of us from Heaven they that say that not every solution or breaking of them is exclusive from Heaven which are the words of Bellarmine and the doctrine of the Roman Church must even by the consequence of this very gloss of his fall under the danger of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the false teachers or the breakers of them by false interpretation However fearful is the malediction even to the breakers of the least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the words of Theophylact he shall be last in the resurrection and shall be thrown into Hell for that is the meaning of least in the Kingdom of Heaven fortasse ideò non erit in regno coelorum ubi nisi magni esse non possunt said S. Austin least is none at all for into Heaven none can enter but they which are great in Gods account 19. VII Lastly God hath given us the perpetual assistances of his Spirit the presence of his grace the ministery of his word the fear of judgments the endearment of his mercies the admonition of friends the severity of Preachers the aid of Books the apprehension of death the sense of our daily dangers our continual necessities and the recollection of our prayers and above all he hath promised Heaven to the obedient which is a state of blessings so great and infinite as upon the account of them it is infinitely reasonable and just if he shall exact of us every sin that is every thing which we can avoid 20. Upon this account it is that although wise and prudent men do not despise the continual endearments of an old friend yet in many cases God may and doth and from the rules and proper measures of humane friendship to argue up to a presumption of Gods easiness in not exacting our duty is a fallacious proceeding but it will deceive no body but our selves 21. II. Every sin is directly against Gods law and therefore is damnable and deadly in the accounts of the Divine justice one as well though not so grievously as another For though sins be differenc'd by greater and less yet their proportion to punishment is not differenc'd by Temporal and Eternal but by greater and less in that kind which God hath threatned So Origen Vnusquisque pro qualitate quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit Si parum est quod peccas ferieris damnâ— minuti ut Lucas scripsit ut verò Matthaeus quadrantis Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod eâ—estitisti debitor solvere Non enim inde exibis nisi minima quaeque persolveris Every one according to the quantity and quality of his sin must pay his fine but till he hath paid he shall not be loosed from those fearful prisons that is he shall never be loosed if he agree not before he comes thither The smallest offence is a sin and therefore it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law a violation of that band by which our obedience unites us unto God And this the holy Scripture signifies unto us in various expressions For though the several words are variously used in sacred and profane writers yet all of them signifie that even the smallest sin is a prevarication of the Holy laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen calls sin which we render well by Transgression and even those words which in distinction signifie a small offence yet they also signifie the same with the greater words to shew that they all have the same formality and do the same displeasure or at least that by the difference of the words no difference of their natures can be regularly observed Sins against God only are by Phavorinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same word is also used for sin against our neighbours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thy brother sin against thee that is do thee injury and this is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 injustice But Demosthenes distinguishes injustice from sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary and involuntary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that does wrong willingly is unjust he that does it unwillingly is a sinner 22. The same indistinction is observable in the other words of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by S. Hierome used for the beginnings of sin Cum cogitatio tacita subrepit ex aliquâ— parte conniventibus nobis nec dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam when a sudden thought invades us without our advertency and observation and hath not brought forth death as yet and yet that death is appendent to whatsoever it be that can be signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may observe because the sin of Adam that called death upon all the world is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Ephesian Gentiles S. Paul said they had been dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in trespasses and sins and therefore it cannot hence be inferred that such little obliquities or beginnings of greater sins are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the law not against it for it is at least the word hinders not but it may be of the same kind of malignity as was the sin of Adam And therefore S. Austin renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delictum or offence and so do our Bibles And the same also is the case of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is attributed even to concupiscence or the beginnings of mischief by S. Paul and by S. Hierome but the same is used for the consummation of concupiscence in the matter of uncleanness by S. James Lust when it hath conceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum is the Latin word which when it is used in a distinct and pressed sence it is taken for the lesser sins and is distinguished from crimen Paulus Orosius uses it to signifie only the concupiscence or sinful thoughts of the heart and when it breaks forth to action he calls it a crime peccatum cogitatio concipit crimen verò non nisi actus ostendit and it was so used by the ancient Latins Peccatus it was called by them quasi pellicatus that inticing which is proper to uncleanness So Cicero in A. Gellius Nemo ita manifesto peccatu tenebatur ut cum impudens fuisset in facto tum impudentior videretur si negaret Thus the indistinction of words mingles all their significations in the same common notion and formality They were not sins at all if they were not against a Law and if they be they cannot be of their own nature venial but must be liable to that punishment which was threatned in the Law whereof that action is a transgression 23. II. The Law of God never threatens the justice of God never inflicts punishment but upon transgressors of his Laws the smallest offences are not only threatned but may be punished with death therefore
rendred In him it is violent and hard a distinct period by it self without dependence or proper purpose against the faith of all copies who do not make this a distinct period and against the usual manner of speaking 2. This phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in 2 Cor. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not for that we would be unclothed and so it is used in Polybius Suidas and Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is eâ conditione for that cause or condition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quid ades are the words of the Gospel as Suidas quotes them 3. Although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom or in him yet it is so very seldom or infrequent that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification 4. If it did always signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in him which it does not yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do and which the Apostles discourse does infer for even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does divers times signifie forasmuch or for that as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 But 5. supposing all that can be and that it did signifie in whom yet the sence were fair enough as to the whole article for by him or in him we are made sinners that is brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners we are us'd like sinners by him or in him just as when a sinner is justified he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned though he really did sin oftentimes and this for his sake who is made righteousness to us so in Adam we are made sinners that is treated ill and afflicted though our selves be innocent of that sin which was the occasion of our being us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent But how this came to pass is told in the following words 11. For until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come By which discourse it appears that S. Paul does not speak of all minkind as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reach'd only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses This death was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinn'd not so capitally as he did For to sin like Adam is used as a Tragical and a high expression So it is in the Prophet They like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is They like Adam have transgressed and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam for Abel and Seth and Abraham and all the Patriarchs died Enoch only excepted and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world who generally sinn'd like Adam since it passed on and reigned upon less sinners * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams For God was so exasperated with Mankind that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinn'd not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatned had not suffer'd so severely * The case is this Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged all equally innocent equally culpable David took the five sons of Michal for she had left him unhandsomly Jonathan was his friend and therefore he spar'd his son Mephibosheth Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons whether David should take the sons of Michal or of Jonathan but it is likely that as upon the kindness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son so upon the just provocation of Michal he made that evil to fall upon them of which they were otherwise capable which it may be they should not have suffered if their Mother had been kind Adam was to God as Michal to David 12. But there was in it a further design for by this dispensation of death Adam was made a figure of Christ So the Apostle expresly affirms who is the figure of him that was to come that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam though they sinn'd less than Adam so life should be given to the followers of Christ though they were imperfectly righteous that is not after the similitude of Christs perfection 13. But for the further clearing the Article depending upon the right understanding of these words these two things are observable 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further than till Moses For after the giving of Moses's law death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression but by the sanction of Moses's law where death was anew distinctly and expresly threatned as it was to Adam and so went forward upon a new score but introduc'd first by Adam that is he was the cause at first and till Moses also he was in some sence the author and for ever after the precedent and therefore the Apostle said well In Adam we all die his sin brought in the sentence in him it began and from him it passed upon all the world though by several dispensations 2. In the discourse of the Apostle those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from Adam and therefore it did not come upon the account of Natural or Original corruption but they were consider'd as Sinners just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as merely children by title or spiritual birth and adoption but as just and faithful But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle as God gives to these life by Christ which is a greater thing than their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected so here also this part of Adams posterity was punish'd with death for their own sin but this death was brought upon them by Adam that is the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression 14. There is now remaining no difficulty but
because they could not put to death Sejanus's daughters as being Virgins defloured them after sentence that by that barbarity they might be capable of the utmost Cruelty it makes God to be all that for which any other thing or person is or can be hated for it makes him neither to be good nor just nor reasonable but a mighty enemy to the biggest part of mankind it makes him to hate what himself hath made and to punish that in another which in himself he decreed should not be avoided it charges the wisdom of God with solly as having no means to glorifie his justice but by doing unjustly by bringing in that which himself hates that he might do what himself loves doing as Tiberius did to Brutus and Nero the Sons of Germanicus Variâ fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia concitati perderentur provoking them to rail that he might punish their reproachings This opinion reproaches the words of the Spirit of Scripture it charges God with Hypocrisie and want of Mercy making him a Father of Cruelties not of Mercy and is a perfect overthrow of all Religion and all Laws and all Government it destroys the very being and nature of all Election thrusting a man down to the lowest form of Beasts and Birdâ— to whom a Spontaneity of doing certain actions is given by God but it is in them so natural that it is unavoidable Now concerning this hoâ—rid opinion I for my part shall say nothing but this That he that says there was no such man as Alexander would tell a horrible lie and be injurious to all story and to the memory and same of that great Prince but he that should say It is true there was such a man as Alexander but he was a Tyrant and a Blood-sucker cruel and injurious false and dissembling an enemy of mankind and for all the reasons of the world to be hated and reproached would certainly dishonour Alexander more and be his greatest enemy So I think in this That the Atheists who deny there is a God do not so impiously against God as they that charge him with foul appellatives or maintain such sentences which if they were true God could not be true But these men Madam have nothing to do in the Question of Original Sin save only that they say that God did decree that Adam should fall and all the sins that he sinned and all the world after him are no effects of choice but of predestination that is they were the actions of God rather than man But because these men even to their brethren seem to speak evil things of God therefore the more wary and temperate of the Calvinists bring down the order of reprobation lower affirming that God looked upon all mankind in Adam as fallen into his displeasure hated by God truly guilty of his sin liable to Eternal damnation and they being all equally condemned he was pleased to separate some the smaller number far and irresistibly bring them to Heaven but the far greater number he passed over leaving them to be damned for the sin of Adam and so they think they salve Gods Justice and this was the design and device of the Synod of Dort Now to bring this to pass they teach concerning Original Sin 1. That by this sin our first Parents fell from their Original righteousness and communion with God and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body 2. That whatsoever death was due to our first Parents for this sin they being the root of all mankind and the guilt of this sin being imputed the same is conveyed to all their posterity by ordinary generation 3. That by this Original corruption we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil and that from hence proceed all actual transgressions 4. This corruption of nature remains in the regenerate and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified yet both it self and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin 5. Original sin being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporal and eternal These are the sayings of the late Assembly at Westminster Against this heap of errors and dangerous propositions I have made my former discoursings and statings of the Question of Original sin These are the Doctrines of the Presbyterian whose face is towards us but it is over-against us in this and many other questions of great concernment Nemo tam propè proculque nobis He is nearest to us and furthest from us but because I have as great a love to their persons as I have a dislike to some of their Doctrines I shall endeavour to serve truth and them by reproving those propositions which make truth and them to stand at distance Now I shall first speak to the thing in general and its designs then I shall make some observations upon the particulars 1. This device of our Presbyterians and of the Synod of Dort is but an artifice to save their proposition harmless and to stop the out-cries of Scripture and reason and of all the World against them But this way of stating the Article of reprobation is as horrid in the effect as the other For 1. Is it by a natural consequent that we are guilty of Adams sin or is it by the decree of God Naturally it cannot be for then the sins of all our forefathers who are to their posterity the same that Adam was to his must be ours and not only Adams first sin but his others are ours upon the same account But if it be by the Decree of God by his choice and constitution that it should be so as Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse that I may name no more for that side do expresly teach it follows that God is the Author of our Sin So that I may use Mr. Calvins words How is it that so many Nations with their Children should be involved in the fall without remedy but because God would have it so And if that be the matter then to God as to the cause must that sin and that damnation be accounted And let it then be considered whether this be not as bad as the worst For the Supralapsarians say God did decree that the greatest part of mankind should perish only because he would The Sublapsarians say that God made it by his decree necessary that all we who were born of Adam should be born guilty of Original Sin and he it was who decreed to damn whom he pleased for that sin in which he decreed they should be born and both these he did for no other consideration but because he would Is it not therefore evident that he absolutely decreed Damnation to these Persons
what made Adam sin when he fell If a fatal decree made him sin then he was nothing to blame Fati ista culpa est Nemo fit fato nocens No guilt upon mankind can lie For what 's the fault of destiny And Adam might with just reason lay the blame from himself and say as Agamemâ—on did in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not I that sinned but it was fate or a fury it was God and not I it was not my act but the effect of the Divine decree and then the same decree may make us sin and not the sin of Adam be the cause of it But if a liberty of will made Adam sin then this liberty to sin being still left us this liberty and not Adams sin is the cause of all our actual Concerning the other clause in the Presbyterian Article that our natural corruption in the regenerate still remains and is still a sin and properly a sin I have I confess heartily opposed it and shall besides my arguments confute it with my blood if God shall call me for it is so great a reproach to the spirit and power of Christ and to the effects of Baptism to Scripture and to right reason that all good people are bound in Conscience to be zealous against it For when Christ came to reconcile us to his Father he came to take away our sins not only to pardon them but to destroy them and if the regenerate in whom the spirit of Christ rules and in whom all their habitual sins are dead are still under the servitude and in the stocks of Original sin then it follows not only that our guilt of Adams sin is greater than our own actual the sin that we never consented to is of a deeper grain than that which we have chosen and delighted in and God was more angry with Cain that he was born of Adam than that he kill'd his Brother and Judas by descent from the first Adam contracted that sin which he could never be quit of but he might have been quit of his betraying the second Adam if he would not have despaired I say not only these horrid consequences do follow but this also will follow that Adams sin hath done some mischief that the grace of Christ can never cure and generation stains so much that regeneration cannot wash it clean Besides all this if the natural corruption remains in the regenerate and be properly a sin then either God hates the regenerate or loves the sinner and when he dies he must enter into Heaven with that sin which he cannot lay down but in the grave as the vilest sinner lays down every sin and then an unclean thing can go to Heaven or else no man can and lastly to say that this natural corruption though it be pardoned and mortified yet still remains and is still a sin is perfect non-sence for if it be mortified it is not it hath no being if it is pardoned it was indeed but now is no sin for till a man can be guilty of sin without obligation to punishment a sin cannot be a sin that is pardoned that is if the obligation to punishment or the guilt be taken away a man is not guilty Thus far Madam I hope you will think I had reason One thing more I did and do reprove in their Westminster Articles and that is that Original sin meaning our sin derived from Adam is contrary to the law of God and doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner binding him over to Gods wrath c. that is that the sin of Adam imputed to us is properly formally and inherently a sin If it were properly a sin in us our sin it might indeed be damnable for every transgression of the Divine Commandment is so but because I have proved it cannot bring eternal damnation I can as well argue thus This sin cannot justly bring us to damnation therefore it is not properly a sin as to say this is properly a sin therefore it can bring us to damnation Either of them both follow well but because they cannot prove it to be a sin properly or any other ways but by a limited imputation to certain purposes they cannot say it infers damnation But because I have proved it cannot infer damnation I can safely conclude it is not formally properly and inherently a sin in us Nec placet ô superi vobis cum vertere cuncta Propositum nostris erroribus addere crimen Nor did it please our God when that our state Was chang'd to add a crime unto our fate I have now Madam though much to your trouble quitted my self of my Presbyterian opponents so far as I can judge fitting for the present but my friends also take some exceptions and there are some objections made and blows given me as it happened to our Blessed Saviour In domo illorum qui diligebant me in the house of my Mother and in the societies of some of my Dearest Brethren For the case is this They joyn with me in all this that I have said viz. That Original sin is ours only by imputation that it leaves us still in our natural liberty and though it hath devested us of our supernaturals yet that our nature is almost the same and by the grace of Jesus as capable of Heaven as it could ever be by derivation of Original righteousness from Adam In the conduct and in the description of this Question being usually esteemed to be only Scholastical I confess they as all men else do usually differ for it was long ago observed that there are sixteen several famous opinions in this one Question of Original sin But my Brethren are willing to confess that for Adams sin alone no man did or shall ever perish And that it is rather to be called a stain than a sin If they were all of one mind and one voice in this Article though but thus far I would not move a stone to disturb it but some draw one way and some another and they that are aptest to understand the whole secret do put fetters and bars upon their own understanding by an importune regard to the great names of some dead men who are called masters upon earth and whose authority is as apt to mislead us into some propositions as their learning is useful to guide us in others but so it happens that because all are not of a mind I cannot give account of every disagreeing man but of that which is most material I shall Some learned persons are content I should say no man is damned for the sin of Adam alone but yet that we stand guilty in Adam and redeemed from this damnation by Christ and if that the Article were so stated it would not intrench upon the justice or the goodness of God for his justice would be sufficiently declared because no man can complain of wrong done him when the evil that he fell into by Adam
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam and not to his Children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgment unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ of all is this By the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
brought death into the world That it was his sin alone that did the great mischief That this sin was made ours 〈◊〉 by inherence but by imputation That they who suffered the calamity did not know what the sin was That there was a difference of men even in relation to thiâ— sin and it passed upon some more than upon others that is some were more miserable than others That some did not sin by that sin of Adam and some did that is some there were whose manners were not corrupted by that example and some were that it was not our sin but his that the sin did not multiply by the variety of subject but was still but one sin and that it was his and not ours all which particulars are as so many verifications of the doctrine I have delivered and so many illustrations of the main Article But in verification of one great part of it I mean that concerning Infants and that they are not corrupted properly or made sinners by any inherent impurity is clearly affirmed by S. Peter whose words are thus rendred in the same Aethiopick Testament 1 Pet. 2.2 And be ye like unto newly begotten Infants who are begotten every one without sin or malice and as milk not mingled And to the same sence those words of our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees asking who sinn'd this man or his Parents John 9. the Syriack Scholiast does give this Paraphrase some say it is an indirect question For how is it possible for a man to sin before he was born And if his Parents sinn'd how could he bear their sin But if they say that the punishment of the Parents may be upon the Children let them know that this is spoken of them that came out of Egypt and is not Universal And those words of David In sin hath my Mother conceived me R. David Kimchi and Abeâ—esra say that they are expounded of Eve who did not conceive till she had sinned But to return to the words of S. Paul The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eternal bonds of Hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the access had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirms that we were sentenced in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgment which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sence imaginable that the death which here S. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatned in Moses's Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methuselah that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression Since then all the judgment which the Apostle says came by the sin of Adam was sufficiently and plainly enough affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankind to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodness through Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirmed by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymy or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin Shall rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a sin but only metonymically and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Frier Luys di Vrretta in his Ecclesiastical story of Aethiopia says That the Christians in Aethiopia under the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no so entremetieron en essas Theologias del peccato Original porque mâ—nca tuvieron los entendimientes muy metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Llana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilios sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original Sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentle comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the Primitive Saints and Holy Councils without disputation or difference so says the story But we unfortunately trouble our selves by raising Ideas of Sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not believe but it is a vision And the height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easie to be understood And indeed Religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to believe impossible Articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is
which interpretation I follow S. Paul not the Pelagians they who are on the other side of the question follow neither And unless men take in their opinion before they read and resolve not to understand S. Paul in this Epistle I wonder why they should fancy that all that he says sounds that way which they commonly dream of But as men fancy so the Bells will ring But I know your Lordships grave and wiser judgment sees not only this that I have now opened but much beyond it and that you will be a zealous advocate for the truth of God and for the honour of his justice wisdom and mercy That which follows makes me believe your Lordship resolv'd to try me by speaking your own sence in the line and your temptation in the interline For when your Lordship had said that My arguments for the vindication of Gods goodness and justice are sound and holy your hand run it over again and added as abstracted from the case of Original Sin But why should this be abstracted from all the whole Oeconomy of God from all his other dispensations Is it in all cases of the world unjust for God to impute our fathers sins to us unto eternal condemnation and is it otherwise in this only Certainly a man would think this were the more favourable case as being a single act done but once repented of after it was done not consented to by the parties interested not stipulated by God that it should be so and being against all laws and all the reason of the world therefore it were but reason that if any where here much rather Gods justice and goodness should be relied upon as the measure of the event * And if in other cases laws be never given to Ideots and Infants and persons uncapable why should they be given here But if they were not capable of a Law then neither could they be of Sin for where there is no law there is no transgression And is it unjust to condemn one man to Hell for all the sin of a thousand of his Ancestors actually done by them And shall it be accounted just to damn all the world for one sin of one man But if it be said that it is unjust to damn the innocent for the sin of another but the world is not innocent but really guilty in Adam Besides that this is a begging of the question it is also against common sence to say that a man is not innocent of that which was done before he had a being for if that be not sufficient then it is impossible for a man to be innocent And if this way of answer be admitted any man may be damned for the sin of any Father because it may be said here as well as there that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault yet the Son is not innocent as being in his Fathers loyns when the fault was committed and the law calls him and makes him guilty And if it were so indeed this were so far from being an excuse to say that the Law makes him guilty that this were absolute tyranny and the thing that were to be complain'd of I hope by this time your Lordship perceives that I have no reason to fear that I prevaricate S. Paul's rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I only endeavour to understand S. Paul's words and I read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in proportion to and so as they may not intrench upon the reputation of Gods goodness and justice that 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wise unto sobriety But they that do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to resolve it to be so whether God be honour'd in it or dishonour'd and to answer all arguments whether they can or cannot be answered and to efform all their Theology to the air of that one great proposition and to find out ways for God to proceed in which he hath never told of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ways that are crooked and not to be insisted in ways that are not right if these men do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I hope I shall have less need to fear that I do who do none of these things And in proportion to my security here I am confident that I am unconcern'd in the consequent threatning If any man shall Evangelize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other doctrine than what ye have received something for Gospel which is not Gospel something that ye have not received let him be accursed My Lord if what I teach were not that which we have received that God is just and righteous and true that the soul that sins the same shall die that we shall have no cause to say The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that God is a gracious Father pardoning iniquity and therefore not exacting it where it is not that Infants are from their Mothers wombs beloved of God their Father that of such is the Kingdom of God that he pities those souls who cannot discern the right hand from the left as he declar'd in the case of the Ninevites that to Infants there are special Angels appointed who always behold the face of God that Christ took them in his arms and blessed them and therefore they are not hated by God and accursed heirs of Hell and coheirs with Satan that the Messias was promisâ—d before any children were born as certainly as that Adam sinn'd before they were born that if sin abounds grace does superabound and therefore children are with greater effect involv'd in the grace than they could be in the sin and the sin must be gone before it could do them mischief if this were not the doctrine of both Testaments and if the contrary were then the threatning of S. Paul might well be held up against me but else my Lord to shew such a Scorpion to him that speaks the truth of God in sincerity and humility though it cannot make me to betray the truth and the honour of God yet the very fear and affrightment which must needs seize upon every good man that does but behold it or hear the words of that angry voice shall and hath made me to pray not only that my self be preserved in truth but that it would please God to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived My Lord I humbly thank your Lordship for your grave and pious Counsel and kiss the hand that reaches forth so paternal a rod. I see you are tender both of truth and me and though I have not made this tedious reply to cause trouble to your Lordship or to steal from you any part of your precious time yet because I see your Lordship was perswaded induere personam to give some little countenance to a popular error out of jealousie against a less usual truth I thought it my duty to represent to your Lordship such things by which as I can so I ought to
sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the Tree of life and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and die without that remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was mortal of himself and we are mortal from him Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit said Justin Martyr Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin and subjected them to death One explicates the other and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin Malum domesticum contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum His sin infected us with death and this infection we derive in our birth that is we are born mortal Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death in him we are sinners as in him we die But this sin is not real and inherent but imputed only to such a degree So S. Cyprian affirms most expresly infans recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit An infant hath not sinn'd save only that being carnally born of Adam in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death 20. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to die was to some a punishment but to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam as I before discours'd upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law But to those who sinned not at all as Infants and Innocents it was merely a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they die but as it related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil afflicted for their sin or any guiltiness of their own properly so called 21. We find nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Other things are said but I find no warrant for them in that sence they are usually suppos'd and some of them in no sence at all The particulars commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance a proneness to sin a natural malice a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls a loss of our wills liberty and nothing is left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summ of affairs is expounded to be a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are born heirs of damnation 22. Concerning Original or Natural ignorance it is true we derive it from our Parents I mean we are born with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut Neither can we guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall Certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge But concerning his posterity indeed it is true a child cannot speak at first nor understand and if as Plato said all our knowledge is nothing but memory it is no wonder a child is born without knowledge But so it is in the wisest men in the world they also when they see or hear a thing first think it strange and could not know it till they saw or heard it Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam as we do our Nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall we may best guess at by the event for if he had not had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin and became devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary and was left naked and mere and therefore it is not only an Original imperfection which we inherit but in the sence now explicated it is also an Original corruption And this is all As natural death by his sin became a curse so our natural imperfection became natural corruption and that is Original sin Death and imperfection we derive from Adam but both were natural to us but by him they became actual and penal and by him they became worse as by every evil act every principle of evil is improv'd And in this sence this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church We are miserable really sinners in account or effect that properly this improperly and are faln into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it For in Original sin we are to consider the principle and the effects The principle is the actual sin of Adam This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us hath brought upon us a necessity of dying and all the affections of mortality which although they were natural yet would by grace have been hindred Another evil there is upon us and that is Concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him This also from him is derived to us and is by many causes made worse by him and by our selves And this is the whole state of Original sin so far as is fairly warrantable But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing The sin of Adam neither made us 1. Heirs of damnation Nor 2. Naturally and necessarily vicious 23. I. It could not make us Heirs of damnation This I shall the less need to insist upon because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point and have descended to this lesser proportion that Original sin damns only to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face But to this I say these things 24. I. That there are many Divines which believe this alone to be the worm that never dies and the fire that never goeth out that is in effect this and the anguish for this is all the Hell of the damned And unless infants remain infants in the resurrection too which no man that I know affirms or unless they be senseless and inapprehensive it is not to be imagined but that all that know
and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin He says their meaning cannot extend to Christ for he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 born to sin but he is natura ad peccandum natus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nature born to sin who by the choice of his own will is author to himself to do what he list whether it be good or evil The following words are eaten out by time but upon this ground whatever he said of Infants must needs have been to better purposes than is usually spoken of in this Article 2. Heirs of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heirs of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrews So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that deserve death or are condemned to die Thus Judas Iscariot is called The son of perdition and so is that saying of David to Nathan The man that hath done this shall surely die In the Hebrew it is He is the son of death And so were those Ephesians children or sons of wrath before their conversion that is they had deserv'd death 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customs and evil habits And so Suidas expounds the word in this very place not only upon the account of Grammar and the use of the word in the best Authors but also upon an excellent reason His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle says we were by nature children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such but it means an abiding and vile habit a wicked and a lasting custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Custom is like Nature For often and always are not far asunder Nature is always Custom is almost always To the same sence are those words of Porphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancients who lived likest to God and were by nature the best living the best life were a golden generation 4. By nature means not by birth and natural extraction or any original derivation from Adam in this place for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after but by nature signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Greek Scholiast renders it really beyond opinion plenè omnino intirely or wholly so the Syriack and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase Gal. 4.8 Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods that is which really are none And as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israelites in the days of their rebellion a wicked stubborn people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falsehood But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sence and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them 51. But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God that is bastards and not sons heirs of Hell and damnation full of sin and vile corruption when the holy Scriptures propound children as imitable for their pretty innocence and sweetness and declare them rather heirs of Heaven than Hell In malice be children and unless we become like to children we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven Heaven is theirs God is their Father Angels are appropriated to them they are free from malice and imitable by men These are better words than are usually given them and signifie that they are beloved of God not hated design'd for Heaven and born to it though brought thither by Christ and by the Spirit of Christ not born for Hell that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels not for innocent babes This does not call them naturally wicked but rather naturally innocent and is a better account than is commonly given them by imputation of Adams sin 52. But not concerning children but of himself S. Paul complains that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted There is a law in my members bringing me into captivity to the law of sin and many other words to the same purpose all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded is nothing but a temptation to evil life and a patron of impiety Concerning which I have in the next Chapter given account and freed it from the common abuse But if this were to be understood in the sence which I there reprove yet it is to be observed in order to the present Question that S. Paul does not say This law in our members comes by nature or is derived from Adam A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious custom and that may be as prevalent as Nature and more because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their nature than have cured their vicious habits * Add to this that S. Paul puts this uneasiness and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law and of his not being under Christ not upon the account of Adams prevarication as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter 53. As easie also it is to understand these words of S. Paul without prejudice to this Question The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither indeed can he know them meaning as is supposed that there is in our natures an ignorance and averseness from spiritual things that is a contrariety to God But it is observable that the word which the Apostle uses is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not properly rendred Natural but Animal and it certainly means a man that is guided only by natural Reason without the revelations of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Suidas An animal man that is a Philosopher or a rational man such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers upon the stock and account of the learning of all their Schools could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel mysteries as of God incarnate Christ dying Resurrection of the body and the like For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animal and another word used often by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritual and are states of evil or of imperfection in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God For animality which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation is a state privatively oppos'd to the
