but alter his Opinion whereby he is perswaded that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil and such an object formidable let him but believe himself impregnable or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered disgraced imprisoned condemned and afflicted neither his steps need to be disturbed nor his quietness discomposed But if a man cannot change his Opinion when he lists nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot doe otherwise then to use force may make him an Hypocrite but never to be a right Believer and so in stead of erecting a trophee to God and true Religion we build a monument for the Devil Infinite examples are recorded in Church-story to this very purpose But Socrates instances in one for all for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatned by the Emperour Valens with banishment and confiscation if he did not subscribe to the Decree of Ariminum at last he yielded to the Arian Opinion and presently fell into great torment of Conscience openly at Cyzicum recanted the errour asked God and the Church forgiveness and complained of the Emperour's injustice and that was all the good the Arian party got by offering violence to his Conscience And so many families in Spain which are as they call them new Christians and of a suspected Faith into which they were forced by the tyranny of the Inquisition and yet are secret Moors are evidence enough of the inconvenience of preaching a Doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi For it either punishes a man for keeping a good Conscience or forces him into a bad it either punishes sincerity or perswades hypocrisie it persecutes a truth or drives into errour and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe but never to be honest 12. Ninthly It is one of the glories of Christian Religion that it was so pious excellent miraculous and perswasive that it came in upon its own piety and wisedome with no other force but a torrent of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit a mighty rushing wind to beat down all strong holds and every high thought and imagination but towards the persons of men it was always full of meekness and charity compliance and toleration condescention and bearing with one another restoring persons overtaken with an errour in the spirit of meekness considering lest we also be tempted The consideration is as prudent and the proposition as just as the precept is charitable and the precedent was pious and holy Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution That precept which it chiefly preaches in order to all the blessedness in the world that is of meekness mercy and charity should also preserve itself and promote its own interest For indeed nothing will doe it so well nothing doth so excellently insinuate itself into the understandings and affections of men as when the actions and perswasions of a Sect and every part and principle and promotion are univocall And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an Institution that in its principle it should be mercifull and humane and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhumane And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the perswasion of one Proposition and yet in the perswasion of the whole Religion nothing like it To doe so may serve the end of a temporal Prince but never promote the honour of Christ's Kingdom it may secure a design of Spain but will very much disserve Christendom to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognizance of the Mahometan Religion from the excellency and piety of Christianity whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of Saint Paul 2 Tim. 2.24 The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth They that oppose themselves must not be strucken by any of God's servants and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in Opinion he will get nothing by that he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his pains And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiasticall will doe no advantage for an escape because even the Secular power if it be Christian and a servant of God must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I mean in those cases where meekness of instruction is the remedy or if the case be irremediable abscission by Censures is the penalty 13. Tenthly And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust nor unreasonable yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the Soul of man so as to command a perswasion or to judge a disagreeing Humane positive Laws direct all externall acts in order to several ends and the Judges take cognizance accordingly but no man can command the Will or punish him that obeys the Law against his will for because its end is served in externall obedience it neither looks after more neither can it be served by more nor take notice of any more And yet possibly the Understanding is less subject to humane power then the Will for that humane power hath a command over externall acts which naturally and regularly flow from the Will ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will but always either a direct or indirect volition primâ—ry or accidental but the Understanding is a natural faculty subject to no command but where the command is itself a reason fit to satisfie perswade it And therefore God commanding us to believe such Revelations perswades and satisfies the understanding by his commanding and revealing for there is no greater probation in the world that Proposition is true then because God hath commanded us to believe it But because no man's command is a satisfaction to the understanding or a verification of the Proposition therefore the understanding is not subject to humane Authority They may perswade but not injoyn where God hath not and where God hath if it appears so to him he is an Infidel if he does not believe it And if all men have no other efficacy or authority on the understanding but by perswasion proposal and intreaty then a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument and the energy of perswasion neither indeed can he though he would never so fain and he that out of fear and too much compliance and desire to be safe shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the belief of humane Dictates and Authorities may as often miss of the Truth as hit it but is sure always to lose the comfort of Truth because he believes it upon indirect insufficient and incompetent arguments and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so so the
sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the Tree of life and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and die without that remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was mortal of himself and we are mortal from him Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit said Justin Martyr Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin and subjected them to death One explicates the other and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin Malum domesticum contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum His sin infected us with death and this infection we derive in our birth that is we are born mortal Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death in him we are sinners as in him we die But this sin is not real and inherent but imputed only to such a degree So S. Cyprian affirms most expresly infans recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit An infant hath not sinn'd save only that being carnally born of Adam in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death 20. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to die was to some a punishment but to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam as I before discours'd upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law But to those who sinned not at all as Infants and Innocents it was merely a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they die but as it related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil afflicted for their sin or any guiltiness of their own properly so called 21. We find nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Other things are said but I find no warrant for them in that sence they are usually suppos'd and some of them in no sence at all The particulars commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance a proneness to sin a natural malice a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls a loss of our wills liberty and nothing is left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summ of affairs is expounded to be a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are born heirs of damnation 22. Concerning Original or Natural ignorance it is true we derive it from our Parents I mean we are born with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut Neither can we guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall Certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge But concerning his posterity indeed it is true a child cannot speak at first nor understand and if as Plato said all our knowledge is nothing but memory it is no wonder a child is born without knowledge But so it is in the wisest men in the world they also when they see or hear a thing first think it strange and could not know it till they saw or heard it Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam as we do our Nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall we may best guess at by the event for if he had not had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin and became devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary and was left naked and mere and therefore it is not only an Original imperfection which we inherit but in the sence now explicated it is also an Original corruption And this is all As natural death by his sin became a curse so our natural imperfection became natural corruption and that is Original sin Death and imperfection we derive from Adam but both were natural to us but by him they became actual and penal and by him they became worse as by every evil act every principle of evil is improv'd And in this sence this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church We are miserable really sinners in account or effect that properly this improperly and are faln into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it For in Original sin we are to consider the principle and the effects The principle is the actual sin of Adam This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us hath brought upon us a necessity of dying and all the affections of mortality which although they were natural yet would by grace have been hindred Another evil there is upon us and that is Concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him This also from him is derived to us and is by many causes made worse by him and by our selves And this is the whole state of Original sin so far as is fairly warrantable But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing The sin of Adam neither made us 1. Heirs of damnation Nor 2. Naturally and necessarily vicious 23. I. It could not make us Heirs of damnation This I shall the less need to insist upon because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point and have descended to this lesser proportion that Original sin damns only to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face But to this I say these things 24. I. That there are many Divines which believe this alone to be the worm that never dies and the fire that never goeth out that is in effect this and the anguish for this is all the Hell of the damned And unless infants remain infants in the resurrection too which no man that I know affirms or unless they be senseless and inapprehensive it is not to be imagined but that all that know
subjected in humane Nature for if it were otherwise then an universal should be more particular than that which is Individual and a whole should be less than a part actiones sunt suppositorum and so for omissions now every sin is either one or other and therefore it is impossible that this which is an affection of an universal viz. of humane Nature can be a sin for a sin is a breach of some Law to which not Natures but Persons are obliged and which Natures cannot break because not Natures but persons only do or neglect 30. That Naturally is engendred of the off-spring of Adam This clause is inserted to exclude Christ from the participation of Adams sin But if concupiscence which is in every mans Nature be a sin it is certain Christ had no concupiscence or natural desires for he had no sin But if he had no concupiscence or natural desires how he should be a man or how capable of law or how he should serve God with choice where there could be no potentia ad oppositum I think will be very hard to be understood Christ felt all our infirmities yet without sin All our infirmities are the effects of the sin of Adam and part of that which we call Original sin therefore all these our infirmities which Christ felt as in him they were for ever without sin so as long as they are only Natural Unconsented to must be in us without sin For whatsoever is Naturally in us is Naturally in him but a man is not a man without Natural desires therefore these were in him in him without sin and therefore so in us without sin I mean properly really and formally But there 's a Catachresis also in these words or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naturally engendred of the off-spring of Adam Cain and Abel and Seth and all the sons of Adam who were the first off-spring and not engendred of the off-spring of Adam were as guilty as we But they came from Adam but not from Adams off-spring therefore the Articles is to be expounded to the sence of these words Naturally engendred or are of the off-spring of Adam 31. Whereby Man is very far gone from Original Righteousness That is men are devolved to their Natural condition devested of all those gifts and graces which God gave to Adam in order to his supernatural end and by the help of which he stood in Gods favour and innocent until the fatal period of his fall This Original Righteousness or innocence we have not Naturally for our Natural innocence is but Negative that is we have not consented to sin The Righteousness he had before his fall I suppose was not only that but also his doing many actions of obedience and intercourse with God even all which passed between God and himself till his eating the forbidden fruit For he had this advantage over us He was created in a full use of reason we his descendents enter into the world in the greatest imperfection and are born under a law which we break before we can understand and it is imputed to us as our understanding increases And our desires are strongest when our Understanding is weakest and therefore by this very Oeconomy which is natural to us we must needs in the Condition of our nature be very far from Adams Original Righteousness who had perfect reason before he had a law and had