to charge an error in the substance of Faith Now whether we say this concupiscence is sin or not the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ his coming and the end of it remains alwaies the same and so the necessity of his grace is settled upon the right bottome And truly if we recollect the language which is used by the Greek Fathers and those that lived before Pelagius comparing it with that which hath been used since S. Austine we shall not find the term of Originall sin so frequent as the ground of it For not only death and the sorrows that bring it but even the inclination of our nature to actuall sin is by them ascribed to the fall who use not the terme of Originall sin As every one that peruseth but the termes of those passages of the Fathers which this Doctor hath produced may easily perceive Upon these terms Clemens Alexandrinus is no interruption to the Tradition of Originall sin in that difficult place Strom. III. that made Vossius say he understood it not He speaks against those that condemned Marriage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them test us where the Child that is borne committed whoredome or how it fell under the curse of Adam that had done nothing It remains as it seems that they say that the Generation is evill not onely of the body bâ—t of the Soul for which the body is And when David saith I was conceived in sins and in iniquities did my Mother lust with me like a Prophet he calls Eve his Mother But
Eve was the Mother of the living And though conceived in sin yet was not be in sin or sinfull But whether every one that turns from sin to Faith turn from sinfull custome as from his Mother to life one of the twelve Prophets will be my witnesse saying shall I give my first-born for impiety the fruit of my belly for the sin of my Soul He traduceth not him that said Increase and multiply but he calleth the first inclinations from our birth by which we are ignorant of God impieties He saith most truly that they cannot render a reason how we are born under Adams curse but by charging God He granteth actuall sin in conception but that not the sin of the Child that is conceived He saith the custome of sin may be our Mother Eve in the mysticall sense of David But he ascribeth it to those first motions from our birth which make mankind ignorant of God till they turn to Christianity Whether this be my plea or no let him that hath perused the Premises judge This same is to be said of S. Chrysostome in his Homily ad Neophytos denying that Infants are baptized because they are polluted with sin To wit that he appropriateth the name of sin to actuall sin But as Clemens acknowledges the first motions that we have from our birth to tend to ignorance of God So S. Chrysostome Hom. XI in VI. ad Rom. Hom. XIII in VII ad Rom. cleerly ascribes the coming in of concupiscence to Adams sin or rather to the sentence of mortality inflicted by God upon it wherein he is followed by Theodoret in V. ad Rom. observing that the want of things necessary to the sustenance of our mortality provokes excesses and that sins If this reason can generally hold so that all concupiscence may be said to be the consequence of mortality Christianity will be sound the necessity of Christs coming for the repair of Adams fall remaining the same But this is the reason why the same S. Chrysostome Hom. X. in VI. ad Rom. when S. Paul saith By one mans disobedience many are made sinners understandeth by sinners liable to death Concupiscence wherein Originall sinne consisteth as I have shewed being the consequence of mortality according to S. Chrysostome As for those that censure books at Oxford if they like not this I demand but one thing what they think of Zuinglius his Writings For I suppose none of them believes that Zuinglius holds originall sinne to be properly sinne or that infants are damned for it though whether they come to everlasting life or no notwithstanding their concupiscence which they are born with I find not that he saith Let them therefore choose whether they will censure Zuinglius his bookes or professe that they have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons And therefore I do not understand why I should make any more of this difference of language then of that which was on foot in the ancient Church about the terms of hypostasis in the blessed Trinity among those who haâ—tily adhered to the Faith of the Church And I conceive I may compare it with the difference between the Latine and the Greek Church about the procession of the Holy Ghost whether from the Father and the Sonne oâ— from the Father by the Sonne For though I do believe with the Western Church that he proceedeth from both Yet the Eastern Church acknowledging as it doth from the Father by the Sonne If it had been in me the matter should never have come to a breach in the Church about that difference Even so the terme of Originall sinne being received in the Western Church to exclude the heresie of Pelagius I do not intend to take offence at the using or give offence by the refusing of it But I shall not therefore condemn those times or persons of the Church that used it not as unsound or defective in the Faith the Tradition whereof is not to be derived but by that which all parts agree in professing As for the punishment of everlasting torments upon infants that depart with it it is a thing utterly past my capacity to understand how it concerns the necessity of Christs coming that those infants who are not cured by it should be thought liable to them Would his death be in vaine would the Grace which it purchaseth be unnecessary unlesse those infants that have committed no actuall sinne go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels Shall the corruption of our nature by the fall of Adam be counted a fable unlesse I be able to maintaine that infants are there or