or lust and anger and grief and all things else which need great constancy and wisdom lest the storm should drown reason in us in the gulf of sin For these affections or passions were not sin but the excess of them not being bridled did effect this The same he affirms in Homl. 11. ad 6. Rom. and the 12. Homil. on Rom. 7. And not much unlike this was that excellent discourse of Lactantius in his seventh Book de Divino praemio cap. 5. But Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Romans follows the same discourse exactly And this way of explicating the entrance and facility of sin upon us is usual in antiquity affirming that because we derive a miserable and an afflicted body from Adam upon that stock sin enters Quae quia materiam peccati ex fomite carnis Consociata trahit nec non simul ipsa sodali Est incentivum peccaminis implicat ambas Vindex poena reas peccantes mente sub unâ PeccandÃque cremet socias cruciatibus aequis Because the soul joyned to the body draws from the society of the flesh incentives and arguments to sin therefore both of them are punished as being guilty by consociation But then thus it was also before the fall For by this it was that Adam fell So the same Prudentius Haec prima est natura animae sic condita simplex Decidit in vitium per sordida foedera carnis The soul was created simple and pure but fell into vice by the evil combination with the flesh But if at first the appetites and necessities and tendencies of the body when it was at ease and health and blessed did yet tempt the soul to forbidden instances much more will this be done when the body is miserable and afflicted uneasie and dying For even now we see by a sad experience that the afflicted and the miserable are not only apt to anger and envy but have many more desires and more weaknesses and consequently more aptnesses to sin in many instances than those who are less troubled And this is that which was said by Arnobius Proni ad culpas ad libidinis varios appetitus vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitae By the fault of our natural infirmity we are prone to the appetites of lust and sins 7. From hence it follows that naturally a man cannot do or perform the Law of God because being so weak so tempted by his body and this life being the bodies day that is the time in which its appetites are properly prevailing to be born of Adam is to be born under sin that is under such inclinations to it that as no man will remain innocent so no man can of himself keep the Law of God Vendidit se prior ac per hoc omne semen subjectum est peccato Quamobrem infirmum esse hominem ad praecepta legis servanda said the Author of the Commentary on S. Paul's Epistles usually attributed to S. Ambrose But beyond this there are two things more considerable the one is that the soul of man being devested by Adam's fall by way of punishment of all those supernatural assistances which God put into it that which remained was a reasonable soul fitted for the actions of life and of reason but not of any thing that was supernatural For the soul being immerged in flesh feeling grief by participation of evils from the flesh hath and must needs have discourses in order to its own ease and comfort that is in order to the satisfaction of the bodies desires which because they are often contradicted restrained and curbed and commanded to be mortified and killed by the laws of God must of necessity make great inlets for sin for while reason judges of things in proportion to present interests and is less apprehensive of the proportions of those good things which are not the good things of this life but of another the reason abuses the will as the flesh abuses the reason And for this there is no remedy but the grace of God the holy Spirit to make us be born again to become spiritual that is to have new principles new appetites and new interests The other thing I was to note is this That as the Devil was busie to abuse mankind when he was fortified by many advantages and favours from God So now that man is naturally born naked and devested of those graces and advantages and hath an infirm sickly body and enters upon the actions of life through infancy and childhood and youth and folly and ignorance the Devil it is certain will not omit his opportunities but will with all his power possess and abuse mankind and upon the apprehension of this the Primitive Church used in the first admission of infants to the entrance of a new birth to a spiritual life pray against the power and frauds of the Devil and that brought in the ceremony of Exsufflation for ejecting of the Devil The ceremony was fond and weak but the opinion that introduced them was full of caution and prudence For as Optatus Milevitanus said Neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur quamvis de Christianis parentibus nascitur sine Spiritu immundo esse non possit quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi ac separari It is but too likely the Devil will take advantages of our natural weaknesses and with his temptations and abuses enter upon children as soon as they enter upon choice and indeed prepossess them with imitating follies that may become customs of sinfulness before they become sins and therefore with rare wisdom it was done by the Church to prevent the Devils frauds and violences by an early Baptism and early offices 8. As a consequent of all this it comes to pass that we being born thus naked of the Divine grace thus naturally weak thus incumbred with a body of sin that is a body apt to tempt to forbidden instances and thus assaulted by the frauds and violences of the Devil all which are helped on by the evil guises of the world it is certain we cannot with all these disadvantages and loads soar up to Heaven but in the whole constitution of affairs are in sad dispositions to enter into the Devils portion and go to Hell Not that if we die before we consent to evil we shall perish but that we are evilly disposed to do actions that will deserve it and because if we die before our new birth we have nothing in us that can according to the revelations of God dispose us to Heaven according to these words of the Apostle In me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing But this infers not that in our flesh or that in our soul there is any sin properly inherent which makes God to be our present enemy that is the only or the principal thing I suppose my self to have so much reason to deny But that the state of the body is a
of Original sin as it is commonly explicated at this day For all that this Author for it was indeed some later Catholick Author but not Justin did know of Original sin was that which he relates in the answer to the 102 Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ by baptism putting off Adam by whom we being made sinners did die and putting on Christ by whom being Justified we are risen from the dead In whom saith the Apostle we were circumcised with the circumcision which is made without hands while you have put off your body That is Adam's sin made us to become sinners that is was imputed to us so that in him we die but by Christ being justified we are made alive that is in him we are admitted to another life a life after our resurrection and this is by baptism for there we die to Adam and live to Christ we are initiated in a new birth to a new and more perfect state of things But all this leaves Infants in a state of so much innocence that they are not formally guilty of a sin but imperfect and insufficient to righteousness and every one hath his liberty left him to do as he please so far is affirmed by the author of these answers But the sentence of Justin Martyr in this article may best be conjectured by his discourse at large undertaking to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A freedom of Election to fly evil things and to choose that which is good set down in his second apology for the Christians Theophilus Antiochenus affirms that which destroys the new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about Adam's perfection and rare knowledge in the state of innocence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam in that age was yet as an infant and therefore did not understand that secret viz. that the fruit which he eat had in it nothing but knowledge and a little after reckoning the evil consequents of Adam's sin he names these onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grief sorrow and death at last 20. Clemens of Alexandria having affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that by nature we are born apt to vertue not that we have vertue from our birth but that we are apt to require it from thence takes opportunity to discuss this question whether Adam was formed perfect or imperfect If imperfect how comes it to pass that the 〈◊〉 of God especially Man should be imperfect If perfect how came he to break the commandments He answers that Adam was not made perfect in his constitution but prepared indeed for vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For God would have us by our selves that is by our own choice to be 〈◊〉 For it is the nature of the Soul to be driven and stirred up by it self Many more things to the same purpose he affirms in perfect contradiction to them who believe Adam's sin so to have debauched our faculties that we have lost all our powers of election our powers of election grow stronger not weaker according as our knowledge increases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was in Adam meaning his free-will that was it which grew with the increase of a man Therefore it was not lost by Adam But more pertinent to the present Questions are these words An innocent Martyr suffers like an infant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an infant neither committed actual sin or sin in himself neither hath he sinned before-hand that is properly in Adam to whose sin he gave no consent for else there can be no antithesis or opposition in the parts of his distinction â—â— sinned not actually in himself being one member the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sinning before being opposed to actual sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in himself must mean Original and in another And this he also expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Tatianus and the Encratites did design to prove marriage to be unlawful because it produced nothing but sinners and to that purpose urged those words of Job There is no man free from pollution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though his life be but of one day For so antiquity did generally quote the 25 of Job 4. following the Lxx which interpretâ— the place there being neither the same words nor the like sence in the Hebrew But that very Quotation had no small influence into the forward perswasions of the article concerning Original sin as is visible to them that have read the writings of the Ancient D. D. But to the things here objected Clemens replied Let them tell us theâ— how an infant newly born hath fornicated or polluted himself or how he is fallen under the curse of Adam he who hath done nothing He had no other way to extricate himself For if marriage produces none but sinners persons hated by God formally guilty of sin then as the Fruit is such is the Tree He answers True if it were so but marriage produces infants that are innocent and having done nothing evil yet they never deserved to fall under Adam's curse The effect of which is this that to them sickness and death is a misery but not formally a punishment because they are innocent and formally are no sinners Some to elude this testimony would make these words to be the words of the Encratites or Julius Cassianus but then they are no sence but a direct objection to themselves But the case is clear to them that read and understand and therefore the Learned and Good man Johannes Gerardus Vâ—ssius confesses down-right Clementem Alexandrinum non satis intellexisse peccatum Originale That he did not understand the doctrine of Original sin This only I add that he takes from the Objector that place of David In sin hath my mother conceived 〈◊〉 affirming that by my mother he means Eve and that she peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she was in sin when she conceived him but he was not in sin when he was conceived But the meaning of Clemens Alex. is easily to be understood to be consonant to truth and the usual doctrine of the first ages which makes Adam's sin to be ours by imputation but that no sin upon that title is inherent in us and Clemens Alex. understood the Question very well though not to the purposes of our new Opinions 21. Tertullian speaks of the sin of Adam several times but affirms not that we have any formal proper and inherent sin But that the soul of man is a sinner because it is unclean just as it was amongst the rites of Moses Law where legal impurity was called sin and that we derive from Adam a shame rather than a sin an ignominy or reproach like that of being born of dishonourable Parents or rather from the society of the flesh as he expresses it and that this dishonour lasts upon us till we enter upon a new relation in Christ. Ita omnis anima
subjected in humane Nature for if it were otherwise then an universal should be more particular than that which is Individual and a whole should be less than a part actiones sunt suppositorum and so for omissions now every sin is either one or other and therefore it is impossible that this which is an affection of an universal viz. of humane Nature can be a sin for a sin is a breach of some Law to which not Natures but Persons are obliged and which Natures cannot break because not Natures but persons only do or neglect 30. That Naturally is engendred of the off-spring of Adam This clause is inserted to exclude Christ from the participation of Adams sin But if concupiscence which is in every mans Nature be a sin it is certain Christ had no concupiscence or natural desires for he had no sin But if he had no concupiscence or natural desires how he should be a man or how capable of law or how he should serve God with choice where there could be no potentia ad oppositum I think will be very hard to be understood Christ felt all our infirmities yet without sin All our infirmities are the effects of the sin of Adam and part of that which we call Original sin therefore all these our infirmities which Christ felt as in him they were for ever without sin so as long as they are only Natural Unconsented to must be in us without sin For whatsoever is Naturally in us is Naturally in him but a man is not a man without Natural desires therefore these were in him in him without sin and therefore so in us without sin I mean properly really and formally But there 's a Catachresis also in these words or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naturally engendred of the off-spring of Adam Cain and Abel and Seth and all the sons of Adam who were the first off-spring and not engendred of the off-spring of Adam were as guilty as we But they came from Adam but not from Adams off-spring therefore the Articles is to be expounded to the sence of these words Naturally engendred or are of the off-spring of Adam 31. Whereby Man is very far gone from Original Righteousness That is men are devolved to their Natural condition devested of all those gifts and graces which God gave to Adam in order to his supernatural end and by the help of which he stood in Gods favour and innocent until the fatal period of his fall This Original Righteousness or innocence we have not Naturally for our Natural innocence is but Negative that is we have not consented to sin The Righteousness he had before his fall I suppose was not only that but also his doing many actions of obedience and intercourse with God even all which passed between God and himself till his eating the forbidden fruit For he had this advantage over us He was created in a full use of reason we his descendents enter into the world in the greatest imperfection and are born under a law which we break before we can understand and it is imputed to us as our understanding increases And our desires are strongest when our Understanding is weakest and therefore by this very Oeconomy which is natural to us we must needs in the Condition of our nature be very far from Adams Original Righteousness who had perfect reason before he had a law and had understanding assoon as he had desires This clause thus understood is most reasonable and true but the effect of it can be nothing in prejudice of the main business and if any thing else be meant by it I cannot understand it to have any ground in Scripture or Reason and I am sure our Church does not determine for it 32. And is inclined to evil That every Man is inclined to evil some more some less but all in some instances is very true and it is an effect or condition of nature but no sin properly Because that which is unavoidable is not a sin 2. Because it is accidental to nature not intrinsecal and essential 3. It is superinduc'd to Nature and is after it and comes by reason of the laws which God made after he made our Nature he brought us laws to check our Nature to cross and displease that by so doing we may prefer God before our selves this also with some variety for in some laws there is more liberty than in others and therefore less Natural inclination to disobedience 4. Because our Nature is inclined to good and not to evil in some instances that is in those which are according to nature and there is no greater Endearment of vertue than the Law and Inclination of Nature in all the Instances of that Law 5. Because that which is intended for the occasion of vertue and reward is not Naturally and essentially the principle of Evil. 6. In the instances in which Naturally we incline to evil the inclination is naturally good because it is to its proper object but that it becomes morally evil must be personal for the law is before our persons it cannot be Natural because the law by which that desire can become evil is after it 33. So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit This clause declares what kind of inclination to evil is esteemed criminal That which is approved that which passeth to act that which is personally delighted in in the contention which is after regeneration or reception of the Holy Spirit For the flesh cannot lust against the spirit in them that have not the spirit unless both the principles be within there can be no contention between them as a man cannot fight a duel alone so that this is not the sin of Nature but of persons for though potentially it is sin yet actually and really it is none until it resist the spirit of God which is the principle put into us to restore us to as good a state at least as that was which we were receded from in Adam By the way it is observable that the Article makes only concupiscence or lusting to be the effect of Adams sin but affirms nothing of the loss of the wills liberty or diminution of the understanding or the rebellion of the passions against reason but only against the spirit which certainly is Natural to it and in Adam did rebel against Gods Commandments when it was the in-let to the sin and therefore could not be a punishment of it And therefore The illative conjunction expresly declares that the sence of the Church of England is that this corruption of our Nature in no other sence and for no other reason is criminal but because it does resist the Holy spirit therefore it is not evil till it does so and therefore if it does not it is not evil For if the very inclination were a sin then when this inclination is contested against at the same time and in the same things the man sins and does well and he can never have a
For he that decrees the end and he that decrees the only necessary and effective means to the end and decrees that it shall be the end of that means does decree absolutely alike though by several dispensations And then all the evil consequents which I reckoned before to be the monstrous productions of the first way are all Daughters of the other and if Solomon were here he could not tell which were the truer Mother Now that the case is equal between them 〈◊〉 of their own chiefest do confess so Dr. Twisse If God may ordain Men to Hell for Adam's sin which is derived unto them by Gods only constitution He may as well do it abâ—olutely without any such constitutions The same also is affirmed by Maccovius and by Mr. Calvin And the reason is plain for he that does a thing for a reason which himself makes may as well do it without a reason Or he may make his own Will to be the reason because the thing and the motive of the thing come in both cases equally from the same principle and from that alone Now Madam be pleased to say whether I had not reason and necessity for what I have taught You are a happy Mother of a fair and hopeful Posterity your Children and Nephews are dear to you as your right eye and yet you cannot love them so well as God loves them and it is possible that a Mother should forget her Children yet God even then will not cannot but if our Father and Mother forsake us God taketh us up Now Madam consider could you have found in your heart when the Nurses and Midwives had bound up the heads of any of your Children when you had born them with pain and joy upon your knees could you have been tempted to give command that murderers should be brought to stay them alive to put them to exquisite tortures and then in the midst of their saddest groans throw any one of them into the flames of a fierce fire for no other reason but because he was born at London or upon a Friday when the Moon was in her prime or for what other reason you had made and they could never avoid Could you have been delighted in their horrid shrieks and out-cries or have taken pleasure in their unavoidable and their intolerable calamity Could you have smiled if the hangman had snatched your eldest Son from his Nurses breasts and dashed his brains out against the pavement and would you not have wondred that any Father or Mother could espy the innocence and pretty smiles of your sweet babes and yet tear their limbs in pieces or devise devilish artifices to make them roar with intolerable convulsions Could you desire to be thought good and yet have delighted in such cruelty I know I may answer for you you would first have died your self And yet I say again God loves mankind better than we can love one another and he is essentially just and he is infinitely merciful and he is all goodness and therefore though we might possibly do evil things yet he cannot and yet this doctrine of the Presbyterian reprobation says he both can and does things the very apprehension of which hath caused many in despair to drown or hang themselves Now if the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation be so horrid so intolerable a proposition so unjust and blasphemous to God so injurious and cruel to men and that there is no colour or pretence to justifie it but by pretending our guilt of Adams sin and damnation to be the punishment Then because from truth nothing but truth can issue that must needs be a lie from which such horrid consequences do proceed For the case in short is this If it be just for God to damn any one of Adam's Posterity for Adam's sin then it is just in him to damn all for all his Children are equally guilty and then if he spares any it is Mercy And the rest who perish have no cause to complain But if all these fearful consequences which Reason and Religion so much abhor do so certainly follow from such doctrines of Reprobation and these doctrines wholly â—ely upon this pretence it follows that the pretence is infinitely false and intolerable and that so far as we understand the rules and measures of justice it cannot be just for God to damn us for being in a state of calamity to which state we entred no way out by his constitution and decree You see Madam I had reason to reprove that doctrine which said It was just in God to damn us for the sin of Adam Though this be the main error yet there are some other collateral things which I can by no means approve such is that 1. That by the Sin of Adam our Parents became wholly defiled in all the faculties and Powers of their souls and bodies And 2. That by this we also are disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil And 3. That from hence proceed all actual transgressions And 4. That our natural corruption in the regenerate still remains though it be pardoned and mortified and is still properly a sin Against this I opposed these Propositions That the effect of Adams sin was in himself bad enough for it devested him of that state of grace and favour where God placed him it threw him from Paradise and all the advantages of that place it left him in the state of Nature but yet his nature was not spoiled by that sin he was not wholly inclined to all evil neither was he disabled and made opposite to all good only his good was imperfect it was natural and fell short of Heaven for till his nature was invested with a new nature he could go no further than the design of his first Nature that is without Christ without the Spirit of Christ he could never arrive at Heaven which is his supernatural condition But 1. There still remained in him a natural freedom of doing good or evil 2. In every one that was born there are great inclinations to some good 3. Where our Nature was a verse to good it is not the direct sin of Nature but the imperfection of it the reason being because God superinduced Laws against our natural inclination and yet there was in nature nothing sufficient to make us contradict our nature in obedience to God all that being to come from a supernatural and Divine principle These I shall prove together for one depends upon another 1. And first That the liberty of will did not perish to mankind by the fall of Adam is so evident that S. Austin who is an adversary in some parts of this Question but not yet by way of Question and confidence asks Quis autem nostrûm dicat quod primi hominis peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere Which of us can say That the liberty of our Will did perish by the sin of the first Man And he adds
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
Seventhly It is a scandal and makes way for Heathen Idolatry 549 7. Of picturing God the Father and the H. Trinity 550 The testimonies of Tertullian Eusebius and S. Hierome alledged in the Dissuasive vindicated from the Romanists exceptions as also the testimonies of S. Austin Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus 552 553. An answer to that reply of theirs of painting the Essence of God the Father 550 551. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance Chap. I. THE Foundation and Necessity of Repentance 573 Sect. 1. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing of the Covenant of Works 573 2. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel 576 First The Law of God is naturally possible to be kept but not morally 576. n. 15. ad 32. Secondly How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting a Law so impossible 580. n. 32. ad 35. Thirdly Since God exacteth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisdom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581. n. 35. c sequ 3. How Repentance and the Precept of perfection Evangelical can stand together 582 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice The new and old Covenant as they are expressed in the words of Scripture 587 Chap. II. Of the nature and definition of Repentance and what parts of duty are signified by it in Scripture 596 Sect. 1. The notion of those words that in the Greek and Latin languages express Repentance with the definition and parts of it 596 2. Of Repentance in general or Conversion 599 3. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the H. Scriptures 604 The indispensable necessity of a good life represented in the words of Scripture 606 Chap. III. Of the distinction of Sins Mortal and Venial in what sence to be admitted and how the smallest Sins are to be repented of and expiated 610 Sect. 1. The inconvenience as to the conduct of Conscience in distinguishing Sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature or kind ibid. 2. Of the difference of sins and their measures 611 3. That all sins are punishable if God please even with the pains of Hell 614 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice 623. n. 36. 5. To deny that there is a sort of sins that are Venial in their own nature how it is consistent with that doctrine which teaches the possibility of keeping the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with the righteousness of David Zechary and Elizabeth 625. n. 4. Some more particular measures of practice 626. n. 46. 6. What Repentance is necessary for the more Venial sins 630 Chap. IV. Of actual single sins and what Repentance is proper for them 635 Sect. 1. A Catalogue of sins that are severely threatned in Scripture of which men commonly believe not such hard things 635 2. Whether every single act of the fore-enumerated sins puts a man out of Gods favour 640 3. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of sin 646 Chap. V. Of Habitual Sins and manner of eradication or cure and their proper instruments of pardon 652 Sect. 1. The state of the Question ibid. 2. Every man is bound to Repent of his sin assoon as he hath committed it 654 3. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils and a proper guiltiness of its own besides all that which came directly from the single actions 658 Of sinful habits 1o. in their natural capacity 659 2o. in their moral capacity 661 First they add many degrees of aversation from God ibid. Secondly they imply not only a facility but a necessity of sinning 662 Thirdly they make our Repentance more difficult 663 Fourthly they make us swallow a great sin as easily as a smaller 664 Fifthly they keep us always out of Gods favour 665 3o. in their relative capacity in reference to our aversation from God 665 4. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance and have no promise to be pardoned but by the introduction of the contrary 669. n. 32. Against the repentance of Clinicks ibid. 5. Consideration of seven objections against the doctrine in the foregoing Section 675 6. The former doctrine reduced to practice 687 1o. The Repentance of habitual sinners who return in their vigorous years ibid. 2o. The Repentance of sinners that return not till their old age 692 3o. How sinners are to be treated who Repent not till their death-bed 695 First what hopes are left to an ill-liv'd man that Repents in his death-bed and not before ibid. Secondly what advices can bring such a one most advantage 700 Chap. VI. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin whether or no and how far we are bound to repent of it 709 Sect. 1. The doctrine explained and proved out of the Scripture ibid. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former doctrine 720 3. How God punisheth the Fathers sin upon the children 725 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind n. 66. 727 5. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall n. 71. 730 6. The practical Question 733 7. Advices relating to the matter of Original sin 714 8. Rules and measures of deportment when a curse is feared to descend upon children for their Parents fault 738 Chap. VII A farther explication of the doctrine of Original Sin 747 Sect. 1. Of the fall of Adam and the effects of it upon him and us 747 2. Adams sin is in us no more than an imputed sin and how it is so 751 3. The doctrine of the ancient Father's was that free will remained in us after the fall 753 4. Adams sin is not imputed to us to our damnation 755 5. The doctrine of antiquity in this whole matter 757 6. An exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England which is of Original Sin shewing that the former doctrine contradicts not that Article 763 Chap. VIII Of sins of Infirmity and their remedy 770 Sect. 1. Of the state of Infirmity and its first remedy ibid. 2. An exposition and vindication of that Text Rom. 7.15 ad 20. which by the mistake of some is thought to mean the state of Infirmity in the regenerate 772 3. S. Augustines exposition of those words taken up after his retractation considered 775 4. The true meaning of that Text of the Apostle fully decreed and vindicated 777 1o. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person but of one unregenerate by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 2o. that the state he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature ibid. 3o. from this state we are redeemed by Christ and his grace which is the second remedy 779 5. How far an unregenerate man may go in the ways of piety and religion 779 1o. An unregenerate man may be instructed in and convinced of his duty and approve the Law and confâ—ss the obligation 780 2o. he may in his will delight in goodness and desire it earnestly 781 3o. he may not only
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
There was here no remedy no second thoughts no amends to be made But because much was not required of him and the Commandment was very easie and he had strengths more than enough to keep it therefore he had no cause to complain God might â—nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works because it was at first infinitely toleâ—â—ble But 2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard and by degrees beâ—â—â—e impossible not only because mans fortune was broken and his spirit troubled 〈◊〉 his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin but because man upon â—â—e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations and consequently had new duties and obligations and men hindred one another and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty However because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments first to Noah then to Abraham and then to his posterity and by this time they were very many And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works 3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea said S. Ambrose the Commandments were so many and great that it was impossible they should be kept For at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made But I said 4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot How justly will appear in the sequel but the reasonableness of it was in this that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses recollecting their inadvertencies uniting their distractions For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke but by threatnings and severities And this is the account S. Paul gives of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law was a Schoolmaster that is had a temporary authority serving to other ends with no final concluding power It could chastise and threaten but it could not condemn it had not power of eternal life and death that was given by other measures But because the world was wild and barbarous good men were few the bad potent and innumerable and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity it was necessary that God should superinduce a law and shew them the rod and affright and check their confidences left the world it self should perish by dissolution The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works Some little it had of repentance Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly And as it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience But this would not do it The promises were temporal and that could not secure obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance the law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the Temporal only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity 5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel For they were used to severe laws that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel to which eternally they would have shut their ears unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear And therefore S. Paul also calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pedagogie or institution leading unto Christ. 6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ as having commission to open the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance For the law called for exact obdience but ministred no grace but that of fear which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience All therefore were here convinced of sin but by this Covenant they had no hopes and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better according to that saying of S. Paul The Scripture concludes all under sin that is declares all the world to be sinners that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe This S. Bernard expresses in these words Deus nobis hoc fecit ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet Christi avidiores nos faceret Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ. 7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works that is of exact obedience they must perish for ever or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission that is such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God and Gods Mercy to Man and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus the Covenant of Repentance 8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall For as soon as the first Covenant the Covenant of works was broken God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man But this should be acted and published in its own time not presently In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance 9. Adam confessed his sin and repented Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters he called upon them to repent but because they did not God brought upon them the floud of waters For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him And in all ages in all periods and with all men God did deal by this measure and excepting that God in some great cases or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law but for long and great prevarications of it and when
this also we exercise a holy fear and work out our salvation with fear and trembling It enlarges our care and endears our watchfulness and caution It cures or prevents our pride and bold challenges of God for rewards which we never can deserve It convinces us of the necessity of the Divine aid and makes us to relie upon Gods goodness in helping us and his mercy in pardoning us and truly without this we could neither be so sensible of our infirmities nor of the excellent gifts and mercies of God for although God does not make necessities on purpose that he may serve them or introduce sin that he might pardon it yet he loves we should depend upon him and by these rare arts of the Divine Oeconomy make us to strive to be like him and in the midst of our finite abilities have infinite desires that even so we may be disposed towards the holiness and glories of eternity 38. IV. Although God exacts not an impossible law under eternal and insufferable pains yet he imposes great holiness in unlimited and indefinite measures with a design to give excellent proportions of reward answerable to the greatness of our endeavour Hell is not the end of them that fail in the greatest measures of perfection but great degrees of Heaven shall be their portion who do all that they can always and offend in the fewest instances For as our duty is not limited so neither are the degrees of glory and if there were not this latitude of duty neither could there be any difference in glory neither could it be possible for all men to hope for Heaven but now all may The meanest of Gods servants shall go thither and yet there are greater measures for the best and most excellent services 39. Thus we may understand that the imposing of the Divine Laws in all the periods of the world was highly consistent with the Divine Justice and an excellent infinite wisdome and yet in the exacting them Mercy prevail'd because the Covenant of Works or of exact obedience was never the rule of life and death since the Saviour of the world was promised that is since the fall of Adam but all Mankind was admitted to repentance and wash'd clean in the blood of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and was slain from the beginning of it Repentance was the measure of our duty and the remedy for our evils and the Commandments were not impossible to him that might amend what was done amiss SECT III. How Repentance and the Precept of Perfection Evangelical can stand together 40. THAT the Gospel is a Covenant of Repentance is evident in the whole design and nature of the thing in the preparatory Sermons made by the Baptist by the Apostles of our Lord by the seventy two Disciples and the Exhortations made by S. Peter at the first opening the Commission and the secret of the Religion Which Doctrine of Repentance lest it should be thought to be a permission to sin a leave to need the remedy is charged with an addition of a strict and severe holiness the Precept of Perfection It therefore must be such a repentance as includes in it perfection and yet the perfection is such as needs repentance How these two are to stand together is the subject of the present inquiry Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect that 's the charge To be perfect as God and yet to repent as a Man seem contrary to each other They seem so only For 41. I. It does not signifie perfection of degrees in the natural sence of the word For as Philo said well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfections and the heights of excellencies are only proper to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Clemens of Alexandria God alone is wise he alone is perfect All that we do is but little and that little is imperfect and that imperfection is such as could be condemned if God did not use gentleness and mercy towards us But II. Although perfection of degrees cannot be understood to be our duty in the periods and spaces of this life because we are here in the state of labour and contention of pilgrimage and progression yet even in this life we are to labour towards it and Be ye perfect viz. with the highest degrees of holiness is to be understood in a current and transient sence For this Precept thus understood hath its obligation upon our endeavour only and not upon the event When a General commands his Army to destroy the Enemy he binds them only to a prudent a possible and vigorous endeavour to do it and cannot intend the effect but by several parts answerable to the steps of the progression So is that in the Psalms Be learned ye that are Princes of the world that is learn and so by industry and attention arrive at knowledge For although though every man be a sinner yet he that does not endeavour to avoid all sin is not only guilty of the sin he commits but the negligence also which is the parent of the sin is another sin and directly criminal So it is in the degrees of perfection what we cannot attain to we must at least desire In this world we cannot arrive thither but in this life we must always be going thither It is status â—iae grace is the way to glory And as he that commands us to enter into a City from which we are hugely distant means we should pass through all the ways that lead thither so it is here The Precept must be given here and begun and set forward and it will be finished hereafter But as a man may be an adulterer or a thief with his heart and his eye as well as with his hand so it is also in good things A mans heart and eye may be in Heaven that is in the state of perfection long before he sets his feet upon the golden threshold His desires are first crown'd and fainted and then the work shall be made perfect 43. III. There is another sort of perfection which may not be improperly meant in this charge of duty and that is a perfection of state Be ye perfect that is Be ye holy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctifico and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is festum or a holy day a day that hath the perfection added to it of which a day is capable a day sanctified to the Lord. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie is to make perfect Nihil enim sanctificavit lex so the Latin reads the words of S. Paul but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The law made that perfect which it did sanctifie So that Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect is Be ye holy like him or in imitation of him And thus the word is expounded in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the perfection of
die with hunger and thy house is full of good things and nothing goes forth to them from thence If therefore thou wilt be perfect sell all and give to the poor Charity which is the fulfilling the Commandment is also the perfection of a Christian and that a giving of alms should be perfection is not disagreeing with the design of the word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians it signifies to spend and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a great spender or a bountiful person III. The third is the very particular to which our blessed Master did especially relate in the words of the sanction or institution and we are taught it by the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or therefore For when the holy Jesus had describ'd that glory of Christianity that we should love our enemies bless them that curse us do good to them that hate us and pray for them which despitefully use us and persecute us he propounds the example of our heavenly Father for he maketh his Sun to rise on the evil and on the good But the Publicans love their friends and salute their brethren but more is expected of us Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect that is do more than the Publicans do as your Father does be perfect as he is that is love your enemies 46. VI. Now concerning this sence of the Precept of perfection which is the choice and pursuance of the noblest actions of Religion we must observe that they are therefore perfection because they suppose a man to have pass'd through the first and beginning graces to have arrived at these excellencies of piety and duty For as no man can on a sudden become the worst man in the world his soul must by degrees be unstript of holiness and then of modesty and then of all care of reputation and then of disuse and by these measures he will proceed to the consummation of the method of Hell and darkness So can no man on a sudden come to the right use of these graces Not every man that dies in a good cause shall have the reward of Martyrdome but he that having liv'd well seals that doctrine with dying which before he adorn'd with living And therefore it does infinitely concern all them that suffer in a good Cause to take care that they be not prodigal of their sufferings and throw them away upon vice Peevishness or pride lust or intemperance can never be consecrated by dying or by alms But he that after a patient continuance in well doing adds Charity or Martyrdome to the collective body of his other graces he hath made them perfect with this kind of perfection Martyrdome can supply the place of actual baptisms but not of repentance Because without our fault it may so happen that the first cannot be had but without our fault the second is never left undone 47. Thus perfection and repentance may stand together Perfection does not suppose the highest intention of degrees in every one but in all according to their measures of grace and time Evangelical perfection is such as supposes a beginning an infant grace progression and variety watchfulness and fear trembling fear And there are many graces required of us whose material and formal part is Repentance Such as are Mortification Penitential sorrow Spiritual mourning Patience some parts of Humility all the parts and actions of Humiliation and since in these also perfection is as great a duty as in any thing else it is certain that the perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 48. But yet perfection cannot be less than an intire piety a holiness perfect in its parts wanting nothing material allowing no vicious habit permitting no vile action but contending towards the greatest excellency a charitable heart a ready hand a confident Religion willing to die when we are called to die patient constant and persevering endeavouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the measures of a man to be pure and pleasing to God in Jesus Christ. This is the summ of all those several sences of perfection which are prescrib'd in the several uses of the word in holy Scripture For though God through Jesus Christ is pleased to abate for our unavoidable infirmities that is for our Nature yet he will not abate or give allowance to our superinduc'd evil customes and the reason is plain for both because the one can be helped and the other cannot and therefore as to allow that is to be a patron of impiety so not to allow for this is to demand what cannot be done that is against the holiness this against the goodness of God 49. There is not a man upon earth that sinneth not said Solomon and the righteous shall be punished said David and he found it so by a sad experience for he though affirmed to be blameless save in the matter of Vriah and a man after Gods own heart yet complains that his sins are innumerable more than the hairs upon his head But though no man can live without errour or mistake the effects of weakness and ignorance inadvertency and surprise yet being helped by Gods grace we can and must live without great sins such which no man admits but with deliberation 50. For it is one thing to keep the Commandments in a sence of favour and equity and another thing to be without sin To keep the Commandments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exactly is to be without sin because the Commandment forbids every sin and sin is a transgression of the Commandment But as in this sence no man can keep the Commandments so in no sence can he say that he hath not sinned But we can by the help of Gods grace keep the Commandments acceptably through Jesus Christ but we cannot keep them so as to be without sin Which S. Gregory thus expresses Multi sine crimine nullus verò esse sine peccatis valet Many live without crimes none without offence And it is now as it was under the law many were then righteous and blameless David Josiah Joshua Caleb Zachary and Elizabeth Saul before his conversion according to the accounts of the Law and so are many now according to the holy and merciful measures of the Gospel not by the force of Nature but by the helps of Grace not always but at some time not absolutely but in a limited measure that is not innocent but penitent not perfect absolutely but excellently contending and perfect in their desires not at their journeys end but on their way thither free from great sins but speckled with lesser spots ever striving against sin though sometimes failing This is the Precept of perfection as it can consist with the measures and infirmities of a man 51. We must turn from all our evil ways leaving no sin unmortified that 's one measure of perfection it is a perfect conversion * We must have Charity that 's another perfection it is
fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God * abounding in the work of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words often used fill'd full and perfect 16. To the same purpose is it that we are commanded to live in Christ and unto God that is to live according to their will and by their rule and to their glory and in their fear and love called by S. Paul to live in the faith of the Son of God to be followers of Christ and of God to dwell in Christ and to abide in him to walk according to the Commandments of God in good works in truth according to the Spirit to walk in light to walk with God which was said of Enoch of whom the Greek LXX read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He pleased God * There are very many more to the same purpose For with great caution and earnestness the holy Scriptures place the duties of mankind in practice and holiness of living and removes it far from a confidence of notion and speculation Qui fecerit docuerit He that doth them and teaches them shall be great in the Kingdom and Why do you call me Lord Lord and do not the things I say to you and Ye are my friends if ye do what I command you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must not only be called Christians but be so for not to be called but to be so brings us to felicity that is since the life of a Christian is the life of Repentance whose work it is for ever to contend against sin for ever to strive to please God a dying to sin a living to Christ he that thinks his Repentance can have another definition or is compleated in any other or in fewer parts must be of another Religion than is taught by Christ and his holy Apostles This is the Faith of the Son of God this is that state of excellent things which he purchased with his blood and as there is no other Name under Heaven so there is no other Faith no other Repentance whereby we can be saved Upon this Article it is usual to discourse of Sorrow and Contrition of Confession of sins of making amends of self-affliction and some other particulars but because they are not parts but actions fruits and significations of Repentance I have reserved them for their proper place Now I am to apply this general Doctrine to particular states of sin and sinners in the following Chapters SECT III. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the Holy Scriptures ¶ WHEN Heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against thee if they pray towards this place and confess thy name and turn from their sin when thou afflictest them Then hear thou in Heaven and forgive the sin of thy servants and of thy people Israel that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk and give rain upon thy land which thou hast given to thy people for an Inheritance ¶ And the Redeemer shall come to Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever Again when I say unto the wicked Thou shalt surely die If he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right If the wicked restore the pledge give again that he had robbed walk in the statutes of life without committing iniquity he shall even live he shall not die * None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him he hath done that which is lawful and right he shall surely live Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed that hence forth we should not serve sin Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. * Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof * Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin but yield your selves unto God as those that are alive from the dead and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God * Being then made free from sin ye became the servants of righteousness * I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness Wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another even to him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God For when we were in the flesh the motions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death * But now we are delivered from the law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter And that knowing the time that now it is high time to awake out of sleep for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed The night is far spent the day is at hand let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armor of light * Let us walk honestly as in the day not in rioting and drunkenness not in chambering and wantonness not in strife and envying * But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof Having therefore these promises dearly beloved let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God For godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation not to be repented of but the sorrow of the world worketh death * For behold this self same thing that ye sorrowed after a godly sort what carefulness it wrought in you yea what clearing of your selves yea what indignation yea what fear yea what vehement desire yea what zeal yea what revenge in all thing ye have approved your selves to be clear in this matter For the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature old things are past away behold all things are become new That ye put off 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 that new man which after
his children That ye should walk worthy of God who hath called you unto his Kingdom and glory * For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God And having an High Priest over the house of God Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water * Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering for he is faithful that promised * And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works * Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as ye see the day approaching For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins * but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries * He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses * Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God and if it first begin at us what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure And whatsoever we ask we receive of him because we keep his Commandments and do those things which are pleasing in his sight And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end to him will I give power over the Nations A Penitential Psalm collected out of the Psalms and Prophets HAVE mercy upon me O God according to thy loving kindness according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions For our transgressions are multiplied before thee and our sins testifie against us our transgressions are with us and as for our iniquities we know them In transgressing and lying against the Lord and departing away from our God speaking oppression and revolt conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falshood Our feet have run to evil our thoughts are thoughts of iniquity The way of peace we have not known we have made us crooked paths whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace Therefore do we wait for light but behold obscurity for brightness but we walk in darkness Look down from Heaven and behold from the habitation of thy Holiness and of thy Glory where is thy zeal and thy strength the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies towards me are they restrained We are indeed as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we all do fade as a leaf and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away But now O Lord thou art our Father we are the clay and thou our potter and we all are the work of thy hand Be not wroth very sore O Lord neither remember iniquity for ever behold see we beseech thee we are thy people Thou O Lord art our Redeemer thy Name is from everlasting O Lord Father and Governour of my whole life leave me not to the sinful counsels of my own heart and let me not any more fall by them Set scourges over my thoughts and the discipline of wisdom over my heart lest my ignorances encrease and my sins abound to my destruction O Lord Father and God of my life give me not a proud look but turn away from thy servant always a haughty mind Turn away from me vain hopes and concupiscence and thou shalt hold him up that is always desirous to serve thee Let not the greediness of the belly nor the lust of the flesh take hold of me and give not thy servant over to an impudent mind There is a word that is clothed about with death God grant it be not found in the portion of thy servant For all such things shall be far from the godly and they shall not wallow in their sins Though my sins be as scarlet yet make them white as snow though they be red like crimson let them be as wooll For I am ashamed of the sins I have desired and am confounded for the pleasures that I have chosen Lord make me to know mine end and the measure of my days what it is that I may know how frail I am and that I may apply my heart unto wisdom Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me O Lord let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me For innumerable evils have compassed me about mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to look up for they are more than the hairs of my head therefore my heart faileth me But thou O Lord though mine iniquities testifie against me save me for thy Name sake for our backslidings are many we have sinned grievously against thee But the Lord God will help me therefore shall I not be confounded therefore have I set my face like a flint and I know that I shall not be ashamed He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me The Lord God will help me who is he that shall condemn me I will trust in the Lord and stay upon my God O let me have this of thine hand that I may not lie down in sorrow S. Paul's Prayers for a holy life I. I BOW my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in Heaven and Earth is named that he would grant unto me according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man that Christ may dwell in my heart by faith that being rooted and grounded in love I may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge and may be filled with all the fulness of God through the same our most blessed Saviour Jesus Amen The Doxologie Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us Vnto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end Amen II. O MOST gracious God grant to thy servant to be filled with the knowledge of thy Will in all
excused by the wronged preserved person the evil accident was taken off by the pious purpose But he that to dishonour his friend throws a glass of wine in his face and says he did it in sport may be judged by his purpose not by his pretence because the pretence can be confuted by the observation of little circumstances and adherencies of the action which yet peradventure cannot legally be proved Alitèr leges alitèr philosophi tollunt astutias leges quatenus tenere manu res possunt philosophi quatenus ratione intelligentiâ Laws regard the great materialities of obedience the real sensible effect But wise men Philosophers and private Judges take in the accounts of accidental moments and incidencies to the action said Cicero But 3. Gods judgment is otherwise yet for he alone can tell the affection and all that which had secret influence into the event and therefore he can judge by what is secret by the purpose and heart which is indeed the only way of doing exact justice From hence it follows that what ought not to dissolve the friendship of man may yet justly dissolve our friendship with God for he takes other measures than men may or can 16. IV. Because offences against God may be avoided but it is not so in our entercourses with men for God hath told us plainly what is our duty what he expects what will please and what will displease him but men are often governed by Chance and that which pleases them to day shall provoke them to morrow and the next day you shall be their enemy for that for which three days ago they paid you thanks 17. V. If men exact little things it becomes their own case for we sin against our brother and need his pardon and therefore Hanc veniam petimúsque damúsque vicissim We give and ask pardon Det ille veniam facilè cui veniâ est opus But we never found iniquity in God or injustice in the most High and therefore he that is innocent may throw a stone at the criminal 18. VI. God hath in the smallest instance left us without excuse for he hath often warned us of small offences * He hath told us their danger He that despiseth little things shall perish by little and little * He hath told us they asperse us with a mighty guilt for he that offends in one Commandment is guilty of all * He hath told us that we are not certainly excused though our conscience do not manifestly accuse us for so S. Paul I am not hereby justified for God is greater than my conscience * He hath threatned loss of Heaven to him that is guilty of the breach of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though of the least of these Commandments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these which Christ had reckoned in his Sermon where fetters are laid upon thoughts and words shall be called the least in the Kingdom that is he shall be quite shut out for minimus here is as much as nullus minimus vocabitur that is minimi aestimabitur he shall not be esteem'd at all in the accounts of doomsday mercy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the accounts of the Doomsday book where there shall be a discerning of them who shall be glorified from them that are to be punished And this which is one of the severest periods of holy Scripture can by no arts be turned aside from concluding fully in this question Bellarmine says it means only to condemn those who by false doctrines corrupt these severe precepts and teach men as the Pharisees did of old not all those who break them themselves if they teach others to keep them He that breaks one of these and shall teach men so to do so are the words of Christ. But it is a known thing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftentimes used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that breaks one of these or shall teach others The words were spoken to the persons of the Apostles who were to teach these doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactly as Christ preach'd them but without peradventure they were also intended to all the Church and the following words and the whole analogy of the adjoyned discourse make it clear to every observing Reader and the words plainly say this He that shall break one of these least Commandments and He that shall teach men so each of them shall be called the least in the Kingdom But 2. why did our blessed Lord so severely threaten those that should teach others to break any of these severe Commandments by false interpretation but only because it was so necessary for all to keep them in the true sence and so fearful a thing to any to break them 3. Those who preach severe doctrines to others and touch them not with one of their fingers are guilty of that which Christ reproved in the Pharisees and themselves shall be cast-aways while they preach to others so that the breaking it by disobedience is damnable as well as the breaking it by false interpretation Odi homines ignavâ operâ philosophâ sententiâ Qui cum sibi semitam non sapiant alteri monstrant viam Indeed it is intolerable to teach men to be vicious but it is a hateful baseness to shew others that way which our selves refuse to walk in Whatever therefore may not be allowed to be taught may not also be done for the people are not to be taught evil because they must not do evil but may the teachers do what they may not teach and what the people may not do or is not the same punishment to them both 4. Now upon these grounds this very gloss which Bellarmine gives being a false interpretation of these words of Christ which are a summary of his whole Sermon and as it were the sanction and establishment of the former and following periods into laws must needs be of infinite danger to the inventer and followers of it for this gloss gives leave to men to break the least of these Commandments some way or other if they do not teach others so to do without being affrighted with fears of Hell but in the mean while this gloss teaches or gives leave to others to break them but allows no false interpretation of them but its own 5. But then it is worse with them who teach others so to do and command all men to teach so and if the Roman Doctors who teach that some breach of these Commandments is not of its own nature and by the divine threatnings exclusive of the transgressors from the Kingdom of God be not in some sence a teaching men so to do then nothing is For when God said to Adam That day thou eatest of the forbidden fruit thou shalt die the Tempter said Nay but ye shall not die and so was author to Adam of committing his sin So when our blessed Saviour hath told us that to break one of these least Commandments is exclusive
they are transgressions of the Divine Law So S. Basil argues Nullum peccatum contemnendum ut parvum quando D. Paulus de omni peccato generatim pronunciaverat stimulum mortis esse peccatum The sting of death is sin that is death is the evil consequent of sin and comes in the tail of it of every sin and therefore no sin must be despised as if it were little Now if every little sin hath this sting also as it is on all hands agreed that it hath it follows that every little transgression is perfectly and intirely against a Commandment And indeed it is not sence to say any thing can in any sence be a sin and that it should not in the same sence be against a Commandment For although the particular instance be not named in the Law yet every instance of that matter must be meant It was an extreme folly in Bellarmine to affirm Peccatum veniale ex parvitate materiae est quidem perfectè voluntarium sed non perfectè contra legem Lex enim non prohibet furtum uniu◠oboli in specie sed prohibet furtum in genere That a sin that is venial by the smalness of the matter is not perfectly against the Law because the Law forbids theft indeed in the general but does not in particular forbid the stealing of a half-peny for upon the same reason it is not perfectly against the Law to steal three pound nineteen shillings three pence because the Law in general only forbids theft but does not in particular forbid the stealing of that summ * But what is besides the Law and not against it cannot be a sin and therefore to fancy any sin to be only besides the Law is a contradiction so to walk to ride to eat flesh or herbs to wear a long or a short garment are said to be besides the Law but therefore they are permitted and indifferent Indifferent I say in respect of that Law which relates to that particular matter and indifferent in all sences unless there be some collateral Law which may prohibit it indirectly So for a Judge to be a Coachman for a Priest to be a Fidler or Inne-keeper are not directly unlawful but indirectly they are as being against decency and publick honesty or reputation or being inconvenient in order to that end whither their calling is design'd To this sence are those words of S. Paul All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient That is some things which directly are lawful by an indirect obligation may become unfit to be done but otherwise Licitum est quod nullâ lege prohibetur saith the Law If no Law forbids it then it is lawful and to abstain from what is lawful though it may have a worthiness in it more than ordinary yet to use our liberty is at no hand a sin The issue then is this either we are forbidden to do a venial sin or we are not If we are not forbidden then it is as lawful to do a venial sin as to marry or eat flesh If we are forbidden then every such action is directly against Gods Law and consequently finable at the will of the supreme Judge and if he please punishable with a supreme anger And to this purpose there is an excellent observation in S. Austin Peccatum delictum si nihil differrent inter se si unius rei duo nomina essent non curaret Scriptura tam diligentèr unum esse utriusque sacrificium There are several names in Scripture to signifie our wandrings and to represent the several degrees of sin but carefully it is provided for that they should be expiated with the same sacrifice which proves that certainly they are prevarications of the same Law offences of the same God provocations of the same anger and heirs of the same death and even for small offences a Sacrifice was appointed lest men should neglect what they think God regarded not 24. III. Every sin even the smallest is against Charity which is the end of the Commandment For every sin or evil of transgression is far worse than all the evils of punishment with which mankind is afflicted in this world and it is a less evil that all mankind should be destroyed than that God should be displeased in the least instance that is imaginable Now if we esteem the loss of our life or our estate the wounding our head or the extinction of an eye to be great evils to us and him that does any thing of this to us to be our enemy or to be injurious we are to remember that God hates every sin worse than we can hate pain or beggery And if a nice and a tender conscience the spirit of every excellent person does extremely hate all that can provoke God to anger or to jealousie it must be certain that God hates every such thing with an hatred infinitely greater so great that no understanding can perceive the vastness of it and immensity For by how much every one is better by so much the more he hates every sin and the soul of a righteous man is vexed and afflicted with the inrodes of his unavoidable calamities the armies of Egypt the Lice and Flies his insinuating creeping infirmities Now if it be holiness in him to hate these little sins it is an imitation of God for what is in us by derivation is in God essentially therefore that which angers a good man and ought so to do displeases God and consequently is against charity or the love of God For it is but a vain dream to imagine that because just men such who are in the state of grace and of the love of God do commit smaller offences therefore they are not against the love of God for every degree of cold does abate something of the heat in any hot body but yet because it cannot destroy it all cold and heat may be consistent in the same subject but no man can therefore say they are not contraries and would not destroy each other if they were not hindred by something else and so would the smallest offences also destroy the life of grace if they were not destroyed themselves But of this afterwards For the present let it be considered how it can possibly consist with our love to God with that duty that commands us to love him with all our heart with all our strength with all our might and with all our soul how I say it can be consistent with a love so extended so intended to entertain any thing that he hates so essentially To these particulars I add this one consideration That since there is in the world a fierce opinion that some sins are so slight and little that they do not destroy our relation to God and cannot break the sacred tie of friendship he who upon the inference and presumption of that opinion shall chuse to commit such small sins which he thinks to be the All that is
advices with the saying of Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is as damnable to indulge leave to our selves to sin little sins as great ones A man may be choaked with a raisin as well as with great morsels of flesh and a small leak in a ship if it be neglected will as certainly sink her as if she sprung a plank Death is the wages of all and damnation is the portion of the impenitent whatever was the instance of their sin Though there are degrees of punishment yet there is no difference of state as to this particular and therefore we are tied to repent of all and to dash the little Babylonians against the stones against the Rock that was smitten for us For by the blood of Jesus and the tears of Repentance and the watchfulness of a diligent careful person many of them shall be prevented and all shall be pardoned A Psalm to be frequently used in our Repentance for our daily Sins BOW down thine ear O Lord hear me for I am poor and needy Rejoyce the soul of thy servant for unto thee O Lord do I lift up my soul. For thou Lord art good and ready to forgive and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee Teach me thy way O Lord I will walk in thy truth unite my heart to fear thy Name Shall mortal man be more just than God shall a man be more pure than his Maker Behold he put no trust in his Servants and his Angels he charged with folly How much less on them that dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust which are crushed before the moth Doth not their excellency which is in them go away They die even without wisdom The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Moreover by them is thy servant warned and in keeping of them there is great reward Who can understand his errors Cleanse thou me from my secret faults keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins let them not have dominion over me then shall I be upright and I shall be innocent from the great transgression O ye sons of men how long will ye turn my glory into shame how long will ye love vanity and seek after leasing But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself The Lord will hear when I call unto him Out of the deep have I called unto thee O Lord Lord hear my voice O let thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss O Lord who may abide it But there is mercy with thee therefore shalt thou be feared Set a watch O Lord before my mouth and keep the door of my lips Take from me the way of lying and cause thou me to make much of thy law The Lord is full of compassion and mercy long-suffering and of great goodness He will not alway be chiding neither keepeth he his anger for ever Yea like as a Father pitieth his own children even so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him For he knoweth whereof we are made he remembreth that we are but dust Praise the Lord O my soul and forget not all his benefits which forgiveth all thy sin and healeth all thine infirmities Glory be to the Father c. The PRAYER O Eternal God whose perfections are infinite whose mercies are glorious whose justice is severe whose eyes are pure whose judgments are wise be pleased to look upon the infirmities of thy servant and consider my weakness My spirit is willing but my flesh is weak I desire to please thee but in my endeavours I fail so often so foolishly so unreasonably that I extreamly displease my self and I have too great reason to fear that thou also art displeased with thy servant O my God I know my duty I resolve to do it I know my dangers I stand upon my guard against them but when they come near I begin to be pleased and delighted in the little images of death and am seised upon by folly even when with greatest severity I decree against it Blessed Jesus pity me and have mercy upon my infirmities II. O Dear God I humbly beg to be relieved by a mighty grace for I bear a body of sin and death about me sin creeps upon me in every thing that I do or suffer When I do well I am apt to be proud when I do amiss I am sometimes too confident sometimes affrighted If I see others do amiss I either neglect them or grow too angry and in the very mortification of my anger I grow angry and peevish My duties are imperfect my repentances little my passions great my fancy trifling The sins of my tongue are infinite and my omissions are infinite and my evil thoughts cannot be numbred and I cannot give an account concerning innumerable portions of my time which were once in my power but were let slip and were partly spent in sin partly thrown away upon trifles and vanity and even of the hasest sins of which in accounts of men I am most innocent I am guilty before thee entertaining those sins in little instances thoughts desires and imaginations which I durst not produce into action and open significations Blessed Jesus pity me and have mercy upon my infirmities III. TEACH me O Lord to walk before thee in righteousness perfecting holiness in the fear of God Give me an obedient will a loving spirit a humble understanding watchfulness over my thoughts deliberation in all my words and actions well tempered passions and a great prudence and a great zeal and a great charity that I may do my duty wisely diligently holily O let me be humbled in my infirmities but let me be also safe from my enemies let me never fall by their violence nor by my own weakness let me never be overcome by them nor yet give my self up to folly and weak principles to idleness and secure careless walking but give me the strengths of thy Spirit that I may grow strong upon the ruines of the flesh growing from grace to grace till I become a perfect man in Christ Jesus O let thy strength be seen in my weakness and let thy mercy triumph over my infirmities pitying the condition of my nature the infancy of grace the imperfection of my knowledge the transportations of my passion Let me never consent to sin but for ever strive against it and every day prevail till it be quite dead in me that thy servant living the life of grace may at last be admitted to that state of glory where all my infirmities shall be done away and all tears be dried up and sin and death shall be no more Grant this O most gracious God and Father for Jesus Christ his sake Amen Our Father c. CHAP. IV. Of Actual single Sins and what Repentance is proper to them SECT I. 1. THE
may be acceptable in Jesus Christ. If I perish I perish I have deserved it but I will hope for mercy till thy mercy hath a limit till thy goodness can be numbred O my God let me not perish thou hast no pleasure in my death and it is impossible for man to suffer thy extremest wrath Who can dwell with the everlasting burning O my God let me dwell safely in the embraces of thy sweetest mercy Amen Amen Amen CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin and whether or no or how far we are bound to repent of it SECT I. 1. ORIGINAL sin is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sin of Adam which was committed in the Original of mankind by our first Parent and which hath influence upon all his posterity Nascuntur non propriè sed originalitèr peccatores So S. Austin and therefore S. Ignatius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old impiety that which was in the original or first Parent of mankind 2. This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more A certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality was inflicted on him and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness that is in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men For as God was not bound to give what he never promised viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life so neither does it appear in that angry entercourse that God had with Adam that he took from him or us any of our natural perfections but his graces only 3. Man being left in this state of pure Naturals could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion cannot be acquir'd by any natural means Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness obtain Heaven by desert or by any natural efficiency for it is a gift still and it is neque currentis neque operantis neither of him that runneth nor of him that worketh but of God who freely gives it to such persons whom he also by other gifts and graces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it 4. What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence we know not God hath no where told us and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conjectures But after his fall we find no sign of any thing but of a common man And therefore as it was with him so it is with us our nature cannot go to Heaven without the helps of the Divine grace so neither could his and whether he had them or no it is certain we have receiving more by the second Adam than we did lose by the first and the sons of God are now spiritual which he never was that we can find 5. But concerning the sin of Adam tragical things are spoken it destroyed his original righteousness and lost it to us for ever it corrupted his nature and corrupted ours and brought upon him and not him only but on us also who thought of no such thing an inevitable necessity of sinning making it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry or to be sick and die and the conâ—equent of these things is saddest of all we are born enemies of God sons of wrath and heirs of eternal damnation 6. In the meditation of these sad stories I shall separate the certain from the uncertain that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexions upon Godâ— honour and the reputation of his justice and his goodness I shall do it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly dispute in this Question right or wrong according as it happens 7. By one man sin came into the world That sin entred into the world by Adam is therefore certain because he was the first man and unless he had never sinn'd it must needs enter by him for it comes in first by the first and Death by sin that is Death which at first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly and to the Woman to be subject to her Husband These things were so before and would have been so for the Apostle pressing the duty of subjection gives two reasons why the woman was to obey One of them only was derived from this sin the other was the prerogative of creation for Adam was first formed then Eve so that before her fall she was to have been subject to her husband because she was later in being she was a minor and therefore under subjection she was also the weaker vessel But it had not been a curse and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature 8. Death passed upon all men That is upon all the old world who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam And therefore S. Paul adds that for the reason In as much as all men have sinned If all men have sinned upon their own account as it is certain they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sons and daughters sinned after him and so died in their own sin by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural and a death which their own sins deserved but yet which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so S. Hierome 9. But this is not thought sufficient and men do usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam and in him we all by interpretation sinned and therefore think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all men have sinned ought to be expounded thus Death passed upon all men In whom all men have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinn'd and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punish'd and liable to eternal damnation And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him 10. Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry if it be observed that the words being read Forasmuch as all men have sinned beat a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible if it be
in the words of the 19. verse By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Concerning which I need not make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or many whom sometimes S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and many that is all from Adam to Moses but they are but many and not all in respect of mankind exactly answering to the All that have life by Christ which are only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those many that believe and are adopted into the Covenant of believers by this indeed it is perceivable that this was not a natural title or derivation of an inherent corruption from Adam for that must have included All absolutely and universally But that which I here dwell and rely upon is this 15. Sin is often in Scripture us'd for the punishment of sin and they that suffer are called sinners though they be innocent So it is in this case By Adams disobedience many were made sinners that is the sin of Adam pass'd upon them and sate upon their heads with evil effect like that of Bathsheba I and my son shall be accounted sinners that is evil will befall us we shall be used like sinners like Traitors and Usurpers So This shall be the sin of Egypt said the Prophet This shall be the punishment so we read it And Cain complaining of the greatness of his punishment said Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear * And to put it past all doubt not only punishment is called sin in Scripture but even he that bears it Him that knew no sin God hath made sin that we might be the righteousness of God in him and the Prophet Isaiah speaking of Christ saith Posuit peccatum animam suam He hath made his soul a sin that is obnoxious to the punishment of sin Thus it is said that Christ shall appear the second time without sin that is without the punishment of sin unto salvation for of sin formally or materially he was at first as innocent as at the second time that is pure in both And if Christ who bare our burthen became sin for us in the midst of his purest innocence that we also are by Adam made sinners that is suffer evil by occasion of his demerit infers not that we have any formal guilt or enmity against God upon that account Facti peccatores in S. Paul by Adam we are made sinners answers both in the story and in the expression to Christus factus peccatum pro nobis Christ was made sin for us that is was expos'd to the evil that is consequent to sin viz. to its punishment 16. For the further explication of which it is observable that the word sinner and sin in Scripture is us'd for any person that hath a fault or a legal impurity a debt a vitiosity defect or imperfection For the Hebrews use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any obligation which is contracted by the Law without our fault Thus a Nazarite who had touch'd a dead body was tied to offer a sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he had sinn'd concerning the dead body and yet it was nothing but a legal impurity nothing moral And the offering that was made by the leprous or the menstruous or the diseased in profluvio seminis is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin and yet it might be innocent all the way 17. Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said that our blessed Lord who is compared to the High-Priest among the Jews did offer first for his own sins by which word it is certain that no sin properly could be meant for Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew no sin but it means the state of his infirmity the condition of his mortal body which he took for us and our sins and is a state of misery and of distance from Heaven for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven whither Christ was not to go till by offering himself he had unclothed himself of that imperfect vesture as they that were legally impure might not go to the Temple before their offering and therefore when by death he quit himself of this condition it is said he died unto sin Parallel to this is that of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Hebrews where the state of infirmity is expresly called sin The High-Priest is himself also compassed with infirmity and by reason hereof he ought as for the people so also for himself to offer for sins This is also more expresly by S. Paul called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness of the sin of the flesh and thus Concupiscence or the first motions and inclinations to sin is called sin and said to have the nature of sin that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness it may be the material part of sin or something by which sin is commonly known And thus Origen observes that an oblation was to be offered even for new born children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were not clean from sin But this being an usual expression among the Hebrews bears its sence upon the palm of the hand and signifies only the legal impurity in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the new born babes and their Mothers were involv'd Even Christ himself who had no Original sin was subject to this purification So we read in S. Luke and when the days of her purification were accomplish'd but in most books and particular in the Kings MS. it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the days of their purification But the things of this nature being called offerings for sins and the expression usual among the Jews I doubt not but hath given occasion to the Christian Writers to fancy other things than were intended 18. Having now explicated those words of S. Paul which by being misunderstood have caused strange devices in this Article we may now without prejudice examine what really was the effect of Adams sin and what evil descended upon his posterity 19. Adams sin was punish'd by an expulsion out of Paradise in which was a Tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and a conservatory of life There was no more told as done but this and its proper consequents He came into a land less blessed a land which bore thistles and briars easily and fruits with difficulty so that he was forc'd to sweat hard for his bread and this also I cannot say did descend but must needs be the condition of his children who were left to live so and in the same place just as when young Anthony had seis'd upon Marcus Cicero's land the Son also lost what he never had And thus death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not
they are by way of punishment depriv'd of the glorious face of God must needs have a horrible anguish of soul to eternal ages And this argument besides the reasonableness of the thing hath warrant from the words of S. Austin Si hoc eis non erit malum non ergo amabunt regnum Dei tot innocentes imagines Dei Si autem amabunt tantum amabunt quantum innocentes amare debent regnum ejus à quo ad ipsius imaginem creantur nihilne mali de hâc ipsâ separatione patientu◠Here the good man and eloquent supposes the little babies to be innocent to be images of God to love the Kingdom of God and yet to be sentenc'd to Hell which it may be he did but I do not understand save only that in the Parable we find Dives in Hell to be very charitable to his living brethren But that which I make use of for the present is that infants besides the loss of Gods presence and the beholding his face are apprehensive and afflicted with that evil state of things whither their infelicity not their fault hath carried them 25. II. But suppose this to be but a mere privative state yet it cannot be inflicted upon infants as a punishment of Adams sin and upon the same account it cannot be inflicted upon any one else Not upon infants because they are not capable of a law for themselves therefore much less of a law which was given to another here being a double incapacity of obedience They cannot receive any law and if they could yet of this they never were offer'd any notice till it was too late Now if infants be not capable of this nor chargeable with it then no man is for all are infants first and if it comes not by birth and at first it cannot come at all So that although this privative Hell be less than to say they are tormented in flames besides yet it is as unequal and unjust There is not indeed the same cruelty but there is the same injustice I deny not but all persons naturally are so that they cannot arrive at Heaven but unless some other principle be put into them or some great grace done for them must for ever stand separate from seeing the face of God But this is but accidentally occasion'd by the sin of Adam That left us in our natural state and that state can never come to Heaven in its own strength But this condition of all men by nature is not the punishment of our sin for this would suppose that were it not for this sin superinduc'd otherwise we should go to Heaven Now this is not true for if Adam had not sinned yet without something supernatural some grace and gift we could never go to Heaven Now although the sin of Adam left him in his nakedness and a mere natural man yet presently this was supplied and we were never in it but were improv'd and better'd by the promise and Christ hath died for mankind and in so doing is become our Redeemer and Representative and therefore this sin of Adam cannot call us back from that state of good things into which we are put by the mercies of God in our Lord Jesus and therefore now no infant or idiot or man or woman shall for this alone be condemn'd to an eternal banishment from the sweetest presence of God But this will be evinced more certainly in the following periods For if they stand for ever banished from the presence of God then they shall be for ever shut up in Hell with the Devil and his Angels for the Scripture hath mentioned no portions but of the right and left hand Greg. Naz. and his Scholiast Nicetas did suppose that there should be a middle state between Heaven and Hell for Infants and Heathens and concerning Infants Pope Innocent III. and some Schoolmen have taken it up but S. Austin hath sufficiently confuted it and it is sufficient that there is no ground for it but their own dreams 26. III. But then against those that say the flames of Hell is the portion of Adams heirs and that Infants dying in Original sin are eternally tormented as Judas or Dives or Julian I call to witness all the Oeconomy of the divine goodness and justice and truth The soul that sins it shall die As I live saith the Lord the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father that is he shall not be guilty of his crime nor liable to his punishment 27. IV. Is Hell so easie a pain or are the souls of children of so cheap so contemptible a price that God should so easily throw them into Hell Gods goodness which pardons many sins which we could avoid will not so easily throw them into Hell for what they could not avoid Gods goodness is against this 28. V. It is suppos'd that Adam did not finally perish for that sin which himself committed all Antiquity thought so Tatianus only excepted who was a heretick accounted and the father of the Encratites But then what equity is it that any innocents or little children should for either God pardon'd Adam or condemn'd him If he pardon'd him that sinn'd it is not so agreeable to his goodness to exact it of others that did not For if he pardon'd him then either God took off all that to which he was liable or only remov'd it from him to place it somewhere else If he remov'd it from him to his posterity that is it which we complain of as contrary to his justice and his goodness But if God took off all that was due how could God exact it of others it being wholly pardon'd But if God did not pardon him the eternal guilt but took the forfeiture and made him pay the full price of his sin that is all which he did threaten and intend then it is not to be supposed that God should in justice demand more than eternal pains as the price to be paid by one man for one sin So that in all sences this seems unjust 29. VI. To be born was a thing wholly involuntary and unchosen and therefore it could in no sence be chosen that we were born so that is born guilty of Adams sin which we knew not of which was done so many thousand years before we were born which we had never heard of if God had not been pleas'd by a supernatural way to reveal to us which the greatest part of mankind to this day have never heard of at which we were displeas'd as soon as we knew of it which hath caused much trouble to us but never tempted us with any pleasure 30. VII No man can perish for that of which he was not guilty but we could not be involv'd in the guilt unless some way or other our consent had been involv'd For it is no matter who sins or who is innocent if he that is innocent may perish for what another does without his knowledge or leave either
ask'd or given or presum'd * But if our consent was in it then either it was included naturally or by an express will of God that made it so It can no way be imagined how our will can be naturally included for we had no natural being We had no life and therefore no action and therefore no consent For it is impossible there should be an act of will in any sence when there is an act of understanding in no sence * But if by a Divine act or decree it became so and not by our act then we only are said to consent because God would have it so which if we speak intelligibly is to charge God with making us guilty when we were not to say we consented when we did not 31. VIII In pursuance of which argument I consider that whatsoever can be said to consent must have a being either in or out of its causes But our will was not in being or actual existence when Adam sinned it was then in its causes But the soul and so the will of man hath no cause but God it being with the soul immediately created If therefore we sinned we could not sin in our selves for we were not born nor could we sin in Adam for he was not the cause of our will it must therefore be that we sinn'd in God for as was our being so must our action be but our being was then only in God our will and our soul was in him only tanquam in 〈◊〉 causâ therefore in him was our action or consent or what we please to call it Which affirmative what sence or what piety or what probability it can have in it I suppose needs not much inquiry 32. IX To condemn Infants to Hell for the fault of another is to deal worse with them than God did to the very Devils who did not perish but for an act of their own most perfect choice 33. X. This besides the formality of injustice and cruelty does add and suppose a circumstance of a strange ungentle contrivance For because it cannot be supposed that God should damn Infants or Innocents without cause it finds out this way that God to bring his purposes to pass should create a guilt for them or bring them into an inevitable condition of being guilty by a way of his inventing For if he did make any such agreement with Adam he beforehand knew that Adam would forfeit all and therefore that unavoidably all his posterity should be surpris'd This is to make pretences and to invent justifications and reasons of his proceedings which indeed are all one as if they were not For he that can make a reason for an action otherwise unjust can do it without any reason especially when the reason it self makes the misery as fatal as a decree without a reason And if God cannot be supposed to damn infants without just cause and therefore he so order'd it that a cause should not be wanting but he infallibly and irresistibly made them guilty of Adams sin is not this to resolve to make them miserable and then with scorn to triumph in their sad condition For if they could not deserve to perish without a fault of their own how could they deserve to have such a fault put upon them If it be unjust to damn them without cause is it not also unjust to make a cause for them whether they will or no 34. XI It is suppos'd and generally taught that before the fall Adam had Original righteousness that is not only that he was innocent as children new born are of actual sin which seems to be that which Divines call Original righteousness there being no other either taught or reasonable but a rare rectitude of the inner man a just subordination of the inferior faculties to the superior an excellent knowledge and clear light and therefore that he would sin had so little excuse that well it might deserve such a punishment so great as himself suffered Indeed if he had no such rare perfections and rectitude I can say nothing to the particular but to the Question this that if Adam had it not then he could not lose it nor his posterity after him as it is fiercely and mightily pretended that they did But if he had this rectitude and rare endowments what equity is it that his posterity who had no such helps to resist the sin and were so far from having any helps at all to resist it that they had no notice of it neither of the law nor the danger nor the temptation nor the action till it was past I say what equity is it that his posterity should in the midst of all these imperfections be equally punished with him who sinned against so great a light and so mighty helps 35. XII Infants cannot justly perish for Adams sin unless it be just that their wills should be included in his will and his will justly become theirs by interpretation Now if so I ask Whether before that sin of Adam were our wills free or not free For if we had any will at all it must be free or not free If we had none at all how could it be involv'd in his Now if our wills were free why are they without our act and whether we will or no involv'd in the will of another If they were not free how could we be guilty * If they were free then they could also dissent If they were not free then they could not consent and so either they never had or else before Adams fall they lost their liberty 36. XIII But if it be inquired seriously I cannot imagine what can be answered Could we prevent the sin of Adam could we hinder it were we ever ask'd Could we if we had been ask'd after we were born a month have given our negative Or could we do more before we were born than after were we or could we be tied to prevent that sin Did not God know that we could not in that case dissent And why then shall our consent be taken in by interpretation when our dissent could not be really acted But if at that time we could not dissent really could we have dissented from Adams sin by interpretation If not then we could dissent no way and then it was inevitably decreed that we should be ruin'd for neither really nor by interpretation could we have dissented But if we could by interpretation have dissented it were certainly more agreeable to Gods goodness to have interpreted for us in the better sence rather than in the worse being we did neither really and actually and if God had so pleased he rather might with his goodness have interpreted us to have dissented than he could with justice have interpreted us to have consented and therefore certainly he did so or would have done if there had been need 37. XIV Lastly the Consequent of these is this That because God is true and just and wise and good and merciful it is