understanding assoon as he had desires This clause thus understood is most reasonable and true but the effect of it can be nothing in prejudice of the main business and if any thing else be meant by it I cannot understand it to have any ground in Scripture or Reason and I am sure our Church does not determine for it 32. And is inclined to evil That every Man is inclined to evil some more some less but all in some instances is very true and it is an effect or condition of nature but no sin properly Because that which is unavoidable is not a sin 2. Because it is accidental to nature not intrinsecal and essential 3. It is superinduc'd to Nature and is after it and comes by reason of the laws which God made after he made our Nature he brought us laws to check our Nature to cross and displease that by so doing we may prefer God before our selves this also with some variety for in some laws there is more liberty than in others and therefore less Natural inclination to disobedience 4. Because our Nature is inclined to good and not to evil in some instances that is in those which are according to nature and there is no greater Endearment of vertue than the Law and Inclination of Nature in all the Instances of that Law 5. Because that which is intended for the occasion of vertue and reward is not Naturally and essentially the principle of Evil. 6. In the instances in which Naturally we incline to evil the inclination is naturally good because it is to its proper object but that it becomes morally evil must be personal for the law is before our persons it cannot be Natural because the law by which that desire can become evil is after it 33. So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit This clause declares what kind of inclination to evil is esteemed criminal That which is approved that which passeth to act that which is personally delighted in in the contention which is after regeneration or reception of the Holy Spirit For the flesh cannot lust against the spirit in them that have not the spirit unless both the principles be within there can be no contention between them as a man cannot fight a duel alone so that this is not the sin of Nature but of persons for though potentially it is sin yet actually and really it is none until it resist the spirit of God which is the principle put into us to restore us to as good a state at least as that was which we were receded from in Adam By the way it is observable that the Article makes only concupiscence or lusting to be the effect of Adams sin but affirms nothing of the loss of the wills liberty or diminution of the understanding or the rebellion of the passions against reason but only against the spirit which certainly is Natural to it and in Adam did rebel against Gods Commandments when it was the in-let to the sin and therefore could not be a punishment of it And therefore The illative conjunction expresly declares that the sence of the Church of England is that this corruption of our Nature in no other sence and for no other reason is criminal but because it does resist the Holy spirit therefore it is not evil till it does so and therefore if it does not it is not evil For if the very inclination were a sin then when this inclination is contested against at the same time and in the same things the man sins and does well and he can never have a
help as doubting coldness weariness disrelish of heavenly things indifferency and these are enough to interpret the place quoted in the Objection without tying him to make words for us to no great religious purposes when God hath done that for us in other manner than what we dream of ** Sect. 27. SO that in effect praying in the Holy Ghost or with the spirit is nothing but prayer for such things and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture Holy Prayers spiritual songs so the Apostle calls one part of prayer viz. Eucharistical or thanksgiving that is Prayers or Songs which are spiritual in materiâ And if they be called spiritual for the Efficient cause too the Holy Ghost being the Author of them it comes all to one for therefore he is the cause and giver of them because he hath in his word revealed what things we are to pray for and there also hath taught us the manner Sect. 28. AND this I plainly prove from the words of S. Paul before quoted The Spirit helpeth our infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought In this we are infirm that we know not our own needs nor our own advantages when the Holy Ghost hath taught us what to ask and to ask that as we ought then he hath healed our infirmities and our ignorances in the matter and the manner then we know what to pray for as we ought then we have the grace of Prayer and the Spirit of supplication And therefore in the instance before mentioned concerning spiritual songs when the Apostle had twice enjoyn'd the use of them in order to Prayer and Preaching to instruction and to Eucharist and those to be done by the aid of Christ and Christ's spirit What in one place he calls being filled with the Spirit In the other he calls the dwelling of the word of Christ in us richly plainly intimating to us that when we are mighty in the scriptures full of the word of Christ then we are filled with the Spirit because the Spirit is the great Dictator of them to us and the Remembrancer and when by such helps of Scripture we sing Hymns to Gods honour and our mutual comfort then we sing and give thanks in the spirit And this is evident if you consult the places and compare them Sect. 29. AND that this is for this reason called a gift and grace or issue of the Spirit is so evident and notorious that the speaking of an ordinary revealed truth is called in Scripture a speaking by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.8 No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost For though the world could not acknowledge Jesus for the Lord without a revelation yet now that we are taught this truth by Scripture and by the preaching of the Apostles to which they were enabled by the Holy Ghost we need no revelation or Enthusiasm to confess this truth which we are taught in our Creeds and Catechisms and this light sprang first from the immission of a ray from God's Spirit we must for ever acknowledge him the fountain of our light Though we cool our thirst at the mouth of the river yet we owe for our draughts to the springs and fountains from whence the waters first came though derived to us by the succession of a long current If the Holy Ghost supplies us with materials and fundamentals for our building it is then enough to denominate the whole edifice to be of him although the labour and the workmanship be ours upon another stock And this is it which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 2.13 Which things also we speak not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual The Holy Ghost teaches yet it is upon our co-operation our study and endeavour while we compare spiritual things with spiritual the Holy Ghost is said to teach us because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation Sect. 30. FOR it is a rule of the School and there is much reason in it Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum whatsoever is infused into us is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired that is step by step by humane means and co-operation and grace does not give us new faculties and create another nature but meliorates and improves our own And therefore what the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habits the Christians used to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts because we derive assistances from above to heighten the habits and facilitate the actions in order to a more noble and supernatural end And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection is also true in this Question That is not first which is spiritual but that which natural and then that which is spiritual The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate and are additions to art and nature God directs our counsels opens our understandings regulates our will orders our affections supplies us with objects and arguments and opportunities and revelations in scriptis and then most when we most imploy our own endeavours God loving to bless all the means and instruments of his service whether they be natural or acquisite Sect. 31. SO that now I demand Whether since the expiration of the age of miracles Gods spirit does not most assist us when we most endeavour and most use the means He that says No discourages all men from reading the Scriptures from industry from meditation from conference from humane arts and sciences and from whatsoever else God and good Laws provoke us to by proposition of rewards But if Yea as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours then the spirit of prayer is greatest in him who supposing the like capacities and opportunities studies hardest reads most practises most religiously deliberates most prudently and then by how much want of means is worse than the use of means by so much ex tempore prayers are worse than deliberate and studied Excellent therefore is the Counsel of Saint Peter 1 Epist. Chap. 4. ver 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God not lightly then and inconsiderately If any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth great reason then to put to all his abilities and faculties to it and whether of the two does most likely do that he that takes pains and considers and discusses and so approves and practises a form or he that never considers what he says till he says it needs not much deliberation to pass a sentence Only methinks it is most unreasonable that we should be bound to prepare our selves with due requisites to hear what they shall speak in publick and that they should not prepare what to speak as if to speak were of easier or of less consideration than to hear what is spoken or if
they do prepare what to speak to the people it were also very fit they prepar'd their prayers and considered before-hand of the fitness of the offertory they present to God Sect. 32. LASTLY Did not the Pen-men of the Scripture write the Epistles and Gospels respectively all by the Spirit Most certainly holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost saith Saint Peter And certainly they were moved by a more immediate motion and a motion nearer to an Enthusiasm than now adays in the gift and spirit of Prayer And yet in the midst of those great assistances and motions they did use study art industry and humane abilities This is more than probable in the different stiles of the several Books some being of admirable art others lower and plain The words were their own at least sometimes not the Holy Ghosts And if Origen Saint Hierome and especially the Greek Fathers Scholiasts and Grammarians were not deceived by false Copies but that they truly did observe sometimes to be impropriety of an expression in the language sometimes not true Greek who will think those errors or imperfections in Grammar were in respect of the words I say precisely immediate inspirations and dictates of the Holy Ghost and not rather their own productions of industry and humanity But clearly some of their words were the words of Aratus some of Epimenides some of Menander some of S. Paul This speak I not the Lord. Some were the words of Moses even all that part of the Levitical Law which concerned divorces and concerning which our blessed Saviour affirms that Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so and divers others of the same nature collected and observed to this purpose by Origen S. Basil S. Ambrose and particularly that promise which S. Paul made of calling upon the Corinthians as he passed into Macedonia which certainly in all reason is to be presumed to have been spoken humanitùs and not by immediate inspiration and infusion because Saint Paul was so hindred that he could not be as good as his word and yet the Holy Ghost could have foreseen it and might better have excused it if Saint Paul had laid it upon his score but he did not and it is reasonable enough to believe there was no cause he should and yet because the Holy Ghost renewed their memory improved their understanding supplied to some their want of humane learning and so assisted them that they should not commit an error in fact or opinion neither in the narrative nor dogmatical parts therefore they writ by the Spirit Since that we cannot pretend upon any grounds of probability to an inspiration so immediate as theirs and yet their assistances which they had from the Spirit did not exclude humane arts and industry but that the ablest Scholar did write the best much rather is this true in the gifts and assistances we receive and particularly in the gift of prayer it is not an ex tempore and an inspired faculty but the faculties of nature and the abilities of art and industry are improv'd and ennobled by the supervening assistances of the Spirit And if these who pray ex tempore say that the assistance they receive from the Spirit is the inspiration of words and powers without the operations of art and natural abilities humane industry then besides that it is more than the Pen-men of Scripture sometime had because they needed no extraordinary assistances to what they could of themselves do upon the stock of other abilities besides this I say it must follow that such Prayers so inspired if they were committed to writing would prove as good Canonical Scripture as any is in Saint Paul's Epistles the impudence of which pretension is sufficient to prove the extreme vanity of the challenge Sect. 33. THE summe is this Whatsoever this gift is or this spirit of prayer it is to be acquired by humane industry by learning of the Scriptures by reading by conference and by whatsoever else faculties are improved and habits enlarged Gods Spirit hath done his work sufficiently this way and he loves not either in nature or grace which are his two great sanctions to multiply miracles when there is no need Sect. 34. AND now let us take a man that pretends he hath the gift of Prayer and loves to pray ex tempore I suppose his thoughts go a little before his tongue I demand then Whether cannot this man when it is once come into his head hold his tongue and write down what he hath conceived If his first conceptions were of God and God's Spirit then they are so still even when they are written Or is the Spirit departed from him upon the sight of a Pen and Inkhorn It did use to be otherwise among the old and new Prophets whether they were Prophets of prediction or of ordinary ministery But if his conception may be written and being written is still a production of the Spirit then it follows that set forms of prayer deliberate and described may as well be a praying with the Spirit as sudden forms and ex tempore out-lets Sect. 35. NOW the case being thus put I would fain know what the difference is between deliberate and ex tempore Prayers save only that in these there is less consideration and prudence for that the other are at least as much as these the productions of the Spirit is evident in the very case put in this Argument and whether to consider and to weigh them be any disadvantage to our devotions I leave it to all wise men to determine So that in effect since after the pretended assistance of the Spirit in our prayers we may write them down consider them try the spirits and ponder the matter the reason and the religion of the address let the world judge whether this sudden utterance and ex tempore forms be any thing else but a direct resolution not to consider beforehand what we speak Sic itaque habe ut istam vim dicendi rapidam aptiorem esse circulanti judices quà m agenti rem magnam seriam docentique They are the words of Seneca and express what naturally flows from the premises The pretence of the Spirit and the gift of prayer is not sufficient to justifie the dishonour they do to Religion in serving it in the lowest and most indeliberate manner nor quit such men from unreasonableness and folly who will dare to speak to God in the presence of the people and in their behalf without deliberation or learning or study Nothing is a greater disreputation to the prudence of a Discourse than to say it was a thing made up in haste that is without due considering Sect. 36. BUT here I consider and I wish they whom it concerns most would do so too that to pretend the Spirit in so unreasonable a manner to so ill purposes and without reason or promise or
