example sinned Infants dying prove the contrary Yet I cannot deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have another signification than is given by some who would have it as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom and not as our Translation hath it faithfully In as much This the Apostles doctrine is confirmed by what follows For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no v. 13. 14. Law Nevertheless sin reigning from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression These words as by very many and in diverse manners so by the same hand are thus hal'd to this erroneous construction St. Paul does not speak of all mankind as if the Evil occasioned by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reached only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses But the more exact and literal enquiry into the Apostles meaning will quite overthrow this presumptuous conjecture which is occasioned from a mis-translation or mis-understanding of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which signifying the same thing i. e. Until are thought to be intended exclusively of the time to come when they as the like do but intend such a tearm signally as a most considerable Period and not as the ultimate they drive at As 't is commonly understood of Josephs not Matth. 1. ult knowing Mary until she had brought forth her first-born And this will be evident to him that compareth the use of those words in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses and the drift of the Apostle which plainly to discover will satisfie any doubter and answer all objections and other glosses It is this here as generally to lay before the Jewes to whom St. Paul principally designs his discourse the imperfection of that Law which was by Moses delivered unto them and upon which they so confidently rest that neither the Law of God written in mens hearts before Moses nor the Law then lately delivered by Christ was of any account with them but Moses his Law must carry it from all Justification must be by that and the Vertue of the Messias himself depended on that So that in effect they thought nothing sin but what transgressed the Law of Moses St. Paul argues against this saying For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no Law which is as much as to have said Ye ought not so much to stand upon your Mosaical Law For that is not the only judge or tryal of sin seeing sin was in the world until the Law that is all the time from Adam to your Law but sin is not imputed when there is no Law but sin was imputed and punished too For v. 14. death reigned from Adam to Moses Now if there was such punishment as death then surely there must be a Transgression and if there be such a Transgression there must be also a Law which is so transgressed And therefore if such a Law then surely Moses his Law was not that only Law nor most ancient Now to draw nearer to our present Case on whom fell this punishment of death the Apostle answers On all without exception Even on them which could only be doubted of that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression What is meant by this That is saith our Authour Who sinned not so capitally For to sin like Adam is used as a tragical and high expression Hos 6. 7. They like men have sinned in the Hebrew it is Like Adam Of this I grant thus much That Adams sin was the greatest that ever was committed since all things duly weighed and therefore it may well stand for a most heinous sin and therefore Job likewise saith by way of abhorrence and purgation If I covered my sin as Adam Job 31 33. One main circumstance aggravating Adams sin was that he would have hid it as himself out of Gods eyes and defended himself when he was convinced but how he repented the Scripture is silent But that the degree of sin cannot be the ground of comparison but the very nature of sin and kind is plain from the subject thus punished by death For had they been only men of years who could choose the good and refuse the evil then indeed less might have been objected against that interpretation but it being manifest that death reigned over Infants also who committed no sin as did Adam therefore another sense must be found which answers the full intent of the Apostles argument and it can be no other than this That by similitude here he means the like in nature and not only in degree For Infants who are punished with death have not sinned as did Adam Adams sin was a sin properly so called and Actual but Children who dye sin not so but are subject to that we call Original sin which being such a corruption as defaceth the Image of God and as it were clips his Royal Coyn and allayes it with baser mettal than he ordained man to consist of may cause him justly to be rejected Nay which is much more and granted surely unadvisedly as inconsistently with the principles of this Authour the guilt of Adams Actual sin as in himself was such that it discended to the sons of him before the Floud For sayes he They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinned not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatened had not suffered so severely This is more than what the strictest defenders of Original sin dare affirm viz. That God should take an occasion of punishing one man for anothers fault when he did in no manner partake of the sin Surely if nothing of the Offence had descended to the Posterity of Adam nothing of the punishment should have touched them Next to the comparison here made by the Apostle between acts of Adam and the acts of Christ and the effects and events of one and the other is the comparison between the persons to whom these on both sides extended and sheweth that the remedy by Christ was proportionable altogether to the mischief occasioned by Adam For saith the Apostle As by the offense of One judgment came upon All men to condemnation even so by the Righteousness of One the free gift came upon All men unto justification Rom. 5. 18 19. of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous There seems in these two verses to be some contrariety in that first it is said that Judgment came upon all and the Free gift upon all and yet afterward there is a restriction unto many and not all concerned in the sin Therefore it is to be observed That in the first place the