not to be supposed that he will snatch Infants from their Mothers breasts and throw them into the everlasting flames of Hell for the sin of Adam that is as to them for their mere natural state of which himself was Author and Creator that is he will not damn them for being good For God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good and therefore so is that state of descent from Adam God is the Author of it and therefore it cannot be ill It cannot be contrary to God because it is his work 38. Upon the account of these reasons I suppose it safe to affirm that God does not damn any one to Hell merely for the sin of our first Father which I summ up in the words of S. Ambrose or whoever is the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul attributed to him Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur Est alia mors quae secunda dicitur in Gehennâ quam non peccato Adaepatimur sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquiritur Death is the dividing Soul and Body There is also another death which is in Hell and is called the second Death which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam but by occasion of it we fall into it by our own sins Next we are to inquire whether or no it does not make us infallibly naturally and necessarily vitious by taking from us Original righteousness by discomposing the order of our faculties and inslaving the will to sin and folly concerning which the inquiry must be made by parts 39. For if the sin of Adam did debauch our Nature and corrupt our will and manners it is either by a Physical or Natural efficiency of the sin it self or 2. Because we were all in the loins of Adam or 3. By the sentence and decree of God 40. I. Not by any Natural efficiency of the sin it self Because then it must be that every sin of Adam must spoil such a portion of his Nature that before he died he must be a very beast 2. We also by degeneration and multiplication of new sins must have been at so vast a distance from him at the very worst that by this time we should not have been so wise as a flie nor so free and unconstrain'd as fire 3. If one sin would naturally and by physical causality destroy Original righteousness then every one sin in the regenerate can as well destroy Habitual righteousness because that and this differ not but in their principle not in their nature and constitution And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace and lose his habits as Adam did Naturally it is all one 4. If that one sin of Adam did destroy all his righteousness and ours too then our Original sin does more hurt and is more punish'd and is of greater malice than our actual sin For one act of sin does but lessen and weaken the habit but does not quite destroy it If therefore this act of Adam in which certainly at least we did not offend maliciously destroys all Original righteousness and a malicious act now does not destroy a righteous habit it is better for us in our own malice than in our ignorance and we suffer less for doing evil that we know of than for doing that which we knew nothing of 41. II. If it be said that this evil came upon us because we all were in the loins of Adam I consider 1. That then by the same reason we are guilty of all the sins which he ever committed while we were in his loins there being no imaginable reason why the first sin should be propagated and not the rest and he might have sinned the second time and have sinn'd worse Add to this that the later sins are commonly the worse as being committed not only against the same law but a greater reason and a longer experience and heightned by the mark of ingratitude and deeply noted with folly for venturing damnation so much longer And then he that was born last should have most Original sin and Seth should in his birth and nature be worse than Abel and Abel be worse than Cain 2. Upon this account all the sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us because we were in their loins when they sinn'd them and every lustful father must have a lustful son and so every man or no man will be lustful For if ever any man were lustful or intemperate when or before he begot his child upon this reckoning his child will be so too and then his grandchild and so on for ever 3. Sin is seated in the will it is an action and transient and when it dwells or abides it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love to which is naturally consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly and therefore sin does not infect our mere natural faculties but the will only and not that in the natural capacity but in its moral only 4. And indeed to him that considers it it will seem strange and monstrous that a moral obliquity in a single instance should make an universal change in a natural suscipient and in a natural capacity When it is in nature impossible that any impression should be made but between those things that communicate in matter or capacity and therefore if this were done at all it must be by a higher principle by Gods own act or sanction and then should be referred to another principle not this against which I am now disputing 5. No man can transmit a good habit a grace or a vertue by natural generation as a great Scholar's son cannot be born with learning and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birth-day give wise sentences and Marcus the son of Cicero was not so good an Orator as his father and how can it be then that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one when it is not the goodness or the badness of a quality that hinders its dissemination but its being an acquir'd and superinduc'd quality that makes it cannot descend naturally Add to this how can a bad quality morally bad be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good and since neither God that is the Maker of all does amiss and the father that begets sins not and the child that is begotten cannot sin by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to the posterity 6. It is generally now adays especially believed that the soul is immediately created not generated according to the doctrine of Aristotle affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the soul is from without and is a Divine substance and therefore sin cannot descend by natural generation or by our being in Adams loins And how can it be that the father who contributes nothing to her production should contribute to
her pollution that he who did not transmit life should transmit his sin and yet if the soul were traduc'd from the parents and begotten yet sin could not descend because it is not a natural but a superinduc'd quality and if it could then it would follow that we should from every vicious father derive a proper Original sin besides the general 7. If in him we sinned then it were but just that in him we should be punished for as the sin is so ought the punishment to be But it were unjust or at least it seems so that he should sin for us and we be punished for him or that he should sin for us and for himself and yet be punish'd for himself alone 42. III. But if it be said that this happened because of the will and decree of God then there is no more to be done but to look into the record and see what God threatned and what he inflicted He threatned death and inflicted it with all its preparations and solemnities in men and women hard labour in them both which S. Chrysostome thus expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam falling even they that did not eat of the Tree were of him all born mortal He and all his posterity were left in the mere natural state that is in a state of imperfection in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a supernatural end whither God had secretly design'd mankind In this state he could never arrive at Heaven but that was to be supplied by other means for this made it necessary that all should come to Christ and is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and necessity for the baptism of Infants that they being admitted to supernatural promises and assistances may be lifted up to a state above their nature Not only to improve their present good as the Pelagians affirm'd Tam Dives verò hoc donum baptismatis esse Vt parvis etiam vitióque carentibus omni Congruat ut qui sunt geniti bene sint meliores Naturaeque bonum adjecto illustretur honore But to take off that evil state of things whither by occasion of the fall of Adam they were devolv'd and to give them new birth adoption into Christ and the seeds of a new nature so to become children of God and heirs of the promises who in their mere naturals did inherit from Adam nothing but misery and imperfection and death Coelorum regnum sperate hoc fonte renati Non recipit felix vita semel genitos Insons esse volens isto mundare lavacro Seu patrio premeris crimine seu proprio So Xistus in the Verses written upon the Fount of Constantine But 2. It is not to be supposed that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity because from that time ever unto this he by new laws hath required innocence of life or repentance and holiness For besides that it is a great testimony of the Divine favour that God will still imploy us and exact more services of us and that there is no greater argument of joy to us in the world than that we are Gods servants and there can be no greater testimony that God is our God and that of this employing us in his service there can be no greater evidence than the giving to us new laws Besides this I say if man could not obey it is not consistent with the wisdom of God to require of man what he knows man cannot do nor with his justice to punish that in man which he knows man cannot avoid 43. But if it be objected that man had strengths enough in his first Creation but when in Adam he sinned in him also he forfeited all his strengths and therefore his consequent disability being his own fault cannot be his excuse and to whatsoever laws God shall be pleased afterwards to impose he cannot plead his infirmity because himself having brought it on himself must suffer for it It being just in God to exact the law of him even where he is unable to keep it because God once made him able and he disabled himself I answer many things 44. I. That Adam had any more strengths than we have and greater powers of Nature and by his fall lost them to himself and us being part of the question ought not to be pretended till it be proved Adam was a man as his sons are and no more and God gave him strength enough to do his duty and God is as just and loving to us as to him and hath promisâ—d he will lay no more upon us than he will make us able to bear But 2. He that disables himself from doing his Lord service if he does it on purpose that he may not serve him may be punished for not doing all that which was imposed upon him because that servant did chuse his disability that he might with some pretence refuse the service He did disobey in all the following particulars because out of a resolution not to obey in those particulars he made himself unable in the general It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance He that refuses knowledge lest he should understand his duty and he that disables himself that he may not do it may be punished not only for not doing it but for making it impossible to be done But that was not Adams case so far as we know and it is certain it was not ours in the matter of his sin 3. But if he commits a fault which accidentally disables him as if he eats too much and be sick the next day and fall into a fever he may indeed and is justly punished for his gluttony but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weakness he can no ways perform The reason is because this disability was involuntary and an evil accident of it self a punishment of his sin and therefore of it self not punishable and this involuntariness is still the more notorious and certain as the consequents are the more remote 4. No man can be answerable to God for the consequent of his sin unless it be natural foretold or foreseen but for the sin it self he is and as for the consequents superinduc'd by God he must suffer them but not answer for them For these being in the hands of God are not the works of mens hands God hath effected it upon the sinner he is the Author of it and by it he is directly glorified and therefore though by it the sinner is punished yet for it he cannot be punished again 5. But that I may come to the case of the present argument This measure and line of justice is most evident in laws to be imposed after the disability is contracted and not foreseen before concerning which there can be no pretence of justice that the breach of them should be punished If a law be already imposed and a man by his fault loses those
assistances without which he could not keep the law he may nevertheless in the rigor of justice be punished for not keeping it because the law was given him when he had strength and he ought to have preserv'd it For though he cannot be obliged to a new law to which he is not enabled yet for his sin he shall not be disoblig'd from an old law to which he was enabled Although God will not exceed his measures or do wrong to a sinner yet by his sin he shall receive no favour or immunity But in laws to be imposed afterwards the case I say is otherwise Because the persons are not capable of any such law and God knowing they cannot perform them cannot intend they should and therefore cannot justly punish them for not doing that which himself did never heartily intend they should do because he knew they could not The instances will make the matter to be confessed * Suppose a man falling into drunkenness should by the Divine judgement fall lame can God afterwards exact it of him that he should leap and dance in publick festivities when he can neither go nor stand If so suppose yet further that by the Divine judgment he should fall mad Is the mad man capable of a new law I suppose it will not be said he is or if it be suppose yet further that he be taken speechless and senseless or die Can God still exact of him obedience to any new Commandment If he be dead his day is done he can work no more nor be oblig'd any more and so it is if he be mad or any ways disabled the case is all one For whatsoever the disability be the incapacity and impossibility and the excuse is the same 6. When God as it is said punish'd the first sin with a consequent disability of doing any future services if he also punishes the not doing what he afterwards imposes I ask whether this later punishment be precisely due to the later or to the former sin If to the later then in vain is it laid upon the former account and yet if it be laid upon its own it is high injustice because of this law the man was not a subject capable when it was imposed the man was dead before the law was alive and a tree is as much capable of a law as a man is of an impossible Commandment But if the punishment of this later be inflicted upon the sinner for the first transgression by which he disabled himself then in vain was the later Commandment imposed For since the later sin was unavoidable and the first sin deserv'd the whole damnation what end could there be of imposing this new law by which God could not serve any new purpose no not for the manifestation of his justice in condemning him For if the first sin deserv'd condemnation there was no need to introduce a new pretence and to seek an occasion to slay him But if it did not it is certain the new sin could not make it just to do what was not just before because by this new omission there can be no new guilt contracted But of this I shall give yet a further account when I shall discourse in what sence God can be said to punish one sin with another 45. The consequent of the parts of this discourse is this that since the sin of Adam did not debauch our nature by any natural efficiency of the sin it self nor by our being in the loyns of Adam nor yet by any sentence or decree of God we are not by Adams sin made necessarily and naturally vicious and inclin'd to evil but are left in our mere nature such as it was and such as it is Nec si miserum Natura Sinonem Finxit vanum etiam mendacémque improba finget Nature makes us miserable and imperfect but not criminal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are the words of S. Ignatius the Martyr If any man be a pious and a good man he is of God if he be impious he is of the Devil Not by Nature but made so by his own proceedings To all which I add this 46. That in Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by Adams sin which I shall manifest by examination of all those places which are the pretence of the contrary doctrine For if God hath not declared in Scripture any such thing we have the common notions of his justice and wisdom and goodness and truth in prejudice of the contrary SECT II. Consideration of the Objections against the former Doctrine 47. THE first is Every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart are only evil continually I answer it is true they were so but it was their own fault not Adams for so it is said expresly All flesh had corrupted his way upon earth and the earth was filled with violence 2. If this corruption had been natural and unavoidable why did God punish all the world for it except eight persons why did he punish those that could not help it and why did others escape that were equally guilty Is not this a respect of persons and partiality to some and iniquity towards all which far be it from the Judge of all the world 3. God might as well have punish'd all the world for sleeping once in a day or for being hungry as for sinning if so to do be natural and unavoidable 4. If God in these words complain'd of their Natural and Original corruption why did he but then as if it were a new thing complain of it and repent that he had made man since he prov'd so bad 5. This malice and corruption was such that God did send Noah the Preacher of righteousness to draw the world from it But no man supposes that it was fit to send a Preacher to dehort them from being guilty of Original sin Therefore it was good counsel Denique teipsum Concute numqua tibi vitiorum inseverit olim Natura aut etiam consuetudo mala namque Neglectis urenda filix innascitur agris Blame not nature but thy own evil customs for thy neglect of thy fields will make fern and thistles to grow It is not only because the ground is accursed but because it is neglected that it bears thorns Errasti si existimas nobiscum vitia nasci supervenerunt ingesta sunt said Seneca Thou art deceived if thou thinkest that vices are born with us No they are superinduc'd and come in upon us afterwards 48. And by this we may the better understand the following words I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth Concerning which note that these words are not two sentences For this is not the reason why God gave over smiting because man was corrupt from his youth For if this had been the reason it would have come to pass that the same cause which
moved God to smite would also move him to forbear which were a strange Oeconomy The words therefore are not a reason of his forbearing but an aggravation of his kindness as if he had said Though man be continually evil yet I will not for all that any more drown the world for mans being so evil and so the Hebrews note that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies although 49. But the great out-cry in this Question is upon confidence of the words of David Behold I was shapen in wickedness and in sin hath my mother conceived me To which I answer that the words are an Hebraism and signifie nothing but an aggrandation of his sinfulness and are intended for an high expression meaning that I am wholly and intirely wicked For the verification of which exposition there are divers parallel places in the holy Scriptures Thou wert my hope when I hanged yet upon my mothers breasts and The ungodly are froward even from their mothers womb as soon as they be born they go astray and speak lies which because it cannot be true in the letter must be an idiotism or propriety of phrase apt to explicate the other and signifying only a ready a prompt a great and universal wickedness The like to this is that saying of the Pharisees Thou wert altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us which phrase and manner of speaking being plainly a reproach of the poor blind man and a disparagement of him did mean only to call him a very wicked person but not that he had derived his sin originally and from his birth for that had been their own case as much as his and therefore S. Chrysostome explaining this phrase says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if they should say Thou hast been a sinner all thy life time To the same sence are those words of Job I have guided her the widow from my mothers womb And in this expression and severity of hyperbole it is that God aggravated the sins of his people Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb And this way of expressing a great state of misery we find us'd among the Heathen Writers for so Seneca brings in Oedipus complaining Infanti quoque decreta mors est Fata quis tam tristia sortitus unquam Videram nondum diem jam tenebar Mors me antecessit aliquis intra viscera Materna lethum praecocis fati tulit Sed numquid peccavit Something like S. Bernards Damnatus antequam natus I was condemn'd before I was born dead before I was alive and death seised upon me in my mothers womb Somebody brought in a hasty and a too forward death but did he sin also An expression not unlike to this we have in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pardon me that I was not born wicked or born to be wicked 2. If David had meant it literally it had not signified that himself was born in original sin but that his father and mother sinn'd when they begat him which the eldest son that he begat of Bathsheba for ought I know might have said truer than he in this sence And this is the exposition of Clemens Alexandrinus save only that by my mother he understands Eva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though he was conceived in sin yet he was not in the sin peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she sinn'd in the conception not David And in the following words he speaks home to the main article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them tell us where an infant did fornicate or how he who had done nothing could fall under the curse of Adam meaning so as to deserve the same evil that he did 3. If it did relate to his own person he might mean that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery and then though David said this truly of himself yet it is not true of all not of those whose temper is phlegmatick and unactive 4. If David had meant this of himself and that in regard of original sin this had been so far from being a penitential expression or a confessing of his sin that it had been a plain accusation of God and an excusing of himself As if he had said O Lord I confess I have sinn'd in this horrible murder and adultery but thou O God knowest how it comes to pass even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankind above 3000. years before I was born thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature that unless thou didst irresistibly force me from it I cannot abstain from any sin being most naturally inclin'd to all In this sinfulness hath my mother conceived me and that hath produc'd in me this sad effect Who would suppose David to make such a confession or in his sorrow to hope for pardon for upbraiding not his own folly but the decrees of God 5. But that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are as a preface to these in the objection Against thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight that thou mightest be justified in thy saying and clear when thou art judged He that thus acquits God cannot easily be supposed in the very next breath so fiercely to accuse him 6. To which also adde the following words which are a sufficient reproof of all strange sences in the other In sin hath my mother conceived me But loe thou requirest truth in the inward parts as if he had said Though I am so wicked yet thy laws are good and I therefore so much the worse because I am contrary to thy laws They require truth and sincerity in the soul but I am false and perfidious But if this had been natural for him so to be and unavoidable God who knew it perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor of fire to be cold unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so 50. But S. Paul affirms that by nature we were the children of wrath True we were so when we were dead in sins and before we were quickned by the Spirit of life and grace We were so now we are not We were so by our own unworthiness and filthy conversation now we being regenerated by the Spirit of holiness we are alive unto God and no longer heirs of wrath This therefore as appears by the discourse of S. Paul relates not to our Original sin but to the Actual and of this sence of the word Nature in the matter of sinning we have Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos to be witness For answering those words of Scripture There is not any one clean who is born of a woman
Spirit and a man in that state cannot be sav'd because he wants a vital part he wants the spirit which is a part of the constitution of a Christian in that capacity who consists of Body and Soul and Spirit and therefore Anima without Spiritus the Soul without the Spirit is not sufficient * For as the Soul is a sufficient principle of all the actions of life in order to our natural end and perfection but it can bear us no further so there must be another principle in order to a supernatural end and that is the Spirit called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the new creation by S. Peter a divine nature and by this we become renewed in the inner man the infusion of this new nature into us is called Regeneration and it is the great principle of godliness called Grace or the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seed of God and by it we are begotten by God and brought forth by the Church to the hopes and beginnings of a new life and a supernatural end And although I cannot say that this is a third substance distinct from Soul and Body yet it is a distinct principle put into us by God without which we cannot work and by which we can and therefore if it be not a substance yet it is more than a Metaphor it is a real being permanent and inherent but yet such as can be lessen'd and extinguish'd But Carnality or the state of being in the flesh is not only privatively oppos'd but contrarily also to the spiritual state or the state of Grace But as the first is not a sin deriv'd from Adam so neither is the second The first is only an imperfection or want of supernatural aids The other is indeed a direct state of sin and hated by God but superinduc'd by choice and not descending naturally * Now to the spiritual state nothing is in Scripture oppos'd but these two and neither of these when it is sinful can be pretended upon the stock or argument of any Scriptures to descend from Adam therefore all the state of opposition to Grace is owing to our selves and not to him Adam indeed did leave us all in an Animal estate but this state is not a state of enmity or direct opposition to God but a state insufficient and imperfect No man can perish for being an Animal man that is for not having any supernatural revelations but for not consenting to them when he hath that is for being Carnal as well as Animal and that he is Carnal is wholly his own choice In the state of animality he cannot go to Heaven but neither will that alone bear him to Hell and therefore God does not let a man alone in that state for either God suggests to him what is spiritual or if he does not it is because himself hath superinduc'd something that is Carnal 54. Having now explicated those Scriptures which have made some difficulty in this Question to what Topick soever we shall return all things are plain and clear in this Article Noxa caput sequitur The soul that sinneth it shall die Neque virtutes neque vitia parentum liberis imputantur saith S. Hierome Neither the vices nor the vertues of the parents are imputed to the children And therefore when Dion Chrysostomus had reprov'd Solon's laws which in some cases condemn the innocent posterity he adds this in honour of Gods law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it does not like the law of the Athenians punish the children and kindred of the Criminal but every man is the cause of his own misfortune But concerning this it will not be amiss in order to many good purposes to observe the whole Oeconomy and dispensation of the Divine Justice in this affair SECT III. How God punishes the Fathers sin upon the Children 55. I. GOD may and does very often bless children to reward their fathers piety as is notorious in the famous descent of Abrahams family But the same is not the reason of favours and punishments For such is the nature of benefits that he in whose power they are may without injustice give them why and when and to whom he please 56. II. God never imputes the fathers sin to the son or relative formally making him guilty or being angry with the innocent eternally It were blasphemy to affirm so fierce and violent a cruelty of the most merciful Saviour and Father of mankind and it was yet never imagined or affirm'd by any that I know of that God did yet ever damn an innocent son though the father were the vilest person and committed the greatest evils of the world actually personally chusingly and maliciously and why it should by so many and so confidently be affirm'd in a lesser instance in so unequal a case and at so long a distance I cannot suspect any reason Plutarch in his book against Herodotus affirms that it is not likely they would meaning that it was unjust to revenge an injury which the Samians did to the Corinthians three hundred years before But to revenge it for ever upon all generations and with an eternal anger upon some persons even the most innocent cannot without trembling be spoken or imagined of God who is the great lover of Souls Whatsoever the matter be in temporal inflictions of which in the next propositions I shall give account yet if the Question be concerning eternal damnation it was never said never threatned by God to pass from father to the son When God punishes one relative for the sin of another he does it as fines are taken in our law salvo contenemento the principal stake being safe it may be justice to seise upon all the smaller portions at least it is not against justice for God in such cases to use the power and dominion of a Lord. But this cannot be reasonable to be used in the matter of eternal interest because if God should as a Lord use his power over Innocents and condemn them to Hell he should be Author to them of more evil than ever he conveyed good to them which but to imagine would be a horrible impiety And therefore when our blessed Saviour took upon him the wrath of God due to all mankind yet Gods anger even in that case extended no further than a temporal death Because for the eternal nothing can make recompence and it can never turn to good 57. III. When God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for his fathers sin he does it as a Judge to the father but as a Lord only of the son He hath absolute power over the lives of all his creatures and can take it away from any man without injustice when he please though neither he nor his Parents have sinned and he may use the same right and power when either of them alone hath sinn'd But in striking the son he does not do to him as a Judge that is he is not angry with him but with the
Parent But to the son he is a supreme Lord and may do what seemeth good in his own eyes 58. IV. When God using the power and dominion of a Lord and the severity of a Judge did punish posterity it was but so long as the fathers might live and see it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Chrysostom to the third and fourth generation no longer It was threatned to endure no longer in the second Commandment and so it hapned in the case of Zimri and Jehu after the fourth generation they prevailed not upon their Masters houses And if it happen that the Parents die before yet it is a plague to them that they know or ought to fear the evil shall happen upon their posterity quò tristiores perirent as Alexander said of the Traitors whose sons were to die after them They die with sorrow and fear 59. V. This power and dominion which God used was not exercised in ordinary cases but in the biggest crimes only It was threatned in the case of idolatry and was often inflicted in the case of perjury of which the oracle recited by Herodotus said Impete magno Advenit atque omnem vastat stirpémque domúmque And in sacriledge the anger of God uses also to be severe of which it was observ'd even by the Heathens taught by the Delphick Priests Sed capiti ipsorum quÃque enascuntur ab ipsis Imminet Ãnque domo cladem subit altera clades Those sins which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which the Christians called crying sins are such in the punishment of which God did not only use his severe justice as to the offending person but for the enlargement and extension of his justice and the terror of the world he used the rights of his power and dominion over their Relatives 60. VI. Although God threatned this and hath a right and power to do this yet he did not often use his right but only in such notable examples as were sufficient to all ages to consign and testifie his great indignation against those crimes for the punishment of which he was pleased to use his right the rights of his dominion For although he often does miracles of mercy yet seldom it is that he does any extraordinaries of judgment He did it to Corah and Dathan to Achan and Saul to Jeroboam and Ahab and by these and some more expressed his severity against the like crimes sufficiently to all ages 61. VII But his goodness and graciousness grew quickly weary of this way of proceeding They were the terrors of the law and God did not delight in them Therefore in the time of Ezekiel the Prophet he declar'd against them and promised to use it no more that is not so frequently not so notoriously not without great necessity and charity Ne ad parentum exempla succresceret improbitas filiorum Aâ— I live saith the Lord ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel The Fathers have eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge The soul that sinneth it shall die 62. VIII The iniquity of the people and the hardness of their heart did force God to use this harsh course especially since that then there was no declaration or intermination and threatning the pains of Hell to great sinners Duritia popâ—li ad talia remedia compulerat ut vel posteritatibus suis prospicientes legi Divinae obedirent said Tertullian Something extraordinary was then needful to be done to so vile a people to restrain their sinfulness But when the Gospel was published and Hell-fire threatned to persevering and greater sinners the former way of punishment was quite left off And in all the Gospel there is not any one word of threatning passing beyond the person offending Desivit uva acerba saith Tertullian à patribus manducata dentes filiorum obstupefacere unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur Now that is in the time of the Gospel the sowre grape of the Fathers shall no more set on edge the childrens teeth but every one shall die in his own sin 63. Upon this account alone it must needs be impossible to be consented to that God should still under the Gospel after so many generations of vengeance and taking punishment for the sin after the publication of so many mercies and so infinite a graciousness as is revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ after the so great provisions against sin even the horrible threatnings of damnation still persevere to punish Adam in his posterity and the posterity for what they never did 64. For either the evil that falls upon us for Adams sin is inflicted upon us by way of proper punishment or by right of dominion If by a proper punishment to us then we understand not the justice of it because we were not personally guilty and all the world says it is unjust directly to punish a child for his fathers fault Nihil est iniquius quà m aliquem haeredem paterni odii fieri said Seneca and Pausanias the General of the Grecian army would not punish the children of Attagines who perswaded the Thebans to revolt to the Medes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying the children were not guilty of that revolt and when Avidius Cassius had conspired against Mark Anthony he wrote to the Senate to pardon his wife and son in law Et quid dico veniam cùm illi nihil fecerint but why says he should I say pardon when they had done nothing But if God inflicts the evil upon Adams posterity which we suffer for his sake not as a punishment that is not making us formally guilty but using his own right and power of dominion which he hath over the lives and fortunes of his creatures then it is a strange anger which God hath against Adam that he still retains so fierce an indignation as not to take off his hand from striking after five thousand six hundred years and striking him for that of which he repented him and which in all reason we believe he then pardon'd or resolv'd to pardon when he promised the Messias to him * To this I add this consideration That it is not easily to be imagined how Christ reconciled the world unto his Father if after the death of Christ God is still so angry with mankind so unappeased that even the most innocent part of mankind may perish for Adams sin and the other are perpetually punished by a corrupted nature a proneness to sin a servile will a filthy concupiscence and an impossibility of being innocent that no faith no Sacrament no industry no prayers can obtain freedom from this punishment 65. Certain it is the Jews knew of no such thing they understood nothing of this Oeconomy that the Fathers sin should be punish'd in the children by a formal imputation of the guilt and therefore Rabbi Simeon Barsema said well that when God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children jure dominii
non poenae utitur He uses the right of Empire not of justice of dominion not of punishment of a Lord not of a Judge And Philo blames it for the worst of institutions when the good sons of bad Parents shall be dishonoured by their Fathers stain and the bad sons of good Parents shall have their Fathers honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the law praises every one for their own not for the vertue of their Ancestors and punishes not the Fathers but his own wickedness upon every mans head And therefore Josephus calls the contrary way of proceeding which he had observ'd in Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a punishment above the measures of a man and the Greeks and Romans did always call it injustice Illic immeritam maternae pendere linguae Andromedam poenas injustus jusserat Ammon And hence it is that all Laws forbear to kill a woman with child lest the Innocent should suffer for the Mothers fault and therefore this just mercy is infinitely more to be expected from the great Father of spirits the God of mercy and comfort And upon this account Abraham was confident with God Wilt thou slay the righteous with the wicked shall not the Judge of all the world do right And if it be unrighteous to slay the righteous with the wicked it is also unjust to slay the righteous for the wicked Ferréine ulla civitas laborem istiusmodi legis ut condemnetur Filius aut Nepos si Pater aut Avus deliquissent It were an intolerable Law and no community would be govern'd by it that the Father or Grandfather should sin and the Son or Nephew should be punish'd I shall add no more testimonies but only make use of the words of the Christian Emperors in their Laws Peccaâ—a igitur suos teâ—eant auctores nec ulteriùs progrediatur metus quà m reperiatur delictum Let no man trouble himself with unnecessary and melancholy dreams of strange inevitable undeserved punishments descending upon us for the faults of others The sin that a man does shall be upon his own head only Sufficient to every man is his own evil the evil that he does and the evil that he suffers SECT IV. Of the Causes of the Vniversal wickedness of Mankind 66. BUT if there were not some common natural principle of evil introduced by the sin of our Parent upon all his posterity how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious so hard and unapt so uneasie and so listless to the practices of vertue How is it that all men in the world are sinners and that in many things we offend all For if men could chuse and had freedom it is not imaginable that all should chuse the same thing As all men will not be Physicians nor all desire to be Merchants But we see that all men are sinners and yet it is impossible that in a liberty of indifferency there should be no variety Therefore we must be content to say that we have only a liberty of adhesion or delight that is we so love sin that we all chuse it but cannot chuse good 67. To this I answer many things 1. If we will suppose that there must now be a cause in our nature determining us to sin by an irresistible necessity I desire to know why such principle should be more necessary to us than it was to Adam what made him to sin when he fell He had a perfect liberty and no ignorance no original sin no inordination of his affections no such rebellion of the inferior faculties against the superior as we complain of or at least we say he had not and yet he sinned And if his passions did rebel against his reason before the fall then so they may in us and yet not be long of that fall It was before the fall in him and so may be in us and not the effect of it But the truth of the thing is this He had liberty of choice and chose ill and so do we and all men say that this liberty of chusing ill is still left to us But because it is left here it appears that it was there before and therefore is not the consequent of Original sin But it is said that as Adam chose ill so do we but he was free to good as well as to evil but so are not we we are free to evil not to good and that we are so is the consequent of original sin I reply That we can chuse good and as naturally love good as evil and in some instances more A man cannot naturally hate God if he knows any thing of him A man naturally loves his Parents He naturally hates some sort of uncleanness He naturally loves and preserves himself and all those sins which are unnatural are such which nature hates and the law of nature commands all the great instances of vertue and marks out all the great lines of justice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a law imprinted in the very substance of our natures and incorporated in all generations of reasonable creatures not to break or transgress the laws which are appointed by God Here only our nature is defective we do not naturally know nor yet naturally love those supernatural excellencies which are appointed and commanded by God as the means of bringing us to a supernatural condition That is without Gods grace and the renovation of the Spirit of God we cannot be saved Neither was Adams case better than ours in this particular For that his nature could not carry him to Heaven or indeed to please God in order to it seems to be confessed by them who have therefore affirmed him to have had a supernatural righteousness which is affirmed by all the Roman party But although in supernatural instances it must needs be that our Nature is defective so it must needs have been in Adam and therefore the Lutherans who in this particular dream not so probably as the other affirming that justice was natural in Adam do yet but differ in the manner of speaking and have not at all spoken against this neither can they unless they also affirm that to arrive at Heaven was the natural end of man For if it be not then neither we not Adam could by Nature do things above Nature and if God did concreate Grace with Adam that Grace was nevertheless Grace for being given him as soon as he was made For even the holy Spirit may be given to a Chrysome child and Christ and S. John Baptist and the Prophet Jeremy are in their several measures and proportions instances of it The result of which is this That the necessity of Grace does not suppose that our Nature is originally corrupted for beyond Adams mere Nature something else was necessary and so it is to us 68. II. But to the main objection I answer That it is certain there is not only one but many common principles from which sin derives it self into