by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a clear evidence that this nullity viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Jerome Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aerius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemned and branded for heresie and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring than positive and Canonical Sanction But now proceed The Council held in Trullo complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence and made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Council And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to do them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are named before viz. Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Council was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop used by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordain Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism but no fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordain him and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a ruled case and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church which was set down in the third Council of Carthage Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui Vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have been the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himself ordain many and then I am sure there is a sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Council the Council of Antioch the Council of Chalcedon and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem If thou speak saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordained him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars add this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them and were causes in conjunction But unless they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by
security and revenge 2dly As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty and what they could not receive from publick decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion than a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been when the frequency of general Councils and provincial Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretals of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years or else they must be forced to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrencies of the Church unless either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constituted do not aid him but in all these cases the Presbyter is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity failed and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I mean in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Jerusalem but they were not consulted in Church affairs and matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass And thus it is to this day In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and counsel in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that he that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down than in raising up It was wont always to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution than its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodal sentence and determination for so the Canon runs qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui sed praesentati Synodali Judicio quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their own Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be clancular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept lest the sentence should be clandestine and so illegal but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi The Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy even by this Canon it self which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our process for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the main question SECT XLV So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self now from the same principles let us see what it is to
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
but yet it was not a man and therefore if he thought it was he was abused This is their answer and if this will not serve the turn nothing will This therefore must be examined 3. Now this instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty does much increase it and confesses the things which it ought to have avoided For 1. The accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation and notice of the substance not of themselves for as the man feels but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty so that which is felt is the substance and the means by which it is felt is the accidents as the shape the colour the bigness the motion of a man are manifestative and declarative of a humane substance and if they represent a wrong substance then the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance or a true sign of a false substance as if an Alchymist should shew me brass colour'd like gold and made ponderous and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while the deception is because there is a pretence of improper accidents true accidents indeed but not belonging to that substance But 2. It is true that is pretended that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused as the inward that is not so much the eye as the Man not the sight but the judgment and this is it we complain of For indeed in proper speaking the eye or the hand is not capable of being deceived but the man by the eye or by the ear or by his hand The eye sees a colour or a figure and the inward sense apprehends it to be the figure of such a substance and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident it is so or it is not so if it be there is no deception if it be not so then there is a cousenage there is no lye till it comes to a proposition either explicit or implicit a lye is not in the senses but when a man by the ministery of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object or the belief of a false proposition then he is made to believe a lye and this is our case when accidents proper to one substance are made the cover of another to which they are not naturally communicable And in the case of the holy Sacrament the matter if it were as is pretended were intolerable For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived it is his own fault by passing judgment too soon as if he should judge Glass to be Crystal because it looks like it This is not any deception in the senses nor any injury to the man because he ought to consider more things than the colour to make his judgment whether it be Glass or Crystal or Diamond or Ice the hardness the weight and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence And if any two things had all the same accidents then although the senses were not deceived yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake If therefore in the Eucharist as is pretended all the accidents of bread remain then all men must necessarily be deceived If only one or two did remain one sense would help the other and all together would rightly inform the understanding But when all the accidents remain they cannot but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper and then the holy Sacrament would be a constant irresistable deception of all the world in that in which all mens notices are most evident and most relied upon I mean their senses And then the question will not be whether our senses can be deceived or no But whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our senses since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived there being in this case as much reason to believe a lye as to believe a truth if things were so as they pretend The result of which is this That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object but that a man may about the substance lying under those accidents which are the object proper to that sense because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he ought and he ought to have considered other accidents proper to other senses in making the judgment as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain and desired the Painter to draw it aside they made judgment of the grapes and the curtain only by colour and figure but ought to have considered the weight the taste the touch and the smell so on the other side if all the senses concur then not only is it true that the senses cannot be deceived about that object which is their own but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents because their ministery is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a mans understanding which God hath appointed 4. Just upon this account it is that S. Johns argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion for that God was incarnate that Jesus Christ did such miracles that he was crucified that he rose again and ascended into Heaven that he preached these Sermons that he gave such commandments he was made to believe by sounds by shapes by figures by motions by likenesses and appearances of all the proper accidents and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents of what truth or substance could he be ascertain'd by their ministery for he indeed saw the shape of a humane body but it might so be that not the body of a man but an Angelical substance might lie under it and so the Article of the assumption of humane nature is made uncertain And upon the same account so are all the other Articles of our Faith which relied upon the verity of his body and nature all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes and heard with the ears and handled with our hands but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents then the understanding can no more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents than the senses can in the accidents themselves 4. To the same purpose it was that the Apostles were answered concerning the Article of the truth of Christs resurrection For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing and thought it had been a Spirit Christ called them to feel his hands and to shew that it was he For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have plainly meaning that
true horse do and yet the painted man is no man and the painted horse is no horse The effect of which discourse is this that the worship of images is but the image of worship hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way nothing real but imaginative and phantastical and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine with their Saints Thomas and Bonaventure yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry because they give no real worship to images But then on the other side how do they mock God and Christ by offering to them that which is nothing by pretending to honour them by honouring their images when the honour they do give to images is it self but imaginary and no more of reality in it than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man However if you will not commit down-right idolatry as some of their Saints teach you then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image you do it not materially but formally not as it is of such a substance but as it is a sign next take care that you observe what sort of image it is and then proportion your right kind to it that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases and according but to a few Doctors and therefore when you have got all these cases together be sure that in all other cases it be transitive But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar you must consider that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship though the kind be perfect and that it is but analogical and it is reductive and it is not absolute not simple not by it self not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example but one and the same individual act with one intention as to the supreme kind though with some little variety if the kinds be differing Now by these easie ready clear and necessary distinctions and rules and cases the people being fully and perfectly instructed there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive reduct accidental consequential analogical and hyperdulical and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days But now after all this the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images and no manner of way and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction for by these no man can ever be at peace or Understand the Commandment which without these laborious devices by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment does lie a little too heavy upon them would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people leaving it out of their manuals breviaries and Catechisms as if when they teach the people to serve God they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments And when at any time they do set it down they only say thus Non facies tibi Idolum which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum yet it means no more than similitude or if the words be of distinct signification yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment it is very ill to represent the Commandment so as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word yet the Commandment might be broken by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word which they conceal But of this more by and by 7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity the very Turks and Jews with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report and that upon at least the most probable grounds in the world Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile Now if we consider that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church or to any grace which is in order to Heaven and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did and yet on the other side that the Jews and Turks are the more much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants the consequent will be that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians and puts limits and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale 8. It is also very scandalous to Christians that is it makes many and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images for this very reason for fear of idolatry and Cassander says that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question saying that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images and declares our Christian doctrine thus then he recites the words above quoted than which Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument The Scripture doth not say that God made the world it only declares the Christian doctrine thus In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account No man doubts but idols want all sense But when they are plac'd in their seats in an honourable sublimity that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice by the very likeness of living members and senses although they be senseless and without life
