The Confession of Bohemia or Waldenses A second kind of sin is Original sin naturally ingendred in us and hereditary wherein we are all conceived and born into this world Behold saith David I was born in iniquity and in sin did my Mother conceive me and Paul We are by nature the children of wrath Let the force of this hereditary destruction be acknowledged and judged of by the guilt and fault by our proneness and declination by our evil nature and by the punishment which is laid upon it 3. The French Church saith thus We believe that all the off-spring of Adam is infected with this contagion which we call Original sin that is a stain spreading it self by propagation and not by imitation only as the Pelagians thought all whose Errors * One of his Errors was that Original sin is not truly and properly a sin but a punishment we detest and we believe that this stain is indeed sin because it maketh all and every man not so much those little ones excepted which as yet lye hid in their Mothers wombs guilty of eternal death before God we affirm also that this stain even after baptism is in nature sin 4. The Confession of Belgia which is this We believe that through the disobedience of Adam the sin which is called Original hath been spread and poured into all mankind Now Original sin is a corruption of the whole nature and an hereditary evil wherewith even the very infants in their Mothers wombs are polluted the which also as a most noysome root doth branch out most abundantly all kind of sin in man and is so filthy and abominable in the sight of God that it alone is sufficient to the condemnation of all mankind neither are we to believe that this sin is by baptism utterly extinguished or plucked up by the roots seeing that out of it as out of a corrupt fountain continual floods and rivers of iniquity do daily spring and flow 5. The Confession of Auspurg saith thus And this Original blot is sin indeed condemning and bringing eternal death even now upon all that are not born by baptism and the Holy Ghost 6. The Confession of Saxony Art 2. treats largely of Original sin Where she approves the Doctrine delivered to us by the first Fathers Prophets and Apostles and the Apostles Scholars even unto Augustin and after his time and condemns the Doctrine of Pelagius and all those who have scattered in the Church like doting follies to those of the Pelagians and they 〈◊〉 like not the usual definition given of original sin viz. Originalâ—â— is a want of Original justice which ought to be in us and afâ—â—â—ward they say That these wants and this whole corruptioâ—â— sin and not only a punishment of sin Harmony of Confessions 〈◊〉 4. p. 76 77. 7. To this may be added the Confession of the Châ—â— of Ireland which Article 24th is the same with the Churchâ—â— Englands 8. The Confession of the Church of Scotland may 〈◊〉 seen in the Confession of Faith made by the late learned and 〈◊〉 thodox Assembly of Divines c. 6. Articles 5 6. This corrupâ—â— of nature during this life doth remain in those that are regâ—â— rated and although it be through Christ pardoned and moâ—â— yet both it self and all the motions thereof are truly and prâ—â— sin every sin both original and actual being a transgression oâ—â— righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its 〈◊〉 nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound oveâ—â— the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subjecâ—â— death with all miseries spiritual temporal and eternal Now if these Churches Confessions suffice not to prove orâ—â— sin to be properly a sin give me leave I pray humbly to offer 〈◊〉 further Confirmation and Explication these things that followâ—â— 1. That Original sin is either Imputed or Inherent 1. Original sin imputed is the inobedience of Adam in whose 〈◊〉 all meer men were and sinned is imputed to all his posterity 〈◊〉 they in their own persons had acttually violated the Law of Goâ—â— eating the forbidden fruit Rom. 5. 12. Wherefore as by one 〈◊〉 entred into the world and death by sin so death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 that all have sinned that is in that one man in Adam legally◠〈◊〉 they stood under his Covenant naturally as they bear his Imaâ—â— as they were in his loins as two Nations are said to be in the 〈◊〉 of Rebeccah Gen. 25. 23. and Levi to have paid tithes in the 〈◊〉 of Abraham to Melchisedeck Heb. 7. 9 10. the slavish estate of thâ—â— parents is imputed to their children The natural man thoughâ—â— may think himself frâ—e yet is sold under sin Rom. 7. 14. as reâ—â— lion of great persons against their King not only hurts their own persons but stains their blood and is imputed to their posterity so is Adams first sin imputed to us who were in his loins and are natural ordinary partakers of his nature and Rom. 5. 13. 't is said that sin was imputed for until the law that is of Moses sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no law that is where there is no law broken 2. Original sin inherent is hereditary corruption naturally propagated Vide Homily of the Nativity of Christ T. 2. p 167â— supra unto us from the fall of our first parents making us guilty of temporal and eternal punishments whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to every thing that is good and wholly inclined to all that which is evil from which do proceed all our actual sins whereby every meer man is so corrupted in his understanding that he doth not cannot know any thing sufficiently concerning meerly divine things belonging to his eternal salvation without the special grace of God Matth. 16. 17 18. Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven 1 Cor. 2. 14. For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can be know them because they are spiritually discerned and this is called sometimes blindnesâ— Ephes 4. 18. Vanity and carnal-mindedness in the mind and understanding Ephes 4. 17. Rom. 8. 7. The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be hardness in the conscience who being past feeling Ephes In Adamo nos omnes rei facti fuimus quia nos omnes fuimus quod ille imus erâ—t unde naturae corruptae ad nos quâ—â—nor emanarunt vulneraâ— ignorantia in intellectu malicia in voluntate infirmatas in iraâ—â—ibill rebellio in concutiscihâ—â— appetitu Aquin 12 ae q. 84. Ex Beda saith learned Bishop Pridiaux fascic controversiaâ—â— c 3 de peccato q. 5. p. â—2â— 4. 19. Pravity or perversaess in the will which is commonly called concupiscence in the appetite and this is formally a turning or
necessary and edificative of the whole flock of Christ but are only made or said to be so by the will of man carrying a real appearance of evil and are scandalous to Papists and Protestants and establish such modes of Religious worship as are most conformable to the Gospel-rule and primo-primitive practise and not too like to and inductive of the Government and form of worship of the Apostatical and Antichristian Church of Rome I verily believe they would have more dutiful Sons and good Friends than now they have and the Church and Kingdom would have more peace and prosperity to which God of his great mercy incline their hearts However I beseech them to let their moderation be known to all men And I intreat all people without making any tumults upon any pretence whatsoever in their own places and callings quietly to endeavour and earnestly expect and pray for an amendment of what is amiss in Church and State to fear God and honour the King and submit to those that are in authority under him And so God keep you all Septemb. 29. 1673. R. R. B. D. The particular Doctrines renounced are these I. THat the Bread and Wine in the Lords-Supper after the Priests pronouncing these words with intention This is my Body and this is my Blood are turned or transubstantiated into the substance of Christs Body and Blood II. That Christ is really more present on the high Altar or Communion-Table as on his Throne or Chair of State than in the Pulpit or Font c. and that therefore more corporal bowing or more bodily reverence is due to the Altar or Communion-Table than to the Pulpit or Font. III. That mens persons are justified or accounted righteous before God for their own good works that follow Faith either in part or in whole and not for the merits of Jesus Christ alone IV. That Faith that doth justifie Believers persons before God is a bare and naked assent to the truth and that so and as an act habit or work in us it justifies V. That the persons of true Believers in Christ are not justified before God by the righteousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ imputed to them on Gods part and apprehended and applied by Faith alone on their part VI. That mens foreseen faith repentance good works c. were the true causes moving God to elect them to eternal Salvation VII That men unregenetate or in the state of nature have by their own free will power sufficient of themselves to turn themselves to God to believe in Jesus Christ repent and do good workâ— acceptable to God when they will and also finally to resist the efficacious grace of God in converting an elected sinner to himself VIII That truly regenerated persons cannot be certain of their eternal Salvation but may totally and finally fall away from the acts and habits of saving Grace before they die and be eternally damned IX That the corruption of our nature commonly called Original sin which remaineth in truly regenerated persons after Baptism is not properly sin X. That meer men in this life since Adams fall can perfectly fulfill Gods whole Moral Law and also voluntarily do good works besides and above Gods Commandments which they call works of Supererogation which are as they say greater and holier than the works of the Moral Law and do merit remission of sin and eternal life not only for themselves but also for others XI That unregenerated mens own good works do make them meet to receive grace from God or as the School Doctors say deserve grace of congruity XII Thâ—t the good works of â—â—regenerated men do ex condigno merit at Gods hands eternal life XIII That there is a place after this life called Purgatory wherein the souls of believers dying since Christs Resurrection are purged from sins by penal satisfaction which were not purged in this life so fully as they ought that they may enter into Heaven XIV That the Pope of Rome successively or the Papacy is not the Antichrist of which the Scripture writes XV. That it is lawful to set up and suffer Images of the Sacred Trinity of God the Father of God the Son or Crucifixes Of God the Holy Ghost or of Saints departed this life which have been worshipped in Temples or Churches where Gods people do usually meet to worship God XVI That those Books which are commonly called Apocryphal Scriptures as Tobit Judith c. are the pure word of God and in all things agreeable thereunto XVII That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the supreme Head of the Universal Church of Christ above all Emperours Kings Princes Pastors People and Churches The Articles of Lambeth The Doctrine of the Churches of England and Ireland Arminianism is not the Doctrine of the Church of England Notes taken out of King James his Declaration against Vorstius King James no friend to Arminianism A Renunciation OF SEVERAL Popish Doctrines BECAUSE Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND IN general I renounce and detest all Popish false Doctrine and all Popish Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship and practises and the real appearances thereof and in particular I renounce and detest these that follow ARTICLE I. That the Bread and Wine in the Lords-Supper after the Priests pronouncing these words with intention This is my Body and this is my Blood are turned or transubstantiated into the substance of Christs Body and Blood This I renounce because it is contray to the Doctrine of the Church of England which Article 28th faith thus Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of the Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith And Homily of the worthy receiving the Sacrament it saith thus It is well known that the meat we seek for in the Supper is spiritual food the nourishment of our souls an heavenly refection and not earthly invisible meat and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal p. 200. It 's also contrary to the Church of England's declaration concerning kneeling at the end of the Communion-service The Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places than one This declaration is not only against the Papists Transubstantiation but also fully against the Lutherans Consubstantiation viz. That Christs body and blood is really and corporally in the bread and wine Both which