the manners of all men 1. The first great cause of an universal impiety is that at first God had made no promises of Heaven he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior that is to make the will chuse the best and leave the worst and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction For if the inferior faculty be pleas'd with its object and that chance to be forbidden as it was in most instances there had need be something to make recompence for the suffering the displeasure of crossing that appetite I use the common manner of speaking and the distinction of superior and inferior faculties though indeed in nature there is no such thing and it is but the same faculty divided between differing objects of which I shall give an account in the Ninth Chapter Section 3. But here I take notice of it that it may not with prejudice be taken to the disadvantage of this whole Article For if there be no such difference of facultie◠founded in Nature then the rebellion of the inferior against the superior is no effect of Adams sin But the inclination to sensual objects being chastis'd by laws and prohibitions hath made that which we call the rebellion of the inferior that is the adherence to sensual objects which was the more certain to remain because they were not at first enabled by great promises of good things to contest against sensual temptations And because there was no such thing in that period of the world therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves excepting Abel Seth Enos and Enoch we find not one good man from Adam to Noah and therefore the Apostle calls that world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of the ungodly It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence he should strive to make his condition better by the Devils promises If God had been pleased to have promis'd to him the glories he hath promised to us it is not to be suppos'd he had fallen so easily But he did not and so he fell and all the world followed his example and most upon this account till it pleas'd God after he had tried the world with temporal promises and found them also insufficient to finish the work of his graciousness and to cause us to be born anew by the revelations and promises of Jesus Christ. 69. II. A second cause of the universal iniquity of the world is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances not because Nature is originally corrupted but because Gods laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of Nature I instance in the matters of Temperance Abstinence Patience Humility Self-denial and Mortification But more particularly thus A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies This is naturally no sin for the natural desire was put into us by God and therefore could not be evil But then God as an instance and trial of our obedience put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determin'd us to one woman which provision was enough to satisfie our need but not all our possibility This therefore he left as a reserve that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire we might give him something of our own * But then it is to be considered that our unwillingness to obey in this instance or in any of the other cannot be attributed to Original sin or natural disability deriv'd as a punishment from Adam because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful But our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the law coming cross upon our nature not because our nature is contrary to God but because God was pleas'd to superinduce some Commandments contrary to our nature For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and drink the richest wines as long as they could please us and were to be had I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love therefore our nature is hard put to it and this is the true state of the difficulty Citò nequitia subrepit virtus difficilis inventa est Wickedness came in speedily but vertue was hard and difficult 70. III. But then besides these there are many concurrent causes of evil which have influence upon communities of men such as are Evil Examples the similitude of Adams transgression vices of Princes wars impunity ignorance error false principles flattery interest fear partiality authority evil laws heresie schism spite and ambition natural inclination and other principiant causes which proceeding from the natural weakness of humane constitution are the fountain and proper causes of many consequent evils Quis dabit mundum ab immundo saith Job How can a clean thing come from an unclean We all naturally have great weaknesses and an imperfect constitution apt to be weary loving variety ignorantly making false measures of good and evil made up with two appetites that is with inclination to several objects serving to contrary interests a thing between Angel and Beast and the later in this life is the bigger ingredient Hominem à Naturâ noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo fragili atque infirmo animo anxio ad molestias humili ad timores debili ad labores proclivi ad libidines in quo Divinus ignis sit obrutus ingenium mores So Cicero as S. Austin quotes him Nature hath like a stepmother sent man into the world with a naked boy a frail and infirm mind vex'd with troubles dejected with fears weak for labours prone to lusts in whom the Divine fire and his wit and his manners are covered and overturn'd And when Plato had fiercely reprov'd the baseness of mens manners by saying that they are even naturally evil he reckons two causes of it which are the diseases of the Soul but contracted he knew not how Ignorance and Improbity which he supposes to have been the remains of that baseness they had before they entred into bodies whither they were sent as to a prison This is our natural uncleanness and imperfection and from such a principle we are to expect proper and proportion'd effects and therefore we may well say with Job What is man that he should be clean and he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous That is our imperfections are many and we are with unequal strengths call'd to labour for a supernatural purchase and when our spirit is very willing even then our flesh is very weak And yet it is worse if we compare our selves as Job does
take away the freedome of that faculty than vertue can for that also is the action of the same free faculty If sin be considered in its formality as it is an inordination or irregularity so it is contrary to vertue but if you consider it as an effect or action of the will it is not at all contrary to the will and therefore it is impossible it should be destructive of that faculty from whence it comes 74. Now to say that the will is not dead because it can choose sin but not vertue is an escape too slight For besides that it is against an infinite experience it is also contrary to the very being and manner of a man and his whole Oeconomy in this world For men indeed sometimes by evil habits and by choosing vile things for a long time together make it morally impossible to choose and to love that good in particular which is contrary to their evil customes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Custome is the Devil that brings in new natures upon us for nature is innocent in this particular Nulli nos vitio natura conciliat nos illa integros ac liberos genuit Nature does not ingage us upon a vice She made us intire she left us free but we make our selves prisoners and slaves by vicious habits or as S. Cyril expresses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We came into the world without sin meaning without sin properly so called but now we sin by choice and by election bring a kind of necessity upon us But this is not so in all men and scarcely in any man in all instances and as it is it is but an approach to that state in which men shall work by will without choice or by choice without contrariety of objects In heaven and hell men will do so The Saints love God so fully that they cannot hate him nor desire to displease him And in hell the accursed spirits so perfectly hate him that they can never love him But in this life which is status viae a middle condition between both and a passage to one of the other it cannot be supposed to be so unless here also a man be already sav'd or damn'd 75. But then I consider this also that since it is almost by all men acknowledged to be unjust that infants should be eternally tormented in the flames of Hell for Original sin yet we do not say that it is unjust that men of age and reason should so perish if they be vicious and disobedient Which difference can have no ground but this That infants could not choose at all much less that which not they but their Father did long before they were born But men can choose and do what they are commanded and abstain from what is forbidden For if they could not they ought no more to perish for this than infants for that 76. And this is so necessary a truth that it is one of the great grounds and necessities of obedience and holy living and if after the fall of Adam it be not by God permitted to us to choose or refuse there is nothing left whereby man can serve God or offer him a sacrifice It is no service it is not rewardable if it could not be avoided nor the omission punishable if it could not be done All things else are determined and fixed by the Divine providence even all the actions of men But the inward act of the will is left under the command of laws only and under the arrest of threatnings and the invitation of promises And that this is left for man can no ways impede any of the Divine decrees because the outward act being overruled by the Divine providence it is strange if the Schools will leave nothing to man whereby he can glorifie God 77. I have now said something to all that I know objected and more than is necessary to the Question if the impertinencies of some Schools and their trifling arrests had not so needlesly disturb'd this article There is nothing which from so slight grounds hath got so great and till of late so unquestioned footing in the perswasions of men Origen said enough to be mistaken in the Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adams curse is common to all And there is not a woman on earth to whom may not be said those things which were spoken to this woman Eve Him S. Ambrose did mistake and followed the error about explicating the nature of Original sin and set it something forward But S. Austin gave it complement and authority by his fierce disputing against the Pelagians whom he would overthrow by all means Indeed their capital error was a great one and such against which all men while there was need ought to have contended earnestly but this might and ought to have been done by truth For error is no good confuter of error as it is no good conversion that reforms one vice with another But his zeal against a certain error made him take in auxiliaries from an uncertain or less discerned one and caused him to say many things which all antiquity before him disavowed and which the following ages took up upon his account * And if such a weak principle as his saying could make an error spread over so many Churches for so many ages we may easily imagine that so many greater causes as I before reckoned might infect whole Nations and consequently mankind without crucifying our Patriarch or first Parent and declaiming against him poor man as the Author of all our evil Truth is we intend by laying load upon him to excuse our selves and which is worse to entertain our sins infallibly and never to part with them upon pretence that they are natural and irresistible SECT VI. The Practical Question 78. AND now if it be inquired whether we be tied to any particular repentance relative to this sin the answer will not be difficult I remember a pretty device of Hierome of Florence a famous Preacher not long since who used this argument to prove the Blessed Virgin Mary to be free from Original sin Because it is more likely if the Blessed Virgin had been put to her choice she would rather have desired of God to have kept her free from venial actual sin than from Original Since therefore God hath granted her the greater and that she never sinn'd actually it is to be presum'd God did not deny to her the smaller favour and therefore she was free from Original Upon this many a pretty story hath been made and rare arguments fram'd and fierce contestations whether it be more agreeable to the piety and prudence of the Virgin Mother to desire immunity from Original sin that is deadly or from a venial actual sin that is not deadly This indeed is voluntary and the other is not but the other deprives us of grace and this does not God was more offended by that but we offend him more by this The dispute can never be
ended upon their accounts but this Gordian knot I have now untied as Alexander did by destroying it and cutting it all in pieces But to return to the Question 79. S. Austin was indeed a fierce Patron of this device and one of the chief inventers and finishers of it and his sence of it is declared in his Boook De peccatorum medicinâ where he endeavours largely to prove that all our life time we are bound to mourn for the inconveniences and evil consequents deriv'd from Original sin I dare say every man is sufficiently displeased that he is liable to sickness weariness displeasure melancholy sorrow folly imperfection and death dying with groans and horrid spasmes and convulsions In what sence these are the effects of Adams sin and though of themselves natural yet also upon his account made penal I have already declar'd and need no more to dispute my purpose being only to establish such truths as are in order to practice and a holy life to the duties of repentance and amendment But our share of Adams sin either being in us no sin at all or else not to be avoided or amended it cannot be the matter of repentance Neminem autem rectè ita loqui poenitere sese quòd natus sit aut poenitere quòd mortalis sit aut quòd ex offenso fortè vulneratóque corpore dolorem sentiat said A. Gellius A man is not properly said to repent that he was born or that he shall die or that he feels pain when his leg is hurt he gives this reason Quando istiusmodi rerum nec consilium sit nostrum nec arbitrium As these are besides our choice so they cannot fall into our deliberation and therefore as they cannot be chosen so neither refused and therefore not repented of for that supposes both that they were chosen once and now refused * As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity so neither are we tied to repent of his sins Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or forms of prayer publick or private any prayer of humiliation prescrib'd for Original sin They might deprecate the evil consequents but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin 80. Add to this Original sin is remitted in Baptism by the consent of those Schools of learning who teach this article and therefore is not reserved for any other repentance and that which came without our own consent is also to be taken off without it That which came by the imputation of a sin may also be taken off by the imputation of righteousness that is as it came without sin so it must also go away without trouble But yet because the Question may not render the practice insecure I add these Rules by way of advice and caution SECT VII Advices relating to the matter of Original Sin 81. I. IT is very requisite that we should understand the state of our own infirmity the weakness of the flesh the temptations and diversions of the spirit that by understanding our present state we may prevent the evils of carelesness and security * Our evils are the imperfections and sorrows inherent in or appendant to our bodies our souls our spirits 82. * In our bodies we find weakness and imperfection sometimes crookedness sometimes monstrosity filthiness and weariness infinite numbers of diseases and an uncertain cure great pain and restless night hunger and thirst daily necessities ridiculous gestures madness from passions distempers and disorders great labour to provide meat and drink and oftentimes a loathing when we have them if we use them they breed sicknesses if we use them not we die and there is such a certain healthlesness in many things to all and in all things to some men and at some times that to supply a need is to bring a danger and if we eat like beasts only of one thing our souls are quickly weary if we eat variety we are sick and intemperate and our bodies are inlets to sin and a stage of temptation If we cherish them they undo us if we do not cherish them they die we suffer illusion in our dreams and absurd fancies when we are waking our life is soon done and yet very tedious it is too long and too short darkness and light are both troublesome and those things which are pleasant are often unwholsome Sweet smells make the head ach and those smells which are medicinal in some diseases are intolerable to the sense The pleasures of our body are bigger in expectation than in the possession and yet while they are expected they torment us with the delay and when they are enjoyed they are as if they were not they abuse us with their vanity and vex us with their volatile and fugitive nature Our pains are very frequent alone and very often mingled with pleasures to spoil them and he that feels one sharp pain feels not all the pleasures of the world if they were in his power to have them We live a precarious life begging help of every thing and needing the repairs of every day and being beholding to beasts and birds to plants and trees to dirt and stones to the very excrements of beasts and that which dogs and horses throw forth Our motion is slow and dull heavy and uneasie we cannot move but we are quickly tired and for every days labour we need a whole night to recruit our lost strengths we live like a lamp unless new materials be perpetually poured in we live no longer than a fly and our motion is not otherwise than a clock we must be pull'd up once or twice in twenty four hours and unless we be in the shadow of death for six or eight hours every night we shall be scarce in the shadows of life the other sixteen Heat and cold are both our enemies and yet the one always dwells within and the other dwells round about us The chances and contingencies that trouble us are no more to be numbred than the minutes of eternity The Devil often hurts us and men hurt each other oftner and we are perpetually doing mischief to our selves The stars do in their courses fight against some men and all the elements against every man the heavens send evil influences the very beasts are dangerous and the air we suck in does corrupt our lungs many are deformed and blind and ill coloured and yet upon the most beauteous face is plac'd one of the worst sinks of the body and we are forc'd to pass that through our mouths oftentimes which our eye and our stomach hates Pliny did wittily and elegantly represent this state of evil things Itaque foelicitèr homo natus jacet manibus pedibúsque devinctis flens animal caeteris imperaturum à suppliciis vitam auspicatur unam tantum ob culpam quia natum est A man is born happily but at first he lies bound band and foot by impotency and cannot stir the creature weeps that is
unless they were his at his death If therefore they be confiscated before his death ours indeed is the inconvenience too but his alone is the punishment and to neither of us is the wrong But concerning the second I mean that which is superinduc'd it is not his fault alone nor ours alone and neither of us is innocent we all put in our accursed Symbol for the debauching of our spirits for the besotting our souls for the spoiling our bodies Ille initium induxit debiti nos foenus auximus posterioribus peccatis c. He began the principal and we have increas'd the interest This we also find well expressed by Justin Martyr for the Fathers of the first ages spake prudently and temperately in this Article as in other things Christ was not born or crucified because himself had need of these things but for the sake of mankind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides the evil which every one adds upon his own account And it appears in the greatest instance of all even in that of natural death which though it was natural yet from Adam it began to be a curse just as the motion of a Serpent upon his belly which was concreated with him yet upon this story was changed into a malediction and an evil adjunct But though Adam was the gate and brought in the head of death yet our sins brought him in further we brought in the body of death Our life was left by Adam a thousand years long almost but the iniquity of man brought it quickly to 500 years from thence to 250 from thence to 120 and at last to seventy and then God would no more strike all mankind in the same manner but individuals and single sinners smart for it and are cut off in their youth and do not live out half their days And so it is in the matters of the soul and the spirit Every sin leaves an evil upon the soul and every age grows worse and adds some iniquity of its own to the former examples And therefore Tertullian calls Adam mali traducem he transmitted the original and exemplar and we write after his copy Infirmitatis ingenitae vitium so Arnobius calls our natural baseness we are naturally weak and this weakness is a vice or defect of Nature and our evil usages make our natures worse like Butchers being used to kill beasts their natures grow more savage and unmerciful so it is with us all If our parents be good yet we often prove bad as the wild olive comes from the branch of a natural olive or as corn with the chaff come from clean grain and the uncircumcised from the circumcised But if our parents be bad it is the less wonder if their children are so a Blackamore begets a Blackamore as an Epileptick son does often come from an Epileptick father and hereditary diseases are transmitted by generation so it is in that viciousness that is radicated in the body for a lustful father oftentimes begets a lustful son and so it is in all those instances where the soul follows the temperature of the body And thus not only Adam but every father may transmit an Original sin or rather an Original viciousness of his own For a vicious nature or a natural improbity when it is not consented to is not a sin but an ill disposition Philosophy and the Grace of God must cure it but it often causes us to sin before our reason and our higher principles are well attended to But when we consent to and actuate our evil inclinations we spoil our natures and make them worse making evil still more natural For it is as much in our nature to be pleased with our artificial delights as with our natural And this is the doctrine of S. Austin speaking of Concupiscence Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quòd peccata facta est peccati si vicerit facit reum Concupiscence or the viciousness of our Nature is after a certain manner of speaking called sin because it is made worse by sin and makes us guilty of sin when it is consented to It hath the nature of sin so the article of the Church of England expresses it that is it is in eâdem materiâ it comes from a weak principle à naturae vitio from the imperfect and defective nature of man and inclines to sin But that I may again use S. Austins words Quantum ad nos attiâ—et sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum Although we all have concupiscence yet none of us all should have any sin if we did not consent to this concupiscence unto evil Concupiscence is Naturae vitium but not peccatum a defect or fault of nature but not formally a sin which distinction we learn from S. Austin Non enim talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt Concupiscence is an evil as a weak eye is but not a sin if we speak properly till it be consented to and then indeed it is the parent of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. James it brings forth sin 85. This is the vile state of our natural viciousness and improbity and misery in which Adam had some but truly not the biggest share and let this consideration sink as deep as it will in us to make us humble and careful but let us not use it as an excuse to lessen our diligence by greatning our evil necessity For death and sin were both born from Adam but we have nurs'd them up to an ugly bulk and deformity But I must now proceed to other practical rules 86. II. It is necessary that we understand that our natural state is not a state in which we can hope for heaven Natural agents can effect but natural ends by natural instruments and now supposing the former doctrine that we lost not the Divine favour by our guilt of what we never did consent to yet we were born in pure naturals and they some of them worsted by our forefathers yet we were at the best born but in pure naturals and we must be born again that as by our first birth we are heirs of death so by our new birth we may be adopted into the inheritance of life and salvation 87. III. It is our duty to be humbled in the consideration of our selves and of our natural condition That by distrusting our own strengths we may take sanctuary in God through Jesus Christ praying for his grace entertaining and caressing of his holy Spirit with purities and devotions with charity and humility infinitely fearing to grieve him lest he leaving us we be left as Adam left us in pure naturals but in some degrees worsted by the nature of sin in some instances and the anger of God in all that is in the state of flesh and blood which shall never inherit the
or successors of the injur'd person for in those sins very often the curse descends with the wrong So long as the effect remains and the injury is complained of and the title is still kept on foot so long the son is tied to restitution But even after the possession is setled yet the curse and evil may descend longer than the sin as the smart and the aking remains after the blow is past And therefore even after the successors come to be lawful possessors it may yet be very fit for them to quit the purchase of their fathers sin or else they must resolve to pay the sad and severe rent-charge of a curse 98. VI. In such cases in which there cannot be a real let there be a verbal and publick disavowing their fathers sin which was publick scandalous and notorious We find this thing done by Andronicus Palaeologus the Greek Emperor who was the son of a bad Father and it is to be done when the effect was transient or irremediable 99. VII Sometimes no piety of the children shall quite take off the anger of God from a family or nation as it hapned to Josiah who above all the Princes that were before or after him turned to the Lord. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal In such a case as this we are to submit to Gods will and let him exercise his power his dominion and his kingdom as he pleases and expect the returns of our piety in the day of recompences and it may be our posterity shall reap a blessing for our sakes who feel a sorrow and an evil for our fathers sake 100. VIII Let all that have children endeavour to be the beginners and the stock of a new blessing to their family by blessing their children by praying much for them by holy education and a severe piety by rare example and an excellent religion And if there be in the family a great curse and an extraordinary anger gone out against it there must be something extraordinary done in the matter of religion or of charity that the remedy be no less than the evil 101. IX Let not the consideration of the universal sinfulness and corruption of mankind add confidence to thy person and hardness to thy conscience and authority to thy sin but let it awaken thy spirit and stir up thy diligence and endear all the watchfulness in the world for the service of God for there is in it some difficulty and an infinite necessity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Electra in the Tragedy Our nature is very bad in it self but very good to them that use it well Prayers and Meditations THE first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed and was overcome and so be all they that are born of him Thus infirmity was made permanent And the law also in the heart of the people with the malignity and root so that the good departed away and the evil abode still Lo this only have I found that God hath made man upright but they have sought many inventions For there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me Purge me with hysop and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me The fool hath said in his heart There is no God they are corrupt they have done abominable works there is none that doth good The Lord looked down from Heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God They are all gone aside they are all become filthy There is not one that doth good no not one O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Sion when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people Jacob shall rejoyce and Israel shall be glad Man dieth and wasteth away yea man giveth up the ghost and where is he For now thou numbrest my steps Dost thou not watch over my sin my transgression is seal'd up in a bag and thou sewest up iniquity Thou destroyest the hope of man Thou prevailest against him for ever and he passeth thou changest his countenance and sendest him away But his flesh upon him shall have pain and his soul within him shall mourn What is man that he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous Behold he putteth no trust in his Saints yea the Heavens are not clean in his sight How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like water Trouble and anguish shall make him afraid They shall prevail against him as a King ready to battel For he stretcheth out his hand against God and strengthneth himself against the Almighty Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity for vanity shall be his recompence Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing no not one I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin and defiled my horn in the dust My face is foul with weeping and on my eye-lids is the shadow of death Not for any injustice in my hand also my prayer is pure Wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death I thank God I am delivered through Jesus Christ our Lord. But now being made free from sin and become servants of God ye have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life For the wages of sin is death But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof For sin shall not have dominion over you for ye are not under the law but under grace The PRAYER O Almighty God great Father of Men and Angels thou art the preserver of men and the great lover of souls thou didst make every thing perfect in its kind and all that thou didst make was very good only we miserable creatures sons of Adam have suffered the falling Angels to infect us with their leprosie of pride and so we entred into their evil portion having corrupted our way before thee and are covered with thy rod and dwell in a cloud of thy displeasure behold me the meanest of thy servants humbled before thee sensible of my sad condition weak and miserable sinful and ignorant full of need wanting thee in all things and neither able to escape death without a Saviour nor to live a life of holiness without thy Spirit O be pleas'd to give me a portion in the new birth break off the bands and fetters of my sin cure my evil inclinations correct my indispositions and natural averseness
and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced Now my Lord I had thought I had been secured in the Article not only for the truth of the Doctrine but for the advantages and comforts it brings I was confident they would not because there was no cause any men should be angry at it For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe and less gentle That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways of being damned that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness and that they should desire to see an angry countenance and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism should for ought they know die eternally and be damned and that themselves should consent to it and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures and evil portions to their children they might have complained but to complain because I say God is just to all and merciful and just to infants to fret and be peevish because I tell them that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God is a thing that may well be wondred at My Lord I take a great comfort in this that my doctrine stands on that side where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently and they that speak otherwise in this Article are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes And after great and laborious devices they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely but I will prejudice no mans opinion I only will defend my own because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God who will defend and accept me in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth Now my Lord I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published Others think it not true The first are the wise and few the others are the many who have been taught otherwise and either have not leisure or abilities to make right judgments in the question Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me Concerning the other your Lordship in great humility and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction which I could be obliged to by the interest of any Christian vertue In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship I have published these ensuing Papers hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed however I have done all that I could and all that I am commanded and all that I was counselled to And as I submit all to Gods blessing and the events of his providence and Oeconomy so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship CHAP. VII A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin SECT I. Of the Fall of Adam and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs. IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing though he said many others in it less certain Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum noâ—ius nihil ad intelligendum secretius The article we all confess but the manner of explicating it is not an apple of knowledge but of contention Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity For the Doctrine of Original sin as I have explicated it is taxed of Singularity and Novelty and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned or consented to and that we take false measures of these Appellatives reckoning that new that is but renewed and that singular that is not taught vulgarly or in our own Societies Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges and though I do confess and complain of it that the usual affirmations of Original sin are a popular error yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine that it prevailed by prejudice and accidental authorities but after such prevailing it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority I shall explicate and state the Question that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion nor any offence taken by error and misprision It is not therefore intended nor affirmed that there is no such thing as Original sin for it is certain and affirmed by all Antiquity upon many grounds of Scripture That Adam sinned and his sin was Personally his but Derivatively ours that is it did great hurt to us to our bodies directly to our souls indirectly and accidentally 2. For Adam was made a living soul the great representative of Mankind and the beginner of a temporal happy life and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him or implied but when he sinned he was thrown from thence and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy This we find in the story the reasonableness of the parts of which teaches us all this doctrine To which if we add the words of S. Paul the case is clear The first Adam was made a living soul The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from Heaven As is the earthly such are they that are earthly and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly and as we have born
the image of the Earthly we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly Now this I say That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven neither doth corruption inherit incorruption This Discourse of the Apostle hath in it all these propositions which clearly state this whole Article There are two great heads of Mankind the two Adams the first and the second The first was framed with an earthly body the second had viz. after his resurrection when he had died unto sin once a spiritual body The first was Earthly the second is Heavenly From the first we derive an Earthly life from the second we obtain a Heavenly all that are born of the first are such as he was naturally but the effects of the Spirit came only upon them who are born of the second Adam From him who is earthly we could have no more than he was or had the spiritual life and consequently the Heavenly could not be derived from the first Adam but from Christ only All that are born of the first by that birth inherit nothing but temporal life and corruption but in the new birth only we derive a title to Heaven For flesh and blood that is whatsoever is born of Adam cannot inherit the Kingdom of God And they are injurious to Christ who think that from Adam we might have inherited immortality Christ was the Giver and Preacher of it he brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel It is a singular benefit given by God to mankind through Jesus Christ. 3. Upon the affirmation of these premises it follows That if Adam had stood yet from him we could not have by our natural generation obtained a title to our spiritual life nor by all the strengths of Adam have gone to Heaven Adam was not our representative to any of these purposes but in order to the perfection of a temporal life Christ only is and was from eternal ages designed to be the head of the Church and the fountain of spiritual life And this is it which is affirmed by some very eminent persons in the Church of God particularly by Junius and Tilenus that Christus est fundamentum totius praedestinationis all that are or ever were predestinated were predestinated in Christ Even Adam himself was predestinated in him and therefore from him if he had stood though we should have inherited a temporal happy life yet the Scripture speaks nothing of any other event Heaven was not promised to Adam himself therefore from him we could not have derived a title thither And therefore that inquity of the School-men Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ should have been incarnate was not an impertinent Question though they prosecuted it to weak purposes and with trifling arguments Scotus and his Scholars were for the affirmative and though I will not be decretory in it because the Scripture hath said nothing of it nor the Church delivered it yet to me it seems plainly the discourse of the Apostle now alledged That if Adam had not sinned yet that by Christ alone we should have obtained everlasting life Whether this had been dispensed by his Incarnation or some other way of oeconomy is not signified 4. But then if from Adam we should not have derived our title to Heaven though he had stood then neither by his Fall can we be said to have lost Heaven Heaven and Hell were to be administred by another method But then if it be enquired what evil we thence received I answer That the principal effect was the loss of that excellent condition in which God placed him and would have placed his posterity unless sin had entred He should have lived a long and lasting life till it had been time to remove him and very happy Instead of this he was thrown from those means which God had designed to this purpose that is Paradise and the trees of life he was turned into a place of labour and uneasiness of briars and thorns ill air and violent chances nova febrium terris incubuit cohors the woman was condemned to hard labour and travel and that which troubled her most obedience to her Husband his body was made frail and weak and sickly that is it was leâ—t such as it was made and left without remedies which were to have made it otherwise For that Adam was made mortal in his nature is infinitely certain and proved by his very eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing and generating his like which immortal substances never do and by the very tree of life which had not been needful if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health 5. The effect of this consideration is this that all the product of Adam's sin was by despoiling him and consequently us of all the superadditions and graces brought upon his nature Even that which was threatned to him and in the narrative of that sad story expressed to be his punishment was no lessening of his nature but despoiling him of his supernaturals And therefore Manuel Pelaeologus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common driness of our nature and he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Fathers sin we fell from our Fathers graces Now according to the words of the Apostle As is the earthly such are they that are earthly that is all his posterity must be so as his nature was left in this there could be no injustice For if God might at first and all the way have made man with a necessity as well as a possibility of dying though men had not sinned then so also may he do if he did sin and so it was but this was effected by disrobing him of all the superadded excellencies with which God adorned and supported his natural life But this also I add that if even death it self came upon us without the alteration or diminution of our nature then so might sin because death was in re naturali but sin is not and therefore need not suppose that Adam's nature was spoiled to introduce that 6. As the sin of Adam brought hurt to the body directly so indirectly it brought hurt to the soul. For the evils upon the body as they are only felt by the soul so they grieve and tempt and provoke the soul to anger to sorrow to envy they make weariness in religious things cause desires for ease for pleasure and as these are by the body always desired so sometimes being forbidden by God they become sins and are always apt to it because the body being a natural agent tempts to all it can feel and have pleasure in And this is also observed and affirmed by S. Chrysostom and he often speaks it as if he were pleased in this explication of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Together with death entred a whole troop of affections or passions For when the body became mortal then of necessity it did admit desires
state not at all fitted for Heaven but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell For even in innocent persons in Christ himself it was a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven he could not enter into the second Tabernacle that is into Heaven so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing the body of sin that is of infirmity he was first to lay aside and so by dying unto sin once he entred into Heaven according to the other words of S. Paul Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God it is a state of differing nature and capacity Christ himself could not enter thither till he had first laid that down as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses 9. This is the whole summ of Original sin which now I have more fully explicated than formerly it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it as to represent it to be a state of evil which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty and to be without excuse which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity and not unreasonable though in Scripture so much is not expressed yet now I must be more restrained and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine which the ignorance or the fancy or the interest or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine SECT II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin and how it is so 10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed to us so as to bring evil effects upon us For that which is inherent in us is a consequent only of Adam's sin but of it self no sin for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin the want of Original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these can be a sin in us but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be For the case is thus One half of Christians that dispute in this Article particularly the Roman Schools say that Concupiscence is not a sin but a consequent of Adam's sin The other half of Christians I mean in Europe that is the Protestants generally say That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin but formally no sin The effect of these is this That it is not certain amongst the Churches that either one or the other is formally our sin or inherent in us and we cannot affirm either without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference and therefore in the conference at Wormes and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together saying that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis cum concupiscentiâ But the Church of England defines neither but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin or inherent in us I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts The want of original righteousness is not a thing but the privation of a thing and therefore cannot be inherent in us and therefore if it be a sin at all to us it can only be such by imputation But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally because if it be at all it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin and unavoidable by us For though Scotus is pleased to affirm that there was an obligation upon humane nature to preserve it I doubt not but as he intended it he said false Adam indeed was tied to it for if he lost it for himself and us then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us for we could not be obliged to keep it unless we had received it but he was and because he lost it we also missed it that is are punished and feel the evil effects of it But besides all this the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges but not at all spoken of in Scripture save only that God made man upright that is he was brought innocent into the world he brought no sin along with him he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion all which we do not It is that which as Prosper describes it made a man expertem peccati capacem Dei for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough if he needed any besides his natural powers which we have not by nature but by another dispensation 11. Add to all this that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events tell us it is an aversion from God that is in effect a turning to the creature and differs no otherwise from concupiscence than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East that is just nothing It follows then that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin then so must the want of original righteousness because they are the same thing in real event and if that be no sin in us because it was only the punishment of his sin then neither is the other a sin for the same reason But then for Concupiscence that this is no sin before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity and of S. Austin himself Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si nunquam consentiremus ad malum Lib. 2. ad Julianum And it is infinitely against reason it should for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins therefore much less is the principle if the little emanations of it in them be innocent although there are some images of consent much more is that principle innocent before any thing of consent at all is applied to it By the way I cannot but wonder at this that the Roman Schools affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and not consented to by us but come upon us whether we list or no yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly which it is certain is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence But I add this also that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin if it were then it would follow that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence that is no
contrary appetites which is infinitely confuted by the experience of Adam's fall For by the Rebellion and prevailing of his concupiscence it was that he fell and that which was the cause could not be the effect of the same thing as no child can beget his own Father nor any thing which it leads and draws in after it self Indeed it is True that by Adam's sin this became much worse and by the evils of the body and its infirmities and the nakedness of the soul as well as the body and new necessities and new Emergencies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Macarius said an entire contrariety both manifest and secret came in upon us from the transgression of Adam This I say became much worse and more inordinate and tempted and vexed and we were more under the Devils power because we had the loss of our own 12. The result is this that neither the one nor the other is our sin formally but by imputation only that is we are not sinners but we are afflicted for his sin and he is punished in us and that it cannot be our sin properly but metonymically that is our misery only appears to me demonstratively certain upon this account For how can that in another be our sin when it is in us involuntary when our own acts if involuntary are not sins If it be asked how can we have the punishment unless we also have the fault I return this answer that S. Augustine and some others who make this objection have already given answer themselves and Delirant reges plectuntur Achivi is an answer enough as Saul sinned and his seven sons were hanged and all that evil which is upon us being not by any positive infliction but by privative or the taking away gifts and blessings and graces from us which God not having promised to give was neither naturally nor by covenant obliged to give it is certain he could not be obliged to continue that to the sons of a sinning Father which to an innocent Father he was not obliged to give But these things which are only evils and miseries to us upon Adam's account become direct punishments upon our own account that is if we sin But then as to the argument it self Certainly it were more probable to say we had not the fault we did not do the sin which another did therefore the evil that we feel is our misery but not our punishment rather than to say we are punished therefore we are guilty For let what will happen to us it is not true that we are guilty of what we never did and what ever comes upon us by the way of Empire and Dominion nothing can descend upon us by the way of Justice as relating to our own fault But thus it was that in him we are all sinners that is his sin is reckoned to us so as to bring evil upon us because we were born of him and consequently put into the same natural state where he was left after his sin No otherwise than as children born of a bankrupt father are also miserable not that they are guilty of their fathers sin or that it is imputed so as to involve them in the guilt but it is derived upon them and reckoned to evil events the very nature of birth and derivation from him infers it 13. And this it is that S. Augustine once said Nascimur non propriè sed originaliter peccatores that is Adam's sin is imputed to us but we have none of our own born with us and this expression of having Adam's sin imputed to us is followed by divers of the Modern Doctours by S. Bernard Serm. 11. de Dominicâ prima post 8. Epiph. by Lyr◠in 5. cap. Rom. by Cajetan ibidem by Bellarmine tom 3. de amiss gratiae lib. 5. cap. 17. by Dr. Whitaker lib. 1. de peccato Originali cap. 7. 9. by Paraeus in his animadversions upon Bellar. lib. 5. de amiss gratiae cap. 16. by Dr. George Charleton lib. de consensu Ecclesiae Catholicae contra Tridentinos Controvers 4. which is the 5. chapter of Grace in these words either we must with Pelagius wholly deny Original sin or it must be by the imputation of the injustice that was in Adam that we are made sinners because Original sin is an imputed sin The effect of this is that therefore it is not formally ours and it is no sin inherent in us and then the imputation means nothing but that it brought evils upon us Our dying our sorrow and the affections of mortality and concupiscence are the consequents of Adam's sin and the occasion of ours and so we are in him and by him made sinners and in this there can be no injustice for this imputation brings nothing upon us as in relation to Adam's sin but what by his power and justice he might have done without such Relation And what is just if done absolutely must needs be just if done Relatively and because there is no other way to reconcile this with God's Justice it follows that there is no other sence of imputation than what is now explicated SECT III. The Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers was that Free-will remained in Vs after the Fall 14. ADAM's sin did not destroy the liberty of our election but left it naturally as great as before the Fall And here I observe that the Fathers before S. Augustine generally maintained the Doctrine of Man's liberty remaining after the Fall the consequents of which are incompossible and inconsistent with the present Doctrines of Original sin That the Doctrine of Mans liberty remaining was general and Catholick appears by these few testimonies in stead of very many Justin Martyr in his second apology for the Christians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ hath declared that the Devil and his Angels and men that follow him shall be tormented in Hell for ever which thing is not yet done for the sake of Mankind because God foresees that some by repentance shall obtain salvation even some that are not yet born and from the beginning be created Mankind so that he should be endued with understanding and by the power of his free will should obtain choice to follow truth and to do well wherefore all men are wholly left without excuse and defence before God for they are created by him reasonable and fit for contemplation S. Cyrillus lib. 4. in Johan 1.7 Non possumus secundum Ecclesiae veritatisque dogmata liberam potestatem hominis quod liberum arbitrium appellatur ullo modo negare S. Hieronymus epist. ad Ctesiphontem extrem Frustra blasphemas ignorantiam auribus ingeris nos liberum arbitrium condemnare Damnetur ille qui damnat Author Hypognosticôn lib. 3. Ipsum liberum arbitrium in hominibus esse certâ fide credimus praedicamus indubitantèr infra est igitur liberum arbitrium quod quisquis negaverit Catholicus non est Gregor Nyssenus the great Divine saith lib. 7. de