shew where they are if not there Or will any man undertake to shew me that consent of the whole Church in this point which is visible by the premises as concerning that corruption of nature which I challenge to be mater of Faith It is not to be denied that S. Augustine and enow after him have maintained it and perhaps thought that the Faith cannot be maintained otherwise But can that therefore be the Tradition of the whole Church which Doctors allowed by the Church do not believe In this as in other instances we see a difference between maters of Faith and Ecclesiasticall doctrines of which you have a Book of Gernadius intituled dâ— dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis For such positions as passe without offense when they are held and professed by such as injoy the communion of the Church or more then so rank of authority in it must necessarily be counted doctrines of the Church And yet if it appear that the contrary hath been held other whiles and else where they do not oblige our belief as matters of Faith As for the article of the Church of England which ascribeth the desert of Gods wrath and damnation to Originall sinne â— conceive it is alwaies the duty of every sonne of the Church so to interpret so to limit or to extend the acts of the Church of England that is the sense of them that it may agree with the Faith of the Catholick Church Because all such acts serve and are to serve onely to maintaine the Church of England a member thereof by maintaining the Faith of it How much more at this time that unity and communion which these acts tendred to maintain amongst our selves being irrecoverably violated by men equally concerned in the cherishing of it For admitting the Faith and the Laws of the primitive Church what can any Church allege why they are not one with us Not admitting them what can we alledge why we are not one with others It followeth therefore of necessity that the wrath of God and damnation which Originall sin deserveth according to the Article of the Church of England be confined to the losse and coming short of that salvation to which the first Adam being appointed the second Adam hath restored us There being no more to be had either by necessary consequence from the Scripture or by Tradition
the world of Judgement because the Prince of theis world is condemned by the conversion of those who forefook him to become Christians Therefore S Steven upbraideth the Jews saying Ye stisnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye do alwaies resist the Holy Ghost even you also as did your fathers Acts VII 51. Because being convicted by the Holy Ghost which spoke in him that he spoke from God neverthelesse they submit not to his message Therefore our Lord Mark III. 28. 29 30 All sins shall be forgiven the sons of men and blasphemies which they shall blaspheme But whoso shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath no remission for ever but is liable to everlasting damnation Because they said he hath an unclean spirit which you have againe Math. XII 31 32. Luke XII 10. Because being convicted that our Lord spoke did his miracles by the Holy Ghost they blasphemed saying that he spoke and did them by an uncleane spirit For these words and these workes are the meanes by which our Lord accomplished â—his promise Iohn XIV 23. If any man love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we will come to him and abide with him For before the condition If any man love me be fulfilled the case is that which our Lord expresseth Apoc. III. 20. Behold I stand at the dore and knock And if any man heare my voice and open the dore I will come in to him and sup with him â—e with me But being fulfilled the words of our Lord take place Iohn XVI 15 16 17. If yee love me ye will keep my commandements And I will aske the Father and he will give you an other Advocate to abide with you for ever even the spirit of truth which the world cannot receive because they â—ee it not nor know it but you know it because it abideth with you and is in you For seeing it is manifest by the premises that the undertaking of Christianity is the condition upon which the Holy Ghost is granted as a gift to abide with Christians the preaching of Christianity that is the proposing of those reasons which God by his word hath shewed us why wee should be Christians is the knocking of our Lord Christ by the spirit at the dore of the heart that he may enter and dwell in us by the same spirit according to the words of S. Paul 2. Cor. II. 16. For ye are the Temple of the living God as God hath said To wit I will dwell and converse among them and will be their God and they shall be my people That which some Philosophers say of the naturall generation of man That the soule frames its owne dwelling being fulfilled in the worke of generation by grace when the Holy Ghost by his actuall assistance frameth the man to be fit for the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost by becoming a true Christian If then we believe that the Holy Ghost was given by God and obtained by Christ as well to make the Gospell effectuall as to move the Apostles to preach it there can no doubt remaine that the preaching of the Gospell that is to say the meanes which the Holy Ghost provideth to make it either sufficient or effectual to convince the world of it is the instrument whereby he frameth himself that invisible house of true believers in which he dwelleth And therefore the meanes whereby Gods grace becomes effectuall to those who imbrace it is the same that renders it sufficient for those who refuse it the difference lying as well in the disposition which it meets with for which the man is accountable as in the spirit of God that presenteth it which renders God the praise when it takes effect and leaves men accountable when it does not If this reason had been in