Christs Church which is his mystical body are inseparably knit together to Christ and to one another Hypocrites may be externally by outward profession and separably united to the Church and Christ but true believers in Christ abide in Christ Joh. 15. 2. they are inseparably united to Christ else as was said before Christ may lose his peculiar people yea be a head without a body for if one of his members may be eternally separated from See Dr. Field of the Church his Appendix part 1. p. 833. That the elect called according to Gods purpose have that grace that excludeth sin from reigning and that this grace once had by them is never totally nor finally lost him then others may also and if others then all of them may be so separated from him for there is the same reason of one that there is of another yea of all Our Saviour saith Not one of them his Father gave him is lost John 17. 12. yea the Apostle speaks fully that nothing shall be able to separate us that are in Christ Jesus from the love of Gâ—â— which is in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Those whom Chriâ—â— loved he loved to the end John 13. 1. Isa 54. 8. But with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeeâ—â— Jerem. 31. 3. I have loved thee with an everlasting love therefâ—â— with loving kindness have I drawn thee Jerem. 32. 40. And I 〈◊〉 make an everlasting covenant with thâ—â— that I will not turn away from them 〈◊〉 do them good but I will put my feâ—â— Vide King James his Declaration against Vorstius wherein he called the Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints taught by Bertius a Scholar of Arminius that enemy to God an heretical blasphemous and wicked Doctrine in their hearts that they shall not depart from me and Rom. 11. 29. 〈◊〉 gifts and calling of God are witâ—â— repentance Gods decree of Eleâ—â— is unchangeable and therefore thâ—â—â— gifts that flow from it are imâ—â— table too God taketh not thâ—â—â— away from them neither can thâ—â— that have them lose them Chrâ—â—â— prayed for them John 17. 9 15 19 20 24. and Bishop Mountagâ—â— himself confesseth that Christ was ever heard in what he prayâ—â— for ART IX That the corruption of our nature commonly called Original sin which remaineth in truly regenerated persons after Baptism is not properly a sin THis I renounce 1. because 't is contrary to the sound Doctrine of the Church of England in Homily of Christs Nativity T. 2. p. 167. where we may read how excellently man was made after Gods own Image and that Adam falling into sin had in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness but being altogether spoâ—ted insomuch that he seemed to be altogether a lump of sin and therefore by the just judgment of God was justly condemned to everlasting death and this plague fell not only upon himself but also upon all his posterity and children for ever as St. Paul Rom. 5. By one mans offence sin entred upon all many were made sinners by which words we are taught that as in Adam all men universally sinned so in Adam all men universally received the reward of sin that is became mortal and subject unto death having nothing in themselves but everlasting damnation both of body and soul they became as David saith corrupt and abominable they went all out of the way there was none that did good no not one And in the Homily of the Death of Christ T. 2. p. 184. Is not sin think you a grievous thing in Gods sight seeing for the transgression of Gods Precept in eating of one apple he condemned all the world to perpetual death and would not be pacified but only with the blood of his own Son And in Homily of Christs Resurrection T. 2. p. 195. Hard it is to subdue and resist our nature so corrupt and leavened with the sowre bitterness of the poyson which we received by the inheritance of our old Fatheâ— Adam But more fully the Church of England in her 9th Article of Religion of Original sin thus Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is ingendered of the off-spriâ—â— of Adam whereby man is very far gone from Original Righteousâ—â— and is of his own nature inclined to evil so that the flesh lusteth 〈◊〉 ways contrary to the spirit and therefore in every person 〈◊〉 into this world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and 〈◊〉 infection of nature doth remain yea in them that are regeneratâ—â— whereby the lust of the flesh called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiâ—â— some do expound the wisdom some sensuality some the affectioâ—â— some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God 〈◊〉 although there is no condemnation for them that believe and 〈◊〉 baptized yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and 〈◊〉 hath in it self the nature of sin In which Article is declared 1. That Original sin doth not consist in following or imitating of 〈◊〉 in sinning against God as Pelagians vainly teach 2. That Original sin is the FAULT AND CORRUPTION of 〈◊〉 nature of every man that by ordinary generation descends from 〈◊〉 Psal 51. 5. Rom. 7. 15. Gal. 4. 17. Jam. 1. 17. 1 Pet. 2. 11. 3. That Original sin deserves Gods wrath and damnation in every â—â—â—son so born into this world Rom. 7. 23 24. Gal. 5. 17. Ephes 2. 3. 4. That Original sin is and remains in every person so born eveâ—â— them that are regenerated Rom. 7. from vers 7. to vers 25. 5. That concupiscence oâ— lust hath in it the nature of sin Rom. 〈◊〉 11 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 24. Gal. 5. 17. Now sum up what the Church of England saith of Original sin 〈◊〉 then judg whether she doth not affirm that Original sin is propâ—â— a sin 2. Because 't is contrary to the sound Doctrine of other reformâ—â— Churches to be seen in the Harmony of Confessions Sec. 4. p. 〈◊〉 1. 'T is contrary to the latter Confession of Helvetia Man was frâ—â— the beginning created of God after the Image of God in righteâ—â— ness and true holiness good and upright but by the instinct of 〈◊〉 â—â—rpent and his own fault falling from goodness and uprightâ—â—â— became subject to sin death and sundry calamities and such 〈◊〉 one as he became by his fall such are all his off-spring even 〈◊〉 ject to sin death and sundry calamities and we take sin to be 〈◊〉 natural corruption of man derived or spread from those our 〈◊〉 parents unto us all through which we being drowned in evil 〈◊〉 â—upiscences and clean turned away from God but prone to 〈◊〉 evil full of all wickedness distrust contempt and hatred of Goâ—â— can do no good of our selves no not so much as think of any 2.
the womb is evident by sacred Scripture how this came unto us we should not be curious to inquire but rather industrious in Gods way to amend it yet the learned do say that God not as a Creator but as a Judg made the Souls of men in the seed without that Original righteousness which Adam had as a punishment of the first sin of ours in Adam in whom we were who by his fin rendred us his posterity who sinned in him worthy to be deprived of Original righteousness and then from this privation follows corruption or an inclination to actual unrighteousness and this is voluntary by mans own private will ART X. That meer men in this life since Rhem. Test an 2 Cor. 8. 14. Pet. a Soto assert Cathol de lege Doctor Hammond's Tract of Will-worship Sec. 16. 19. saith That when a man shall out of a pious affection do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is to be accounted so much the more commendable and acceptable to God which Mr. D. Cawdry hath answered p. 71 72. of Will-worship Adam ' s fall can perfectly fulfill Gods whole Moral Law and also voluntarily do works besides and above Gods Commandments which they call works of Supererogation which are greater and holier than the works of the Moral Law and do merit remission of sins and eternal life not only for themselves but also for others THis I renounce 1. Because 't is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England in all its parts As Article 14th which saith thus Voluntary works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereâ—â— Christ saith plainly When ye have done all those things which are commanded you say ye are unprofitable servants In which Article we have these four things held forth unto us 1. That works of Supererogation are voluntary works besides over and above Gods Commandments and so vice versa voluntary works besides over and above Gods Commandments are works of Supererogation Of which kind are Popish vows of voluntary poverty regular obedience perpetual continency Feasts Fasts Ceremonies Pilgrimages and such like Will-worships made by them but not commanded by God in his Word 2. That works of Supererogation or voluntary works besides over and above Gods commands cannot be taught without arrogancy Which works besides and above that which God hath commanded and imposed are called sometimes Ordinances of the world Col. 2. 20. Voluntary Religion Col. 2. 23. Doctrines of Devils 1 Tim. 4. 1. forbidden in the Word of God where we are commanded 1. To walk not after the laws of men but according to the statutes of God Josh 1. 7 8. Be strong and very courageous that thou mayest observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commandeâ— thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left that thou mayest prosper whither soever thou goest This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein For then thou shalt make thy way prosperous and then thou shalt have good success Till this be done Rulers must not look to prosper in their Government at home and undertakings against their enemies abroad 2. To hear Christ Mark 8. 7. who teacheth Christians their duty setting before them as their rule and direction the law and word of God Mat. 5. 17 18. 19 20. and more than that he doth not urge and against mans needless injunctions Mark 7. 7. They worship 〈◊〉 in vain saith Christ teaching for Doctrines the commandments of meâ— And teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you Mat. 28. 20. And Christs sheep hear his voice but not the voice of strangers Joh. 10. 3 5. The works of Supererogation are more rightly called the Festus Hommiâ—â— Disp 19. c. 6. Opera supererogationis rectius opera superarrogantiae appellantur works of superarrogance saith a learned man 3. That Voluntary works or works of Supererogation besides or above the Commandments of God are the subversion of godliness and true religion and cannot be taught without impiety The reason is rendred in the body of the Articles And 't is so saith Mr. Thomas Rogers in his Explications and Confirmations of the 39 Articles upon the 14th Article 1. Because Gods Law is thereby broken that mens may be kept Mark 7. 7 8. 2. The holy Scriptures must be contemned as not sufficient enough to bring men to the knowledg of Salvation which St. Paul saith 〈◊〉 able to instruct in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto every good work 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 3. God who is only wise 1 Tim. 1. 17. is made unwise in not prescribing so necessary works To which I add 4. That true Godliness is the right worshipping of God as he hath apâ—â—â—ted in the Canonical Scriptures as all know that know the meaning of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth piety or godliness 〈◊〉 Voluntary works or works of Supererogation advance a worship 〈◊〉 mens devising directly against the scope and end of the second Commandment wherein God hath commanded men to worship him 〈◊〉 â—e hath prescribed and forbidden Will-worship as all our Learned and â—â—thodox Divines expound that Commandment 5. They that do worship God by such ways and means as he hath â—â—t prescribed in his Word do not love but hate God as both A. B. â—â—her and bishop Babington declare in their Expositions upon that Commandment and they worship a God of their own devising as not only Mr. Perkins but also Peter Marâ—r * Loc. com clas 2 ae c. 4. p. 196. Nullus verus Deus est qui rebus iis coli vellit unde super est dum impii tales ritus suis sacris adhibent ut non verum Deum adorent sed illum quem iis rebus delectari finxerunt Et cum is in rerum natura nullus â—extet animorum suorum idolum colunt idâ— câ—rco jure possint dici idololatrae Perkins Cases of Conscienc l. 2. c. 11. Sec. 2. q. 1. p. 206. do plainly demonstrate Nullus â—erus Deus c. That is not a true God that would be worshipped by these things that is such things as the true God had not commanded or warranted in his Word of which he spake before â—â—ence it remaineth that wicked men while they add such rites as he was speaking of before to Gods sacred things 〈◊〉 ordinances that they do not adore the true God but him whom they seign to be â—elighted with such things and seeing there is no such