necessary to Salvation are as clear as those under the Old But this is not so clear as Circumcision To which we answer That this is as true taking in the whole manifestation of Gods will For the clearness of the Sacraments enjoyned in the Old Testament do conduce to the clearness of them signified by them And there needs nothing more be said for the clearing of the necessity of these than to admit them to have succeeded those two in the Old Testament And we find not such necessity particularly imposed upon us of receiving the Eucharist as was upon the Israelites of receiving the Paschal Lamb but general necessity without determination of time or place the Gospel expresseth unto us upon the hope of salvation which is sufficient The vertue and Efficacie of this Sacrament above-touched proves this farther but it needs it self be proved according to those extravagant opinions brought by Modern Divines into the Church that it is only a seal of our Faith and eternal Favour of God in Predestinating us to Glory As if First all according to their judgements that were baptized were ordained to Glory and this were assured them by that Seal Or Secondly that God had Predestinated any to Life without the necessary means to it Or that remission of sins Actual and the expiation of Original were not necessary to the entring into Life or that God had so simply and absolutely ordained us to heaven that he had not ordained these two as Means to obtain Perkins on Gal. 2. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod Haret Fabul 5. c. 2. this For what can be a more horrible prophanation of this Sacrament then to say with one upon the Galatians We are born Christians if our Parents believe and not made so in Baptism Which is contrary to the Doctrine of our Catechism and the whole stream of Primitive Doctors of the Church from whom we may Gather this threefold Effect of Baptism First it is not only a sign as the same Persons say of our Covenant but it is the Covenant it self made between God and Man For God indeed doth make a Promise but he maketh no Covenant otherwise than by Baptism God made a Promise to Abraham that his seed should be blessed before Circumcision but he made no Covenant with him but by Circumcision nor is any actually in the Covenant of Faith but by being baptized Doth not the Scripture expresly say that God gave Abraham the Covenant of Act. 7. 8. Circumcision Circumcision then was not only a Sign of that Covenant though that it were but an Essential part of it Circumcision therefore was a sign in a twofold sense First in respect of the Covenant under the Law as words whereof the Covenant consists are signs of the Will of the Covenanters to the ear and works outward are in like manner signs of the same to the Eye which sort of signs are not distinct from the thing it signifies For God Covenanted with Abraham that he should use those Ceremonies Now this outward visible Covenant was a sign of an inward and invisible relating to the righteousness of Faith as St. Paul saith of Abraham And he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness Rom 4. 11. of Faith So that is the Second way in which Circumcision may be said to be a sign viz. As the whole Sacramental Covenant of which it was a part signified the Covenant of Faith into which we are entred by Baptism as the Jews into the other by Circumcision A Second effect of Baptism is to wash away all sins as well Original as Actual of which that Prophesie of Zacharie is generally understood In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and Zechar. 13. 1. to the inhabitants of Jerusalem For sin and for uncleanness To which St. Paul agrees in his Epistle to the Ephesians speaking of the Church That Eph. 5. 26. he might sanctifie it and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word Where the Word sanctifieth the Water and the water sanctifieth the Person which it can no otherwise do then by washing off the sins of the Soul As St. Peter hath it Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer 1 Pet. 3. 21. of a good Conscience towards God That is at the time of baptism whereby the filth of the Spirit necessarily implied to make up the correspondence is put away And St. Paul telleth the Corinthians They were washed 1 Cor. 6. they were Sanctified viz. By Baptism But whether Original sin be so far extinguished in the baptized as no more remains should be found is much doubted to which we briefly and clearly answer from the distinction of Sins For sometimes the Cause of sin is termed sin Sometime the Effect of Sin is called Sin whereas Sin is properly the Evil Act it self or the omission of an act due from us Original Sin in us is not so properly called Sin as it was in Adam who actually sinned and that with a consent of his own will But it is rather the Effect of his Actual transgression which doth originally adhere to us and is called sin upon this threefold account First because it is the necessary effect or consequence of Adams Sin as we find Moses to speak in Deuteronomy And I took your sin the Calfe which ye made The Calfe was the fruit of their Sin and Deut. 9. 21. not their sin it self So is that evil Effect the Sin Original because it is the evil consequence of it Secondly It is Sin because it doth partake of the nature of sin in one of the principal parts making up sin They are two The Obliquity of the Act or Deformity and disagreement to the accurate Law of God and the disobedience of the will and pravity thereof This latter original sin as it was actual in Adam had as well as the former but so is it not with us There can be no such disobedience in the Will where there is no Will. There is no will in Infants besides the remote faculty it self and therefore all sin yea all humane acts requiring consent of the Will original sin cannot be sin in this sense But taking sin for a dissonancy from 1 Joh. 3. 4. the Law and Rule as St. John doth and that conformity as is justly required by the Law certainly that Original depravation and corruption found generally in our natures at our first entrance into the World may truly be called sin because it makes us to differ so much from that God made us and intended us to be Thirdly Original sin hath this likewise denominating it sin that it is the cause of sin that original inclination to sin being that which moves us all unto the actual commission of sin which St. Paul surely aimeth at where he saith Now then it is no more I that do Rom. 7. 17. it but sin that dwelleth in