consideration with Socinus and perhaps with Pelagius he would have found it necessary acknowledging as all that read the Scriptures must needs acknowledge that which they find so frequent and so cleare in the Scriptures that the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost is granted to inable those who undertake Christianity to performe it to acknowledge also that the actuall help of it is necessary to make the motives of Christianity effectuall to subdâ—e men to it And by consequence that the coming of the second Adam was necessary to restore the breach which the first had made seeing it was not to be repaired without the same Nor is it to be marveled at that naturall meanes conducted by the grace of Christ should produce supernaturall effects such as I have shewed the obediencâ— of Christianity to be which supposing the Covenant of grace and freedome of mans will cannot be otherwise The reasons which appeare to the understanding and move the will to act contrary to the inclination of originall concupâ—scence in professing Christianity and living according to the same being sufficient to convict it to give sentence that so the man ought to doe And the circumstances in which the spirit of Christ conducteth these motives to the heart which it knocketh at by their means being able to represent them valuable to take effect with him who is moved to the contrary by his originall concupiscence And though meanes naturall because they move a man to proceed according to right reason which nature requires him to doe yet as they are brought to passe and conducted by a supernaturall cause nothing hinders the effect to be supernaturall in such a nature as is by them made capable of acting above nature I do much approve the discourse of some that have indeavoured to shew how this comes to passe thus supposing the covenant of the Law to be the renewing of that which was made with Adam in Paradise for the maintaining of him in the happnesse of his naturall life Which we may suppose though we suppose not that God covenanted not with him at all for the life to come For the dispensation of those blessings of this life which the covenant of nature limited by Moses Law to the happinesse of the land of promise tendreth may well be the advantage which God taketh to make the covenant of Grace acceptable especially to those who by Gods blessing failing of the blessings of the first covenant by that meanes becoming out of love with this present worlâ— meeâ— with the Covenant of Grace in such a disposition as may render it acceptable For so long as things goe well with men in this world it seemes haâ—sh to require them to takeup the Crosse of Christ that they may obtain the world to come But when the comforts of this world faile it is no marvell if any condition that tenders hope in the world to come be welcome If it be said that this renders the grace of Christ effectuall onely to the poore and men oâ— meane condition in the world who have cause to be weary of their estâ—te in it It is answered that it is no marvell if the
future contingencies For to say that they may be â—oreseen in the deceite of permitting them is to say that that which may be otherwise may be certainely foreseen by certainly knowing that there is nothing to hinder it It remaines that I say what is to be thought of that proposition which some of the School Doctors holdforth That to such as do what is in them to doe by their naturall abilities God gives grace facientâ—bus quod in se est ex vi ibu naturâ— Deus largitur gratiam Because it seems to follow upon â—upposition of that which I have maintained That the unregenerate are notwithstanding originall concupiscence able to do things that are good for a right end though not out of a resolution to doe all for the right end of all which is God and his service For hence it seemeth to be inferred that those who live in civill righteousnesse for honesties sake and not for their particular advantage inconsistent with the generall good of mankind dâ—serâ—ve that God should â—end you those helps of grace which are immediately sufficient to save them by the Covenant of grace But it is manifest that the proposition may be understood in two senses One in point of Fact the other of right Theone making the proposition universal the other particular The one importing that God may tâ—e other that God must give those helps of grace that are immediately sufficient to them that live well according to the light of nature there being a vast difference between Gods giving the helps of grace that are immediately sufficient to them whom he considers to have done such things as the light of nature justifies And his giving them because of the same as obliged so to reward them For the one leaves those sufficient helps gifts of Gods grace by Christ the other renders them rewards of mens works not subject to Gods bounty being prevented with the obligation of justice and therefore establishes that opinion of meritum de congruo which had much vogue in the Schooles and supposeth not but inferreth the Covenant of grace and therefore destroyes it as verifying the effects thereof into those works of man that oblige God to grant those helps which the Gospell pretending to be set on foot by Gods free grace in Christ tendreth Certainly admitting that which hath been proved that the preaching of the gospell is granted in consideration of the merits and sufferings of Christ it cannot by any meanes be maintayned that any works of meere nature can oblige God to send the meanes of knowing the Gospell and conviction of the truth of it without granting by consequence that the very coming of Christ whereof these meanes are the consequence must be imputed to the works of those who in the state of corrupt nature have obliged God to send them the knowledge of Christ Which they could not have had had not the