of Gods righteousness which shall be applied to them by Faith So Diodate in Isa 45. 25. 2. Rom 4 6. Blessed is the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works Now that righteousness is not cannot be inherent properly in our persons for that is not without works it must necessarily therefore be Christs righteousness which is imputed to him that is blessed 3. Rom. 5. 17 18 19 For if by one mans offence i. e. Adams death reigned by one i e. by Adam much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ therefore as by the offence of one that is Adam judgment came upon all men unto condemnation even so by the righteousness of one that is Christ the second Adam the free gift camt upon all men that is that are elected in Christ unto justification of life This next verse makes it most clear For as by one mans disobedience that is Adams many that is all that were naturally in Adam by ordinary generation were made sinners so by the obedience of one that is of Christ many that is all Gods Elect shall be made righteous Not efficiently and meritoriously only but formally as by Adams disobedience we weâ—â— made sinners not efficiently and meritoriously only but formally for his first sin was imputed to us and made our sin so are believers Christ formally made righteous by the Imputation of Christs righteousness them 4. 1 Cor 1. 30. Christ is made to us of God wisdom and righteousneâ—â— and sanctification and redemption Where the blessed Apostle doth â—â—presly distinguish righteousness from sanctification the righteousness 〈◊〉 Christ imputed to us from inherent righteousness wrought in us 5. To this might be added this That no righteousness but the rigâ—teousness of Christ who is God and man in one Person is now 〈◊〉 to satisfie the justice of God and purchase for us remission of our 〈◊〉 and perfectly fulfill the Law of God for us and therefore St. 〈◊〉 who understood himself very well Phil. 3. 8 9 Counted all thing but dung that he might win Christ and be found in him not having his oâ—â— righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith That is clothed witâ— the righteousness of Christ imputed to him as not only Dr. Featly bâ—â— all our sound Divines that have written upon the place expouâ—â— it 6. Before I leave this point I pâ—â— observe * Tilen Syntag. de Justif p. 724. Wendâ—lin Theol. lib. 1. c. 25. Thes 8. p 491. with Divines That remissâ—â— of sins or absolution from the curse of tâ—â— Law and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ are not two divers or distiâ—â— integranting parts of Justification or two acts in number and really distinct but one and the same act respecting two terms à quo ad queâ— from which and to which As darkness is by one and the same act expelled the air and light introduced into the air so by one and tâ—â— same act of Justification is the sinner absolved from guilt and pronounced just by one and the same act is the sinners sin pardoned and the righteousness of Christ imputed to him Remission of sins and imputation of righteousness are not two divers or distinct parts secuâ—dum essâ— but only secundum dici in nature but name and sound foâ— either of them taken asunder doth express the whole nature of Justification as appears Rom. 4. 6 7. where the Apostle purposely handling this argument doth use to remit sins and to impute righteousnesâ— as things or phrases of equal force or signification David describeâ—â— the blessedness of man unto whom God imputeth righteousness withoâ—â— works saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven Psal 32. 1 〈◊〉 To these arguments I might add what Cardinal Contarenus in tractaâ—â—u de Justificatione doth teach to be seen in Dr. Ames his Bellarminus Enervatus T. 4. l 6. c. 1. p. 128. and what Cardinal Cajetan also saith to the same purpose there to be seen but I forbear because I am now to deal with Protestants in profession though Papists indeed in those points about Justification And that you may see I do not wrong them I shall here insert what Mr. Fowler * And I hope I may without offence call them so seeing they hold the very same that Papists do in their tract of Justification seeing he calls us Antinomians for holding the Doctrine of St. Paul saith that he and his party do hold Free Discourse p. 1. p. 125. he saith That those men are angry with those Preachers that is his Latitudinarian party that preach a truly †As if those he writes against did not preach such a moral and real righteousness as well as they and as though Christs righteousness which is imputed to believers were not such moral and real righteousness because they hear no talks from their Pulpits of an imputative righteousness And p. 126 he saith They do not use the phrase so often but they believe the thing in their sense that is so to handle the doctrine of imputed as to shew the necessity of inherent righteousness that is as he explains himself elsewhere to the justification of a sinners person before God which whether it be not downright Jesuitical or if you rather will Socinian-Popery let the judicious and indifferent Reader judg This then is their notion of Christs imputed righteousness that those which are sincerely righteous and from an inward living principle allow themselves in no known sin nor in the neglect of any known duty which is to be Evangelically righteous shall be dealt with and rewarded in and through Christ as if they were perfectly and in a strict legal sense so 'T is certain I acknowledg that those that are justified are sincere but that their sincerity doth antecede or copulatively or concausally concur to the Justification of their persons before God with the righteousness of Christ imputed to them is a grosly false notion of Christs imputed righteousness and amounts to no more than what the Papists teach That Christ hath merited that our works might merit and is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as I have shewed before And besides he speaks not out plainly but saith they shall be dealt with and rewarded in and through Christ but how whether as the efficient or meritorious or formal cause he doth not shew The latter he cannot mean because he denies the Justification of a sinners person before God upon the account of the imputed righteousness 〈◊〉 Christ And p. 127. he saith thus I am confident that this which 〈◊〉 immediately before gave is the only true notion of the imputed righteousness of Christ And p. 128. The true notion he saith of those mâ—â— he writes against of the imputed righteousness of Christ is this that Christs righteousness * Christs righteousness
is more than his inherent righteousness as I shewed before or inherent holiness is as coâ—pleatly made †'T is so by Gods imputation theirs as if they theâ—selves were compleatly and perfectly righteous and that upon no other * They call not Faith a condition but the only instrument of the soul condition or qualification wrought in them but 〈◊〉 believing whereby too many of them meâ—â— strongly fancying this rightcousness to 〈◊〉 theirs This he saith in the Margent iâ— a false notion of it and is grosly false doctrine For he saith there are two palâ—ble mistakes in it 1. That Christs righteousness is properly †'T is as properly made ours by imputation as Adam's first sin is made ours made ours I am coâ—fident there is no Scripture that tells us 〈◊〉 All that we find asserted in the Gospel 〈◊〉 to this matter is this that real benefits 〈◊〉 advantages which are likewise exceedingâ—â— great * But what are they is justification one of them or not in the sense I have treated of it and excellent do by the righteousness of Christ accrue to us and those â—â—less great and excellent than if that righteousness were in the most proper seâ—â— ours 2. The other mistake is that this righteousness is made ours upon no other terms than that of believing †Who saith so what other terms are required on our part besides faith in Christ believe and thou shalt be saved antecedent to Justification it is so This is not only a * And yet this man saith Conformists must not write against the Doctrine of the Church of England false but also a most dangerous opinion And then he saith That be and his moral Preachers are careful to shew the falsity and defectiveness of some definitions of faith of dangerous consequence and that this is one of the false ones namely that is is a taking hold of †Who are the men that so define it and where Assembl Definition of Justifying Faith Christs righteousness or a believing thâ—â— it is made over to us p. 129 130 this he calls a mysterious faith and non-sâ—nse p. 130. The Learned and Orâ—hodoâ— Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism did give us this Definition of justifying Faith Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God whereby he being convinced of his sin and misery and of the disability of himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of â—oâ— for salvation Joh. 1. 12. Act. 16. 32. Phil. 3. 9. Is this a false or defective definition of Faith or non-sense if it be speak out and prove it And p. 130 131. he saith The reason why those moral Preachers use not at all or but seldom the phrase imputed righteousness is because those mens very untoward notion hath so leavened * And yet you 'l use the word Altar and the phrase holy Altar though the Papists have levelâ—â— it with their false notion of oftering the sacrifice of Christs body and blood upon it the heads of the vulgar that they can scarcely hear of Christs imputed righteousness but they are ready to make an ill use of it by taking from thence occasion to entertain low and disparaging thoughts of an inward real righteousness I think saith he it would be well if it were never used I pray mark 1. He calls our Orthodox Divines notion of Christs imputed righteousness an â—ntoward notion 2. He gives a Popish reason and very untoward false and dangerous one why his Divines use not the phrase imputed righteousness because forsooth ' tâ—s in danger to be abused the same that Papists give for their prohibiting vulgar people to read the holy Scriptures in a known tongue left they should abuse it 3. Christs righteousness and the imputation thereof must not by these mens reason be mentioned Lest people should take occasion to disparage mans own real moral righteousness Doth not this shew that you prefer your own righteousness above Christs And pag. 132. he saith But take notice that this expression Christs * So saith Bellarmine as Tâ—lenus in his Syntag. de Justiâ— p 726. tells us where he saith frontem persricat Bellarmiâ—â— 'T is plainly in Rom. 4. 6. â—hil 3. 8. 9. and by necessary consequence in Rom. 5. 18 19. 1 Cor. 1. 30. and many other plâ—ces of Script 2 Cor. 5. 〈◊〉 imputed righteousness is not to be found in all the Bible Nor in any of the places where we find the word imputed relating to the righteousness of Christ at all to be understood but only an effectual faith which is the very same with inherent righteousness which as I said is that moral righteousness only that those Preachers may be justly charged with altogether insisting upon p. 133. Here the man speaks out plainly that our persons are justified befoâ—â— God by our own inherent righteousness as 't is taken in opposition 〈◊〉 the righteousness of Christ imputed to us which latter he utterly denies And in his other Book intituled The design of Christianity c. 19. p. 221. he saith That faith justifies as it includes a sincere resolution of obedience or true holiness in the nature of it Which is as directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as any that his Father Bellarmine hath written concerning Justification whose arguments he urgeth and improves as will be evident to any man that reads Bishop Downham of Justification and Dr. Ames his Bellarminus Enervatus And in p. 133. of his Free Discourse he saith There are but two Chapters in all the New Testament where we find the word imputed mentioned as relating to righteousness one is in the fouâ—â— to the Romans and the other the second of St. James In the fourth to the Romans we have it four or five times and it is most evident that there still it is to be interpreted as I said that is above p. 132. * Which is most false it 's evident that 't is taken as all our sound Protestant Divines understand it of Faith not as 't is effectual by works but as it 's relatively considered apprehending the righteousness of Christ and applying it to our selves as I have shewed before Bishop Sanderson was no Antinomian consider what he saith That Justification of sinners by the imputed righteousness of Christ apprehended and applied unto them by a lively Faith without the works of the Law is a sound true comfortable profitable and necessary Doctrine Serm. upon Rom 3. 8. p. 49. in 410. of an effectual faith which is the very same with inherent righteousness And what he saith for confirmation of his opinion That Abrahaâ— was justified by his faith