philosoph c. 2. Concupiscere 〈◊〉 concupiscere mentiri non mentiri quaecunque talia in quibus consistunt virtutis vitii opera haec sunt in nostro libero arbitrio B. Macarius Aegyptius hom 15. Caeterúmve semel omninò resonet permanea◠delectus arbitrii libertas quam primitus homini dedit Deus ea propter dispensatione suâ res administrantur corporum solutio sit ut in voluntate hominis situm sit ad bonum vel malum converti Marcus Heremita lib. de Baptismo ultra medium speaks more home to the particular question Haec similia cum sciat scriptura in nostrâ potestate positum esse ut haec agamus nec ne propterea non Satanam neque peccatum Adae sed nos increpat infra Primam conceptionem habemus ex dispensatione quemadmodum ille perinde ac ille pro arbitrio possumus obtemperare vel non obtemperare Julius Firmicus de erroribus profanarum religionum cap. 29. Liberum te Deus fecit in tuâ manu est ut aut vivas aut pereas quia te per abrupta praecipitas S. Ambros. in exposit Psalm 40. Homini dedit eligendi arbitrium quod sequatur ante hominem vita mors si deliqueris non natura in culpa est sed eligentis affectus Gaudentius Brixianus tertio tractat super Exod. Horum concessa semel voluntatis libertas non aufertur ne nihil de eo judicare possit qui liber non fuerit in agendo Boetius libro de consolatione philosophiae Quae cum ita sint manet intemerata mortalibus libertas arbitrii Though it were easie to bring very many more testimonies to this purpose yet I have omitted them because the matter is known to all learned Persons and have chosen these because they testifie that our liberty of choice remains after the fall that if we sin the fault is not in our Nature but in our Persons and Election that still it is in our powers to do good or evil that this is the sentence of the Church that he who denies this is not a Catholick believer 15. And this is so agreeable to nature to experience to the sentence of all wise men to the nature of laws to the effect of reward and punishments that I am perswaded no man would deny it if it were not upon this mistake For many wise and learned men dispute against it because they find it affirmed in H. Scripture every where that grace is necessary that we are servants of sin that we cannot come to God unless we be drawn and very many more excellent things to the same purpose Upon the account of which they conclude that therefore our free will is impaired by Adam's fall since without the grace of God we cannot convert our selves to Godliness and being converted without it we cannot stand and if we stand without it we cannot go on and going on without it we cannot persevere Now though all this be very true yet there is a mistake in the whole Question For when it is affirmed that Adam's sin did not could not impair our liberty but all that freedom of election which was concreated with his reason and is essential to an understanding creature did remain inviolate there is no more said but that after Adam's fall all that which was natural remained and that what Adam could naturally do all that he and we can do afterwards But yet this contradicts not all those excellent discourses which the Church makes of the necessity of Grace of the necessity and effect of which I am more earnestly perswaded and do believe more things than are ordinarily taught in the Schools of Learning But when I say that our will can do all that it ever could I mean all that it could ever do naturally but not all that is to be done supernaturally But then this I add that the things of the Spirit that is all that belongs to spiritual life are not naturally known not naturally discerned but are made known to us by the Spirit and when they are known they are not naturally amiable as being in great degrees and many regards contradictory to natural desires but they are made amiable by the proposition of spiritual rewards and our will is moved by God in wayes not natural and the active and passive are brought together by secret powers and after all this our will being put into a supernatural order does upon these presuppositions choose freely and work in the manner of Nature Our will is after Adam naturally as free as ever it was and in spiritual things it 's free when it is made so by the Spirit for Nature could never do that according to that saying of Celestine Nemo nisi per Christum libero arbitrio benè utitur Omnis sancta cogitatio motus bonae voluntatis ex Deo est A man before he is in Christ hath free-will but cannot use it well He hath motions and operations of will but without God's grace they do not delight in holy things But then in the next place there is another mistake also when it is affirmed in the writings of some Doctors that the will of man is depraved men presently suppose that Depravation is a Natural or Physical effect and means a diminution of powers whereas it signifies nothing but a being in love with or having chosen an evil object and not an impossibility or weakness to do the contrary but only because it will not For the powers of the will cannot be lessened by any act of the same faculty for the act is not contrary to the faculty and therefore can do nothing towards its destruction III. As a consequent of this I infer that there is no natural necessity of sinning that is there is no sinful action to which naturally we are determined but it is our own choice that we sin This depending upon the former stands or falls with it But because God hath super-induced so many Laws and the Devil super-induces temptations upon our weak nature and we are to enter into a supernatural state of things therefore it is that we need the Helps of supernatural grace to enable us to do a supernatural duty in order to a divine end so that the necessity of sinning which we all complain of though it be greater in us than it was in Adam before his fall yet is not absolute in either nor meerly natural but accidental and super-induced and in remedy to it God also hath superinduced and promised his Holy Spirit to them that ask Him SECT IV. Adam's Sin is not imputed to us to our Damnation 16. BUT the main of all is this that this sin of Adam is not imputed unto us to Eternal Damnation For Eternal Death was not threatned to Adam for his sin and therefore could not from him come upon us for that which was none of ours Indeed the Socinians affirm that the death which entered into the
World by Adam's sin was Death Eternal that is God then decreed to punish sinners with the portion of Devils It is likely he did so but that this was the death introduced for the sin of Adam upon all Man-kind is not at all affirmed in Scripture but temporal death is the effect of Adam's sin in Adam we all die and the Death that Adam's sin brought in is such as could have a remedy or recompence by Christ but Eternal Death hath no recompence and shall never be destroyed but temporal death shall But that which I say is this that for Adam's sin alone no man but himself is or can justly be condemned to the bitter pains of Eternal Fire This depends also upon the former accounts because meer Nature brings not to Hell but choice Nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas said S. Bernard and since Original sin is not properly ours but only by imputation if God should impute Adam's sin so as to damn any one for it all our good we receive from God is much less than that evil and we should be infinitely to seek for justifications of God's justice and glorifications of his mercy or testimonies of his goodness But now the matter is on this side so reasonable in it self that let a man take what side he will he shall have parties enough and no prejudices or load of a consenting authority can be against him but that there shall be on the side of reason as great and leading persons as there are of those who have been abused by errour and prejudice In the time of S. Augustine Vincentius Victor and some others did believe that Infants dying without Baptism should never the less be saved although he believed them guilty of Original sin Bucer Peter Martyr and Calvin affirmed the same of the children of faithful Parents but Zuinglius affirmed it of all and that no Infant did lose Heaven for his Original stain and corruption Something less than this was the Doctrine of the Pelagians who exclude Infants unbaptized from the Kingdom of Heaven but promised to them an eternal and a natural beatitude and for it S. Augustine reckons them for Hereticks as indeed being impatient of every thing almost which they said But yet the opinion was imbraced lately by Ambrosius Catherinus Albertus Pighius and Hieronymus Savanarola And though S. Augustine sometimes calls as good Men as himself by the Name of Pelagians calling all them so that assign a third place or state to Infants yet besides these now reckoned S. Gregory Nazianzen and his Scholiast Nicetes did believe and reach it and the same is affirmed also by S. Athanasius or whoever is the Author of the Questions to Antiochus usually attributed to him and also by S. Ambrose or the Author of the Commentaries on S. Paul's Epistles who lived in the time of Pope Damasus that is before 400. Years after Christ and even by S. Augustine himself expresly in his third Book de libero arbitrio cap. 23. But when he was heated with his disputations against the Pelagians he denied all and said that a middle place or state was never heard of in the Church For all this the opinion of a middle state for unbaptized Infants continued in the Church and was expresly affirmed by Pope Innocent the third who although he says Infants shall not see the face of God yet he expresly denies that they shall be tormented in Hell and he is generally followed by the Schoolmen who almost universally teach that Infants shall be deprived of the Vision Beatifical but shall not suffer Hell torments but yet they stoop so much towards S. Augustin's harsh and fierce Opinion that they say this deprivation is a part of Hell not of torment but of banishment from God and of abode in the place of torment Among these they are also divided some affirming that they have some pain of sense but little and light others saying they have none even as they pleased to fancy for they speak wholly without ground and meerly by chance and interest and against the consent of Antiquity as I have already instanced But Gregorius Ariminensis Driedo Luther Melancthon and Tilmanus Heshusius are fallen into the worst of S. Augustine's opinion and sentence poor Infants to the flames of Hell for Original sin if they die before Baptism To this I shall not say much more than what I have said otherwhere But that no Catholick Writer for 400. Years after Christ did ever affirm it but divers affirmed the contrary And indeed if the Unavoidable want of Baptism should damn Infants for the fault which was also unavoidable I do not understand how it can in any sence be true that Christ died for all if at least the Children of Christian Parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's Death because that without the fault of any man they want the ceremony Upon this account some good men observing the great sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing upon any terms to admit Infants to Heaven even without Baptism if any one of their Relatives desire it for them or if the Church desires it which in effect admits all Christian infants to Heaven Of this opinion were Gerson Biel Cajetan and some others All which to my sence seems to declare that if men would give themselves freedom of judgment and speak what they think most reasonable they would speak honour of God's mercy and not impose such fierce and unintelligibe things concerning his justice and goodness since our blessed Saviour concerning infants and those only who are like infants affirms that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven But now in the midst of this great variety of Opinions it will be hard to pick out any thing that is certain For my part I believe this only as certain That Nature alone cannot bring them to Heaven and that Adam left us in a state in which we could not hope for it but this I know also that as soon as this was done Christ was promised and that before there was any birth of Man or Woman and that God's Grace is greater and more communicative than sin and Christ was more Gracious and effective than Adam was hurtful and that therefore it seems very agreeable to God's goodness to bring them to happiness by Christ who were brought to misery by Adam and that he will do this by himself alone in ways of his own finding out And yet if God will not give them Heaven by Christ he will not throw them into Hell by Adam if his goodness will not do the first his Goodness and his Justice will not suffer him to do the second and therefore I consent to Antiquity and the Schoolmens opinion thus far that the destitution or loss of God's sight is the effect of Original sin that is by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go to Heaven But here I differ Whereas they
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
Chrysostome even when he differs from others and in this Article he consents with him and the rest now reckoned when God made Adam and adorned him with reason he gave him one commandement that he might exercise his reason he being deceived broke the commandement and was exposed to the sentence of death and so he begat Cain and Seth and others but all these as being begotten of him had a mortal nature This kind of Nature wants many things meat and drink and cloaths and dwelling and divers arts the use of these things often-times provokes to excess and the excess begets sin Therefore the divine Apostle saith that when Adam had sinned and was made mortal for his sin both came to his stock that is death and sin for death came upon all inasmuch as all men have sinned For every man suffers the decree of death not for the sin of the first man but for his own Much more to the same purpose he hath upon the same Chapter but this is enough to all the purposes of this Question Now if any man thinks that though these give testimony in behalf of my explication of this Article yet that it were easie to bring very many more to the contrary I answer and profess ingenuously that I know of none till about S. Austin's time for that the first Ages taught the doctrine of Original sin I do no ways doubt but affirm it all the way but that it is a sin improperly that is a stain and a reproach rather than a sin that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that it brought in sickness and death mortality and passions that it made us naked of those supernatural aides that Adam had and so more lyable to the temptations of the Devil this is all I find in antiquity and sufficient for the explication of this question which the more simply it is handled the more true and reasonable it is But that I may use the words of Solomon according to the Vulgar translation Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus God made man upright and he hath made himself more deformed than he is by mingling with innumerable questions 23. I think I have said enough to vindicate my sentence from Novelty and though that also be sufficient to quit me from singularity yet I have something more to add as to that particular and that is that it is very hard for a man to be singular in this Article if he would For first in the Primitive Church when Valentinus and Marcion Tatianus Julius Cassianus and the Encratites condemned marriage upon this account because it produces that only which is impure many good men and right believers did to justifie marriages undervalue the matter of Original sin this begat new questions in the manner of speaking and at last real differences were entertained and the Pelagian Heresie grew up upon this stock But they changed their Propositions so often that it was hard to tell what was the Heresie But the first draught of it was so rude so confused and so unreasonable that when any of the followers of it spake more warily and more learnedly yet by this time the name Pelagian was of so ill a sound that they would not be believed if they spake well nor trusted in their very recantations nor understood in their explications but cryed out against in all things right or wrong and in the fierce prosecution of this S. Austin and his followers Fulgentiâ—â— Prosper and others did excedere in dogmate pati aliquid humanum S. Austin called them all Pelagians who were of the middle opinion concerning infants and yet many Catholicks both before and since his time do profess it The Augustan confession calls them Pelagians who say that concupiscence is only the effect of Adam's sin and yet all the Roman Churches say it confidently and every man that is angry in this Question calls his Enemy Pelagian if he be not a Stoic or a Manichee a Valentinian or an Encratite But the Pelagians say so many things in their Controversie that like them that â—â—lk much they must needs say some things well though very many things amiss but if every thing which was said against S. Austin in these controversies be Pelagianism then all Antiquity were Pelagians and himself besides For he before his disputes in these Questions said much against what he said after as every learned man knows But yet it is certain that even after the Pelagian Heresie was conquered there were many good men who because they from every part take the good and leave the poyson were called Pelagians by them that were angry at them for being of another opinion in some of their Questions Cassian was a good and holy man and became the great rule of Monastines yet because he spake reason in his exhortations to Piety and justified God and blamed man he is called Pelagian and the Epistle ad Demetriadem and the little commentary on S. Paul's Epistles were read and commended highly by all men so long as they were supposed to be S. Hierom's but when some fancied that Faustus was the author they suspect the writings for the Man's sake and how-ever S. Austin was triumphant in the main Article against those Hereticks and there was great reason he should yet that he took in too much and confuted more than he should appears in this that though the World followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianisme yet the World left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianisme And therefore when Arch-Bishop Bradwardin wrote his Books de causâ Dei against the liberty of will and for the fiercer way of absolute decrees he complains in his Preface that the whole World was against him and gone after Pelagius in causa liberi arbitrii Not that they really were made so but that it is an usual thing to affright men from their reasons by Names and words and to confute an argument by slandering him that uses it Now this is it that I and all men else ought to be troubled at if my doctrine be accused of singularity I cannot acquit my self of the charge but by running into a greater For if I say that one Proposition is taught by all the Roman Schools and therefore I am not singular in it They reply it is true but then it is Popery which you defend If I tell that the Lutherans defend another part of it then the Calvinists hate it therefore because their enemies avow it Either it is Popery or Pelagianisme you are an Arminian or a Socinian And either you must say that which no body sayes and then you are singular or if you do say as others say you shall feel the reproach of the party that you own which is also disowned by all but it self That therefore which I shall choose to say is this that the doctrine of Original sin as
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
temptation but he offends God and then how we should understand S. James's rule that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation is beyond my reach and apprehension The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral and g. as it is good in Nature so it is not ill in manners the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil 34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation Viz. When it is so consented to when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam are to be renewed by the spirit of grace the effect of the second Adam which grace when we resist we do as Adam did and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us That was his sin and not ours but this is our sin and not his both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation but by one he deserved it and by the other we deserve it But then it is true that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality but in the same material part we do He left our Nature naked and for it he deserved Gods wrath if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature but then we deserve Gods wrath so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam but though he sinned in the first disrobing and we were imperfect by it yet we sin not till the second disrobing and then we return to the same imperfection and make it worse But I consider that although some Churches in their confessions express it yet the Church of England does not they add the word Eternal to Damnation but our Church abstains from that therefore Gods wrath and damnation can signifie the same that damnation does in S. Paul all the effects of Gods anger Temporal Death and the miseries of mortality was the effect of Adams sin and of our being reduc'd to the Natural and Corrupted or worsted state Or secondly they may signifie the same that hatred does in S. Paul and in Malachi Esau have I hated that is lov'd him less or did not give him what he was born to he lost the primogeniture and the Priesthood and the blessing So do we naturally fall short of Heaven This is hatred or the wrath of God and his Judgment upon the sin of Adam to condemn us to a state of imperfection and misery and death and deficiency from supernatural happiness all which I grant to be the effect of Adams sin and that our imperfect Nature deserves this that is it can deserve no better 35. And this infection of Nature Viz. This imperfection not any inherent quality that by contact pollutes the relatives and descendants but this abuse and reproach of our Nature this stain of our Nature by taking off the supernatural grace and beauties put into it like the cutting off the beards of Davids Embassadors or stripping a man of his robe and turning him abroad in his natural shame leaving him naked as Adam and we were But the word infection being metaphorical may aptly signifie any thing that is analogical to it and may mean a Natural habitude or inclination to forbidden instances But yet it signifies a very great evil for in the best Authors to be such by Nature means an aggravation of it So Carion in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man is very miserable or miserable by Nature and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you believe me to be such a man by Nature that I can speak nothing well 36. Doth remain yea in them that are regenerated That is all the baptized and unbaptized receive from Adam nothing but what is inclined to forbidden instances which is a principle against which and above which the spirit of God does operate For this is it which is called the lust of the flesh for so it follows whereby the lust of the flesh that is the desires and pronenesses to Natural objects which by Gods will came to be limited order'd and chastis'd curb'd and restrain'd 37. Called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is plain that the Church of England though she found it necessary to declare something in the fierce contention of the time in order to peace and unity of expression yet she was not willing too minutely to declare and descend to the particulars on either side and therefore she was pleas'd to make use of the Greek word of the sence of which there were so many disputes and recites the most usual redditions of the word 38. Which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affection some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God These several expositions reciting several things and the Church of England reciting all indefinitely but definitely declaring for none of them does only in the generality affirm that the flesh and spirit are contrary principles that the flesh resists the law of God but the spirit obeys it that is by the flesh alone we cannot obey Gods law naturally we cannot become the sons of God and heirs of Heaven but it must be a new birth by a spiritual regeneration The wisdom of the flesh that is Natural and secular principles are not apt dispositions to make us obedient to the law of God Sensuality that signifies an habitual lustfulness Desires signifie actual Lustings Affections signifie the Natural inclination now which of these is here meant the Church hath not declar'd but by the other words of the Article it is most probable She rather inclines to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by desires and sensuality rather than by affection or wisdom though of these also in their own sence it is true to affirm that they are not subject to the law of God there being some foolish principles which the flesh and the world is apt to entertain which are hindrances to holiness and the affection that is inclination to some certain objects being that very thing which the laws of God have restrained more or less in several periods of the world may without inconvenience to the Question be admitted to expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39. And although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized That is this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized nor to the regenerate that is when the new principle of grace and of the spirit is put into us we are reduced to as great a condition and as certain an order and a capacity of entring into Heaven as Adam was before his fall for then we are drawn from that mere natural state where Adam left us and therefore although these do die yet it is but the condition of nature not the punishment of the sin For Adams sin brought in Death and baptism and regeneration does not hinder
that but it takes away the formality of it it is not a punishment to such but a Condition of Nature as it is to Infants For that even to them also there is no condemnation for their Original Concupiscence is Undeniable and demonstratively Certain upon this account Because even the actual desires and little Concupiscences of children are innocent and therefore much more their natural tendencies and inclinations For if a principle be criminal if a faculty be a sin much more are the acts of that faculty also a sin but if these be innocent then much more is that 40. Yet the Apostle does confess that Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the Nature of sin Of it self that is it is in the whole kind to be reproved it is not a sin to all persons not to unconsenting persons for if it be no sin to them that resist then neither is it a sin to them that cannot consent But it hath the Nature of sin that is it is the material part of sin a principle and root from whence evil may spring according to S. Austins words Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quod peccato factum est peccati si vicerit facit reum S. Aug. lib. 1. de nup. Concup c. 23. Just as if a Man have a Natural thirst it may tempt him and is apt to incline him to drunkenness if he be of a sanguine disposition it disposes him to lust if cholerick to anger and is so much a sin as the fuel is a part of the fire but because this can be there where damnation shall not enter this Nature of sin is such as does not make a proper Guiltiness for it is a contradiction to say the sin remains and the guilt is taken away For he that hath a sin is guilty of punishment for that is he is liable to it if God pleases he may pardon if he please but if he pardons he takes away the sin For in the justified no sin can be inherent or habitual Quomodo justificati sanctificati sumus si peccatum aliquod in nobis relinquitur Hieron ad Oceanum If Concupiscence be an inherent sin in us before baptism it must either be taken away by baptism or imputed to us after baptism for if the malice remains the guilt cannot go away for God will by no means justifie the remaining sinner 41. These things I have chose to say and publish because I find that the usual doctrines about Original sin are not only false and presum'd without any competent proof but because as they are commonly believ'd they are no friends to piety but pretences of idleness and dishonourable to the reputation of Gods goodness and justice for which we ought to be very zealous when a greater indifference would better become us in the matter of our opinion or the doctrine of our sect and therefore it is not to be blam'd in me that I move the thoughts of men in the proposition for it is not an useless one but hath its immediate effects upon the Honour of God and the next upon the lives of men And therefore this hath in it many degrees of necessary doctrine and the fruits of it must needs do more than make recompence for the trouble I put them to in making new inquiries into that doctrine concerning which they were so long at ease But if men of a contrary judgment can secure the interests and advantages of piety and can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine than now I can But until that be done they may please to consider that there is in Holy Scripture no sign of it nor intimation that at the day of Judgment Christ shall say to any Go ye cursed sons of Adam into everlasting fire because your Father sinn'd and though I will pardon millions of sins which men did chuse and delight in yet I will severely exact this of you which you never did chuse nor could delight in this I say is not likely to be in the event of things and in the wise and merciful dispensation of God especially since Jesus Christ himself so far as appears never spake one word of it there is not any tittle of it in all the four Gospels it is a thing of which no warning was or could be given to any of Adams children it is not mention'd in the old Testament for that place of David in the 51. Psalm Clemens Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers snatch from any pretence to it and that one time where it is spoken of in the New Testament there is nothing said of it but that it is imputed to us to this purpose only that it brought in death temporal and why such Tragedies should be made of it and other places of Scripture drawn by violence to give countenance to it and all the systemes of Divinity of late made to lean upon this Article which yet was never thought to be fundamental or belonging to the foundation was never put into the Creed of any Church but is made the great support of new and strange propositions even of the fearful decree of absolute reprobation and yet was never consented in or agreed upon what it was or how it can be conveyed and was in the late and modern sence of it as unknown to the Primitive Church as it was to the Doctors of the Jews that is wholly unknown to them both why I say men should be so fierce in their new sence of this Article and so impatient of contradiction it is not easie to give a reasonable account For my own particular I hope I have done my duty having produced Scriptures and Reasons and the best Authority against it Qui potest capere capiat For I had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled Wisd. 8.19 20. CHAP. VIII Of Sins of Infirmity SECT I. 1. ALL Mankind hath for ever complain'd of their irremediable calamity their propensity to sin For though by the dictates of Nature all people were instructed in the general notices of vertue and vice right reason being our rule insomuch that the old Philosophers as Plutarch reports said that vertue was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disposition and force of reason And this reason having guided the wisest was form'd into laws for others yet this reason serv'd to little other purposes but to upbraid our follies and infelicities and to make our actions punishable by representing them to be unreasonable for they did certainly sin and they could no more help it than they could prevent their being sick or hungry or angry or thirsty Nature had made organs for some and senses for others and conversation and example brought in all So that if you reprov'd a Criminal he heard and understood you but could not helpt it as Laius in the Tragedy 〈◊〉
the injury which I have already suffered he cannot make me equal amends because whatever he does to me for the future still it is true that I did suffer evil from him formerly therefore it is necessary that I do what I can to the reparation of that but because what is done and past cannot be undone I must make it up as well as I can that is I must confess my sin and be sorry for it and submit to the judgment of the offended party and he is bound to forgive me the sin and I am bound to make just and prudent amends according to my power for here every one is bound to do his share If the offending person hath done his part of duty the offended must do his that is he must forgive him that wrong'd him if he will not God will untie the penitent man and with the same chain fast bind him that is uncharitable 39. But my brother may be hurt by me though I have taken nothing from him nor intended him injury He may be scandalized by my sin that is tempted to sin incouraged in his vileness or discontented and made sorrowful for my unworthiness and transgression In all these cases it is necessary that we repent to them also that is that we make amends not only by confession to God but to our brethren also For when we acknowledge our folly we affright them from it and by repentance we give them caution that they may not descend into the same state of 〈◊〉 And upon this account all publick criminals were tied to a publick Exoâ—ologesis or Repentance in the Church who by confession of their sins acknowledged their error and entred into the state of repentance and by their being separate from the participation and communion of the mysteries were declared unworthy of a communion with Christ and a participation of his promises till by repentance and the fruits worthy of it they were adjudged capable of Gods pardon 40. At the first this was as the nature of the thing exacted it in case of publick and notorious crimes such which had done injury and wrought publick scandal and so far was necessary that the Church should be repaired if she have been injured if publick satisfaction be demanded it must be done if private be required only then that is sufficient though in case of notorious crimes it were very well if the penitent would make his repentance as exemplary as Modesty and his own and the publick circumstances can permit 41. In pursuance of this in the Primitive Church the Bishop and whom he deputed did minister to these publick satisfactions and amends which custom of theirs admitted of variety and change according as new scandals or new necessities did arise For though by the nature of the thing they only could be necessarily and essentially obliged who had done publick and notorious offences yet some observing the advantages of that way of repentance the prayers of the Church the tears of the Bishop the compassion of the faithful the joy of absolution and reconciliation did come in voluntarily and to do that by choice which the notorious criminals were to do of necessity Then the Priests which the penitents had chosen did publish or enjoyn them to publish their sins in the face of the Church but this grew intolerable and was left off because it grew to be a matter of accusation before the criminal Judge and of upbraiding in private conversation and of confidence to them that fought for occasion and hardness of heart and face and therefore they appointed one only Priest to hear the cases and receive the addresses of the penitents and he did publish the sins of them that came only in general and by the publication of their penances and their separation from the mysteries and this also changed into the more private and by several steps of progression dwindled away into private repentance towards men that is confession to a Priest in private and private satisfactions or amends and fruits of repentance and now Auricular Confession is nothing else but the publick Exomologesis or Repentance Ecclesiastical reduced to ashes it is the reliques of that excellent Discipline which was in some cases necessary as I have declared and in very many cases useful until by the dissolution of manners and the extinction of charity it became unsufferable and a bigger scandal than those which it did intend to remedy The result is this That to enumerate our sins before the Holy man that ministers in holy things that is Confession to a Priest is not virtually included in the duty of Contrition for it not being necessary by the nature of the thing nor the Divine Commandment is not necessary absolutely and properly in order to pardon and therefore is no part of Contrition which without this may be a sufficient disposition towards pardon unless by accident as in the case of scandal the criminal come to be obliged Only this one advantage is to be made of their doctrine who speak otherwise in this Article The Divines in the Council of Trent affirm That they that are contrite are reconciled to God before they receive the Sacrament of Penance as they use to speak that is before Priestly absolution If then a man can be contrite before the Priest absolves him as their saying supposes and as it is certain they may and if the desire of absolution be as they say included in Contrition and consequently that nothing is wanting to obtain pardon to the penitent even before the Priest absolves him it follows that the Priests absolution following this perfect disposition and this actual pardon can effect nothing really the man is pardon'd before-hand and therefore his absolution is only declarative God pardons the man and the Priest by his office is to tell him so when he sees cause for it and observes the conditions completed Indeed if absolution by the Minister of the Church were necessary then to desire it also would be necessary and an act of duty and obedience but then if the desire in case it were necessary to desire it would make Contrition to be complete and perfect and if perfect contrition does actually procure a pardon then the Priestly absolution is only a solemn and legal publication of Gods pardon already actually past in the Court of Heaven For an effect cannot proceed from causes which are not yet in being and therefore the pardon of the sins for which the penitent is contrite cannot come from the Priests ministration which is not in some cases to be obtain'd but desir'd only and afterwards when it can be obtain'd comes when the work is done God it may be accepts the desire but the Priests ministery afterwards is not cannot be the cause why God did accept of that desire because the desire is accepted before the absolution is in being 42. But now although this cannot be a necessary duty for the reasons before reckon'd because the Priest is
we by his fall received evil enough to undo us and ruine us all but yet the evil did so descend upon us that we were left in powers and capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actual mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sin was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understanding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devil had wounded us yet Gâ—d senâ— his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyl and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory as some would make it which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the work of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evil by his fall But to this we may superadd that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones The foot moves at the command of the Will and by the Empire of reason but the passions are stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the summ total of the evil of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a sojourner and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chuses and delights in That which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorrs and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from material Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is a useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be the emanations of distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immaterial or the motives such the act of the Will is so merely intellectual that it is then spiritual and the acts are proper and Symbolical and the act of it we call election or volition but if the Object is material or corporal the acts of the Will are passion that is adhesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body An Object can diversifie an act but never distinguish faculties And if we make it one faculty that chuses a reasonable object and another that chuses the sensual we may as well assign a third faculty for the supernatural and religious and when to chuse a sensual object is always either reasonable or unreasonable and every adherence to pleasure and mortification or refusing of it is subject to a command and the matter of duty it will follow that even the passions also are issues of the Will by passions meaning the actions of prosecution or refusal of sensitive objects the acts of the Concupiscible and Irascible appetite not the impresses made by these upon the body as trembling redness paleness heaviness and the like and therefore to say the passions rule the will is an improper saying but it hath no truth in its meaning but this that the Will is more passionate than wise it is more delighted with Bodily pleasures than Spiritual but as the understanding considers both and the disputation about them is in that faculty alone so the choice of both is in the will alone Now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I have reproved them you will find that I have reason There are one sort of Calvin's Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God looked upon mankind only as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally only because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam says the Law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerful but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men than good men can be to Dogs and Sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it says that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who
a rare reason for it is so certain that it did not perish in a sinner that this thing only is it by which they do sin especially when they delight in their sin and by the love of sin that thing is pleasing to them which they list to do And therefore when we are charged with sin it is worthy of inquiry whence it is that we are sinners Is it by the necessity of Nature or by the liberty of our Will If by nature and not choice then it is good and not evil for whatsoever is our Nature is of Gods making and consequently is good but if we are sinners by choice and liberty of will whence had we this liberty If from Adam then we have not lost it but if we had it not from him then from him we do not derive all our sin for by this liberty alone we sin If it be replied that we are free to sin but not to good it is such a foolery and the cause of the mistake so evident and so ignorant that I wonder any man of Learning or common sence should own it For if I be free to evil then I can chuse evil or refuse it If I can refuse it then I can do good for to refuse that evil is good and it is in the Commandment Eschew evil but if I cannot chuse or refuse it how am I free to evil For Voluntas and Libertas Will and Liberty in Philosophy are not the same I may will it when I cannot will the contrary as the Saints in Heaven and God himself wills good they cannot will evil because to do so is imperfection and contrary to felicity but here is no liberty for liberty is with power to do or not to do to do this or the contrary and if this liberty be not in us we are not in the state of obedience or of disobedience which is the state of all them who are alive who are neither in Hell nor Heaven For it is to many purposes useful that we consider that in natural things to be determined shews a narrowness of being and therefore liberty of action is better because it approaches nearer to infinity But in moral things liberty is a direct imperfection a state of weakness and supposes weakness of reason and weakness of love the imperfection of the Agent or the unworthiness of the object Liberty of will is like the motion of a Magnetick needle toward the North full of trepidation till it be fixt where it would fain dwell for ever Either the object is but good in one regard or we have but an uncertain apprehension or but a beginning love to it or it could never be that we could be free to chuse that is to love it or not to love it And therefore it is so far from being true that by the fall of Adam we lost our liberty that it is more likely to be the consequent of it as being a state of imperfection proper indeed to them who are to live under Laws and to such who are to work for a reward and may fail of it but cannot go away till we either lose all hopes of good by descending into Hell or are past all fear or possibility of evil by going to Heaven But that this is our case if I had no other argument in the world and were never so prejudicate and obstinate a person I think I should be perfectly convinced by those words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.37 The Apostle speaks of a good act tending not only to the keeping of a Precept but to a Counsel of perfection and concerning that he hath these words Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his Virgin doth well The words are plain and need no explication If this be not a plain liberty of choice and a power of will those words mean nothing and we can never hope to understand one anothers meaning But if sin be avoidable then we have liberty of choice If it be unavoidable it is not imputable by the measures of Laws and Justice what it is by Empire and Tyranny let the Adversaries inquire and prove But since all Theology all Schools of learning consent in this that an invincible or unavoidable ignorance does wholly excuse from sin why an invincible and an unavoidable necessity shall not also excuse I confess I have not yet been taught But if by Adam's sin we be so utterly indisposed disabled and opposite to all good wholly inclined to evil and from hence come all actual sins that is That by Adam we are brought to that pass that we cannot chuse but sin it is a strange severity that this should descend upon Persons otherwise most innocent and that this which is the most grievous of all evils For prima maxima peccantium poena est peccâsse said Seneca To be given over to sin is the worst calamity the most extreme anger never inflicted directly at all for any sin as I have other-where proved and not indirectly but upon the extremest anger which cannot be supposed unless God be more angry with us for being born Men than for chusing to be sinners The Consequent of these Arguments is this That our faculties are not so wholly spoiled by Adams fall but that we can chuse good or evil that our nature is not wholly disabled and made opposite to all good But to nature are left and given as much as to the handmaid Agar nature hath nothing to do with the inheritance but she and her sons have gifts given them and by nature we have Laws of Vertue and inclinations to Vertue and naturally we love God and worship him and speak good things of him and love our Parents and abstain from incestuous mixtures and are pleased when we do well and affrighted within when we sin in horrid instances against God all this is in Nature and much good comes from Nature Neque enim quasi lassa effaeta natura est ut nihil jam laudabile pariat Nature is not so old so obsolete and dried a trunk as to bring no good fruits upon its own stock and the French-men have a good proverb Bonus sanguis non mentitur a good blood never lies and some men are naturally chast and some are abstemious and many are just and friendly and noble and charitable and therefore all actual sins do not proceed from this sin of Adam for if the sin of Adam left us in liberty to sin and that this liberty was before Adams fall then it is not long of Adams fall that we sin by his fall it should rather be according to their principles that we cannot chuse but do this or that and then it is no sin But to say that our actual sins should any more proceed from Adams fall than Adams fall should proceed from it self is not to be imagined for