coming of Christ been fiâ—st provided Which by this reason must have been in consideration of the originall merit of their works I say the originall merit of their works because in this case there could be no consideration of Gods promise made out of free grace as the ground of those blessings which God thereby ties himselfe to bestow upon condition of doing that which his Covenant requires though otherwise infinitely exceeding the value of the condition which he requireth For here it is evident that the free grace of God which tenders the promise upon the condition is the originall ground of all the claime that any that is qualified can make to the promise But supposing the workes of corrupt nature to oblige God to give his Gospell it is no more his free grace but the originall merit of those workes to which all the grace of it must be imputed Which as it directly falls into the prime article of Pelagius his heresy that grace is given according to merit and that it is not given to every act being prevented by those acts in consideration whereof this opinion supposes it to be granted So by consequence it makes the publication of the Gospell to be no grace of Christ but the reward of mans merit which is the true consequence of Pelagius his position For though being pressed with those scriptures in which the grace of Christ is so clearely preached that nothing but impudence could deny it he granted that the preaching of the Gospell is as much of Gods free grace as the light of nature by which these workes are done yet in very deed he oâ—erthrewe his owne saying that is gave the Church an undefeasible advantage against himselfe by granting it His heresy being no waies tenable without maintaining the very preaching of the Gospell to be the purchace of mans merit and Christ himselfe the subject of the Gospell by consequence And thus the heresy of Pelagius becomes that very opinion which S. Paul writes against as often as he disputes that a man is justified by grace and not by works Onely with this difference that when he writes against the Jewes arguing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith his meaning is that the righteousnesse of the Jewes turned Christians is not to be ascribed to the outward observation of Moses Law but to the Covenant of grace But when he wriets to the gentiles That they attained not the promises of the Gospell by the works which they had don before they heard of it but by the meere grace of God that sent our Lord Christ to bring it But if any man insist that nothing hinders him to suppose the Gospell already set on foot and thereupon to say and hold That by the use of corrupt nature God may be obliged to send the knowledg of it The insufficience of the plea will be evident enough For those works of morall honesty which corrupt nature is able to doe not serving to discharge the obligation thereof to God in those particular occasions upon which they become due because they are void of any whether habituall or actuall intent of that end which they ought to aime at It were ridiculous to tye God to grant the effects of his free grace in sending our Lord Christ to those that are lesse sinners then others And consiâ—ering that which is visible in point of fact it wil be imposible to reduce those things which appear in the propagating and maintaining of Christianity through the world to any difference of works done before the knowledg thereof as the reason of Gods dispensing of it Which may also be said of another opinion that may be and perhaps is held upon termes not prejudiciall to the faith as this seemes to be to wit That God by declaring the Covenant of Grace his inclination to save all the world by it hath tied himselfe to grant such motions and inspirations of true good to all men that if they neglect them not but do what corrupt nature so prevented is able to doe he shall
man that comeâ— into the world with concupiscence becomes either habituated to the love of God above all things or indowed with the habituall assistance of Gods Spirit by that promise which the Gospell importeth Thus much is to be seenâ— by that which hath been said That in the justification of a sinner by Christianity which I have showed to be the condition of it there is a twofold change either implied or signified For that a man should become reconciled to God continues in the same affection to himselfe and the world as before he heard of Christ is a thing which the soâ—ereâ—t of them that dispute justification by faith alone abhorre And that a man by the Gospel should be intitled to no more then that disposition which be is changed to obligeth God to give is no lesse horrible to them that dispute justification by the works of faith And therefore besides that change in the nature and disposition of him that becomes estaâ—ed in the promises of the Gospel which justification involveth there is another change in Gods esteeme which is morall by virtue of his free promise which the change which his nature hath received signifieth not because Gods will onely infâ—rs it The former of these the Schoole insist upon and they seeme to follow S. Austinâ— in it who though he have nothing to doe with any conceit of habituall grace yet most an end attributeth the effect of justifying even before God to those inherent acts of righteousnesse whereby the grace of God translateth his enimies into that state of his grace The later though it be that which both the Scriptures and the most ancient records of the Church doe expresse yet so long as the effect of justifying is attributed to the disposition which is inherent in the soule not for the worth of it but by Gods Grace it can containe nothing either formally destructive or by consequence prejudiciall to the Faith That the one is fundamentally implyed the other formally signified in the justification of a Christian belongs rather