aversion from that which is good materially 't is an inclination to that whiâ—h is morally evil There is in the will of man 1. an impotency to that which is spiritually good as the understanding of a meer natural man cannot rightly think of any thing that is spiritually good so the will of a meer natural man cannot rightly of it self will any thing that is spiritually good 2 Cor. 3. 5. Not that we â—â— sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but our â—â—ciency is of God Phil. 2. 13. It is God that worketh in us both to 〈◊〉 and to do of his own good pleasure 2. A proneness only to that whicâ— is evil Gen. 6. 5. God saw that the wickedness of man was great in 〈◊〉 eâ—rth and that every imagination of the thoughts or purposes or desireâ—â— his heart was only evil continually 3. Aversness from that whiâ—â— is good Rom. 8. 7. The carnal mind is enmity against God for 't is 〈◊〉 subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be Read Rom. 3. 10 11 12. Ephes 2. 1 2 3 5. We are all dead in trespasses and sins and 〈◊〉 by nature the children of wrath by nature not pure but corrupt aâ—â— that corrupted by Original sin That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 flesh John 3. 6. and who can bring a clean thing out of an uncâ—â— Job 14. 4. Now Papists grant that original sin imputed is pâ—â—perly a sin but inherent they say is not properly a sin Pelagâ—â— that old Heretick was the Father and the Popish Arminian aâ—â— Semi-pelagian Divines are the 〈◊〉 and followers of it Beâ—â—mine T. 4. l. 2. de peccato c. 3. saâ—â— from Jam. 1. Quod 〈◊〉 Jacobo in illo 〈◊〉 Bellar. l. 5. de amissione gratiae c. 3. 9. c. 10. Peccatum inhabitans Rom. 7. non nisi improprie dicitur peccatum non vocatur peccatum illud non est peccatum quod parit peccatum non est peccatum And Dr. Jeremy Taylor one 〈◊〉 Archbishop Lauds Chaplains late â—â—shop in Ireland in his further Exâ—â—nation of original sin saith expresly thus That original sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed so as to bring evil effects upon us for that which is inherent in 〈◊〉 is a consequent only of Adams sin but of it self no sin for theâ—â— being but two things the constituent parts of original sin the want of original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these caâ— So Pelagius and Arminius picad be a sin in us but a punishment 〈◊〉 Adams sin they may be P. 459. And p. 475. of the same book he saith That original sin is 〈◊〉 an inherent evil not a sin properly but metâ—nimically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain not a sin it doth not damn any infant to eternal pains of hell And p. 474. he saith thus And since no Church did ever in join tâ— any Catechumen any penance or repentance for original sin iâ— sâ—â—ms horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damneâ— for that for which no man is bound to repent But Sir is that only properly sin for which the Church injoins penance Did the Jews injoin any penance for Poligamy and doth the Christian Church injoin penance for inward sins is not the 19th Commandment made void by this Doctrine did not King David 〈◊〉 51. 5. and St. Paul Rom. 7. confess their original sin or was King Davids and St. Pauls Confession one of your Brother Dr. Haâ—â—onds free-will offerings commended even to meriting And I pray read there his Explanation of the 9th Article of the Church of England and then judg whether that of Knot the Jesuit be not true Preface to Charity maintained Sec. 2. Heylins Cypr. Anglicus l. 4. p. 252 253. viz. That the Doctrine of the Church of England began to be altered in many things for which our Progenitors forsook the Roman Church for example it is said that the Pope is not Antichrist prayer for the dead is allowed Limbus patrum it is maintained that the Church hath authority in determining controversies of faith and to interpret Scriptures about free-will predestination universal grace that all our works before effectual vocation are not sins merit of good works inherent righteousness faith alone doth not justifie Traditions Commandments possible to be kept your Thirty nine Articles are patient nay ambitious of some sense in which they may seem Catholick for Dr. Heylin in his Cyprianus Anglicus lib. 4. p. 252. alledgeth much of this charge of Knot as a commendation of our Church and upon the 20th and 34th Articles he saith That more power than this the Church of Rome did never challenge and less than this was not reserved unto it self by the Church of England in his Introduction to his Cyprianus Anglicus p. 20 21. where he saith That in the year 1571. the Articles agreed upon in the year 1562. were re-printed and this clause the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and also in controversies of Faith as he saiâ—h was left out by the power of the Genevian * That was the Parliament that that year confirmed the Articlâ—s to which alone subscription was injoined yet Heylin saith it left out the Prayer against the Pope out of the Letany faction if it were not for the Genevian-faction your faction would soon bring us all to Rome but the times bettering and the Governors of the Church taking notice thereof there was care taken 't is believed 〈◊〉 A. B. Land as Mr. Prin and Burton discovered that the said â—â— should be restored unto its place in all following impressions of that â—â— but if it may be said to be restored to its place 't is wondred 〈◊〉 Dr. â—â—ocket Warden of All-Sâ—â— Colledge and Chaplain to A. B. â—â—bot Heylins Cyp. Angl. l 1. p. 76. And 't is left out of the Articles of Ireland 1615 which were allowed by King James should forget to put it into thâ—â— 20th Article when he made his book in Latin intituled De politia Ecoleâ—â— Anglicanae in which he set down all our Liturgy the 39 Articles of Religion the book of Ordination of Priests and Deacons and Consecraâ—ion of Bishops c. I say if it had been in the Article 〈◊〉 very strange that a man of his learning and integrity and pâ—â— and expectation too should leave it out but you see 't is put in 〈◊〉 you may well guess by whom and to what purpose by what 〈◊〉 Heylin saith of it it reserved or rather restored to it self as much power as the Church of Rome ever challenged which Knot the Jesuit observed That their Churches as the Jesuit goes on â—â—ginning to look with a new face their walls to speak a new language that men in talk and wriâ—ing use willingly the once fearful names of Priests and Altar and are now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are
by Canon bound to follow the Fathers that Protestantism waxeth weary of it self that Calvinism is accounted * For proof read Dr. Heylins Cypr. Anglicus and its Introduction Cypr. Angl. l. 4. p. 414 415 416. there you 'l see the agreement made betwixt the Pope or his agents and some of our Clergy men and that which â—â—ey call the ancient Catholick Religion is nothing but Popery only abatement in some things at least for a time 〈◊〉 Cyprianus Anglicus was setled in his pontificalibus heresie at the least and little less than treasoâ— I say much of this Heylin saith was truth and he himself in his Introduction to that History and other books makes very manifest What Chillingworth answereth to this bold charge of the Jesuit you may see in Dr. Cheynells rise and growth of Socinianisâ— c. 6. The â—anterburian Religion not the true Protestant Religion p. 70 But to return to my business Bellarmine is answered by learned Dr. Ames a Nonconformist in his Bellarminus Enarvatus T. 4. l. 2. de peccato originali c. 3. p. 34. ad p. 46. which I have read and Bishop Jeremy â—â— I hear is answered very learnedly and fully by Mr. Henry Jeanes â—â—other Nonconformist which I have not read how conformable â—â—e Bishops Doctrine is to the false Pelagian condemned Doctrine of â—â—e Church of Rome and Nonconformable to the true and approved â—â—octrine of the Church of England let the indifferent and judiciâ—â—s Reader judg Vide Maccovium Rediv. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arminiaâ—â—ruâ— c. 9. p. 118. That Original sin inherent in us is properly sin I prove thus 1. That which hath the name and nature of sin properly so called â—â—s sin properly so called but original sin inherent in us hath the â—â—e and nature of sin properly so called ergo it is sin properly so â—â—lled 1. It hath the name of sin properly so called given unto it in saâ—â—red Scripture The Reverend * Sum of Christian Religion p. 144. A. B. â—â—sâ—er tells us That all other sins have â—â—eir special names but original sin is â—â—operly called sin and †Amand. Polan Syntag. l. 6. c. 3. p. 336. Polanus beâ—â—re him saith that 't is called absoâ—â—tely sin Rom. 7. 8. because it is the â—â—ring and fountain of other sins pecâ—atum peccans sinning sin Rom. 7. 13. â—â—eccatum inhabitans indwelling sin Rom. 7. 17 20. and Mr. Hilderâ—â—am upon Psal 51. p. 283. tells us that the Spirit of God expresly â—â—lls it sin Psal 51. 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity â—â—d in sin did my Mother conceive me and so Dr. Mer. â—asaubon * In locum Musculus and Dr. Ames expound the place â—hich place Bishop Prideaux * Fasciculus controversiarum c. 3. q. 5. p. 112. saith â—â—nnot be understood but of original sin â—â—d its propagation as both ancient and â—â—ter Divines expound the place and in â—â—ree Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans viz. 6. 7 8. 14 times at â—â—ast and Heb. 12. 1. Rom. 6. 6 12 13 14. Rom. 7. 7. I had not known sin â—â—t by the law for I had not known lust that is to be sin except the â—â—w had said Thou shalt not coveâ— Where 't is clear that lust by which 〈◊〉 meant the first unlawful desires or motions which have not the â—â—nsent of the will lust in the habit or disposition inclination imagiâ—â—tion as well as lust in the act is forbidden in the Tenth commandâ—â—nt as not only Beza Parâ—us Calvin and Peter Martyr but also Dr. Willet and Wilson and Dr. 〈◊〉 and Diodate upon the place 〈◊〉 B. Prideaux Fasc controvers c. 3. q 5. p. 112. Sharpius Symphon â—a Novis Epoc. p. 397. Andrews and Dr. Mayor upon the 〈◊〉 Commandment and Bishop 〈◊〉 and Sharpius elsewhere assure 〈◊〉 verse the 8. For sin taking occâ—â— the Commandment the more 〈◊〉 â—â— the more it bursteth forth †A. B. Vsher Sum of Christian Religion p. 144. 〈◊〉 streams do that cannot be stopped till God by his holy Spirit 〈◊〉 it wrought in me all manner of concupiscence for without the 〈◊〉 was dead that is it seemed so to him because he knew it 〈◊〉 felt it not but when he knew the law he knew sin and 〈◊〉 activity and found 't was alive so verse the 14. But I 〈◊〉 sold under sin Man is said to be carnal two ways 1. Quâ—â— carni because he serves the flesh so unregenerated men 〈◊〉 nal 2. Quia proclivis est carni because he is inclined to 〈◊〉 the flesh that is original corruption which is called flesh 〈◊〉 1. Gal. 5. â—7 so Paul was carnal though he had mortified 〈◊〉 he had some relicts or remainders of it an inclination to thâ—â— of the flesh he was carnal in opposition to the law that 〈◊〉 ritual that is he was not so spiritual as the law required 〈◊〉 der sin slaves to â—in are of two sorts 1. Some sell themsâ—â— sin original sin and its lusts they willingly obey the lusts 〈◊〉 flesh so did Ahab and such are wicked men 2. Some arâ—â— another and such a slave was Paul even after his actual conâ—â— for he was a slave against his will he desired to escape from 〈◊〉 ster he served him unwillingly as may be seen verses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is no more I that do it but sin that is original 〈◊〉 tion that dwelleth in me So verses 23 24. so Rom. 8. 2. he 〈◊〉 have added Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sin entred into the 〈◊〉 death by sin so verse the 13th For until the law sin that is 〈◊〉 ginal sin was in the world which the Apostle proves 〈◊〉 death was in the world till Moses v. 14. 2. Original sin hath the nature of sin properly so called 〈◊〉 I prove thus 1. Because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of 〈◊〉 which is the definition that the Spirit of God gives of 〈◊〉 perly so called 1 John 3. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin is the 〈◊〉 gression of the law as we translate the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dâ—â— from Alpha a Privitive Particle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lex the law and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a want of conformity to the Law of God Now that Original 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I prove thus 1. Because it is a want of that righâ—ousness which all men ought to â—â—ave * Vide Dr. Barlow Exercitat 2. Scholastical Divines define â—â— to be oarentia rectitudinis debitae a â—â— of rectitude which ought to be in â—â— reasonable creature And this I Homily of the coming down of the Holy Ghost p. 209. Mâ—n of his own nature is fleshly and carnal corrupt and naught sinful and disobedient to God without any spark of goodness in him without any vertuous or godly motion only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds â—â—ight prove out of Aquinas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 82. a. 3. con Cum originale peccaâ—â—um justitiae originali opponatur nihâ—â—â—â—iud