is taken off by Christ and his goodness is manifest in making a new Census for us taxing and numbring us in Christ and giving us free Redemption by the blood of Jesus but yet that we ought to confess that we are liable to damnation by Adam and saved from thence by Christ that Gods justice may be glorified in that and his goodness in this but that we are still real sinners till washed in the blood of the Lamb and without God and without hopes of Heaven till then and that if this Article be thus handled the Presbyterian fancy will disappear for they can be confuted without denying Adams sin to be damnable by saying it is pardoned in Christ and in Christ all men are restored and he is the head of the Predestination for in him God looked upon us when he designed us to our final state and this say they is much for the honour of Christs Redemption To these things Madam I have much to say something I will trouble your Ladiship withal at this time that you and all that consider the particulars may see I could not do the work of God and truth if I had proceeded in that method For 1. It is observable that those wiser persons who will by no means admit that anyone is or ever shall be damned for Original sin do by this means hope to salve the justice of God by which they plainly imply that to damn us for this is hard and intolerable and therefore they suppose they have declared a remedy But then this also is to be considered if it be intolerable to damn children for the sin of Adam then it is intolerable to say it is damnable If that be not just or reasonable then this is also unjust and unreasonable for the sentence and the execution of the sentence are the same emanation and issue of justice and are to be equally accounted of For 2. I demand had it been just in God to damn all mankind to the eternal pains of Hell for Adams sin committed before they had a being or could consent to it or know of it If it could be just then any thing in the world can be just and it is no matter who is innocent or who is criminal directly and by choice since they may turn Devils in their mothers bellies and it matters not whether there be any laws or no since it is all one that there be no law and that we do not know whether there be or no and it matters not whether there be any judicial process for we may as well be damned without judgment as be guilty without action and besides all those arguments will press here which I urged in my first discourse Now if it had been unjust actually to damn us all for the sin of one it was unjust to sentence us to it for if he did give sentence against us justly he could justly have executed the sentence and this is just if that be But 3. God did put this sentence in execution for if that be true which these learned men suppose that by Adams sin we fell into a damnable condition but by Christ we are rescued from an actual damnation for it then it will follow that when he sent the holy Jesus into the world to die for us and to redeem us he satisfied his Fathers Anger for Original Sin as well as for actual he paid for our share as well as for Adams for our share of that sin which he committed as well as for those which we committed and not he he paid all the price of that as well as of this damnation and the horrible sentence was bought off and God was so satisfied that his justice had full measure for the damnation to which we stood liable God I say had full measure for all for so all men say who speak the voice of the Church in the matter of Christs satisfaction so that now although there was the goodness of God in taking the evil from us yet how to reconcile this process with his justice viz. That for the sin of another God should sentence all the world to the portion of Devils to eternal ageâ— and that he would not be reconciled to us or take off this horrible sentence without a full price to be paid to his justice by the Saviour of the world this this is it that I require may be reconciled to that Notion which we have of the Divine justice 4. If no man shall ever be damned for the sin of Adam alone then I demand whether are they born quit from the guilt or when are they quitted If they be born free I agree to it but then they were never charged with it so far as to make them liable to damnation If they be not born free when are they quitted By Baptism before or after He that says before or after must speak wholly by chance and without pretence of Scripture or tradition or any sufficient warrant and he cannot guess when it is If in Baptism he is quitted then he that dies before Baptism is still under the Sentence and what shall become of him If it be answered that God will pardon him some way or other at some time or other I reply yea but who said so For if the Scriptures have said that we are all in Adam guilty of sin and damnation and the Scriptures have told us no ways of being quit of it but by Baptism and Faith in Christ Is it not plainly consequent that till we believe in Christ or at least till in the faith of others we are baptized into Christ we are reckoned still in Adam not in Christ that is still we are under damnation and not heirs of Heaven but of wrath only 5. How can any one bring himself into a belief that none can be damned for Original sin if he be of this perswasion that it makes us liable to damnation for if you say as I say that it is against Gods justice to damn us for the fault of another then it is also against his justice to sentence us to that suffering which to inflict is injustice If you say it is believed upon this account because Christ was promised to all mankind I reply that yet all mankind shall not be saved and there are conditions required on our part and no man can be saved but by Christ and he must come to him or be brought to him or it is not told us how any one can have a part in him and therefore that will not give us the confidence is looked for If it be at last said that we hope in Gods goodness that he will take care of Innocents and that they shall not perish I answer that if they be Innocents we need not appeal to his goodness for his justice will secure them If they be guilty and not Innocents then it is but vain to run to Gods goodness which in this particular is not revealed when to condemn them is not
against his justice which is revealed and to hope God will save them whom he hates who are gone from him in Adam who are born heirs of his wrath slaves of the Devil servants of sin for these Epithets are given to all the Children of Adam by the opponents in this Question is to hope for that against which his justice visibly is engaged and for which hope there is no ground unless this instance of Divine goodness were expressed in revelation For so even wicked persons on their death-bed are bidden to hope without rule and without reason or sufficient grounds of trust But besides that we hope in Gods goodness in this case is not ill but I ask Is it against Gods goodness that any one should perish for Original sin if it be against Gods goodness it is also against his justice for nothing is just that is not also good Gods goodness may cause his justice to forbear a sentence but whatsoever is against Gods goodness is against God and therefore against his justice also because every attribute in God is God himself For it is not always true to say This is against Gods goodness because the contradictory is agreeable to Gods goodness Neither is it always false to say that two contradictories may both be agreeable to Gods goodness Gods goodness is of such a latitude that it may take in both parts of the contradiction Contradictories cannot both be against Gods goodness but they may both be in with it Whatsoever is against the goodness of God is essentially evil But a thing may be agreeable to Gods goodness and yet the other part not be against it For example It is against the goodness of God to hate fools and Ideots and therefore he can never hate them But it is agreeable to Gods goodness to give Heaven to them and the joys beatifical and if he does not give them so much yet if he does no evil to them hereafter it is also agreeable to his goodness To give them Heaven or not to give them Heaven though they be contradictories yet are both agreeable to his goodness But in contraries the case is otherwise For though not to give them Heaven is consistent with the Divine goodness yet to send them to Hell is not The reason of the difference is this Because to do contrary things must come from contrary principles and whatsoever is contrary to the Divine goodness is essentially evil But to do or not to do supposes but one positive principle and the other negative not having a contrary cause may be wholly innocent as proceeding from a negative But to speak more plain Is it against Gods goodness that Infants should be damned for Original sin then it could never have been done it was essentially evil and therefore could never have been decreed or sentenced But if it be not against Gods goodness that they should perish in Hell then it may consist with Gods goodness and then to hope that Gods goodness will rescue them from his justice when the thing may agree with both is to hope without ground God may be good though they perish for Adams sin and if so and that he can be just too upon the account of what attribute shall these innocents be rescued and we hope for mercy for them 6. If Adams posterity be only liable to damnation but shall never be damned for Adams sin then all the children of Heathens dying in their Infancy shall escape as well as baptized Christian Children which if any of my disagreeing Brethren shall affirm he will indeed seem to magnifie Gods goodness but he must fall out with some great Doctors of the Church whom he would pretend to follow and besides he will be hard put to it to tell what advantage Christian Children have over Heathens supposing them all to die young for being bred up in the Christian Religion is accidental and may happen to the children of unbelievers or may not happen to the children of believers and if Baptism adds nothing to their present state there is no reason Infants should be baptized but if it does add to their present capacity as most certainly it does very much then that Heathen Infants should be in a condition of being rescued from the wrath of God as well as Christian Infants is a strange unlookt for affirmative and can no way be justified or made probable but by affirming it to be against the justice of God to condemn any for Adams sin Indeed if it be unâ—ust as I have proved it is then it will follow that none shall suffer damnation by it But if the hopes of the salvation of Heathen Infants be to be derived only from Gods goodness though Gods goodness cannot fail yet our Argument may fail for it will not follow because God is good therefore Heathen Infants shall be saved for it might as well follow God is good therefore Heathens shall be no Heathens but all turn Christians These things do not follow affirmatively but negatively they do For if it were against Gods goodness that they should be reckoned in Adam unto eternal death then it is also against his Justice and against God all the way and then they who affirm they were so reckoned must shew some revelation to assure us that although it be just in God to damn all Heathens yet that he is so good that he will not For so long as there is no revelation of any such goodness there is this principle to conâ—est against it I mean their affirming that they are in Adam justly liable to damnation and therefore without disparagement to the infinite goodness of God Heathen Infants may perish for it is never against Gods goodness to throw a sinner into Hell 7. But to come yet closer to the Question some good men and wise suppose that the Sublapsarian Presbyterians can be confuted in their pretended grounds of absolute reprobation although we grant that Adams sin is damnable to his posterity provided we say that though it was damnable yet it shall never damn us Now though I wish it could be done that they and I might not differ so much as in a circumstance yet first it is certain that the men they speak of can never be confuted upon the stock of Gods Justice because as the one says It is just that God should actually damn all for the sin of Adam So the other says It is just that God should actually sentence all to damnation and so there the case is equal Secondly They cannot be confuted upon the stock of Gods goodness because the emanations of that are wholly arbitrary and though there are negative measures of it as there is of Gods Infinity and we know Gods goodness to be inconsistent with some things yet there are no positive measures of this goodness and no man can tell how much it will do for us and therefore without a revelation things may be sometimes hoped which yet may not be presumed and therefore
here also they are not to be confuted and as for the particular Scriptures unless we have the advantage of essential reason taken from the Divine Attributes they will oppose Scripture to Scripture and have as much advantage to expound the opposite places as the Jews have in their Questions of the Messias anâ— therefore si meos ipse corymbos necterem if I might make mine own arguments in their Society and with their leave I would upon that very account suspect the usual discourses of the effects and Oeconomy of Original sin 8. For where will they reckon the beginning of Predestination will they reckon it in Adam after the Fall or in Christ immediately promised If in Adam then they return to the Presbyterian way and run upon all the rocks before reckoned enough to break all the world in pieces If in Christ they reckon it and so they do then thus I argue If we are all reckoned in Christ before we were born then how can we be reckoned in Adam when we are born I speak as to the matter of Predestination to salvation or damnation For as for the intermedial temporal evils and dangers spiritual and sad infirmities they are our nature and might with Justice have been all the portion God had given to Adam and therefore may be so to us and consequently not at all to be reckoned in this enquiry But certainly as to the main 9. If God looks upon us all in Christ then by him we are rescued from Adam so much is done for us before we were born For if this is not to be reckoned till after we were born then Adams sin prevailed really in some periods and to some effects for which God in Christ had provided no remedy for it gave no remedy to children till after they were born but irremediably they were born children of wrath but if a remedy were given to Children before they were born then they are born in Christ not in Adam but if this remedy was not given to Children before they were born then it follows that we were not at first looked upon in Christ but in Adam and consequently he was caput praedestinationis the head of predestination or else there were two the one before we were born the other after So that haereâ—leâ—hâ—lis arundo The arrow sticks fast and it cannot be pulled out unless by other instruments than are commonly in fashion However it be yet methinks this a very good probable Argument As Adam sinned before any child was born so was Christ promised before and that our Redeemer shall not have more force upon children that they should be born beloved and quitted from wrath than Adam our Progenitor shall have to cause that we be born hated and in a damnable condition wants so many degrees of probability that it seems to dishonour the mercy of God and the reputation of his goodness and the power of his redemption For this serves as an Antidote and Antinomy of their great objection pretended by these learned persons for whereas they say they the rather affirm this because it is an honour to the redemption which our Saviour wrought for us that it rescued us from the sentence of damnation which we had incurred To this I say that the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak propositions and neither can the reputation and honour of the Divine goodness borrow aids and artificial supports from the dishonour of his Justice and it is no reputation to a Physician to say he hath cured us of an evil which we never had and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that the Son may have the Honour to have cured us I understand not that He that makes a necessity that he may find a remedy is like the Roman whom Cato found fault withall he would commit a fault that he might beg a pardon he had rather write bad Greek that he might make an apology than write good Latin and need none But however Christ hath done enough for us even all that we did need and since it is all the reason in the world we should pay him all honour we may remember that it is a greater favour to us that by the benefit of our blessed Saviour who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world we were reckoned in Christ and born in the accounts of the Divine favour I say it is a greater favour that we were born under the redemption of Christ than under the sentence and damnation of Adam and to prevent an evil is a greater favour than to cure it so that if to do honour to Gods goodness and to the graces of our Redeemer we will suppose a need we may do him more honour to suppose that the promised seed of the woman did do us as early a good as the sin of Adam could do us mischief and therefore that in Christ we are born quitted from any such supposed sentence and not that we bring it upon our shoulders into the world with us But this thing relies only upon their suppositions For if we will speak of what is really true and plainly revealed From all the sins of all mankind Christ came to redeem us He came to give us a supernatural birth to tell us all his Fathers will to reveal to us those glorious promises upon the expectation of which we might be enabled to do every thing that is required He came to bring us grace and life and spirit to strengthen us against all the powers of Hell and Earth to sanctifie our afflictions which from Adam by Natural generation descended on us to take out the sting of death to make it an entrance to immortal life to assure us of resurrection to intercede for us and to be an advocate for us when we by infirmity commit sin to pardon us when we repent Nothing of which could be derived to us from Adam by our natural generation Mankind now taken in his whole constitution and design is like the Birds of Paradise which travellers tell us of in the Molucco Islands born without legs but by a celestial power they have a recompence made to them for that defect and they always hover in the air and feed on the dew of Heaven so are we birds of Paradise but cast out from thence and born without legs without strength to walk in the Laws of God or to go to Heaven but by a power from above we are adopted in our new birth to a celestial conversation we feed on the dew of Heaven The just does live by faith and breaths in this new life by the spirit of God For from the first Adam nothing descended to us but an infirm body and a naked soul evil example and a body of death ignorance and passion hard labour and a cursed field a captive soul and an imprisoned body that is a soul naturally apt to comply with the
appetites of the body and its desires whether reasonable or excessive and though these things were not direct sins to us in their natural abode and first principle yet they are proper inherent miseries and principles of sin to us in their emanation But from this state Christ came to redeem us all by his grace and by his spirit by his life and by his death by his Doctrine and by his Sacraments by his Promises and by his Revelations by his Resurrection and by his Ascension by his Interceding for us and Judging of us and if this be not a conjugation of glorious things great enough to amaze us and to merit from us all our services and all our love and all the glorifications of God I am sure nothing can be added to it by any supposed need of which we have no revelation There is as much done for us as we could need and more than we could ask Nempe quod optanti Divûm promittere nemo Auderet volvenda dies en attulit ultro Vivite foelices animae quibus est fortuna peracta Jam sua The meaning of which words I render or at least recompence with the verse of a Psalm To thee O Lord I 'le pay my vow My knees in thanks to thee shall bow For thou my life keep'st from the grave And dost my feet from falling save That with the living in thy sight I may enjoy eternal light For thus what Ahasuerus said to Ester Veteres literas muta Change the old Letters is done by the birth of our Blessed Saviour Eva is changed into Ave and although it be true what Bensirach said From the woman is the beginning of sin and by her we all die yet it is now changed by the birth of our Redeemer From a woman is the beginning of our restitution and in him we all live Thus are all the four quarters of the World renewed by the second Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The East West North and South are represented in the second Adam as well as the first and rather and to better purposes because if sin did abound Grace shall super-abound I have now Madam given to you such accounts as I hope being added to my other Papers may satisfie not only your Ladiship but those to whom this account may be communicated I shall only now beg your patience since you have been troubled with Questions and enquiries and objections and little murmurs to hear my answers to such of them as have been brought to me 1. I am complained of that I would trouble the World with a new thing which let it be never so true yet unless it were very useful will hardly make recompence for the trouble I put the world to in this inquiry I answer that for the newness of it I have already given accounts that the Opinions which I impugne as they are no direct parts of the Article of Original sin so they are newer than the truth which I have asserted But let what I say seem as new as the Reformation did when Luther first preached against Indulgences the pretence of Novelty did not and we say ought not to have affrighted him and therefore I ought also to look to what I say that it be true and the truth will prove its age But to speak freely Madam though I have a great reverence for Antiquity yet it is the prime antiquity of the Church the Ages of Martyrs and Holiness that I mean and I am sure that in them my opinion hath much more warrant than the contrary But for the descending Ages I give that veneration to the great names of them that went before us which themselves gave to their Predecessors I honour their memory I read their Books I imitate their piety I examine their arguments for therefore they did write them and where the reasons of the Moderns and theirs seem equal I turn the balance on the elder side and follow them but where a scruple or a grain of reason is evidently in the other balance I must follow that Nempe qui ante nos ista moverunt non Domini nostri sed Duces sunt Seneca Ep. 33. They that taught of this Article before me are good guides but no Lords and Masters for I must acknowledge none upon earth for so am I commanded by my Master that is in Heaven and I remember what we were taught in Palingenius when we were boys Quicquid Aristoteles vel quivis dicat eorum Dicta nihil moror à vero cum fortè recedunt Saepe graves magnosque viros famâque verendos Errare labi contingit plurima secum Ingenia in tenebras consueti nominis alti Authores ubi connivent deducere easdem If Aristotle be deceiv'd and say that 's true What nor himself nor others ever knew I leave his text and let his Scholars talk Till they be hoarse or weary in their walk When wise men erre though their fame ring like Bells I scape a danger when I leave their spells For although they that are dead some Ages before we were born have a reverence due to them yet more is due to truth that shall never die and God is not wanting to our industry any more than to theirs but blesses every Age with the understanding of his truths Aetatibus omnibus omnibus hominibus communis sapientia est nec illam ceu peculium licet antiquitati gratulari All Ages and all men have their advantages in their enquiries after truth neither is wisdom appropriate to our Fathers And because even wise men may be deceived and therefore that when I find it or suppose it so for that 's all one as to me and my duty I must go after truth where-ever it is certainly it will be less expected from me to follow the popular noises and the voices of the people who are not to teach us but to be taught by us and I believe my self to have reason to complain when men are angry at a doctrine because it is not commonly taught that is when they are impatient to be taught a truth because most men do already believe a lie Recti apud nos locum tenet error ubi publicus factus est so Seneca Epist. 123. complained in his time it is a strange title to truth which error can pretend for its being publick and we refuse to follow an unusual truth Quasi honestius sit quiafrequentius and indeed it were well to do so in those propositions which have no truth in them but what they borrow from mens opinions and are for nothing tolerable but that they are usual Object 2. But what necessity is there in my publication of this doctrine supposing it were true for all truths are not to be spoken at all times and if a truth gives offence it is better to let men alone than to disturb the peace I answer with the labouring mans Proverb a Penny-worth of ease is worth a Penny at any time and a little truth
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargeable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism I answer As much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of Beasts whose blood could not take away sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresie who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to Heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise than is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holiness of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed only to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be implied by the Apostles words And in this I am not a little confirmed by the discourse of S. Irenaeus to this purpose lib. 3. cap. 35. Propter hoc initio transgressionis Adae c. Therefore in the beginning of Adams transgression as the Scripture tells God did not curse Adam but the Earth in his labours as one of the Ancients saith God removed the curse upon the Earth that it might not abide on man But the condemnation of his sin he received weariness and labour and to eat in the sweat of his brows and to return to dust again and likewise the woman had for her punishment tediousness labours groans sorrows of child-birth and to serve her husband that they might not wholly perish in the curse not yet despise God while they remained without punishment But all the curse run upon the Serpent who seduced them and this our Lord in the Gospel saith to them on his left hand Go ye cursed into everlasting fire which my Father prepared for the Devil and his Angels signifying that not to man in the prime intention was eternal fire prepared but to him who was the seducer but this they also shall justly feel who like them without repentance and departing from them persevere in the works of malice 5. The Apostle says By the disobedience of one many were made sinners By which it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sence could it be properly ours For then it were not Vnius but inobedientia singulorum the disobedience of all men 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative and to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treat him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor always so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed ciâ—râ— reprehensionem says Laurentius Valla It is like an exprobration but short of a reprooâ— so Quintilian Imputas nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulenâ—ae liberalitatem Thou dost impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning and when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety Legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur The legacy whether it be given or left to the heir whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no Divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he did really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sence it be true that in him we sinned then we sinned as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned less then we did not sin in him for to sin in him could not by him be lessened to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin less to us than to him then this imputation supposes it only to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the design or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25.33 expresses thus A muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sin and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1.24 By the envy of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ than the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read S. Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediate successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sence together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a Paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved
exemption and they supposing that commonly it was otherwise troubled themselves about the exception of a Rule which in that sence which they suppos'd it was not true at all she was born as innocent from any impurity or formal guilt as Adam was created and so was her Mother and so was all her family * When the Lutheran and the Roman dispute whether justice and Original righteousness in Adam was Natural or by Grace it is de non ente for it was positively neither but negatively only he had Original righteousness till he sinn'd that is he was righteous till he became unrighteous * When the Calvinist troubles himself and his Parishioners with fierce declamations against natural inclinations or concupiscence and disputes whether it remains in baptized persons or whether it be taken off by Election or by the Sacrament whether to all Christians or to some few this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is no sin at all in persons baptiz'd or unbaptiz'd till it be consented to My Lord when I was a young man in Cambridge I knew a learned professor of Divinity whose ordinary Lectures in the Lady Margarets Chair for many years together Nine as I suppose or thereabouts were concerning Original Sin and the appendant questions This indeed could not chuse but be Andabatarum conflictus But then my discourse representing that these disputes are useless and as they discourse usually to be de non ente is not to be reprov'd For I profess to evince that many of those things of the sence of which they dispute are not true at all in any sence I declare them to be de non ente that is I untie their intricate knots by cutting them in pieces For when a false proposition is the ground of disputes the process must needs be infinite unless you discover the first error He that tells them they both fight about a shadow and with many arguments proves the vanity of their whole process they if he says true not he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * When S. Austin was horribly puzled about the traduction of Original Sin and thought himself forc'd to say that either the Father begat the soul or that he could not transmit sin which is subjected in the soul or at least he could not tell how it was transmitted he had no way to be relieved but by being told that Original Sin was not subjected in the Soul because properly and formally it was no real sin of ours at all but that it was only by imputation and to certain purposes not any inherent quality or corruption and so in effect all his trouble was de non ente * But now some wits have lately risen in the Church of Rome and they tell us another story The soul follows the temperature of the body and so Original Sin comes to be transmitted by contact because the constitution of the body is the fomes or nest of the sin and the souls concupiscence is deriv'd from the bodies lust But besides that this fancy disappears at the first handling and there would be so many Original Sins as there are several constitutions and the guilt would not be equal and they who are born Eunuchs should be less infected by Adam's pollution by having less of concupiscence in the great instance of desires and after all concupiscence it self could not be a sin in the soul till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent Besides all this I say while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived and another who thinks he can names a wrong way and both the ways infer it to be another kind of thing than all the Schools of learning teach does it not too clearly demonstrate that all that infinite variety of fancies agreeing in nothing but in an endless uncertainty is nothing else but a being busie about the quiddities of a dream and the constituent parts of a shadow But then My Lord my discourse representing all this to be vanity and uncertainty ought not to be call'd or suppos'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he that ends the question between two Schoolmen disputing about the place of Purgatory by saying they need not trouble themselves about the place for that which is not hath no place at all ought not to be told he contends about a shadow when he proves that to be true which he suggested to the two trifling Litigants But as to the thing it self I do not say there is no such thing as Original Sin but it is not that which it is supposed to be it is not our sin formally but by imputation only and it is imputed so as to be an inlet to sickness death and disorder but it does not introduce a necessity of sinning nor damn any one to the flames of Hell So that Original Sin is not a Non ens unless that be nothing which infers so many real mischiefs The next thing your Lordship is pleas'd to note to me is that in your wisdom you foresee some will argue against my explication of the word Damnation in the Ninth Article of our Church which affirms that Original Sin deserves damnation Concerning which My Lord I do thus and I hope fairly acquit my self 1. That it having been affirmed by S. Austin that Infants dying unbaptized are damn'd he is deservedly called Durus pater Infantum and generally forsaken by all sober men of the later ages and it will be an intolerable thing to think the Church of England guilty of that which all her wiser sons and all the Christian Churches generally abhor I remember that I have heard that King James reproving a Scottish Minister who refus'd to give private Baptism to a dying Infant being askt by the Minister if he thought the child should be damn'd for want of Baptism answered No but I think you may be damn'd for refusing it and he said well But then my Lord If Original Sin deserves damnation then may Infants be damn'd if they die without Baptism But if it be a horrible affirmative to say that the poor babes shall be made Devils or enter into their portion if they want that ceremony which is the only gate the only way of salvation that stands open then the word Damnation in the Ninth Article must mean something less than what we usually understand by it or else the Article must be salved by expounding some other word to an allay and lessening of the horrible sentence and particularly the word Deserves of which I shall afterwards give account Both these ways I follow The first is the way of the School-men For they suppose the state of unbaptized Infants to be a poena damni and they are confident enough to say that
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where-ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same viciousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behind that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sence yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sence As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something less than ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternal portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and to think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather than either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from Original righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations It lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the Original of mankind and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sence of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signification according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sence of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we find in S. James Jam. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main out-cry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this That in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as Bells ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the Reformed Churches disagree than in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this than the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses De Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in corcordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirms of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they
are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will believe them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility than the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psalm 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sinn'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an Original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's child was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punished For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an Original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sence of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sence of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sence without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the Chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present it runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more than by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise than by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions This I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather than arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endeavours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endeavours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sinn'd his descendants and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sence be said to have done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sinn'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgment unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgment passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgment to prevent a punishment or a less to fore-stall a greater in the same kind so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sinn'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adams sin had was only to bring in the reign of death which is already broken by Jesus Christ and at last shall be quite destroyed But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam formally and so as to be inherent in us is to say that we were made to do his action which is a perfect contradiction Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and
this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more than grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
be defended against captious objectors It is hard when men will not be patient of truth because another man offers it to them and they did not first take it in or if they did were not pleas'd to own it But from your Lordship I expect and am sure to find the effects of your piety wisdom and learning and that an error for being popular shall not prevail against so necessary though unobserved truth A necessary truth I call it because without this I do not understand how we can declare Gods righteousness and justifie him with whom unrighteousness cannot dwell But if men of a contrary opinion can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original Sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine than now I can But until that be done it were well My Lord if men would not trouble themselves or the Church with impertinent contradictions but patiently give leave to have truth advanced and God justified in his sayings and in his judgments and the Church improved and all errors confuted that what did so prosperously begin the Reformation may be admitted to bring it to perfection that men may no longer go quà itur but quà eundum est THE Bishop of ROCHESTER'S Letter TO D r. TAYLOR WITH AN Account of the particulars there given in Charge Worthy Sir LET me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 which are urged by some Ancients and to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin whereby it is urg'd that although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to Persons not to Natures I confess I find not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may find S. Jerome in Hos. saying In Paradiso omnes praevaricati sunt in Adamo And S. Ambrose in Rom. 1.5 Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam quasi in massâ ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores quia ex eo sumus omnes and as Greg. 39. Hom. in Ezek. Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest qui in nundum cum culpâ venit But S. Austin is so frequent so full and clear in his assertions that his words and reasons will require your most judicious examinations and more strict weighing of them He saith Epist. 107. Scimus secundùm Adam nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere nec liberamur à supplicio mortis aeternae nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo Id. de verb. Apost Ser. 4. Peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertranstit etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit sed pertransiit and Rom. 5. ubi â—e invenit venundatum sub peccato trahentem peccatum primi hominis habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium Id. de praedestin grat c. 2. Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur ut illud traxerit alienum de quo Apost Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum quod qui negat negat profectò nos esse mortales quoniam mors est poenae peccati Sequitur necesse est poena peccatum Id. enchir c. 9.29 Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat ab origine ducta communis contagio Id. de peccator mer. remiss l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Quid potest aut potuit nasci ex servo nisi servus ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est ita omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnoxiâ—s nasci periturosque nisi in Christo renascamur asserimus Tho. 12. q. 8. Secundum fidem Catholicam tenendum est quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad baptismum ab interiore culpâ abluendi Contrarium est haeresis Pelag. unde peccatum quod sic à primo parente derivatur dicitur Originale sicut peccatum quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis dicitur actuale Bonavent in 2. sent dist 31. Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originale tribuitur ratione Naturae corpus infectum traducitur quia persona Adae infecit naturam natura infecit personam Animae enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates Lombar 2. Sent. dist 31. Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis in animâ fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse quod vinum accescit If you take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity it may conduce to the satisfaction of those who urge it for a proof of Original Sin Now that the work may prosper under your hands to the manifestation of Gods glory the edification of the Church and the satisfaction of all good Christians is the hearty prayer of Your fellow servant in our most Blessed Lord Christ Jesu JO. ROFFENS My Lord I Perceive that you have a great Charity to every one of the sons of the Church that your Lordship refuses not to solicite their objections and to take care that every man be answered that can make objections against my Doctrine but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandment that can be relative to so excellent a principle I am indeed sorry your Lordship is thus haunted with objections about the Question of Original Sin but because you are pleas'd to hand them to me I cannot think them so inconsiderable as in themselves they seem for what your Lordship thinks worthy the reporting from others I must think are fit to be answered and returned by me In your Lordships of November 10. these things I am to reply to Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 The words are these Even when we were dead in sins God hath quickned us together with Christ which words I do not at all suppose relate to the matter of Original Sin but to the state of Heathen sins habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ. And I do not know any Expositor of note that suspects any other sence of it and the second Verse of that Chapter makes it so certain and plain that it is too visible to insist upon it
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather than of children and a semination in the flesh and contrary to the spirit and such a thing which being mingled with sin produces univocal issues the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces and rather to be pardoned than allowed and if all Concupiscence be vicious then no marriage can be pure These things it may be have not been so much considered but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierome in Athenagoras and in S. Austin which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article and therefore was thought fit to be confuâ—ed by saying too much and that I conjecture right in this affair I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do when he is disingaged as in his books De civitate Dei but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis remissione which was written in his heat against the Pelagians he speaks quite contrary And who-ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius his two books de Nuptiis Concupiscentia to Valerius his three books to Marcellinus de peccatorum meritis remissione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to believe all that this excellent man wrote will not only find it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not always the best instrument to find out truth The same complaint hath been made of others and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose because besides what I have already said I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence nor against a much less than that which I have every where brought in this Article though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his and for Aquinas Lombard and Bonaventure your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin Knox and Buchannan with the Synod of Dort or the Scots Presbyteries I know they are against me and therefore I reprove them for it but it is no disparagement to the truth that other men are in error And yet of all the School-men Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me for the proverbs sake for Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura Alexander of Hales would often say that Adam never sinn'd in Bonaventure But it may be he was not in earnest no more am I. The last thing your Lordship gives to me in Charge in the behalf of the objectors is that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity To this I answer That I know of no such thing God made a Covenant with Adam indeed and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity and yet did nothing but what was just but I find in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of Original Sin only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came but he did never exact it after Adam but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam that if he stood all his posterity should be I know not what and if he fell they should be in a damnable condition of this I say there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture that ever I could meet with if there had been any such Covenant it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated and caution given to all who were to suffer and abilities given to them to prevent the evil for else it is not a Covenant with them but a decree concerning them and it is impossible that there should be a Covenant made between two when one of the parties knows nothing of it I will enter no further into this enquiry but only observe that though there was no such Covenant yet the event that hapned might without any such Covenant have justly entred in at many doors It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity for that is certainly true and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evil that came actually upon his children Death is the wages of sin one death for one sin but not 10000 millions for one sin but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all in as much as all men have sinn'd But if from a sinning Parent a good child descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness than the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso is generis poenâ liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familiam datus qui verò morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui serò à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not always make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good child is born of a bad father like a healthful body from an ill-affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgment Other ways there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is Author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead Taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the ways by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no