our natural powers but it is accounted for by the general measures and great periods of our life A man cannot pray always with equal intention nor give the same alms nor equally mourn with sharpness for his sins But God having appointed for every duty proper seasons and solennities hath declared that He does his best who heartily endeavours to do the duty in its proper season But it were well we would remember that he that did a good act to day can do the same to morrow in the same circumstances and he that yesterday fought a noble battle and resisted valiantly can upon the same terms contend as manfully every day if he will consider and watch And though it will never be that men will always do as well as at some times yet when at any time they commit a sin it is not because they could not but because they would not help it 10. VI. He that would be approved in doing his best must omit no opportunity of doing a good action because when it is plac'd in its proper circumstances God lays his hand upon it and calls to have it done and there can be no excuse for the omission He does not do his best that does not do that Because such a person does voluntarily omit the doing of a good without just cause and that cannot proceed from an innocent principle 11. VII He that leaves any thing undone which he is commanded to do or does what he is commanded to forbear and considers or chooses so to do does not do his best cannot plead his priviledge in the Gospel but is fallen under the portion of sinners and will die if he does not repent and make it up some way or other by sorrow and a future diligence 12. VIII To sin against our Conscience can at no hand consist with the duty of Christian perfection Because he loves not God with all his heart nor serves him with all his strength who gives some of his strength and some of his affection to that which God forbids 13. IX No man must account that he does his duty that is his best or according to the perfection requir'd of Christians but he that does better and better and grows toward the measures of the fulness of Christ. For perfection is an infinite word and it could not be communicated to several persons of different capacities and degrees but that there is something common to them all which hath analogy and equivalent proportions Now nothing can be perfect but that to which nothing is wanting and therefore a man is not any way perfect but by doing all all that he can for then nothing is wanting to him when he hath put forth all his strength For perfection is not to be accounted by comparing the subjects which are perfect for in that sence nothing is perfect but God but perfection is to be reckoned by every mans own proportions For a body may be a perfect body though it have not the perfection of a soul and a man is perfect when he is heartily and intirely Gods servant though he have not the perfection of S. Paul as a man is a meek man though he be not so meek as Moses or Christ. But he is not meek if he keeps any fierceness or violence within * But then because to be more perfect is incident with humane nature he that does not endeavour to get as much as he can and more than he hath he hath not the perfection of holy desires Therefore 14. X. Every person that is in the state of grace and designs to do his duty must think of what is before him not what is past of the stages that are not yet run not of those little portions of his course he hath already finish'd Vt cum carceribus missos rapit ungula currus Instat equis auriga suos vincentibus illum Praeteritum temnens extremos inter euntem For so did the Contenders in the Olympick Races never look behind but contend forwards And from hence S. Paul gives the rule I have now described Brethren I count not my self to have apprehended but this one thing I do forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling Let therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded That is no man can do the duty of a Christian no man can in any sence be perfect but he that adds vertue to vertue and one degree of grace unto another Nilque putans actum dum quid superesset agendum Nothing is finish'd as long as any thing is undone For our perfection is always growing it stands not till it arrive at the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the crowning of him that runs For the enforcing of which the more I only use S. Chrysostoms argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If S. Paul who had done so much and suffered so much was not very confident but that if he did look back he might also fall back what shall we say whose perfection is so little so infant and imperfect that we are come forwards but a little and have great spaces still to measure 15. XI Let every man that is or desires to be perfect endeavour to make up the imperfection or meanness of his services by a great a prompt an obedient a loving and a friendly mind For in the Parable our blessed Lord hath taught us that the servant who was bidden to plow the field or feed the cattel is still called an unprofitable servant because he hath done only what was commanded him that is they had done the work utcunque some way or other the thing was finish'd though with a servile spirit for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to do the outward work and the works of the Law are those which consisted in outward obedience and by which a man could not be justified But our blessed Saviour teaching us the righteousness of the Kingdome hath also brought the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the internal also a mixture of faith and operation For to the Jews enquiring What shall we do to work the works of God Jesus answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent and since this to do in the Christian sence is to do bona benè good Works with a good mind For since the works are not only in themâ—elves inconsiderable but we also do them most imperfectly and with often failings a good mind and the spirit of a friend or a son will not only heighten the excellency of the work but make amends for the defect too The doing what we are commanded that is in the usual sence of doing still leaves us unprofitable for we are servants of God he hath a perfect and supreme right over us and when this is done still can demand more when we have plowed he will
to the purities and perfections of God in respect of which as he says of us men in our imperfect state so he says also of the Angels or the holy Ones of God and of the Heaven it self that it is also unclean and impure for the cause and verification of which we must look out something besides Original sin * Add to this that vice is pregnant and teeming and brings forth new instances numerous as the spawn of fishes such as are inadvertency carelesness tediousness of spirit and these also are causes of very much evil SECT V. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall UPON this account besides that the causes of an universal impiety are apparent without any need of laying Adam in blame for all our follies and miseries or rather without charging them upon God who so order'd all things as we see and feel the universal wickedness of man is no argument to prove our will servile and the powers of election to be quite lost in us excepting only that we can chuse evil For admitting this proposition that there can be no liberty where there is no variety yet that all men chuse sin is not any testimony that there is no variety in our choice If there were but one sin in the world and all men did chuse that it were a shrewd suspicion that they were naturally determin'd or strongly precipitated But every man does not chuse the same sin nor for the same cause neither does he chuse it always but frequently declines it hates it and repents of it many men even among the Heathens did so So that the objection hinders not but that choice and election still remains to a man and that he is not naturally sinful as he is naturally heavy or upright apt to laugh or weep For these he is always and unavoidable 72. And indeed the contrary doctrine is a destruction of all laws it takes away reward and punishment and we have nothing whereby we can serve God And precepts of holiness might as well be preached to a Wolf as to a Man if man were naturally and inevitably wicked Improbitas nullo flectitur obsequio There would be no use of reason or of discourse no deliberation or counsel and it were impossible for the wit of man to make sence of thousands of places of Scripture which speak to us as if we could hear and obey or could refuse Why are promises made and threatnings recorded Why are Gods judgments registred to what purpose is our reason above and our affections below if they were not to minister to and attend upon the will But upon this account it is so far from being true that man after his fall did forfeit his natural power of election that it seems rather to be encreased For as a mans knowledge grows so his will becomes better attended and ministred unto But after his fall his knowledge was more than before he knew what nakedness was and had experience of the difference of things he perceiv'd the evil and mischief of disobedience and the Divine anger he knew fear and flight new apprehensions and the trouble of a guilty conscience by all which and many other things he grew better able and instructed with arguments to obey God and to refuse sin for the time to come And it is every mans case a repenting man is wiser and hath oftentimes more perfect hatred of sin than the innocent and is made more wary by his fall But of this thing God himself is witness Ecce homo tanquam singularis ex se ipso habet scire bonum malum So the Chaldee Paraphrase reads Gen. 3.22 Our Bibles read thus And the Lord God said Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil Now as a consequent of this knowledge God was pleased by ejecting him out of Paradise to prevent his eating of the Tree of Life Ne fortè mittat manúm suam in arborem vitae Meaning that now he was grown wise and apt to provide himself and use all such remedies as were before him He knew more after his fall than before therefore ignorance was not the punishment of that sin and he that knows more is better enabled to choose and lest he should choose that which might prevent the sentence of death put upon him God cast him from thence where the remedy did grow Upon the authority of this place Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon hath these words Potestas libera unicuique data est Si vult inclinare se ad bonum esse jusâ—us penes ipsum est Sin vult se ad malum inclinare esse impius hoc ipsum penes est Hoc illud est quod in lege scribitur Ecce homo tanquam singularis ex seipso habet scire bonum malum To every man is given a power that he may choose and be inclined to good if he please or else if he please to do evil For this is written in the Law Behold the man is as a single one of himself now he knows good and evil as if he had said Behold mankind is in the world without its like and can of his own counsel and thought know good and evil in either of these doing what himself shall choose Si lapsus es poteris surgere In utramvis partem habes liberum arbitrium saith S. Chrysostome If thou hast fallen thou mayest rise again That which thou art commanded to do thou hast power to do Thou mayest choose either 73. I might be infinite in this but I shall only add this one thing That to deny to the will of man powers of choice and election or the use of it in the actions of our life destroys the immortality of the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Hierocles Humane Nature is in danger to be lost if it diverts to that which is against Nature For if it be immortal it can never die in its noblest faculty But if the will be destroyed that is disabled from choosing which is all the work the will hath to do then it is dead For to live and to be able to operate in Philosophy is all one If the will therefore cannot operate how is it immortal And we may as well suppose an understanding that can never understand and passions that can never desire or refuse and a memory that can never remember as a will that cannot choose Indeed all the faculties of the soul that operate by way of nature can be hindred in individuals but in the whole species never But the will is not impedible it cannot be restrained at all if there be any acts of life and when all the other faculties are weakest the will is strongest and does not at all depend upon the body Indeed it often follows the inclination and affections of the body but it can choose against them and it can work without them And indeed since sin is the action of a free faculty it can no more