formaliter est quam justitiae oriâ—â—nalis per quam Deo voluntas subdebaâ—â— privatio materialiter vero aliaruâ—â—â—â—imâ— virium ad bonum communicabile â—â—ordinata conversio quae communi noâ—â—ine concupiscentia dici potest by â—hich 't is clear that original sin is â—othing else formally but a privaâ—â—on of original righteousness by â—hich the will of man was subject to God and I find Anselm so â—â—efining it Peccatum originale est privatio justitiae originaâ—is debitae â—â—esse that is Original sin is a privation of original righteousness â—hich ought to be in us Thus far the reformed Churches abroad 〈◊〉 yea the Bishop himself doth go 〈◊〉 that this Original sin is a want Bishop Taylor himself confesseth that Scotus is pleased to affirm That there is an obligation upon humane nature to preserve original righteousness Explanat of Original sin p. 460. 〈◊〉 that righteousness which is due and which all men ought to have I prove 〈◊〉 Because it is a want of that righteâ—â—sness which our Father Adam â—ad viz. 〈◊〉 the pure Image of God and perfect â—â—nformity to the will of God for â—hat Adam being a publick person â—â—epresenting all men naturally to deâ—end from him as the fountain or representative of all such men â—ad when he was first created in the state of Innocency he had â—ot only for himself but for all his posterity that were naturally to â—â—scend from him he had it as well â—or us as for himself and â—â—erefore we had in him that original righteousnesâ— and we are â—ound to keep Gods â—aw Do this as well as he was and shall dye for ever for want of it if God take us not into his Covenant 〈◊〉 Grace and accept not of Christ's active and passive obedience 〈◊〉 us and impute it not unto us what Adam had he had for us 〈◊〉 what he lost he lost not only for himself but for us also and this is the sound Doctrine of all our Orthodox Protestant Divines and therefore I conclude that original sin is a want of that origiâ—â—â— righteousness which all men ought to have and our 9th Article saith That man is very far gone from original righteousness which impliâ—â— that he ought to have it 2. Original sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 't is a want of due conforâ—â— to the Law of God which ought to be in us for that requireth perfect love to God and perfect love to our neighbours thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy might that is all God and with all thy whole man Deut. 6. 4 5. Deut. 10. 12. Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30. And thâ—â— shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Matth. 22. 39 40. On these two Commandments hang all the law and the prophets and the law of God is perfect Psal 19. 7. and * Homily of Christs Death p. 182. and so much Bishop Taylor himself acknowledgeth the Harmony of Confessions allows as our Doctrine Explanat p. 492. requires perfect obedience of every man for Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them and this perfect obedience to the whole moral law all men that will be saved by their own good works must perform else they will not be eternally saved but damned yea this perfect love is required in the affirmative part of the Tenth Commandment Thou shalt not covet thou shalt love thy neighbour not only in word but in deed and in truth perfectly and constantly Now this perfect love to God and man no meer man in this world since Adams fall from his original righteousness hath performed and this impotency is an effect of Adams first sin and is a part of original sin inherent in us Rom. 7. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing for to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not that is in my unregenerate paâ—â— dwelleth no serious and setled study desire and love of that which is spiriâ—ually good and though he found in his regenerate paâ—â— through Gods special renewing grace a will ready to do that which was spiritually good yet in his flesh that is in his unregenerate part he found no will no power no ability to perform it as he ought and the cause or reason of this impotency or inability was sin that 〈◊〉 in him v. 17. To this purpose is 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural 〈◊〉 that is the man in the state of corruption in whom original 〈◊〉 doth reign receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they 〈◊〉 foolishness he looks upon them not only as foolish things but as foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned Now perfect love presupposeth knowledg for 〈◊〉 non nisi nota possunt only things known are loved So much to prove that the first constituent part of original â—in is properly sin Now that the second constituent part of original sin viz. Concupiscence is properly sin I prove thus 1. Because 't is formally of it self contrary to the Law of God the major implied is undeniable because only sin is formally and of it self contrary to the Law of God for though as Bellarmine â—â—bjecteth the Devil and unjust Laws be subjectivè contrary to the law of God yet they are not so formaliter per se formally and of themselves but only because they are the subjects of evil qualities or defects which are formally and of themselves contrary to the Law of God the minor expressed viz. that concupiscence is formally and of it self contrary to the Law of God appears by Rom. 8. 7. The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be The words in the original which our 9th Article hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wisdom sensuality affection or desire of the flesh is not only an enemy but is enmity against God for the word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the accent in the first syllable which signifies enmity not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accented in the last syllable which is the adjective in the feminine gender and cannot agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the substantive of the neuter gender for then it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it notes the irreconcilableness of the flesh to the spirit an enemy may be reconciled but enmity cannot and the reason given to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be enmity against God is because it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God in the abstract Corruption in the nature is not only averse from the law of God but it is also against it it is not subject to the law of God by
reason of its pride and contumacy neither can it be by reason of its pravity and perversness The flesh saith Diodate is not only incapable to submit to Gods will through weakness but also through â—â—tural repugnancy To which may be added Rom. 7. 14. For 〈◊〉 know that the law is spiritual and the law is spiritual because it binds not only all the humane creatures intents and purposes but his whole force and power and all the thoughts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oâ— his heart to an holy inward obedience as well as to an outward compleat conformity to the will of God whicâ— if he did as he ought to perform he should be spiritual too aâ—â— free from death but I am sold under sin contrary to and averâ—â— from the law St. Paul after he was regenerated was like other men in part carnal through the proclivity of his nature to commit those sins which according to his regenerate part he hated and would not so our sound and learned Divines expound the place and urge the following verses to prove that concupiscence is properly a siâ— and in the regenerate after baptism 2. Concupiscence is properly sin because 't is forbidden in the law of God Rom. 7. 7. I had not known sin but by the law for I had not known lust the sudden motions of mind unlawful desires and affections which arise in the soul and have not the consent of the will as our Orthodox Divines expound the word that is to be sin except the law had said thou shalt not covet Where 't is clear that concupiscence is called sin and that 't is forbidden in the law of which before To which may be added the 9th Article of our Church of England which saith thus Yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of it self the nature of sin and the Article saith that 't is a FAULT and corruption of the nature of every man Bishop Jeremy Taylor himself confesseth that 't is in the Latin Copies called vitium naturae which I think in Morals is Englished vice in Theologicals sin and if virtutes Ethicorum sint splendida peccata sure their vices are proprie-dicta peccata which yet the Bishop with the Jesiâ—â—â— denies 3. Concupiscence is contrary to the Law of God because we are commanded to put it off Ephes 4. 22 23 24. That ye put of concerning the former conversation the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts and be renewed in the spirit of your mind and that ye put on the new man which after God is created in rigâ—teousness and true holiness Where original sin is called the old man as 't is in * Calvin Pareus Peter Martyr Diodate Willet Dr. Featley Wilson in locum and Bishop Reynolds of the sinfulness of sin p. 139. Rom. 6. 6. that is the body of sin not nature but our corrupt nature which we have contracted from our old Father Adam as all our learned and sound Divines expound the places and the phrase 4. That 't is properly sin I reason thus that which rendreth persons obnoxious to the wrath of God is sin properly but original sin rendreth persons obnoxious to the wrath of God ergo original sin is properly sin the major is undeniable because nothing that is not properly sin doth render us obnoxious to Gods wrath God is angry with nothing but sin or for sin the proper object of a Christians hatred should be sin and 't is of God's as being only contrary to his nature and law Gal. 3. 10 the minor may abundantly be proved by plain Scripture 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 and Rom. 6. 23. For the wages of sin is death by which in regard the Apostle speaks absolutely without any limitation he meaneth death in general of what kind soever temporal and eternal Gal. 3. 10. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 5. 18. And because Bishop Taylor * Explanat of original sin p. 469 470. denies it of death eternal I pray read what the Church of England saith of it in her Homilies of Christ's Nativity T. 2. p. 167. and Homily of Christs Death T. 2. part 2. p. 181. and 184. set down before in the beginning of this Article * Man was justly condemned therefore condemned to everlasting death p. 103. and Ephes 2. 3. We are by nature the children of wrath We are not so by pure nature then we must needs be so by corrupt nature and that is original sin inherent in us Children of wrath are subjects of sin and through desert of sin subject to wrath that is the wrath of God which he hath threatned against sinners for sin death and damnation and temporal judgments Ephes 5. 6. Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience only children of disobedience are children of wrath where there is no sin or disobedience there God hath no wrath and our 9th Article of Religion saith plainly that this original sin in every person born in this world deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and so our Church * Questions of Baptism Catechism saith For being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath and it cannot be understood of lust with consent of will for that Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel without doubt knew to be sin and that also is actual sin and not original of which the Article treateth 2. Because infants conceived and brought forth in sin who never committed any actual sin in their own persons have died as you may see in Davids child 2 Sam. 12. 18. and experience daily shews it and Rom. 5. 14. proves it Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is actually committed any sin in their own persons over them that is over infants who sinned not actually or by imitation but only by an inherent corruption of nature in them so our Reverend Divines A. B. Vsher and Bishop Prideaux Archbishop Ushers Sum of Christian Religion p. 143. Bishop Prideaux bis Fascic controver c. 3. q. 3. p. 113. Pareus in locum and many more of our sound Divines as well as the ancient Fathers expound the place and in the order of our burial 't is said that by Adâ—â— all die 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. Obj. But it will or may be objected that infants sinned in Adam in whose loins they were and that they are punished with death 〈◊〉 for their own inherent corruption of nature that is in them but for the sin of Adam in whose loins they were imputed to them Answ To this I answer 1. That neither Bellarmine nor Papists nor Bishop Taylor nor any compleat Conformist in the Church of Englanâ— can well object this for they hold Concil Trid. 5. Sec. 5. Can. Bel. de Sacrament baptismi c.