to the skill of a divine in understanding the Scriptures then to the virtue of a Christian in holding the faith What the Church thinkes of the workes of those who believing do not yet declare themselves Christians by procuring Baptisme as it is a consideration fit for this place so is it manifest by the doubt which they make of the salvation of those that dye in that estate For though the life that they live supposing the preventing Grace of the holy Ghost to bring them to that estate must needs be ascribed to the same yet is it not as yet under the promise of reward because they are not yet under the Covenant of Grace but onely disposed to it And how good soever their life may be yet so long as it proceeds not to an effectuall resolution of undertaking Christs Crosse it is buâ— actuall and dependeth dâ— facto upon the assistance of Gods Spirit which dâ— jurâ— they can challenge no title in being not yet estated in Gods promises but onely prevented by those helps which they can claime no difference of right in from those that are not prevented with the same But he that undertakes Christs Crosse by coming to Baptisme with a good conscience obtaineth remission of sinnes adoption to be Gods Sonne and right and title to everlasting life Which adoption and which title as they are morall rights and qualities so are they meer appendences of that justification which God alloweth the Faith of those that are baptized sincerely without consideration of workes according to the doctrine of the Fathers Supposing it is true as much change as between a Christian and no Christian in him that obtaines them in which regard it is no marvaile if remission of sinnes or justification be ascribed to the said change many times in their writings For how such sayings are to be understood imports onely the signification of words not the salvation of a Christian but not importing Gods consideration of their qualities the consideration of whose works is excluded S. Augustine it is true considering this change in him that is justified which is indeed the ground upon which God accepteth of his Faith to that purpose and using the word justifying to signify the same hath occasioned the Schoole to agree in that forme of doctrine which the Council of Trent canonizeth But though he frequent the terme more then others in that sense yet can he no wayes be thought to depart from the meaning of the rest who do sometimes describe justification by the ground which it supposeth sometimes by the quality in Gods account which it signifyeth Acknowledging all of them the gift of the holy Ghost to be obtained by this faith which justifyeth of Gods free Grace indeed which onely moved him to set the Gospel on foot but as due by the promise which it containeth to abide and to dwell with him that voides not the condition upon which it is granted This grace of the holy Ghost habitually dwelling in them that have undertaken Christs Crosse to inable them to go through with the work of it as it cannot be unfruitfull in good works so are those works henceforth under the promise of reward which no workes done afore Baptisme can challenge I must not leave this point till I have said a word or two of Socinus his opinion as to this point of justifying faith For as concerning the two points premised I conceive I have showed you that it is no lesse destructive to Faith in teaching that a man is able of himself to imbrace and to fulfill all that the Gospel requires at his hands withoâ—â— any help of Gods grace granted in respect of our Lord Christs obedience Then that God accepteth what a man is so able to performe not out of any consideration thereof but of his own free goodnesse which moving him to settle such a decree moved him to send our Lord Christ to publish and assure it As for the rest of his opinion having maintained that the efficacy of all acts whether of Gods grace or of mans will toward the obtaining of the promises of the Gospel necessarily depends upon the receiving of Baptisme where the outward fulfilling of the promises of a positive precept which the onely will of him that is converted to Christianity fulfilleth not is not unavoidablely prevented by casualties which his will cannot overcome I suppose I have by that meanes showed that his opinion is destructive to Christianity because destructive to the precept of receiving Baptisme without which no man is a Christian And truly this imputation reflects upon the other extreme opinion concerning the justification of a Christian which ascribing it to believing that a man is predestinate excludes it from being necessary either as a meanes to salvation or as a thing commanded both which considerations concurre in the necessity of it supposing the premises For the necessity of that which is necessary as the meanes and the
was actually deprived of the habituall knowledge of those truths which were setled in his minde concerning God or of those images in the minde or conceptions of the mind wherein that knowledge did consist as all knowledge doth It is enough and more then enough that the poison wherewith his inclinations and appetites stood now so perverted suffered not that truth which enlightened his mind to have effect in his actions according to that which Christians being by the grace of God restored to the like light do find in themselves by sad experience And when in processe of time his posterity notwithstanding the instruction which they received of him for above nine hundred years together and notwithstanding the preaching of the godly Fathers which S. Jude in his Epistle exemplifieth of Encch and S. Peter of Noe 2 Pet. II. 5. fell away not onely to oppression and wickednesse but to the worship of false Gods Then it appeared how naturall this blindnesse is to the posterity of Adam having departed from God concupiscence prevailing to make such strange and