punishments and they may come upon more accounts by Gods Dominion by natural consequence by infection by destitution and dereliction for the glory of God by right of authority for the institution or exercise of the sufferers or for their more immediate good But that directly and properly one should be punish'd for the sins of others was indeed practised by some Common-wealths Vtilitatis specie saepissimè in repub peccari said Cicero they do it sometimes for terror and because their ways of preventing evil is very imperfect and when Pedianus secundus the Pretor was kill'd by a slave all the family of them was kill'd in punishment this was secundum veterem morem said Tacit. Annal. 14. for in the slaughter of Marcellus the slaves fled for fear of such usage it was thus I say among the Romans but habuit aliquid iniqui and God forbid we should say such things of the fountain of Justice and mercy But I have done and will move no more stones but hereafter carry them as long as I can rather than make a noise by throwing them down I shall only add this one thing I was troubled with an objection lately for it being propounded to me why it is to be believed that the sin of Adam could spoil the nature of man and yet the nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin which was worse I could not well tell what to say and therefore I held my peace THE END ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ Or A DISCOURSE OF The Liberty of Prophesying With its just Limits and Temper SHEWING The Vnreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith and the Iniquity of persecuting differing Opinions By JEREM. TAYLOR D. D. The Third Edition Corrected and Enlarged DANIEL S. IOHN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14.31 LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his most Sacred MAJESTY To the Right Honourable Christopher Lord Hatton Baron HATTON of Kirby Comptroller of His Majestie 's Houshold and one of His Majestie 's most Honourable Privie Council MY LORD IN this great Storm which hath dasht the Vessel of the Church all in pieces I have been cast upon the Coast of Wales and in a little Boat thought to have enjoyed that rest and quietness which in England in a greater I could not hope for Here I cast Anchor and thinking to ride safely the Storm followed me with so impetuous violence that it broke a Cable and I lost my Anchor And here again I was exposed to the mercy of the Sea and the gentleness of an Element that could neither distinguish things nor persons And but that he who stilleth the raging of the Sea and the noise of his Waves and the madness of his people had provided a Plank for me I had been lost to all the opportunities of content or study But I know not whether I have been more preserved by the courtesies of my friends or the gentleness and mercies of a noble Enemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And now since I have come ashore I have been gathering a few sticks to warm me a few books to entertain my thoughts and divert them from the perpetuall Meditation of my private Troubles and the publick Dyscrasy but those which I could obtain were so few and so impertinent and unusefull to any great purposes that I began to be sad upon a new stock and full of apprehension that I should live unprofitably and die obscurely and be forgotten and my bones thrown into some common charnell-house without any name or note to distinguish me from those who onely served their Generation by filling the number of Citizens and who could pretend to no thanks or reward from the Publick beyond jus trium liberorum While I was troubled with these thoughts and busie to find an opportunity of doing some good in my small proportion still the cares of the publick did so intervene that it was as impossible to separate my design from relating to the present as to exempt myself from the participation of the common calamity still half my thoughts was in despite of all my diversions and arts of avocation fixt upon and mingled with the present concernments so that besides them I could not go Now because the great Question is concerning Religion and in that also my Scene lies I resolved here to fix my considerations especially when I observed the ways of promoting the several Opinions which now are busie to be such as besides that they were most troublesome to me and such as I could by no means be friends withall they were also such as to my understanding did the most apparently disserve their ends whose design in advancing their own Opinions was pretended for Religion For as contrary as cruelty is to mercy as tyranny to charity so is war and bloudshed to the meekness and gentleness of Christian Religion And however that there are some exterminating spirits who think God to delight in humane sacrifices as if that Oracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had come from the Father of Spirits yet if they were capable of cool and tame Homilies or would hear men of other opinions give a quiet account without invincible resolutions never to alter their perswasions I am very much perswaded it would not be very hard to dispute such men into mercies and compliances and Tolerations mutuall such I say who are zealous for Jesus Christ then whose Doctrine never was any thing more mercifull and humane whose lessons were softer then Nard or the juice of the Candian Olive Vpon the first apprehension I design'd a Discourse to this purpose with as much greediness as if I had thought it possible with my Arguments to have perswaded the rough and hard-handed Souldiers to have disbanded presently For I had often thought of the Prophecy that in the Gospell our Swords should be turned into plow-shares and our Spears into pruning-hooks I knew that no tittle spoken by God's Spirit could return unperform'd and ineffectual and I was certain that such was the excellency of Christ's Doctrine that if men could obey it Christians should never war one against another In the mean time I considered not that it was praedictio consilii non eventûs till I saw what men were now doing and ever had done since the heats and primitive fervours did cool and the love of interests swell'd higher then the love of Christianity but then on the other side I began to fear that whatever I could say would be as ineffectual as it could be reasonable For if those excellent words which our Blessed Master spake could not charm the tumult of our spirits I had little reason to hope that one of the meanest and most ignorant of his servants could advance the end of that which he calls his great and his old and his new Commandment so well as the excellency of his own Spirit and discourses could And yet since he who knew every event of things and the success and efficacy of every Doctrine and that very much of it
Baptism said Peter and if therefore the circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a prodigie ratherthen a Rite The Paschall Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism does to Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Paschall Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kinde And even in the very instance of this Argument supposing a correspondence of analogie between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of identity For although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to children and yet Baptism onely to men of reason Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body and if it leaves a character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign itself is For both which reasons it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the spirit Since therefore the reason of this parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the Type And the case is clear in the Bishop's Question to Cyprian for why shall not Infants be baptized just upon the eighth days as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one circumstance which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite why shall it not infer all And then also Females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogie from the Type to the Anti-type by way of letter and spirit and signification and as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the adherencies of Baptism And therefore as Infants were Circumcised so spiritual Infants shall be Baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore babes had the ministry of the Type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children in malice for unless you become like one of these little ones you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven said our Blessed Saviour and then the Type is made compleat And this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive Church for in the Age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent to them their duty that though in age and understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice But to infer the sense of the Paedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Austin whose device it was and men use to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a mere conjecture 14. And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments as with this For from the action of Christ's blessing Infants to infer they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments The Conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized But let this be as weak as its enemy yet that Christ did not baptize them is an Argument sufficient that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by Baptism he passed his act of grace upon them by benediction and imposition of hands 15. And therefore although neither Infants nor any man in puris naturalibus can attain to a supernatural end without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing ordinarily and regularly yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not the Argument is invalid And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so we are sure God will doe them no injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help 16. And therefore let them be pressed with all the inconveniences that are consequent to Original sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the mercy and absolute goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorifie him with a free obedience Quid ergò festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum was the question of Tertullian lib. de Bapt. He knew no such danger from their Original guilt as to drive them to a Laver of which in that Age of innocence they had no need as he conceived And therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for tongue and heart and Faith and predispositions to Baptism for what need all this stir As Infants without their own consent without any act of their own and without any exteriour solennity contracted the guilt of Adam's sin and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any solennity or act of their own or of any other men for them by the second Adam by the redemption of Jesus Christ by his righteousness and mercies applied either immediately or how or when he shall be pleased to appoint And so Austin's Argument will come to nothing without any need of Godfathers or the Faith of any body else And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution that therefore he hath tied himself to it Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself But nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction The conceit is poor and low and the action consequent to it is too bold and venturous Mysterium meum mihi filiis domûs meae Let him doe what he please to Infants we must not 17. Onely this is certain that God hath as great care of Infants as of others and because they have no capacity of doing such acts as may be in order to acquiring Salvation God will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither
children So that this Argument though sligthly passed over by the Anab. yet is of very great perswasion in this Article and so us'd and relied upon by the Church of England in her office of Baptism and for that reason I have the more insisted upon it Ad. 5. the next Argument without any alteration or addition stands firm upon its own basis Adam sinn'd and left nakedness to descend upon his posterity a relative guilt and a remaining misery he left enough to kill us but nothing to make us alive he was the head of mankind in order to temporal felicity but there was another head intended to be the representative of humane nature to bring us to eternal but the temporal we lost by Adam and the eternal we could never receive from him but from Christ onely from Adam we receive our nature such as it is but grace and truth comes by Jesus Christ Adam left us an imperfect nature that tends to sin and death but he left us nothing else and therefore to holiness and life we must enter from another principle So that besides the natural birth of Infants there must be something added by which they must be reckoned in a new account they must be born again they must be reckon'd in Chrst they must be adopted to the inheritance and admitted to the Promise and intitled to the Spirit Now that this is done ordinarily in Baptism is not to be denied for therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Font or Laver of regeneration it is the gate of the Church it is the solemnity of our admission to the Covenant Evangelical and if Infants cannot goe to Heaven by the first or natural birth then they must goe by a second and supernatural and since there is no other solemnity or Sacrament no way of being born again that we know of but by the ways of God's appointing and he hath appointed Baptism and all that are born again are born this way even men of Reason who have or can receive the Spirit being to enter at the door of Baptism it follows that Infants also must enter here or we cannot say that they are entred at all And it is highly considerable that whereas the Anab. does clamorously and loudly call for a precept for childrens Baptism this consideration does his work for him and us He that shews the way needs not bid you walk in it and if there be but one door that stands open and all must enter some way or other it were a strange perverseness of argument to say that none shall pass in at that door unless they come alone and they that are brought or they that lean on crutches or the shoulders of others shall be excluded and undone for their infelicity and shall not receive help because they have the greatest need of it But these men use Infants worse then the poor Paralytick was treated at the pool of Bethesda he could not be washed because he had none to put him in but these men will not suffer any one to put them in and untill they can goe in themselves they shall never have the benefit of the Spirit 's moving upon the waters Ad. 15. but the Anab. to this discourse gives onely this reply that the supposition or ground is true a man by Adam or any way of nature cannot goe to Heaven neither men nor Infants without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing but this is to be understood to be true onely ordinarily and regularly but the case of Infants is extraordinary for they are not within the rule and the way of ordinary dispensation and therefore there being no command for them to be baptized there will be some other way to supply it extraordinarily To this I reply that this is a plain begging of the question or a denying the conclusion for the Argument being this that Baptism being the ordinary way or instrument of new birth and admission to the Promises Evangelical and supernatural happiness and we knowing of no other and it being as necessary for Infants as for men to enter some way or other it must needs follow that they must goe this way because there is a way for all and we know of no other but this therefore the presumption lies on this that Infants must enter this way They answer that it is true in all but Infants the contradictory of which was the conclusion and intended by the argument For whereas they say God hath not appointed a rule and an order in this case of Infants it is the thing in question and therefore is not by direct negation to be opposed against the contrary Argument For I argue thus Whereever there is no extraordinary way appointed there we must all goe the ordinary but for Infants there is no extraordinary way appointed or declared therefore they must goe the ordinary and he that hath without difference commanded that all Nations should be baptized hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons and they may as well say that they are sure God hath not commanded women to be baptized or Hermaphrodites or eunuchs or fools or mutes because they are not named in the precept for sometimes in the Census of a nation women are no more reckoned then children and when the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt were numbred there was no reckoning either of women or children and yet that was the number of the Nation which is there described But then as to the thing itself whether God hath commanded Infants to be baptized it is indeed a worthy inquiry and the summe of all this contestation but then it is also to be concluded by every Argument that proves the thing to be holy or charitable or necessary or the means of Salvation or to be instituted and made in order to an indispensable end For all commandments are not expressed in imperial forms as we will or will not thou shalt or shalt not but some are by declaration of necessity some by a direct institution some by involution and apparent consequence some by proportion and analogy by identities and parities and Christ never expresly commanded that we should receive the Holy Communion but that when the Supper was celebrated it should be in his memorial And if we should use the same method of arguing in all other instances as the Anabaptist does in this and omit every thing for which there is not an express Commandment with an open nomination and describing of the capacities of the persons concerned in the Duty we should have neither Sacrament nor Ordinance Fasting nor Vows communicating of Women nor baptizing of the Clergy And when Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized it could never upon their account have been told that he was obliged to Baptism because though Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize others yet he no way told them that their Successors should be baptized any more then the Apostles themselves were
of whom we reade nothing in Scripture that either they were actually baptized or had a commandment so to be To which may be added that as the taking of Priestly Orders disobliges the suscipient from receiving Chrism or Confirmation in case he had it not before so for ought appears in Scripture to the contrary it may excuse from Baptism But if it does not then the same way of arguing which obliges women or the Clergy to be baptized will be sufficient warrant to us to require in the case of Infants no more signal precept then in the other and to be content with the measures of wise men who give themselves to understand the meaning of Doctrines and Laws and not to exact the tittles and unavoidable commands by which fools and unwilling persons are to be governed lest they die certainly if they be not called upon with univocal express open and direct commandments But besides all this and the effect of all the other Arguments there is as much command for Infants to be baptized as for men there being in the words of Christ no nomination or specification of persons but onely in such words as can as well involve children as old men as Nisi quis and omnes gentes and the like Ad 16. But they have a device to save all harmless yet for though it should be granted that infants are press'd with all the evils of original sin ye there will be no necessity of Baptism to Infants because it may very well be supposed that as Infants contracted the relative guilt of Adam's sin that is the evils descending by an evil inheritance from him to us without any solemnity so may Infants be acquitted by Christ without solemnity or the act of any other man This is the summe of the 16 th Number To which the Answer is easie First that at the most it is but a dream of proportions and can infer onely that if it were so there were some correspondency between the effects descending upon us from the two great Representatives of the world but it can never infer that it ought to be so For these things are not wrought by the ways of Nature in which the proportions are regular and constant but they are wholly arbitrary and mysterious depending upon extrinsick causes which are conducted by other measures which we onely know by events and can never understand the reasons For because the sin of Adam had effect upon us without a Sacrament must it therefore be wholly unnecessary that the death of Christ be applied to us by Sacramental ministrations If so the Argument will as well conclude against the Baptism of men as of Infants for since they die in Adam and had no solemnity to convey that death therefore we by Christ shall all be made alive and to convey this life there needs no Sacrament This way of arguing therefore is a very trifle but yet this is not As Infants were not infected with the stain and injured by the evils of Adam's sin but by the means of natural generation so neither shall they partake of the benefits of Christ's death but by spiritual regeneration that is by being baptized into his death For it is easier to destroy then to make alive a single crime of one man was enough to ruine him and his posterity but to restore us it became necessary that the Son of God should be incarnate and die and be buried and rise again and intercede for us and become our Law-giver and we be his subjects and keep his Commandments There was no such order of things in our condemnation to death must it therefore follow that there is no such in the justification of us unto life To the first there needs no Sacrament for evil comes fast enough but to the latter there must goe so much as God please and the way which he hath appointed us externally is Baptism to which if he hath tied us it is no matter to us whether he hath tied himself to it or no for although he can goe which way he please yet he himself loves to goe in the ways of his ordinary appointing as it appears in the extreme paucity of Miracles which are in the world and he will not endure that we should leave them So that although there are many thousand ways by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself yet he will bring no soul to himself by ways extraordinary when he hath appointed ordinary and therefore although it be unreasonable of our own heads to carry Infants to God by Baptism without any direction from him yet it is not unreasonable to understand Infants to be comprehended in the duty and to be intended in the general precept when the words do not exclude them nor any thing in the nature of the Sacrament and when they have a great necessity for the relief of which this way is commanded and no other way signified all the world will say there is reason we should bring them also the same way to Christ. And therefore though we no ways doubt but if we doe not our duty to them God will yet perform his mercifull intention yet that 's nothing to us though God can save by miracle yet we must not neglect our charitable ministeries Let him doe what he please to or for Infants we must not neglect them Ad 6. The Argument which is here described is a very reasonable inducement to the belief of the certain effect to be consequent to the Baptism of Infants Because Infants can do nothing towards Heaven and yet they are designed thither therefore God will supply it But he supplies it not by any internall assistances and yet will supply it therefore by an externall But there is no other externall but Baptism which is of his own institution and designed to effect those blessings which Infants need therefore we have reason to believe that by this way God would have them brought Ad 17. To this it is answered after the old rate that God will doe it by his own immediate act Well I grant it that is he will give them Salvation of his own goodness without any condition on the Infants part personally performed without Faith and Obedience if the Infant dies before the use of Reason but then whereas it is added that to say God will doe it by an externall act and ministery and that by this Rite of Baptism and no other is no good Argument unless God could not doe it without such means or said he would not The Reply is easie that we say God will effect this grace upon Infants by this externall ministery not because God cannot use another nor yet because he hath said he will not but because he hath given us this and hath given us no other For he that hath a mind to make an experiment may upon the same argument proceed thus God hath given bread to strengthen man's heart and hath said that in the sweat of our
Quest. Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host Answ. We may not render Divine worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry Because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith S. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing He is present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the fruits of his Body the real effective consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the world Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heavens must contain him till the time of restitution of all things And if you in the reception of the Holy Sacrament worship him whom you know to be in Heaven you cannot be concerned in duty to worship him in the Host as you call it any more than to worship him in the Host at Nostre Dame when you are at S. Peter's in Rome for you see him no more in one place than in another and if to believe him to be there in the Host at Nostre Dame be sufficient to cause you to worship him there then you are to do so to him at Rome though you be not present for you believe him there you know as much of Him by Faith in both places and as little by sense in either But however this is a thing of infinite danger God is a jealous God He spake it in the matter of external worship and of Idolatry and therefore do nothing that is like worshipping a mere creature nothing that is like worshipping that which you are not sure it is God and if you can believe the Bread when it is blessed by the Priest is God Almighty you can if you please believe any thing else To the other parts of your Question viz. Whether the same body be present really and Substantially because we believe it to be there or whether do we believe it to be there because God hath manifestly revealed it to be so and therefore we revere and adore it accordingly I answer 1. I do not know whether or no you do believe Him to be there really and Substantially 2. If you do believe it so I do not know what you mean by really and Substantially 3. Whatsoever you do mean by it if you do believe it to be there really and Substantially in any sence I cannot tell why you believe it to be so you best know your own reasons and motives of belief for my part I believe it to be there really in the sence I have explicated in my Book and for those reasons which I have there alledged but that we are to adore it upon that account I no way understand If it be Transubstantiated and you are sure of it then you may pray to it and put your trust in it and believe the Holy Bread to be coeternal with the Father and with the Holy Ghost But it is strange that the Bread being consecrated by the power of the Holy Ghost should be turn'd into the substance and nature of God and of the Son of God if so does not the Son at that time proceed from the Holy Ghost and not the Holy Ghost from the Son But I am ashamed of the horrible proposition Sir I pray God keep you from these extremest dangers I love and value you and will pray for you and be Dear Sir Your very affectionate Friend to serve you JER TAYLOR March 13. 1657 8 THE END THE TABLE THough the whole Volume consists of divers Tractates of several Titles yet because one course or order of numbers runs through all the pages till you come to pag. 1070 where begins the Discourse of Confirmation and a new account of 70 pages more reaching to the end of all therefore it was not necessary to trouble this Index with the several Titles of the Books and Discourses Where then the number of the page has the letter b with it as it has for no more then 70 of the last pages the Reader is referred to the Book of Confirmation and the Discourse of Friendship c. But where the number of the page hath not that letter with it he is directed to the rest of the Volume Note also that n stands for the marginall number and ss sect § stands for the Section in those parts of the Volume that are so divided A. Absolution OF the forms of it that have been used page 838 num 53. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial form of absolution in their Liturgies 837 n. 50 52. and 838 n. 54. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841 n. 58. The usefulness of that kind of absolution 841 n. 59. Judicial absolution by the Priest is not that which Christ intended in giving the power of remitting and retaining sins 837 n. 50. and 841 n. 60. Absolution Ecclesiastical 835 n. 44. Attrition joyned with Priestly absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64.830 n. 33. The Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. A Deacon in the ancient Church might give absolution 484. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. The promise of Quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Absolution upon confession to a Priest does not make Attrition equal to Contrition 842 n. 62 64. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying absolution to greater criminals was not their doctrine but their discipline 805 n. 21. Accident What is the definitive notion of it 236 sect 11. Acts. The usuall acts of repentance 845 n. 74. To communicate in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 sect 3. What repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. A single act of sin is cut off by the exercise of the contrary vertue 647 n. 45. A single act of vertue is not sufficient to be opposed against a single act of Vice 647 n. 46. How a single act of sin is sometimes habitual 648 n. 49 50. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation or opposing a contrary act of vertue in repentance 648 n. 50. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination 641 n. 25. Book of Acts Apostles Chap. 13.48 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 28. and 835 n. 44. Adam Concupiscence is not wholly an effect of his sin 752 n. 11. How we can be liable to the punishment of his sin when we were not guilty of it 752 n. 12. How we are sinners in Adam ibid. The effect of his fall upon
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
received 1004. Alexander III. in a Council condemned Pet. Lombard of Heresy from which sentence without repentance or leaving his opinion after 36 years he was absolved by Innocent III. 1005. Infallible The Romanists hold the Scripture for no infallible rule 381. No man affirms but J.S. that the Fathers are infallible 373 374 375. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. General Councils not infallible 392. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgement was not held infallible 453. Infants What punishment Adam's sin can bring upon Infants that die 714 n. 29. It was the general opinion of the Fathers before Saint Augustine that Infants unbaptized were not condemned to the pains of Hell 755 756 n. 16 17. The reason on which the Baptism of Infants is grounded 718 n. 42. Infirmity What is the state of Infirmity 771 n. 3. It excuses no man ibid. That state which some men call a state of Infirmity is a state of sin and death 777 n. 26. What are sins of infirmity 789 n. 47. Sins of infirmity consist more in the imperfection of obedience then in the commission of any evil 790 n. 51. A sin of infirmity cannot be but in a small matter 791 n. 54. What are not sins of infirmity 792 n. 55. Violence of passion excuseth none under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Sins of infirmity not accounted in the same manner to young men as to others 793 n. 59. The greatness of the temptation doth not make sin excusable upon the account of sins of infirmity 793 n. 60. The smallest instance if observed ceases to be a sin of infirmity 794 n. 61. A man's will hath no infirmity 794 n. 62. Nothing is a sin of infirmity but what is in some sense involuntary 794 n. 63. Sins of inculpable ignorance are sins of infirmity 794 n. 64. There is no pardonable state of infirmity 797 n. 98. Job Chap. 31. v. 18. explained 721. Gospel of Saint John Chap. 3. v. 5. Vnless a man be born of water and of the holy Spirit explained 5 6 b. Chap. 6. v. 53. Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his bloud 8 b. Chap. 8. 47. He that is of God heareth God's word 679 n. 62. Chap. 9.34 Thou wast altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us 721 n. 49. Chap. 14.17 The world cannot receive him explained 785 n. 37. Chap. 20.23 Whosoever's sins ye remit explained 816 n. 66. 1. Epistle of Saint John Chap. 5. v. 17. There is a sin not unto death explained 643 n. 31. and 809 810. Chap. 3.9 He that is born of God sinneth not nor can he explained 810. Chap. 1.9 If we confess our sins God is faithful to forgive our sins explained 830 n. 34. Chap. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one explained 967 n. 4. Irenaeus He mentions an impostor that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. Isaiah Chap. 53. v. 10. explained 712 n. 15. Judgment That of man and God proceed in several methods and relie upon different grounds 614 615 n. 15. Jurisdiction Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any Jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. What persons are under that of Bishops 123 § 36. Justice God's Justice and Mercy reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Justification Of our Justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness 901 902. Guilt cannot properly and really be traduced from one person to another 902 915. Of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 903. K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 636 n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of that word and its use 638 n. 12. Keys Wherein that kind of power consisteth 841 n. 58. Kings The Episcopal power encroacheth not upon the Regal 120 § 36. The seal of Confession the Romanists will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. An excommunicate King the Romans teach may be deposed or killed 344 c. 3. § 3. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings that are not heretical 345. The Roman Religion no friend to Kings 345. Their opinions so injurious to Kings are not the doctrines of private men onely 345. Father Arnald Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause that King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. L. Laiety NO Ecclesiastical presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. The Oeconomus of the Church might not be a Lay-man 164 § 50. The Laiety sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. Latin Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. Law The Papists corrupted the Imperial Law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown Language 304 c. 1. § 7. The difference between the Law and Gospel 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Law 576. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. In what sense it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 574. It s severity made the Gospel better received ibid. Difference between it and the Gospel 673 n. 46. and 574 575. and 580 581. Of the difference between Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome concerning the possibility of keeping the Law of God 579 n. 30 31. In what measures God exacteth it 580 581. His mercy and justice reconciled about that thing 580 581. To keep the Law naturally possible but morally impossible 580 n. 34. No man can keep the Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 585 n. 50. The Law of works imposed on Adam onely 587 n. 1. The state of men under the Law 778. A threefold Law in man flesh or members the mind or conscience the spirit 781 n. 29. The contention between the Law of the flesh and conscience is no sign of Regeneration but the contention between the Law of the flesh and spirit is 782 n. 31. The Law of Moses and of the Gospel were not impossible of themselves but in respect of our circumstances 580 n 33. All that which was insupportable in Moses's Law was nothing but the want of Repentance ibid. Laws indirectly occasion sin 771 n. 6. Lawful Every thing that is lawful or the utmost of what is lawful not always 〈◊〉 to be done 856 857. Life The necessity of good life 799 n. 25. The natural evils of man's life 734 n. 82. Loose What in the promise of Christ is signified by binding and loosing 836 n. 45 46 47. Saint Luke Chap. 22.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 153 § 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Text what it meaneth ibid. 154. Chap. 15.7 explained 801 n. 5. Chap. 11.41 explained 848. Chap. 13.14 explained 786 40. Lukewarmness How it comes to be a
sin 673 n. 47. M. Malefactors BEing condemned by the customs of Spain they are allowed respite till their Confessor supposeth them competently prepared 678 n 56. Man The weakness and frailty of humane nature 734 n. 82. in his body soul and spirit 735 n. 83. and 486. Mark Chap. 12.34 explained 780 n. 26. Chap. 12.32 explained 809. Justin Martyr His testimony against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. and 522 523. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Mass. A Cardinal in his last Will took order to have fifty thousand Masses said for his soul 320. Indulgences make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Pope John VIII gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Saint Matthew Chap. 26.11 Me ye have not always explained 222 § 9. Chap. 28.20 I am with you always to the end of the world explained ibid. Chap. 18.17 Dic Ecclesiae explained 389. Chap. 15.9 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472 477. Chap. 5.19 one of the least of these Commandments 615 616 n. 18. Chap. 5.19 explained ibid n. 18. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 622 n. 34. Chap. 12.32 explained 810. Chap. 15.48 explained 582 n. 40 43. Chap. 5.22 shall be guilty of judgement 621 n. 34. Mercy God's Mercy and Justice reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Merit Pope Adrian taught that one out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The difference between them 596 n. 1. Millenaries Their opinion how much it spread and prevailed in the ancient Church 976 n. 3. Miracles The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Of those now-adays wrought by the Romanists 452. The Dominicans and Franciscans brought Miracles on both sides in proof both for and against the immaculate Conception 1019. Of false Miracles and Legends 1020. Miracles not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine ibid. Canus his opinion of the Legenda Lombardica ibid. The Pope in the Lateran Council made a decree against false Miracles 1020. Montanus His Heresie mistaken by Epiphanius 955 n. 18. Moral The difference between the Moral Regenerate and Prophane man in committing sin 782 n. 33. and 820 n. 1. Mortal Sin Between the least mortal sin and greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. Mortification It is a precept not a counsel 672 n. 44. The method of mortifying vicious habits 691 n. 10 11. The benefits of it 690. n. 6. Mysterie The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist like other mysteries is not to be searched into as to the manner of it too curiously 182 § 1. N. Nature OF the use of that word in the controversie of Transubstantiation 251 § 12. By the strength of it alone men cannot get to heaven 885. The state of nature 770 n. 1 2. c. 8. § 1. What the phrase by nature means 723 n. 48. By it alone we cannot be saved 737 n. 86. The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 n. 35. Necessity Of that distinction Necessitas praecepti and medii 8. b. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. Nicolaitans The authour of that Heresie vindicated from false imputations 953 n. 17. Novatians Their doctrine opposed 802 n. 8. A great objection of theirs proposed 806 n. 24. and answered 807 n. 26. O. Obedience ARguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. Obstinacy Two kinds of it the one sinful the other not so 951 n. 10. Opinion A man is not to be charged with the odious consequents of his opinion 1024. Sometimes on both sides of the Opinion it is pretended that the Proposition promotes the honour of God ibid. How hard it is not to be deceived in weighing some Opinions of Religion 1026. Ordination Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop ibid. Ordo and gradus were at first used promiscuously 98 § 31. How strangely some of the Church of Rome do define Orders 99 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had Episcopal Ordinaâ—ion but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches without Bishops 105 § 32. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters 145 146 § 44. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. The Romanists give distinct Ordination to their Exorcists 336. Origen His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. Original sin In what sense it is damnable 570. How that doctrine is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Some Romanists in this doctrine have receded as much from the definitions of their Church as this Authour from the English and without offence 571. Original sin is manifest in the many effects of it 869. The true doctrine of Original sin 869 870 896. The errours in that Article 871. There are sixteen several and famous opinions in the Article of Original sin 877. Against that Proposition Original sin makes us liable to damnation yet none are damned for it 878 n. 5. 879 n. 6 7. The ill consequence of the mistakes in this doctrine 883 884. If Infants are not under the guilt of original sin why are they baptized That objection answered 884. The difficulties that Saint Augustine and others found in explicating the traduction of original sin 896. The Authour's doctrine about Original sin It is proved that it contradicts not the Ninth Article of the Church of England 898 899. Concupiscence is not it 911. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Adam's sin made us not heirs of damnation ibid. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 37. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a natural efficiency 717 n. 39. nor because we were in the loins of Adam 717 n. 40. nor because of the will and decree of God 717 n. 41. Objections out of Scripture against this doctrine answered 720 n. 46. Vid. Sin The Authour affirmeth not that there is no such thing as original sin 747 748 n. 1. He is not singular in his doctrine 762 n. 24 26. The want of original righteousness is no sin 752 n. 10. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of Original sin 761 n. 22. With what variety the doctrine of Original sin was anciently taught 761 n. 23. How much they are divided amongst themselves who say that Original sin is in us formally a sin 762 n. 25. Original sin
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
2. § 6. It destroys holy life ibid. That one may satisfie for the sins of another is the Roman doctrine 322 c. 2. § 6. That habits of sins are no sins held by them 322 § 6. The Pope is to be obeyed according to the doctrine of the Romanists though he command sin 345. Nectarius abolished the custom of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. Between the least mortal and the greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. The falseness of that Proposition That natural Corruption in the regenerate still remains and is in them a sin 876. How these words Sin and Sinner are sometimes used in Scripture 712 n. 16.885 898 902. Sins are not equal 611 n. 5. How they are made greater or less ibid. No sin is venial 613 n. 9 10. The smallest sins are destructive of our friendship with God 614 n. 12. The Doctors of the Roman Church do not rightly define venial sins ibid. The smallest is against Charity 618 n. 24. The smallest sin is a turning from God 619 n. 26. The smaller the sin the less excusable if done with observation 619 620 n. 27. Sins differ in degree but not in their essential order to punishment 621 622 n. 33. Among the Ancients the distinction of sins into mortal and venial meant not a distinction of kind but degree 627 625 n. 44. Some sins destroy not holiness 626 n. 45. The distinction of sins into mortal and venial cannot have influence on us to any good purposes 626 n. 46. Whether every single act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour 640 n. 22. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination 641 n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual 641 n. 24. Single acts of mortal sin displease God and are forbidden but are not a state of death 642 n. 29. What repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. How a single act of sin sometimes is habitual 648 n. 49. The word Sin often in Scripture used for the punishment of sin 711 n. 15. Leaving of sin the best sign of hating it 829. How sin can be consistent with the regenerate state 783. He that leaves a sin out of fear may be accepted 785. The violence of the temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 793. Of the pardon of sins after Baptism 802. Some sins styled unpardonable but in a limited sense 806 n. 22. 814 n. 57 59. God punishes not one sin with another 859 n. 112. One sin may cause or procure another ibid. Every sin is directly against God's Law and therefore is damnable 617 n. 21. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. He that commands another man to sin is not guilty of that man's sin but of his own command 640 n. 20. What sins are damnable in the single act 640 sect 2. per tot There is no natural necessity of sinning lies upon any man 755 n. 15. The Principles by which sin pollutes the manners of men 727 n. 66. The sinner's unwillingness to sin does not always lessen his sin but aggravate it sometimes 784 n. 36. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. The whole nature of mankind in its universal capacity cannot be guilty of sin 765 n. 29. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. What kind of inclination to evil is sin ibid n. 33. How we are sinners in Adam 752 n. 12. Sins of Infirmity Of them Chap. 8. per tot That which some men call a state of infirmity is a state of sin and death 779. Sins Venial No sin is properly venial 613 n. 9 10. Venial sins distinguished into such as are venial by the imperfection of the Agent or the smalness of the matter or venial in the whole kind 620 n. 28. That no sins are venial in their nature or whole kind 620 n. 31. No sins are venial but by Repentance 626 n. 44.622 n. 34. The absurdity of the Roman Doctrines concerning venial sins 624 n. 39. The inconveniences following from the doctrine of venial sins 623 n. 35. The Roman Doctors do not rightly define venial sins 614 n. 12. It is not safe to enquire into the veniality of a sin before we commit it 627 n. 57 53. What sins are venial cannot be known to us 627 n. 47. We should have judged some sins venial if it had not been otherwise revealed in Scripture 627 n. 48. Sins that we account in their nature venial by their multitude become damnable 629 n. 52. The means of expiating venial sins appointed by some Roman Doctors 631 n. 57. Sins are made greater or less by complication 612 n. 6 7. Three degrees of venial sins 628 n. 28. That distinction opposed 620 n. 28 29. sequ The mischief that is consequent to the distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial 610 and 623 n. 36. sequ What Repentance is to expiate venial sins 630 631 632 n. 56 57 58. sequ There is some degree of veniality in every sin till it come to an unpardonable estate 626 n. 44. Venial means either actually pardoned or onely pardonable 626 n. 44. Sins are venial in relation to the state of Grace and Repentance 628 n. 47. Sinner How every sinner is God's enemy 602 n. 11. God is ready to forgive all and the greatest sinners 801 n. 5. How the word Sinner is sometimes used in Scripture 712 n. 16. and 885 898 902. Saint Chrysostome's notion of a Sinner 760 n. 22. Sorrow Concerning it as it is a fruit of Repentance 845 n. 74. Rules concerning sorrow as it is a part of Repentance 859. A Caution to those that minister comfort to such as are afflicted with immoderate sorrow for their sins 852 n. 95. Sorrow for sin is but a sign or instrument of Repentance 853 n. 99. Cautions concerning the measure of this sorrow 860. Penitential sorrow is rather in the understanding then in the affections 823 n. 12. There is no Repentance without sorrow 821 n. 50.828 n. 24. Penitential sorrow is odium rather then dolor 823 n. 12. We must not account of our sorrow in repentance by the measure of sense but Religion 823 n. 15. External expressions of sorrow and the like are not necessary to the integrality of Repentance 824 n. 17. The usefulness of sensual sorrow in Repentance 826 n. 20. Of that device to be sorrowful that they cannot sorrow 827 n. 22. Directions to a Penitent when he finds not his sorrow proportionable to his desires of Repentance 850 n. 88. Penitential sorrow should be rather natural and constant then solemn 851 n. 89. Soul That Proposition Anima est tota in toto tota in qualibet parte corporis in what sense it is true 242 § 11. Silhon thinks a moral demonstration to