11. saith Effectus baptismi primarius est ita peccatum omne abolere idque vi operis operati ut quae reliqua manet prava fidelibus concupiscentia peccatum verâ—â— censeri non debet and Bishop Taylor saith That this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized 〈◊〉 to the regenerated Further Explanat of original sin p. 500. And in the next Page he saith It is a contradiction to say that the sin remains and the guilt is taken away if he pardons he takes away the sin for in the justified no sin can be inherent or habitual Now is not this most notorious false Doctrine condemned in the Palestine Synod Article 9th objected against Pelagius and contrary to Article the 9th of the Church of England which saith That this infection of nature doth remain yea in them that are regenerated And the 15th Article which saith thus But all we the rest although baptized and born again in Christ yet offend in many things and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us and contrary to 1 John 1. 8. yea is not this truly Antinomian yea Antichristian What have justified persons no sin inherent in them Is justification an abolishing of the being of sin in the justified And p. 461. he saith that in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins and therefore much less is the principle but more to my purpose he saith ibid. p. 481. That after baptism the guilt of the first sin doth not remain which if it be true then according to him they die not for that sin and that all persons baptized be they non-elect are freed by it from the guilt of that sin and that if they die before they commit actual sin they are undoubtedly saved which many learned Divines doubt of and many more plainly deny it the Scriptures alledged by Papists as Ephes 5. 26. T it 3. 5. either are not understood of external baptism but of internal sanctification or regeneration or if of baptism then they are to be understood obsignificativè not physice significativè not realiter else it would follow that every person that is baptized is really and internally regenerated which is most apparently false For 1. many that are baptized live most wicked lives and die most wicked deaths if the tree may be judged by the fruits or else he must hold with Jesuitical Papists that truly regenerated persons may totally and finally fall away from saving-grace against which Popish Error read what is said before and become castaways and damned And because baptism came in the place of circumcision it would follow that all that were externally circumcised in their foreskins were also internally circumcised in their hearts which is clearly contrary to Romans 2. 28 29. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly but he is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God Where 't is obvious that some were outwardly but were not inwardly circumcised and in their hearts and so it may beh ere Besides our most learned and sound Divines as Bishop Prideaux Maccovius and many others out of St. Angustin hold that sin is taken away by baptism yea by justification non ut non sit but only non ut imputetur the blood of Christ washeth away sin meritoriously the Spirit of God efficiently the word instrumentally the Sacraments symbolically significatively and obsignificatively that original sin is washed away by baptism Our Conformists consent and assent and subscribe to this Position which whether true and so certain as it 's said I determine not because I know not how to prove it by Gods word It is certain by the wâ—â—â— of God that children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved Rubr. after Baptism by which they do yea must hold that original fin imputed is washed away from them by baptism and therefore original sin imputed is not cannot be according to them the meritorious cause of infants death dying before they commit actual sin in their own persons 2. I answer that many infants have died soon after they were baptized I saw one die within a quarter of an hour after 't was baptized before they could be conceived to have committed any actual sin in their own persons therefore original sin inherent was the procuring or meritorious cause of their death and consequently 't is properly sin their cryings cannot in reason be thought to be sinful frowardness or actual sin but are but the fruits of pains or wants which are punishments of original sin yet remaining and inherent in them which do undeniably prove it to be sin properly so called for God never punisheth but for fin as the Bishop himself saith ibid. p. 463. 5. There is one testimony more which is good against the Bishop and all Conformists and 't is a true one 't is the beginning of the order of Baptism set down in our Liturgy thus Dearly beloved for-as-much as all men be conceived and born in fin and our Saviour Christ saith None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate and born a new of Water and of the Holy Ghost by which 't is clear that 't is the Doctrine of the Church of England that infants are conceived and born in sin but not in actual sin Ergo in original sin Now I pray read all these things once again seriously â—nd consider how strangely the sound Doctrine of the Churâ—â— of England is undermined perverted if not wholly subâ—erted by â—er pretended dutifuâ—â— sons and the false Doctrine of the Church of Rome is contended for by them â—o bring in fâ—ee-will and natural power to convert a mans self c. But before I leave this a few words to the main argument for this Popish old Pelagian Error and that is this That which is not * Bishop Taylors further Explanation of original sin frequently and so Papists and Pelagians voluntary is not sin but original sin inherent in us is not voluntary Ergo 't is not sin properly To which I answer by denying the major all sin is not voluntary in their sense 1. Because the error of the mind which the will doth follow is fin and yet its involuntary because it goes before every act of the will 2. Sins committed through ignorance are not voluntary and yet are sins properly Levit 5 15. 2. I deny the minor 1. Because original sin was voluntary in Adam in whose loins we were who voluntarily committed the first sin for himself and us too And 2. Also it may be said to be voluntary in us because we in our wills are prone to sin 3. The main of the Adversaries arguments that Original sin is involuntary will reach only the propagation of it To which I answer that man is corrupted even from
both to will and to do of his good pleasure In that Synod were * Divines at the Synod of Dort five of our learned Divines sent by K. James Viz. George Carlton Bishop of Landaff John Davenant Priest Doctor and publick Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridg and Master of Queens Colledg there Samuel Ward Priest Doctor of Divinity Arch-deacon of Taunton and Master of Sidney-Colledg in the University of Cambridg Thoâ—â— Goad * Who I suppose was sent instead of Dr. Joseph Hall who fell sick after he came to the Synod Priest Doctor of Divinity chief Chaunter of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London And â—â— Bâ—â—â—â—â—quall a Scotchman Priest â—â—chelor of Divinity who said of this an◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is our opinion and judgment in witness whereof we have 〈◊〉 subscribed And 't is as I shewed before directly contrary to the express words of the Doctrine of the Church of England in her tenth Article The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant Good works are brought forth by Grace Homily of Good works T. 2. p. 81. and acceptable to God without the special grace of Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will Lo here you see it clearly and plainly affirmed that man in the state of corruption before he receive the special grace of God in Christ cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength to faith or do good works acceptable to God And these reasons may be given for it 1. Because we are spiritually dead in trespasses and sins Ephes 2. 1 Col. 3. 13. Now as a man that is corporally dead cannot of himself move dispose or prepare himself to his Resurrection or enlivening so a man that is spiritually dead in sin cannot raise or dispose and prepare himself or actively concur towards his raising up again or to his spiritual life Obj. But against this they object 1. That in a dead carkass there are no reliques of life but in unregenerated men they say there are some reliques of spiritual life Answ To which I answer and say 1. That there are no reliques of spiritual life in a man that is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins for death in Spirituals doth fully exclude spiritual life A maâ— is not cannot be said to be truly and properly dead while there is aâ—â— life in him 2. With this accords the Doctrine of the learned A. 〈◊〉 Vshar in his Sum of Christian Religion p. 143. who there saith thâ—â— Every man is by nature dead in sin as a loathsome carrion or as a dead corpse and lyeth rotting and stinking in the grave having in him the seed of all sins Ephes 2. 1. 1 Tim. 5. 6. 3. The Synod of Dort condemn as an error this Doctrine That an uâ—regenerated man is not properly noâ— totally dead in sins nor destitute of all strength to spiritual good but that he is able to hunger and thirst after righteousness or everlasting life and to offer the sacrifice of an humble and contrite heart even such as is acceptable to God For these assertions march against the direct testimonies of Scripture Ephes 2. 1 5 Ye were dead in trespasses and sins And Gen 6. 5. 8. 21. Every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart is only evil contiâ—ally Moreover the hungring and thirsting for deliverance out of misery and for life eternal as also the offering to God the sacrifice of a broken heart is proper to the regenerate and such as are called blessed Psal 51. 19. Mat. 5. 6. 4. The Church of England maintains this Doctrine also in her Homily of the Nativity of Christ T 2. p. 167. where we may read thus That Adam falling into sin had in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness And a little after His posterity had nothing in themselves but everlasting damnation both of body and soul Which fully proves that there was and is in every man since the fall before the special grace of Gods Spirit be wrought in him a total privation of spiritual life And in Homily for Christs Death T. 2. p. 182. 't is said That man could do nothing that might pacifie Gods wrath So Ibid. 183. and in Homily for Whitsunday T. 2. p. 209. Man by nature is fâ—esbly and carnal without any spark of godliness Doth not all this prove a total privation of all spiritual life Obj. But they say That God doth not bespeak dead carkasses to arise but he speaks to men dead in sins and then doth set before them their disease which implies some life and a power of rising in them Answ To this I answer thus 1. That Christ spake to Lazarus that had been four days dead and in the grave these words Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. 43. 2. That Gods raising of men dead in sins unto spiritual life is a great miralce as 't is called in the Homily for Rogation-week T. 2. p. 228. Who worketh these great miracles in us yea greater than Christs raising of dead Lazarus for to his Vivification and Resurrection there was no opposition in him but to the spiritual Viâ—ification and Resurrection of men in the state of corruption there is opposition not only from without by the Devil and the world but also within by their inbred corruption which makes them averse from that which is good yea which is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. That Gods speaking to unregenerate men dead in their sins implies not that they have a power in themselves of raising themselves to spiritual life no more than Lazarus but it shews what they are 〈◊〉 what they should do not what they can do He gave them a power at first in Adam to do whatsoever he commanded them to do but they through their own default have disabled themselves he therefore mâ—â— justly require it of them and punish them for their loss of it and neglect of their duty Obj. But they say That the dead carkass cannot resist Gods raising of him but the unregenerate man can Ergo they have a power of rising Answ To this I answer 1. That the unregenerate Elect cannot finally resist their regeneration for the power of God in regenerating his Elect in Christ is irresistible as hath been proved before Art 7th 2. That it follows not that because unregenerated men have a power to resist their spiritual resurrection they therefore have a power to raise themselves but rather proves they have none their corruption is so great Obj. But they object That in the dead carkass there is no power to rise but in the unregenerate there is a power to regeneration Answ There is a passive power in unregenerated persons to regeneration that is to be regenerated by the Spirit
shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature for holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved so I might argue from their meritorious works but I forbear To all which I shall add what I have found in Dr. Field of the Church Appendix part 1. l. 2. p. 772. since I wrote that before of Saints being perfectly cleansed from all sin at the moment of their death He saith thus speaking of one Higgins in the 20th Chapter of that Appendix I produce the judgment and resolution of Scotus Durandus and Alexander of Ales That all sinfulness is utterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution and that there is no remission of any sin in respect of the fault and stain after death The words of these Authors I set down at large the words of Alexander of Ales the first of the School-men called the irrefragable Doctor are these Final grace taketh away all sinfulness out of the soul because when the soul parteth from the body all proneness to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the conjunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted and perfectly subjected to grace and by the means all venial sins are removed so that no venial sin is remitted after this life but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be final grace it hath full dominion and absolute command and expelleth all sin Whereupon he addeth That whereas the Master of the Sentences and some others do say that some venial sins are remitted after this life some answer that they speak of a full remission both in respect of the fault and stain and the punishment also but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing do say that they are to be understood to say Sins are remitted after this life because it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life and that after life they are remitted in the very â—â—ment of dissolution grace more fully infusing and pouring it self into the soul at that time than before to the utter abolishing of all sin all her impediments formerly hindring her working now ceasing * Death unto the godly is the utter abolishing of sin and perfection of mortification saith A. B. Vsher Sum of Christian Religion p. 545. Thus you see that not only our learned Protestant Divines but also Alexander of Ales the first School-man called the irrefragâ—â— Doctor Scotus the subtile Doctor 〈◊〉 Durand the Master of the Ceremonies as the Papists themselves esteem and call them were of this judgment That the souls of men dying in the state of grace at the momeâ— of death are purged and cleansed perfectly from all the fault and stain of 〈◊〉 sin and then it will follow that they are freed from the third effeâ—â— of sin too and that is 3. Poena punishment which is an evil inflicted upon the sinner himself or his surety for sin For 1. if the guilt of sin be perfectly taken away as indeed it is in our Justification and the stain of sin be also perfectly taken away in the moment of our death and sin be wholly abolishhd then the punishment of sin must needs be taken away too Of this judgment was St. Bernard When all the sin shall be wholly Bernard in Psal qui habitat Ser. 10. taken out of the way no effect of it shall remain that the cause being altogether removed the effect shall be no more and you know 't is a rule in reasoning Sublata causa tollitur effectus the cause being taken away the effect ceaseth Sin then being perfectly destroyed when death parteth the soul from the body all its effects guilt filth and punishment must consequently be destroyed too and that all sin is taken away in the moment of the dissolution of the soul and body I have sufficiently proved and therefore the punishment is taken away too Pray hear what God himself saith to this point in Ezek. 18. 22. When the wicked man shall turn from all his sins that he hath committed all his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned unto him Now if God hath so far forgiven their sins as that he will not remember them then certainly he will not punish them for them in another world with hellish torments if God punish truly penitent men for their sins in this world and that to come too he cannot be said not to remember them but to remember them as we say with a witness if he forgives and forgets all their sins then undoubtedly he forgives and forgets their venial sins too if he forgive their mortal sins their sins of enmity against God which make God displeased with the sinner as Aquinas and his followers speak then it will follow by an undeniable consequence that he forgives and forgets their venial sins their lesser sins which are not * Peccatum veniale non est contra legem quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet nec praetermittit quod lex per praeceptum obligit sed facit praeter legem quia non observat modum rationis quem lex intendit Aquin. 12 ae q. 88. a. 1. 〈◊〉 Medin in 12 〈◊〉 q. 89. a. 1. p. 1209. against the law but only besides the law and which though they displease God yet they do not make the sinner displeasing to God and that they do only obnubilate but do not obtenebrate grace as †Bel. t. 4. l. 2. De peccato venialâ— c. 1. Medina teacheth and those sins which Mr. Chillingworth in his dangerous book saith are so small as that he durst not ask God pardoâ— for them and which * B. Medin in 12 〈◊〉 q. 88. a. 1. p. 1199. Bellarmine saith are ex natura ratione probati in their own nature and kind of sin venial that is not repugnant to the love of God and 〈◊〉 neighbours that do not render as unworthy of the friendship of God and guiâ—â—â— of eternal death and that are so small as that it were unjust to punish theâ— with eternal death that they do not exclude out of heaven but that God himself is bound by law that he hath made to give to his friends the kingdom of 〈◊〉 notwithstanding their venial sins of which although they dâ— repent yet are presently remitted ex natura status quum anima emigrat e corpore from the nature of the state when the soul departs out of the body as Papists teach how these sins I say should need to be purged away from believers souls the friends of God whose sins God hath covenanted to pardon by such temporal punishments in Purgatory as are the same for nature with those the Devil inflicts upon the damned in hell and yet that their mortal sins as Davids adultery and murder Peter's
denial of his Lord and Master Paul's persecuting of the Saints and which do as they confess cause a spot or sâ—â—iâ— in the soul and are contrary to the Law of God and do render the â—â—â—er displeasing to God and deserve eternal death as Aquinas and Meâ—â— ubi supra do plainly teach should escape the same penal Purgation in Purgatory is to me very strange improbable and inconsistent Doctrine as well as contrary to sacred Scripture which saith of God thus Jer. 31. 34. I will remember their sin no more that is punish them no more and of them 1 Rom 8 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus if no condemnation theâ— surely no hellish punishments 2 Apoc. 14. 13. That they rest frâ—â— their labours and if from their bodily labours as Papists yield they do then much more from spiritual labours else it had been no comfort for them to die seeing their death would but free them froâ— corporal pains which could last at most but for the short time of their lives here but would transmit their souls into spiritual helliâ—â— pains which will last till the great day of judgment except the Pope of Romes good will can be procured to let them out somewhat sooner as the Popes Doctors teach 3 That Rom. 5. 1. being justified by faith they have peace with God but to have peace wiâ—â— God and to suffer the torments of hell inflicted by the Devil fâ—â— some hundreds it may be thousands of years are altogether inconsistent And this is an approved truth though mans sin do deserve temporal and eternal punishments yet the offence being remitted the punishment is remitted also which is excellently well proved by Dr. Davenant and that their Remissa culpa remittitur poena Dr. Davenant 〈◊〉 â—33 p. 149. sins are forgiven in this life absolutely perfectly and fully even when they believe in Jesus Christ and therefore the holy Scripture speaks of justification and remission of sins in the present tensâ— and time past Rom. 4. 2 5 7 9 16 22. Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 1. Gal. 2. 16. Here believers in Christ are forgiven all their sins and there are all punishments due to their sins forgiven also Now that the punishment due to the offence or offender by Gods Law is forgiven when the offence is forgiven I prove thus 1. Because punishment properly so taken and called is inflicted only for sin Punishment is an evil inflicted upon the sinner or his surety for sin The sin which Poena est malum peccatori propter peccatum inflictum Ames Med. l. 1. a. 12. p. 55. deserves it being taken away it must necessarily be taken away too 2. Because to remit the sin is not to impute it any more to punishment that is not to punish it What man will or can say that a Magistrate hath perfectly pardoned a murderer and yet hang him up for the murder It implies a contradiction to say that God hath forgiven true believers in Christ all their sins and yet to say he punisheth them for them to be satisfied for breach of his Law 3. To say that God hath forgiven true believers all their sins and yet punish them for them with temporal punishment properly so called in Purgatory for the satisfying of his justice is undeniably to ascribe injustice to God who is justice it self seeing this way they teach that God doth punish the soul that hath no sin only because it formerly had sin which he hath for Christ's sake fully forgiven 〈◊〉 â—nd besides too here would be another piece of injustice most blasphemously fixed upon God if he should forgive all sins to the sinner for Christs sake who hath made full satisfaction to him for the believing sinners sins and yet punish the sinner to exact for one offence a double satisfaction one from Christ the surety and another from the poor sinner Would it not be decried as a grievous piece of injustice for a creditor to exact of the surety that is bound for 100 l. in a penal Bond of 200 l. the 200 l. and receive it and release the surety and yet afterward sue the Bond upon the principal for non-payment of his 100 l. at the time conditioned Yet this piece of injustice Papists do in effect by their Doctrine of the souls of believers in Christ suffering in Purgatory temporal penal satisfactions that is punishments to satisfie Gods Justice for breach of his Law after he had taken full satisfaction from Christ his Son and their surety and so exact and receive full satisfaction the whole Bond of him and then afterward exact of them satisfaction in part too fasten upon God who is Justice it self for he hath punished his own Son who voluntarily and by his Fathers consent became their surety He laid on him the iniquity of us all Isa 53. 6. that is the punishment of all our sins Read vers 5. He was woundeâ— for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisemeâ—â— of our peace was upon him and with his stripes are we healed though he had no sin of his own he had done no violence neither was deceit in his mouth yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him yea to put him to death v. 9 10. And he did bear our sins that is the punishment of our sins is his own body on the tree that is on the cross Isa 53. 11 12. 1 Pet. 2. 24. and this he did not for himself for he had no sin 1 Pet. 2. 22. but for us and in our sâ—ead 1 Pet. 2. 21 24. Yet notwithstanding all this Papists by this their Doctrine of Purgatory that believers souls for whom Christ hath suffered the punishment paid the bond of 200 l. 〈◊〉 so fully satisfied the debt yet that God hath sued the bond again upon the 〈◊〉 believers soul and will make that make him satisfaction too in part at least though I say he was fully satisfied before by his Son and her surety Jesus Christ the righteous as appears by his letting him out of prison when he had him fast in the grave at his resurrection by which he openly declared that he was fully satisfied Rom. 4. ult Who was delivereâ— that is to death for our offences and was raised again for our jusâ—iâ—â—cation to assure us that he hath satisfied for us pacified his Fatheâ—â— wrath with us for our sins and procured his favour for us and his gracious acceptation of us charge God with this great injustice And to prevent the Papists objection that Moses David aâ—â— others after their sins were forgiven were punished with tempâ—â— punishments I say that they were not punished with Gods vindiâ—â— justice for their sins but that they were chastised in love and mercy to humble them for sin past and prevent sin for the future in theâ—â— others afflictions that believers suffer in this life are not properly â—â—nishments but castigations and though they may be materially tâ—â— same that punishments inflicted