state not at all fitted for Heaven but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell For even in innocent persons in Christ himself it was a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven he could not enter into the second Tabernacle that is into Heaven so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing the body of sin that is of infirmity he was first to lay aside and so by dying unto sin once he entred into Heaven according to the other words of S. Paul Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God it is a state of differing nature and capacity Christ himself could not enter thither till he had first laid that down as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses 9. This is the whole summ of Original sin which now I have more fully explicated than formerly it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it as to represent it to be a state of evil which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty and to be without excuse which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity and not unreasonable though in Scripture so much is not expressed yet now I must be more restrained and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine which the ignorance or the fancy or the interest or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine SECT II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin and how it is so 10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed to us so as to bring evil effects upon us For that which is inherent in us is a consequent only of Adam's sin but of it self no sin for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin the want of Original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these can be a sin in us but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be For the case is thus One half of Christians that dispute in this Article particularly the Roman Schools say that Concupiscence is not a sin but a consequent of Adam's sin The other half of Christians I mean in Europe that is the Protestants generally say That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin but formally no sin The effect of these is this That it is not certain amongst the Churches that either one or the other is formally our sin or inherent in us and we cannot affirm either without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference and therefore in the conference at Wormes and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together saying that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis cum concupiscentiâ But the Church of England defines neither but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin or inherent in us I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts The want of original righteousness is not a thing but the privation of a thing and therefore cannot be inherent in us and therefore if it be a sin at all to us it can only be such by imputation But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally because if it be at all it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin and unavoidable by us For though Scotus is pleased to affirm that there was an obligation upon humane nature to preserve it I doubt not but as he intended it he said false Adam indeed was tied to it for if he lost it for himself and us then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us for we could not be obliged to keep it unless we had received it but he was and because he lost it we also missed it that is are punished and feel the evil effects of it But besides all this the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges but not at all spoken of in Scripture save only that God made man upright that is he was brought innocent into the world he brought no sin along with him he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion all which we do not It is that which as Prosper describes it made a man expertem peccati capacem Dei for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough if he needed any besides his natural powers which we have not by nature but by another dispensation 11. Add to all this that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events tell us it is an aversion from God that is in effect a turning to the creature and differs no otherwise from concupiscence than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East that is just nothing It follows then that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin then so must the want of original righteousness because they are the same thing in real event and if that be no sin in us because it was only the punishment of his sin then neither is the other a sin for the same reason But then for Concupiscence that this is no sin before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity and of S. Austin himself Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si nunquam consentiremus ad malum Lib. 2. ad Julianum And it is infinitely against reason it should for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins therefore much less is the principle if the little emanations of it in them be innocent although there are some images of consent much more is that principle innocent before any thing of consent at all is applied to it By the way I cannot but wonder at this that the Roman Schools affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and not consented to by us but come upon us whether we list or no yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly which it is certain is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence But I add this also that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin if it were then it would follow that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence that is no
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
gone that they would not return and God did not and at last would not pardon them For this appellative is not properly subjected nor attributed to the sin it self but it is according as the man is The sin may be and is at some time unpardonable yet not in all its measures and parts of progression as appears in the case of Pharaoh who all the way from the first miracle to the tenth sinn'd against the Holy Ghost but at last he was so bad that God would not pardon him Some men are come to the greatness of the sin or to that state and grandeur of impiety that their estate is desperate that is though the nature of their sins is such as God is extremely angry with them and would destroy them utterly were he not restrain'd by an infinite mercy yet it shall not be thus for ever for in some state of circumstances and degrees God is finally angry with the man and will never return to him 49. Until things be come to this height whatsoever the sin be it is pardonable For if there were any one sin distinguishable in its whole nature and instance from others which in every of its periods were unpardonable it is most certain it would have been described in Scripture with clear characters and cautions that a man might know when he is in and when he is out Speaking a word against the Holy Spirit is by our blessed Saviour called this great sin but it is certain that every word spoken against him is not unpardonable Simon Magus spoke a foul word against him but S. Peter did not say it was unpardonable but when he bid him pray he consequently bid him hope but because he would not warrant him that is durst not absolve him he sufficiently declared that this sin is of an indefinite nature and by growth would arrive at the unpardonable state the state and fulness of it is unpardonable that is God will to some men and in some times and stages of their evil life be so angry that he will give them over and leave them in their reprobate mind But no man knows when that time is God only knows and the event must declare it 50. But for the thing it self that it is pardonable is very certain because it may be pardoned in baptism The Novatians denied not to baptism a power of pardoning any sin and in this sence it is without doubt true what Zosimus by way of reproach objected to Christian Religion it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deletery and purgative for every sin whatsoever And since the unconverted Pharisees were guilty of this sin and it was a sin forbidden and punished capitally in the law of Moses either to these Christ could not have been preached and for them Christ did not die or else it is certain that the sin against the holy Spirit of God is pardonable 51. Now whereas our Blessed Lord affirmed of this sin it shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come we may best understand the meaning of it by the parallel words of old Heli to his sons If a man sin against another the Judge shall judge him placari ei potest Deus so the Vulgar Latin reads it God may be appeased that is it shall be forgiven him that is a word spoken against the Son of man which relates to Christ only upon the account of his humane nature that may be forgiven him it shall that is upon easier terms as upon a temporal judgment called in this place a being judged by the Judge But if a man sin against the Lord who shall intreat for him that is if he sin with a high hand presumptuously against the Lord against his power and his Spirit who shall intreat for him it shall never be pardoned never so as the other never upon a temporal judgment that cannot expiate this great sin as it could take off a sin against a man or the Son of man for though it be punished here it shall be punished hereafter But 52. II. It shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come that is neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles For Saeculum hoc this World in Scripture is the period of the Jews Synagogue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is taken for the Gospel or the age of the Messias frequently among the Jews and it is not unlikely Christ might mean it in that sence which was used amongst them by whom he would be understood But because the word was also as commonly used in that sence in which it is understood at this day viz. for the world after this life I shall therefore propound another exposition which seems to me more probable Though remission of sins is more plentiful in the Gospel than under the Law yet because the sin is bigger under the Gospel there is not here any ordinary way of pardoning it no Ministery established to warrant or absolve such sinners but it must be referred to God himself and yet that 's not all For if a man perseveres in this sin he shall neither be forgiven here nor hereafter that is neither can he be absolved in this world by the ministery of the Church nor in the world to come by the sentence of Christ and this I take to be the full meaning of this so difficult place 53. For in this world properly so speaking there is no forgiveness of sins but what is by the ministery of the Church For then a sin is forgiven when it is pardon'd in the day of sentence or execution that is when those evils are removed which are usually inflicted or which are proper to that day Now then for the final punishment that is not till the day of judgment and if God then gives us a mercy in that day then is the day of our pardon from him In the mean time if he be gracious to us here he either forbears to smite us or smites us to bring us to repentance and all the way continues to us the use of the Word and Sacraments that is if he does in any sence pardon us here if he does not give us over to a reprobate mind he continues us under the means of salvation which is the ministery of the Church for that 's the way of pardon in this World as the blessed sentence of the right hand is the way of pardon in the World to come So that when our great Lord and Master threatens to this sin it shall not be pardon'd in this World nor in the World to come he means that neither shall the Ministers of the Church pronounce his pardon or comfort his sorrows or restore him after his fall or warrant his condition or pray for him publickly or give him the peace and communion of the Church neither will God pardon him in the day of Judgment 54. But all this fearful denunciation of the Divine judgment is only upon
not the injur'd person and therefore cannot have the power of giving pardon properly and sufficiently and effectively and confession is not an amends to him and the duty it self of Confession is not an enumeration of particulars but a condemnation of the sin which is an humiliation before the offended party yet confession to a Priest the minister of pardon and reconciliation the Curate of souls and the Guide of Consciences is of so great use and benefit to all that are heavy laden with their sins that they who carelesly and causlesly neglect it are neither lovers of the peace of consciences nor are careful for the advantages of their souls 43. For the publication of our sins to the minister of holy things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Basil Is just like the manifestation of the diseases of our body to the Physician for God hath appointed them as spiritual Physicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal sinners by the antidote of repentance said the Fathers in the first Roman Council under Simplicius Their office is to comfort the comfortless to instruct the ignorant to reduce the wanderers to restore them that are overtaken in a fault to reconcile the penitent to strengthen the weak and to incourage their labours to advise remedies against sins and to separate the vile from the precious to drive scandals far from the Church and as much as may be to secure the innocent lambs from the pollutions of the infected Now in all these regards the penitent may have advantages from the Ecclesiastical ministrations There are many cases of conscience which the penitent cannot determine many necessities which he does not perceive many duties which he omits many abatements of duty which he ignorantly or presumptuously does make much partiality in the determination of his own interests and to build up a soul requires so much wisdom so much severity so many arts such caution and observance such variety of notices great learning great prudence great piety that as all Ministers are not worthy of that charge and secret imployment and conduct of others in the more mysterious and difficult parts of Religion so it is certain there are not many of the people that can worthily and sufficiently do it themselves and therefore although we are not to tell a lie for a good end and that it cannot be said that God hath by an express law required it or that it is necessary in the nature of things yet to some persons it hath put on so many degrees of charity and prudence and is so apt to minister to their superinduc'd needs that although to do it is not a necessary obedience yet it is a necessary charity it is not necessary in respect of a positive express Commandment yet it is in order to certain ends which cannot be so well provided for by any other instrument it hath not in it an absolute but it may have a relative and a superinduc'd necessity Coelestique viro quis te deceperit error Dicito pro culpâ ne scelus esse putet Now here a particular enumeration is the confession that is proper to this ministery because the minister must be instructed first in the particulars which also points out to us the manner of his assistances and of our obligation it is that we may receive helps by his office and abilities which can be better applied by how much more minute and particular the enumeration or confession is and of this circumstance there can be no other consideration excepting that the enumeration of shames and follies before a holy man is a very great restraint to the gayeties of a confident or of a tempted person For though a man dares sin in the presence of God yet he dares not let his friend or his enemy see him do a foul act Tam facile pronum est superos contemnere testes Si mortalis idem nemo sciat And therefore that a reverend man shall see his shame and with a severe and a broad eye look and stare upon his dishonour must needs be a great part of Gods restraining grace and of great use to the mortification and prevention of sin 44. One thing more there is which is highly considerable in this part or ministery of repentance It is a great part of that preparation which is necessary for him who needs and for him who desires absolution Ecclesiastical Some do need and some do desire it and it is of advantage to both They that need it and are bound to seek it are such who being publickly noted by the Church are bound by her Censures and Discipline that is such who because they have given evil example to all and encouragement in evil to some to them that are easie and apt to take are tied by the publication of their repentance their open return and publick amends to restore the Church so far as they can to that state of good things from whence their sin did or was apt to draw her This indeed is necessary and can in no regard be excused if particular persons do not submit themselves to it unless the Church her self will not demand it or advise it and then if there be an error or a possibility to have it otherwise the Governours of the Church are only answerable And in this sence are those decretory sayings and earnest advices of the ancient Doctors to be understood Laicus si peccet ipse suum non potest auferre peccatum sed indiget Sacerdote ut possit remissionem peccatorum accipere said Origen If any of the people sin himself cannot take away his own sin but must shew himself to the Priest that he may obtain pardon For they who are spotted with sins unless they be cured with the Priestly authority cannot be in the bosome of the Church said Fabianus Martyr And as express are those words of S. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It behoveth every one that is under authority to keep â—o motion of their hearts secret but to lay the secrets of their heart naked before them who are intrusted to take care of them that are weak or sick That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick penitents who are placed in the station of the mourners must not do their business imperfectly but make a perfect narrative of their whole case to the penitentiary Minister and such persons who are under discipline or under notorious sins must make their Exomologesis that is do Ecclesiastical repentance before them who are the Trustees and Stewards of the mysteries of God Quâ sine nullus remissione potietur said a Father to S. John de Gradibus without which Exomologesis or publick Ecclesiastical confession or amends no man shall obtain pardon meaning the peace of the Church For to this sence we are to understand the doctrine of the holy Fathers and we learn it from S. Austin Rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam and not to his Children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgment unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ of all is this By the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
longer But your Lordship adds further And to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin I know S. Paul reckons Concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from Heaven Col. 3.5 Evil Concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified but this may and must and the Apostle calls upon us to do it but that this is a superinducing and an actual or habitual lusting appears by the following words Verse 7. in which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 7.8 Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence that is so great a state of evil such strong inclinations and desires to sin that I grew as captive under it it introduced a necessity like those in S. Peter who had eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of an Adulteress the women had possessed their eyes and therefore they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not cease from sin because having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all concupiscence that is the very spirit of sinful desires they could relish nothing but the productions of sin they could fancy nothing but Colloquintida and Toadstools of the Earth * Once more I find S. Paul speaking of Concupiscence 1 Thess. 4.5 Let every man know to possess his vessel in holiness and honour not in the lust of concupiscence as do the Gentiles which know not God In the lust of Concupiscence that is plainly in lustfulness and impurity for it is a Hebraism where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon as Lutum coeni pluvia imbris so the Gall of bitterness and the iniquity of sins Robur virium the blackness of darkness that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outer darkness or the greatest darkness so here the lus◠of Concupiscence that is the vilest and basest of it I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sence But the like is to be said of the word lust which the Apostle often uses for the habits produced or the pregnant desires but never for the natural principle and affection when he speaks of sin But your Lordship is pleased to add a subtlety in pursuance of your former advices and notices which I confess I shall never understand Although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to persons not to natures This I suppose those persons from whom your Lordship reports it intended as an answer to a secret objection For if Concupiscence be a sin and yet remains after Baptism then what good does Baptism effect But if it be no sin after then it is no sin before To this it is answered as you see there is a double guilt a guilt of person and of nature That is taken away this is not for Sacraments are given to Persons not to Natures But first where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture or in the prime Antiquity or in any moral Philosopher There is no humane nature but what is in the persons of men and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these or rather consider a person in a double capacity in his personal and in his natural that is if I am to speak sence a person may be considered in that which is proper to him and in that which is common to him and others yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events I will put it to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord chuse which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan Epist. ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierome Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin
any Synod General National or Provincial be receded from by the Church of the later Age as there have been very many then so many Fathers as were then assembled and united in opinion are esteemed no Authority to determine our perswasions Now suppose 200 Fathers assembled in such a Council if all they had writ Books and 200 Authorities had been alledged in confirmation of an opinion it would have made a mighty noise and loaded any man with an insupportable prejudice that should dissent And yet every opinion maintained against the Authority of any one Council though but Provincial is in its proportion such a violent recession and neglect of the Authority and Doctrine of so many Fathers as were then assembled who did as much declare their opinion in those Assemblies by their Suffrages as if they had writ it in so many books and their opinion is more considerable in the Assembly then in their writings because it was more deliberate assisted united and more dogmaticall In pursuance of this observation it is to be noted by way of instance that Saint Austin and two hundred and seventeen Bishops and all their Successors for a whole Age together did consent in denying Appeals to Rome and yet the Authority of so many Fathers all true Catholicks is of no force now at Rome in this Question but if it be in a matter they like one of these Fathers alone is sufficient The Doctrine of Saint Austin alone brought in the Festival and veneration of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized Infants and the Dominican opinion concerning Predetermination derived from him alone as from their Original So that if a Father speaks for them it is wonderfull to see what Tragedies are stirred up against them that dissent as is to be seen in that excellent nothing of Campian's Ten reasons But if the Fathers be against them then Patres in quibusdam non leviter lapsi sunt says Bellarmine and Constat quosdam ex praecipuis it is certain the chiefest of them have foully erred Nay Posa Salmeron and Wadding in the Question of the immaculate Conception make no scruple to dissent from Antiquity to prefer new Doctors before the old and to justifie themselves bring instances in which the Church of Rome had determined against the Fathers And it is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may erre but if they concur they are certain Testimony For there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the Fathers so generally attested on either side as some points are which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly And therefore 't is not honest for either side to press the Authority of the Fathers as a concluding Argument in matter of dispute unless themselves will be content to submit in all things to the Testimony of an equal number of them which I am certain neither side will do 3. If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this Topick it would be more then needs as to this Question and therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy personages who were excellent lights to their several Dioceses and Cures And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no hunger or thirst but eat onely to make demonstration of the verity of his Humane nature nor that Saint Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow nor that Origen taught the pains of Hell not to have an eternall duration nor that S. Cyprian taught Rebaptization nor that Athenagoras condemned second Marriages nor that Saint John Damascen said Christ onely prayed in appearance not really and in truth I will let them all rest in peace and their memories in honour for if I should inquire into the particular probations of this Article I must doe to them as I should be forced to doe now if any man should say that the Writings of the School-men were excellent argument and Authority to determine mens perswasions I must consider their writings and observe their defaillances their contradictions the weakness of their Arguments the mis-allegations of Scripture their inconsequent deductions their false opinions and all the weaknesses of humanity and the failings of their persons which no good man is willing to doe unless he be compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible or that they are followed by men even into errours or impiety And therefore since there is enough in the former instances to cure any such misperswasion and prejudice I will not instance in the innumerable particularities that might perswade us to keep our Liberty intire or to use it discreetly For it is not to be denied but that great advantages are to be made by theiâ— writings probabile est quod omnibus quod pluribus quod sapientibus videtur If one wise man says a thing it is an argument to me to believe it in its degree of probation that is proportionable to such an assent as the Authority of a wise man can produce and when there is nothing against it that is greater and so in proportion higher and higher as more wise men such as the old Doctors were do affirm it But that which I complain of is that we look upon wise men that lived long agoe with so much veneration and mistake that we reverence them not for having been wise men but that they lived long since But when the Question is concerning Authority there must be something to build it on a Divine Commandment humane Sanction excellency of spirit and greatness of understanding on which things all humane Authority is regularly built But now if we had lived in their times for so we must look upon them now as they did who without prejudice beheld them I suppose we should then have beheld them as we in England look on those Prelates who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity here onely is the difference when persons are living their Authority is depressed by their personal defaillances and the contrary interests of their contemporaries which disband when they are dead and leave their credit intire upon the reputation of those excellent books and monuments of learning and piety which are left behind But beyond this why the Bishop of Hippo shall have greater Authority then the Bishop of the Canaries caeteris paribus I understand not For did they that lived to instance in Saint Austin's time beâ—ieve all that he wrote If they did they were much to blame or else himself was to blame for retracting much of it a little before his death And if while he lived his affirmative was no more Authority then derives from the credit of one very wise man against whom also very wise men were opposed I know not why his Authority should prevail farther now for there is nothing added to the strength of his reason since that time but onely