horrible ignorance take place in the mindes of them who had such certain and evident information from their predecessors of God that made them and all the world for their benefit of his severe judgement upon the fall of Adam and mercy promised and judgement preached against them that should refuse it To the difficulty then which causeth this whole dispute I will answer otherwise then they which have not been able to take it away have done That all sinne being a transgression of Gods Law if there be severall Lawes by which God deales with mankind there must be also severall rules and severall measures by which that which is sinne according to the Originall Law may not be sinne according to the latter Law which necessarily derogateth from that which went afore The originall rule of righteousnesse which the light which man was created in obliged him to must needs detect and convince all habituall inclination of concupiscence and much more the very first motions of the same to be sinne against God And seeing the very same motions are seen in that conflict between the flesh and the Spirit which the most regenerate find in themselves though by the grace of Gods Spirit in them they prevaile not so that there is no difference for nature and kind but onely for efficacy and strength between the concupiscence which remaines in the regenerate and that which rules in the unregenerate there can no controversie remaine among Christians that there is an original Law of God which this defect of original righteousnesse violateth And seeing Christianity obligeth to mortifie concupiscence and to prevent rather then to suppresse the first motions of it of necessity the rule of our conversation is grounded upon that uprightnesse in which or to which Adam was created But not therefore the rule of Gods proceeding with us whose salvation his mercy designeth supposing concupiscence And if there be a latter Law of God derogatory to that originall Law according to which he dealeth with those that are under it by imbracing the Covenant of Grace it cannot be said that the transgression of Gods Originall Law is any sinne against it being tendered to those whom God knows that so long as they live in the world they cannot be void of concupiscence So that by virtue of that Law according to which God by his Gospel declares that he will deâ—l with those that imbrace Christianity well may it be said that originall sinne is utterly defaced by Baptisme Though in relation to that originall rule of righteousnesse which mans uprightness obligeth him to it is most truly said that concupiscence is originall sinne And though supposing this answer it seems to me evidently unnecessary if not evidently contradictory to it self and to the justice goodnesse and holinesse of God to have recourse to a state of meer nature as if man might have been created in it supposing him designed by God to a state of supernaturall happinesse Yet it is as evident to me that it is no error of the foundation of faith but onely in the knowledge of the Scriptures and the skill of divines For supposing the belief of originall sinne on the one side on the other side remission of sinne by the profession of Christianity which Baptisme executeth and solemnizeth he that failes in giving account how these things may stand together and be both true at once cannot be thought to faile of that faith which he maintaines not with good successe There may be as great a failâ—ur on the other side in not believing the efficacy of Christianity in the remission of sinne Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent couched in the proper and formall terms of S. Augustine that concupiscence in the regenerate is not truly and properly sinne but so called because proceeding from sinne and tending to sinne be condemned as absolutely false so long as there is a new Law of God which is the Covenant of Grace against which it is no sinne being tendred and made after it and supposing it Nor could the mouth of Pelagius have been stopped when the efficacy of Baptisme in the remission of sinne was received among all Christians according to the Primitive and originall truth of Christianity were there not some true and just ground upon which it may be said that the opposition of concupiscence after Baptisme to the Law of God remaineth no more And yet that is no lesse true which the same Augustine in divers other places affirmeth either expresly or by good consequence that concupiscence which remaines after Baptisme is originall sinne To wit according to the originall Law of God tendred to the originall institution of mans nature If therefore that be true which Doctor Field saith that all the errors of the Church of Rome concerning the Covenant of Grace have their originall from this error concerning the state of pure nature as perhaps they may better be said to proceed from not distinguishing the severall consequences of Gods severall Lawes it will neverthelesse be very fit to be considered whether those errors which are grounded upon a mistake in divinity do amount to any deniall of the Foundation of Faith For supposing for the present though not granting the supposition of meer nature that is that God might have made man though instituted to supernaturall happinesse with concupiscence to be possible it may be neverthelesse and is without doubt utterly uselesse for a reason why the righteousnesse of a Christian is accepted by God as the fulfilling of his Law towards the reward of everlasting happinesse notwithstanding concupiscence For which it would be very impertinent to alledge that God might have made man with concupiscence and therefore accepts the obedience of those that are under it Because it is manifest that the perfection to which Christianity calleth is that to which Adam was instituted in Paradise It is therefore by consequence no lesse impertinent