wicked man and that Hezekiah was an eminently godly man and King as may be seen 2 King 16. 20. 2 King 18. 2 Chron. 〈◊〉 ult 2 Chron. 29. 2 Chron. 30. 2 Chron. 31. 20. And was Abijah the Son of wicked Jeroboam who made Israel to sin a wicked child and curseâ— off-spring Doth not the Lord say of him thus That all Israel 〈◊〉 mourn for him for he only shall come to the grave because in him there is found some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam 1 King 14. 13. Doth it not hence follow that none of the wives of wicked men are wise and none of their children shall be saved â—nd it will not shift it off by saying that the words are only indefinite and sound no more but this that some wicked mens wiveâ— are foolish that is light and wanton and that some of wicked mens children are wicked and cursed for so it may be said of truly godly mens wives and children as we may see in Davids and Solomons and then what punishment or discouragement is this more to the ungodly than to the godly and therefore that is not the sense and was not the meaning of the Author but the former which is false and not agreeable to Gods pure word of truth 5. Whether that in Wisd 3. 16 17 18 19 verses be agreeable to the pure word of God which is As for the children of adulterers they shall not come to their perfection and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out for though they live long yet shall they be nothing regarded and their last age shall be without honour or if they die quickly they have no hope neither comfort in the day of trial For horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation Now I pray are these things universally true of Bastards or not that they are not so 〈◊〉 A. B. Vsher saith of this see his cruel sentence against Bastards Sum. of Ch. Relig. pag. 16. consider 1. That Jephthah was a bastard Judg. 11. 1 2. and yet he came to his perfection and though he was cast out so as he did not inherit his fathers land yet he lived long and he was regarded and his last age was with honour for he was a valiant vertuous and victorious man and was chosen first by the Gileadites to be General of all their forces and afterward he was chosen Judg of all Israel and he ruled Israel six years ond he had hope and comfort in the day of tryal for he is reckoned by the Apostle amongst those believing worthies of whom he saith that the world was not worthy of them Heb. 11. 32 38. he was endued with the spirit of prudence and fortitude yea and was a truly godly man as appears by his prudent and just dealing with the Ammonites and his conscientious keeping of his rash vow though 't was so much against his own interest and disadvantageous to his only child And his death was not more horrible than other mens the Scripture speaks no evil of his death as it doth of several wicked mens Sauls Ahabs Achitophels Jehorams Jezabels and Judas's and others but only that he died after he had judged Israel six years and that he was buried in one of the cities of Gilead his own country 2. 'T is against the express Text of Scripture and scope of the Spirit of God in Ezek. 18. 4 8 17 20. which saith That it shall be no more said that the parents have eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edg For the soul that sinneth it shall die The children shall not be punished for the fathers fault 3. Adulterers and Adulteresses that were infamous by their own fault have had hope and have been saved as we may see in K. David and Rahab and therefore sure Bastards that are not infamous through their own default but only as such through the sin of their Parents may have hope and may through Gods mercy upon their repentance for their own sins and faith in Christ be saved too eternally 4. If this of Philo were universally true then no man could ordinarily be fully perswaded and sure of his Salvation which is a Doctrine that may bring true born children into an uncomfortable condition and make them almost without hope and bring them to a terrible end 5. Pharez the son of Judah begotten adulterously upon â—is Daughter-in-law Tam. r was a bastard Ceâ— 38 and yet was no 〈◊〉 miserable person as the Author of the Book of Wisdom describes a bastard to be For he was a hopeful yea a blessed man God so blessed Pharez that among the Posterity of Judah it was said in craving a blessing on a family Let thy house be like the house of Pharez whom Tamar bare unto Judah Ruth 4. 12. Yea he was honoured with being one of our Lord and Saviour Christs Progenitors according to his humane nature as ye may see by comparing Ruth 4. 18 19 20 21 22. 1 Chron. 2. 4 5. Mat. 1. 3. Luk. 3 33. 6. Whether that in Wisd 8. 19 20. said to be spoken of Solomon as the The ninth Chapter is called Solomon's Prayer in the old Translation words preceding and succeeding shew be agreeable to Gods pure word viz. For I was a witty child and had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled and do not rather savour of much base pride and be not directly contrary to true Solomon's Doctrine Prov. 27. 2 Let another man praise thee and not thy own mouth a stranger and not thine own lips and do not smell very rankly of the * Upon this account Bishop Prideaux condemns this Book Fascic controv c. 1. q. 2. p. 14. Pythagoreans and the Pharisees error who held That the souls of good men when they die go not immediately to heaven and there remain but into the bodies of other good men as †De Bello Judaico l. 2. c. 7. Josephus relates of the Pharisees Yea and do not virtually deny original sin for he saith that he had a good spirit which I take to be meant of his soul for 't is in the Latin Bonam animam fortitus eram and that he was good i. e. of a good soul and that he came into a body undefiled i. e. with sin what else is or can be the meaning For I am of their opinion that hold that the first sin of Adam our common father was and is imputed to all us his posterity descending from him by ordinary generation and that we naturally want that original righteousness which was in Adam and that we are prone to sin which proneness to sin is propagated to us by or with the seed of our Parents Of which to discourse here would take up too much time and paper but this I do but hint I intend the Pharisees error which I conceive is not agreeable to the pure Word of God in Zach. 12. 1.
which saith That God formeth the spirit of man within him that is in medio in the midst of man as the †Junius in Locum Hebrew and Latin hath it and it accords not with Luk. 23. 43. where Christ said to the penitent Thief This day shalt thou be with me in Paradice that is in Heaven And 't is contrary to Luk. 16. 22 25 26. which sheweth that the soul of Lazarus was carried into Abrahams bosom immediately after his death and that there it remained and Of this largely before in Article 13. was to remain And not agreeable to Mat. 25. 46. which saith That the righteous go into everlasting life Yea and not consonant with Phil. 1. 21 23. where the Apostle saith thus For me to live is Christ but to die is gain What gain if his soul went into another body and not into Heaven And if any should say that Philo's opinion was That all souls of all men were made together by God in the beginning of the world and treasured up until bodies be prepared for them which was the opinion of many Jews and of Origen as Peter †â—oc com claf prim C. 12 Sect. 23. p. 82. Martyr and Pareus * In Gen 2. 7. inform me I answer that we have cause also to reject it For 1. I ask where the treasury is where these Souls are kept in Heaven it cannot be for there evil souls are not kept for the evil Angels were cast out of Heaven as soon as they sinned In Hell they cannot be neither for there good souls that do Gods will are not cast I might ask again where then are they kept 2. I ask whether those souls so long since made have been idle or active if they have been idle and doing nothing it seems absurd to say that God should make so many souls so long time before-hand to do nothing for his honour seeing he made nothing in vain and can as easily make them when bodies are prepared for them to act If it be said they have been active and doing something then that is either good or bad Pareus informs me that the Jews held that these souls were kept in Gods treasury until they were infused into bodies according to their merits which implies that some did good and deserved to be put into good bodies and others did evil and deserved to be put into evil bodies and so were by God disposed accordingly An ingenious witty soul was put belike into an undefiled body as Philo seems to imply by his words But to this I answer 1. That it seems the Heathens were not of this opinion for they say of Galba Ingenium Galbae malè habitat 2. This conceit hath no foundation in Sacred Scripture For 1. That which is alledged for their opinion That God rested from all his works Gen. 2. 2 3 4. is easily answered thus 1. That Christ saith My Father worketh hitherto and I work Joh. 5. 17. 2. That God rested from making more or new species or kinds of Creatures but not from making more or new Individuals or Particulars of those kinds which he had made 2. In the History of the Creation no nor any where else in Canonical Scripture there is no mention or intimation made of any such making all souls together which being a thing of so great moment would not be concealed if any such thing had been 3. But that the soul of Adam was made in the act * Augustin de Civit. Dei l. 12. c. 23. Viâ—es upon him of its inspiration into the body of Adam Gen. 2. 7. And there is the same reason of our souls and his Creando infunditur infundendo creatur 4. 'T is said in Zach. 12. 1. That God formeth the spirit of man within him that is as Junius observes 't is in the Hebrew In medio is the midst of him and therefore not made some thousands of years before 't was infused into him 5. Their conceit of being disposed according to their merits is not agreeable to Sacred Scripture which Rom. 9. 23. saith plainly of those Twins that God loved i e. chose Jacob to life everlasting and hated Esau i. e. reprobated him before they had done either good or evil Therefore their doing good or evil was not the meritorious cause of putting them into either good or bad clean or unclean bodies Lastly His body undefiled is such another Judaical conceit or Poetical fiction for what body of man ordinarily begotten by man is undefiled Job's question Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean includes this affirmative That no man can do it 1. It participates of Adams first sin and 't is †Rom. 5. 12. vide Hildersâ—am upon Psal 5. Lect. 55. p. 259. imputed to it And 2. 't is prone and disposed to sin as a leprous seed is to leprosie Though it be said that spiritual infection which is in semine be not sin formaliter actu yet it is a certain occult disposition to sin from which it comes to pass that the soul created in the body as a flower in a Vide Baron Exer 2. de origine animâ—â— Art 6. stinking place doth contract from the body habitual and culpable viciousness even from its first union with it so that the body is defiled participativè vel imputativè dispositivè and therefore not undefiled as he speaks Subjectum quo peccati est caro Vide Article 9th of the Church of England subjectum verò quod personâ— quia peccatum primo intravit ratione corporis ad inficiendam animam Bishop Prideaux Fascic controv c. 3. de peccato q. 5. p. 126. ad 5 ibid. q. 3. p. 112 113. p. 117. Semen * That is the seed is infected as a stinking torch to which if fire be put that stink which before lay hid doth appear so the soul joined to the Embrio and informing it it actuates that poyson which before lay hid in the seed whereby the whole compositum or humane nature is infected infectum esse tanquam funale faetidum cui si flamma admoveatur prodit quae autea latebat totius facis graveolentia sic anima embrioni copulata eamque informans actuat in semine latens virus quo fiat corruptio totius compositi I might except against Ecclesiasticus 1. 14. where 't is said That the fear of the Lord was created with the faithful †Which is conceived to be contrary to Psal 50. 5. Ephes 2. 1 3 5. the Exhortation at Baptism in C. P. B. in the womb and many other passages in the Apocryphal Books but these may suffice and make men look more narrowly into the errors and contradictions that are in them to Gods pure word yea in some parts of those Chapters that are appointed to be read publickly in our Churches and methinks should cause them all to be turned out of the doors of our Churches and Common-Prayer-Book especially seeing