there be cause for it they must be cassated or if there be no sufficient cause the complyings must be so as may best preserve the particulars in conjunction with the publick end which because it is primarily intended is of greatest consideration But the particulars whether of case or person are to be considered occasionally and emergently by the Judges but cannot antecedently and regularly be determined by a Law 9. But this sort of men is of so general pretence that all Laws and all Judges may easily be abused by them Those Sects which are signified by a Name which have a system of Articles a body of profession may be more clearly determined in their Question concerning the lawfulness of permitting their professions and assemblies I shall instance in two which are most troublesome and most disliked and by an account made of these we may make judgement what may be done towards others whose errours are not apprehended of so great malignity The men I mean are the Anabaptists and the Papists SECT XVIII A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists 1. IN the Anabaptists I consider onely their two capital Opinions the one against the Baptism of Infants the other against Magistracy and because they produce different judgements and various effects all their other fancies which vary as the Moon does may stand or fall in their proportion and likeness to these 2. And first I consider their denying Baptism to Infants Although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of Christians upon great grounds of reason yet possibly their defence may be so great as to take off much and rebate the edge of their adversaries assault It will be neither unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side that their errour is not impudent or vincible The Baptism of Infants rests principally and usually upon this discourse 3. When God made a Covenant with Abraham for himself and his posterity into which the Gentiles were reckoned by spiritual adoption he did for the present consign that Covenant with the Sacrament of Circumcision The extent of which Rite was to all his family from the Major domo to the Proselytus domicilio and to infants of eight days old Now the very nature of this Covenant being a covenant of Faith for its formality and with all faithfull people for the object and Circumcision being a seal of this Covenant if ever any Rite do supervene to consign the same Covenant that Rite must acknowledge Circumcision for its type and precedent And this the Apostle tells us in express doctrine Now the nature of a Type is to give some proportions to its successour the Antitype and they both being seals of the same righteousness of faith it will not easily be found where these two seals have any such distinction in their nature or purposes as to appertain to persons of differing capacity and not equally concern all And this argument was thought of so much force by some of those excellent men which were Bishops in the Primitive Church that a good Bishop writ an Epistle to Saint Cyprian to know of him whether or no it were lawfull to baptize Infants before the eighth day because the type of Baptism was ministred in that Circumcision he in his discourse supposing that the first Rite was a direction to the second which prevailed with him so far as to believe it to limit every circumstance 4. And not onely this type but the acts of Christ which were previous to the institution of Baptism did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such perswasion in us that Christ intended this ministery for the actual advantage of Infants as well as of persons of understanding For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto him he took them in his arms he imposed hands on them and blessed them and without question did by such acts of favour consign his love to them and them to a capacity of an eternal participation of it And possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to come to him all them that are heavie laden did in its proportion concern Infants as much as others if they be guilty of Original sin and if that sin be a burthen and presses them to any spiritual danger or inconvenience And if they be not yet Christ who was as Tertullian's phrase is nullius poenitentiae debitor guilty of no sin obliged to no repentance needing no purification and no pardon was baptized by S. John's baptism which was the baptism of repentance And it is all the reason in the world that since the grace of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam all they who are made guilty by the first Adam should be cleansed by the second But as they are guilty by another man's act so they should be brought to the Font to be purified by others there being the same proportion of reason that by others acts they should be relieved who were in danger of perishing by the act of others And therefore S. Austin argues excellently to this purpose Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant aliorum linguam ut fateantur ut quoniam quòd aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur sic cùm sani fiant alio confitente salventur And Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. But whether they have original sin or no yet take them in puris naturalibus they cannot goe to God or attain to eternity to which they were intended in their first being and creation and therefore much less since their naturals are impaired by the curse on humane nature procured by Adam's prevarication And if a natural agent cannot in puris naturalibus attain to heaven which is a supernatural end much less when it is loaden with accidental and grievous impediments Now then since the onely way revealed to us of acquiring Heaven is by Jesus Christ and the first inlet into Christianity and access to him is by Baptism as appears by the perpetual Analogie of the New Testament either Infants are not persons capable of that end which is the perfection of humane nature and to which the Soul of man in its being made immortal was essentially designed and so are miserable and deficient from the very end of humanity if they die before the use of Reason or else they must be brought to Christ by the Church doors that is by the Font and waters of Baptism 6. And in reason it seems more pregnant and plausible that Infants rather then men of understanding should be baptized For since the efficacy of the Sacraments depends upon Divine Institution and immediate benediction and that they produce their effects independently upon man in them that do not hinder their operation since Infants cannot by any
children So that this Argument though sligthly passed over by the Anab. yet is of very great perswasion in this Article and so us'd and relied upon by the Church of England in her office of Baptism and for that reason I have the more insisted upon it Ad. 5. the next Argument without any alteration or addition stands firm upon its own basis Adam sinn'd and left nakedness to descend upon his posterity a relative guilt and a remaining misery he left enough to kill us but nothing to make us alive he was the head of mankind in order to temporal felicity but there was another head intended to be the representative of humane nature to bring us to eternal but the temporal we lost by Adam and the eternal we could never receive from him but from Christ onely from Adam we receive our nature such as it is but grace and truth comes by Jesus Christ Adam left us an imperfect nature that tends to sin and death but he left us nothing else and therefore to holiness and life we must enter from another principle So that besides the natural birth of Infants there must be something added by which they must be reckoned in a new account they must be born again they must be reckon'd in Chrst they must be adopted to the inheritance and admitted to the Promise and intitled to the Spirit Now that this is done ordinarily in Baptism is not to be denied for therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Font or Laver of regeneration it is the gate of the Church it is the solemnity of our admission to the Covenant Evangelical and if Infants cannot goe to Heaven by the first or natural birth then they must goe by a second and supernatural and since there is no other solemnity or Sacrament no way of being born again that we know of but by the ways of God's appointing and he hath appointed Baptism and all that are born again are born this way even men of Reason who have or can receive the Spirit being to enter at the door of Baptism it follows that Infants also must enter here or we cannot say that they are entred at all And it is highly considerable that whereas the Anab. does clamorously and loudly call for a precept for childrens Baptism this consideration does his work for him and us He that shews the way needs not bid you walk in it and if there be but one door that stands open and all must enter some way or other it were a strange perverseness of argument to say that none shall pass in at that door unless they come alone and they that are brought or they that lean on crutches or the shoulders of others shall be excluded and undone for their infelicity and shall not receive help because they have the greatest need of it But these men use Infants worse then the poor Paralytick was treated at the pool of Bethesda he could not be washed because he had none to put him in but these men will not suffer any one to put them in and untill they can goe in themselves they shall never have the benefit of the Spirit 's moving upon the waters Ad. 15. but the Anab. to this discourse gives onely this reply that the supposition or ground is true a man by Adam or any way of nature cannot goe to Heaven neither men nor Infants without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing but this is to be understood to be true onely ordinarily and regularly but the case of Infants is extraordinary for they are not within the rule and the way of ordinary dispensation and therefore there being no command for them to be baptized there will be some other way to supply it extraordinarily To this I reply that this is a plain begging of the question or a denying the conclusion for the Argument being this that Baptism being the ordinary way or instrument of new birth and admission to the Promises Evangelical and supernatural happiness and we knowing of no other and it being as necessary for Infants as for men to enter some way or other it must needs follow that they must goe this way because there is a way for all and we know of no other but this therefore the presumption lies on this that Infants must enter this way They answer that it is true in all but Infants the contradictory of which was the conclusion and intended by the argument For whereas they say God hath not appointed a rule and an order in this case of Infants it is the thing in question and therefore is not by direct negation to be opposed against the contrary Argument For I argue thus Whereever there is no extraordinary way appointed there we must all goe the ordinary but for Infants there is no extraordinary way appointed or declared therefore they must goe the ordinary and he that hath without difference commanded that all Nations should be baptized hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons and they may as well say that they are sure God hath not commanded women to be baptized or Hermaphrodites or eunuchs or fools or mutes because they are not named in the precept for sometimes in the Census of a nation women are no more reckoned then children and when the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt were numbred there was no reckoning either of women or children and yet that was the number of the Nation which is there described But then as to the thing itself whether God hath commanded Infants to be baptized it is indeed a worthy inquiry and the summe of all this contestation but then it is also to be concluded by every Argument that proves the thing to be holy or charitable or necessary or the means of Salvation or to be instituted and made in order to an indispensable end For all commandments are not expressed in imperial forms as we will or will not thou shalt or shalt not but some are by declaration of necessity some by a direct institution some by involution and apparent consequence some by proportion and analogy by identities and parities and Christ never expresly commanded that we should receive the Holy Communion but that when the Supper was celebrated it should be in his memorial And if we should use the same method of arguing in all other instances as the Anabaptist does in this and omit every thing for which there is not an express Commandment with an open nomination and describing of the capacities of the persons concerned in the Duty we should have neither Sacrament nor Ordinance Fasting nor Vows communicating of Women nor baptizing of the Clergy And when Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized it could never upon their account have been told that he was obliged to Baptism because though Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize others yet he no way told them that their Successors should be baptized any more then the Apostles themselves were
and stronger upon such points which are not usually considered then it is upon the ordinary disputes which have to no very great purpose so much disturbed Christendom and I am more scandalized at her for teaching the sufficiency of Attrition in the Sacrament for indulging Penances so frequently for remitting all Discipline for making so great a part of Religion to consist in externalls and Ceremonials for putting more force and energy and exacting with more severity the commandments of men then the precepts of Justice and internal Religion lastly besides many other things for promising Heaven to persons after a wicked life upon their impertinent cries and Ceremonials transacted by the Priests and the dying person I confesse I wish the zeal of Christendom were a little more active against these and the like Doctrines and that men would write and live more earnestly against them then as yet they have done 6. But then what influence this just zeal is to have upon the persons of the Professors is another consideration For as the Pharisees did preach well lived ill and therefore were to be heard not imitated so if these men live well though they teach ill they are to be imitated not heard their Doctrines by all means Christian and humane are to be discountenanced but their persons tolerated eatenus their Profession and Decrees to be rejected and condemned but the persons to be permitted because by their good lives they confute their Doctrines that is they give evidence that they think no evil to be consequent to such Opinions and if they did that they live good lives is argument sufficient that they would themselves cast the first stone against their own Opinions if they thought them guilty of such misdemeanours 7. Fourthly But if we consider their Doctrines in relation to Government and publick societies of men then if they prove faulty they are so much the more intolerable by how much the consequents are of greater danger and malice Such Doctrines as these The Pope may dispense with all oaths taken to God or man he may absolve subjects from their allegeance to their natural Prince Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Hereticall Princes may be slain by their subjects These Propositions are so deprest and do so immediately communicate with matter and the interests of men that they are of the same consideration with matters of fact and are to be handled accordingly To other Doctrines ill life may be consequent but the connexion of the antecedent and the consequent is not peradventure perceived or acknowledged by him that believes the Opinion with no greater confidence then he disavows the effect and issue of it but in these the ill effect is the direct profession purpose of the Opinion and therefore the man and the man's Opinion is to be dealt withall just as the matter of fact is to be judged for it is an immediate a perceived a direct event and the very purpose of the Opinion Now these Opinions are a direct overthrow to all humane society and mutuall commerce a destruction of Government and of the Laws and duty and subordination which we owe to Princes and therefore those men of the Church of Rome that do hold them and preach them cannot pretend to the excuses of innocent Opinions and hearty perswasion to the weakness of humanity and the difficulty of things for God hath not left those Truths which are necessary for conservation of the publick societies of men so intricate and obscure but that every one that is honest and desirous to understand his duty will certainly know that no Christian truth destroys a man's being sociable and a member of the Body politick cooperating to the conservation of the whole as well as of itself However if it might happen that men should sincerely erre in such plain matters of fact for there are fools enough in the world yet if he hold his peace no man is to persecute or punish him for then it is mere opinion which comes not under politicall cognizance that is that cognizance which onely can punish corporally but if he preaches it he is actually a Traitour or Seditious or authour of Perjury or a destroyer of humane society respectively to the nature of the Doctrine and the preaching such Doctrines cannot claim the privilege and immunity of a mere Opinion because it is as much matter of fact as any the actions of his disciples and confidents and therefore in such cases is not to be permitted but judged according to the nature of the effect it hath or may have upon the actions of men 8. Fifthly But lastly in matters merely speculative the case is wholly altered because the Body politick which onely may lawfully use the Sword is not a competent judge of such matters which have not direct influence upon the Body politick or upon the lives and manners of men as they are parts of a Community Not but that Princes or Judges temporal may have as much ability as others but by reason of the incompetency of the Authority And Gallio spoke wisely when he discoursed thus to the Jews If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness O ye Jews reason would that I should hear you But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law look ye to it for I will be no judge of such matters The man spoke excellent reason for the cognizance of these things did appertain to men of the other Robe But the Ecclesiastical power which onely is competent to take notice of such questions is not of capacity to use the temporal sword or corporal inflictions The mere Doctrines and Opinions of men are things spiritual and therefore not cognoscible by a temporal Authority and the Ecclesiastical Authority which is to take cognizance is itself so spiritual that it cannot inflict any punishment corporal 9. And it is not enough to say that when the Magistrate restrains the preaching such Opinions if any man preaches them he may be punished and then it is not for his Opinion but his disobedience that he is punished for the temporal power ought not to restrain Prophesyings where the publick peace and interest is not certainly concerned And therefore it is not sufficient to excuse him whose Law in that case being by an incompetent power made a scruple where there was no sin 10. And under this consideration come very many Articles of the Church of Rome which are wholly speculative which do not derive upon practice which begin in the understanding and rest there and have no influence upon life and Government but very accidentally and by a great many removes and therefore are to be considered onely so far as to guide men in their perswasions but have no effect upon the persons of men their bodies or their temporal condition I instance in two Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation these two to be in stead of all the rest 11. For the first
Quest. Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host Answ. We may not render Divine worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry Because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith S. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing He is present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the fruits of his Body the real effective consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the world Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heavens must contain him till the time of restitution of all things And if you in the reception of the Holy Sacrament worship him whom you know to be in Heaven you cannot be concerned in duty to worship him in the Host as you call it any more than to worship him in the Host at Nostre Dame when you are at S. Peter's in Rome for you see him no more in one place than in another and if to believe him to be there in the Host at Nostre Dame be sufficient to cause you to worship him there then you are to do so to him at Rome though you be not present for you believe him there you know as much of Him by Faith in both places and as little by sense in either But however this is a thing of infinite danger God is a jealous God He spake it in the matter of external worship and of Idolatry and therefore do nothing that is like worshipping a mere creature nothing that is like worshipping that which you are not sure it is God and if you can believe the Bread when it is blessed by the Priest is God Almighty you can if you please believe any thing else To the other parts of your Question viz. Whether the same body be present really and Substantially because we believe it to be there or whether do we believe it to be there because God hath manifestly revealed it to be so and therefore we revere and adore it accordingly I answer 1. I do not know whether or no you do believe Him to be there really and Substantially 2. If you do believe it so I do not know what you mean by really and Substantially 3. Whatsoever you do mean by it if you do believe it to be there really and Substantially in any sence I cannot tell why you believe it to be so you best know your own reasons and motives of belief for my part I believe it to be there really in the sence I have explicated in my Book and for those reasons which I have there alledged but that we are to adore it upon that account I no way understand If it be Transubstantiated and you are sure of it then you may pray to it and put your trust in it and believe the Holy Bread to be coeternal with the Father and with the Holy Ghost But it is strange that the Bread being consecrated by the power of the Holy Ghost should be turn'd into the substance and nature of God and of the Son of God if so does not the Son at that time proceed from the Holy Ghost and not the Holy Ghost from the Son But I am ashamed of the horrible proposition Sir I pray God keep you from these extremest dangers I love and value you and will pray for you and be Dear Sir Your very affectionate Friend to serve you JER TAYLOR March 13. 1657 8 THE END THE TABLE THough the whole Volume consists of divers Tractates of several Titles yet because one course or order of numbers runs through all the pages till you come to pag. 1070 where begins the Discourse of Confirmation and a new account of 70 pages more reaching to the end of all therefore it was not necessary to trouble this Index with the several Titles of the Books and Discourses Where then the number of the page has the letter b with it as it has for no more then 70 of the last pages the Reader is referred to the Book of Confirmation and the Discourse of Friendship c. But where the number of the page hath not that letter with it he is directed to the rest of the Volume Note also that n stands for the marginall number and ss sect § stands for the Section in those parts of the Volume that are so divided A. Absolution OF the forms of it that have been used page 838 num 53. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial form of absolution in their Liturgies 837 n. 50 52. and 838 n. 54. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841 n. 58. The usefulness of that kind of absolution 841 n. 59. Judicial absolution by the Priest is not that which Christ intended in giving the power of remitting and retaining sins 837 n. 50. and 841 n. 60. Absolution Ecclesiastical 835 n. 44. Attrition joyned with Priestly absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64.830 n. 33. The Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. A Deacon in the ancient Church might give absolution 484. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. The promise of Quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Absolution upon confession to a Priest does not make Attrition equal to Contrition 842 n. 62 64. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying absolution to greater criminals was not their doctrine but their discipline 805 n. 21. Accident What is the definitive notion of it 236 sect 11. Acts. The usuall acts of repentance 845 n. 74. To communicate in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 sect 3. What repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. A single act of sin is cut off by the exercise of the contrary vertue 647 n. 45. A single act of vertue is not sufficient to be opposed against a single act of Vice 647 n. 46. How a single act of sin is sometimes habitual 648 n. 49 50. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation or opposing a contrary act of vertue in repentance 648 n. 50. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination 641 n. 25. Book of Acts Apostles Chap. 13.48 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 28. and 835 n. 44. Adam Concupiscence is not wholly an effect of his sin 752 n. 11. How we can be liable to the punishment of his sin when we were not guilty of it 752 n. 12. How we are sinners in Adam ibid. The effect of his fall upon
sin 673 n. 47. M. Malefactors BEing condemned by the customs of Spain they are allowed respite till their Confessor supposeth them competently prepared 678 n 56. Man The weakness and frailty of humane nature 734 n. 82. in his body soul and spirit 735 n. 83. and 486. Mark Chap. 12.34 explained 780 n. 26. Chap. 12.32 explained 809. Justin Martyr His testimony against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. and 522 523. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Mass. A Cardinal in his last Will took order to have fifty thousand Masses said for his soul 320. Indulgences make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Pope John VIII gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Saint Matthew Chap. 26.11 Me ye have not always explained 222 § 9. Chap. 28.20 I am with you always to the end of the world explained ibid. Chap. 18.17 Dic Ecclesiae explained 389. Chap. 15.9 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472 477. Chap. 5.19 one of the least of these Commandments 615 616 n. 18. Chap. 5.19 explained ibid n. 18. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 622 n. 34. Chap. 12.32 explained 810. Chap. 15.48 explained 582 n. 40 43. Chap. 5.22 shall be guilty of judgement 621 n. 34. Mercy God's Mercy and Justice reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Merit Pope Adrian taught that one out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The difference between them 596 n. 1. Millenaries Their opinion how much it spread and prevailed in the ancient Church 976 n. 3. Miracles The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Of those now-adays wrought by the Romanists 452. The Dominicans and Franciscans brought Miracles on both sides in proof both for and against the immaculate Conception 1019. Of false Miracles and Legends 1020. Miracles not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine ibid. Canus his opinion of the Legenda Lombardica ibid. The Pope in the Lateran Council made a decree against false Miracles 1020. Montanus His Heresie mistaken by Epiphanius 955 n. 18. Moral The difference between the Moral Regenerate and Prophane man in committing sin 782 n. 33. and 820 n. 1. Mortal Sin Between the least mortal sin and greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. Mortification It is a precept not a counsel 672 n. 44. The method of mortifying vicious habits 691 n. 10 11. The benefits of it 690. n. 6. Mysterie The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist like other mysteries is not to be searched into as to the manner of it too curiously 182 § 1. N. Nature OF the use of that word in the controversie of Transubstantiation 251 § 12. By the strength of it alone men cannot get to heaven 885. The state of nature 770 n. 1 2. c. 8. § 1. What the phrase by nature means 723 n. 48. By it alone we cannot be saved 737 n. 86. The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 n. 35. Necessity Of that distinction Necessitas praecepti and medii 8. b. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. Nicolaitans The authour of that Heresie vindicated from false imputations 953 n. 17. Novatians Their doctrine opposed 802 n. 8. A great objection of theirs proposed 806 n. 24. and answered 807 n. 26. O. Obedience ARguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. Obstinacy Two kinds of it the one sinful the other not so 951 n. 10. Opinion A man is not to be charged with the odious consequents of his opinion 1024. Sometimes on both sides of the Opinion it is pretended that the Proposition promotes the honour of God ibid. How hard it is not to be deceived in weighing some Opinions of Religion 1026. Ordination Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop ibid. Ordo and gradus were at first used promiscuously 98 § 31. How strangely some of the Church of Rome do define Orders 99 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had Episcopal Ordinaâ—ion but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches without Bishops 105 § 32. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters 145 146 § 44. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. The Romanists give distinct Ordination to their Exorcists 336. Origen His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. Original sin In what sense it is damnable 570. How that doctrine is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Some Romanists in this doctrine have receded as much from the definitions of their Church as this Authour from the English and without offence 571. Original sin is manifest in the many effects of it 869. The true doctrine of Original sin 869 870 896. The errours in that Article 871. There are sixteen several and famous opinions in the Article of Original sin 877. Against that Proposition Original sin makes us liable to damnation yet none are damned for it 878 n. 5. 879 n. 6 7. The ill consequence of the mistakes in this doctrine 883 884. If Infants are not under the guilt of original sin why are they baptized That objection answered 884. The difficulties that Saint Augustine and others found in explicating the traduction of original sin 896. The Authour's doctrine about Original sin It is proved that it contradicts not the Ninth Article of the Church of England 898 899. Concupiscence is not it 911. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Adam's sin made us not heirs of damnation ibid. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 37. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a natural efficiency 717 n. 39. nor because we were in the loins of Adam 717 n. 40. nor because of the will and decree of God 717 n. 41. Objections out of Scripture against this doctrine answered 720 n. 46. Vid. Sin The Authour affirmeth not that there is no such thing as original sin 747 748 n. 1. He is not singular in his doctrine 762 n. 24 26. The want of original righteousness is no sin 752 n. 10. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of Original sin 761 n. 22. With what variety the doctrine of Original sin was anciently taught 761 n. 23. How much they are divided amongst themselves who say that Original sin is in us formally a sin 762 n. 25. Original sin