me meaning by that sin dwelling in him the pronity natural which impelled him to sin with such particular dissent and reluctancy of judgment that he could scarce be accounted the principal author of it To these we may add a fourth general event of this original pravity Viz. An hatred and indignation conceived in God against the person so depraved contrary to his institution and mind Now Baptisms efficacy may have relation to all those but not in like manner For it washes away the filthiness of the soul original and actual Secondly It reconciles to God and obtains remission of sin Thirdly It doth not remove or wholly redress the depravation of the soul and the evil tendencies and disposition of it to sin which is the effect of Adams sin and cause of our own actual transgressions This is not destroyed by Baptism but lurks in the soul and like fewel is apt to take fire upon the least spark of temptations which shall be cast into it from outward objects and occasions And though it be so far done away that until such new risings and agitations of the mind it be not imputed yet upon such kindlings it putteth on a new guilt Another effect it hath in reference to actual sins For first by weakning though not destroying absolutely the principle of sin in us a stop and curb is put to sin in its future progressions And not only so but proper means of which by and by are provided in Baptism for the resisting and putting away all actual sins too For repentance being according to the Doctrine of the Ancients a second Plank to save such as are shipwrackt after Baptism either in their holy Faith or holy Life doth effect this no otherwise than by vertue of that principle of life remaining in the soul infused at first by Baptism For as Baptism hath no power to procure mercy at the hands of God towards them that sin after they are so washed and sprinkled without repentance So neither hath repentance sufficient vertue to restore us to innocency and Gods favour unless Baptism goes before because all remission of sins depends upon the Covenant made in Baptism which on our part is either to absolute holiness without sinning after Baptism or to true Repentance for the same A third Effect of Baptism is our Regeneration and new birth or being born again by this Water and the Holy Ghost For as St. Paul saith According Joh. 3. Tit. 3. 5. to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renuing of the Holy Ghost A fourth Effect is an incorporating into the body of Christ as well visible as invisible which together with the former is declared in the form of baptism contained in our Liturgy where it is said Seeing now dearly Beloved that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christs Church let us give thanks c. Which the Apostle intimates when he saith For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Gal. 3. 27. Christ And upon both these followeth a Fifth Effect which is an intitling the Baptized unto an inheritance in heaven For as St. Paul saith If Children Rom. 8. 17. then heirs heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ Lastly As we in baptism are all baptized into one body of Christ so are we into one Spirit For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body saith St. Paul And again There is one body and one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. Eph. 4. 4. 5. even as ye are called in one body of your calling One Lord One Faith One Babtism For the Baptism of our Saviour Christ being the Patern of ours what in a more glorious and visible manner followed upon his Baptism in an inferiour manner attendeth our Baptism It is said by St. Mark And straitway coming up out of the water he saw the Heavens opened and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him Which Spirit doth likewise upon the moving of those waters of New Life descend and inspire the person Baptized In which sense is St. Paul to be understood when he saith If any Rom. 8. 9. man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his That is if he be not partaker of the Spirit given in common to all Christians at the time of their Baptism From the foresaid necessity of Baptism is inferred the opinion of the Minister of Baptism making it a work in it self common to all Christians For all things most necessary as in Nature so in Grace are most easie and common As therefore Water is the most necessary thing in the world next to air without which no man can live so long as without water to mans natural substance and therefore is made by God most common to all persons and cheapest of all things to mans Life so doth it agree well with Gods divine Goodness in Religion to make that most common and freest to be attain'd which he hath made so necessary to Life and Salvation The first thing that is necessary to our Salvation is the breath of Gods mouth as the Scripture teaches us to speak the word of God which Psal 33. 6. sanctifies both the person and the Element of Baptism Water which is the Second Therefore I make no great question but as it was free at the very first Publication of the Gospel and so at this day is still in some Cases and in some manner for those called Lay-men to declare the word of God and instruct Unbelievers in the truth of the Gospel which afterward it was restrained to the Sacerdotal Office So upon the foundation of Faith before laid by preaching in all capable persons and incapable by others in whose power they are that it is lawful for them who are no Priests to baptize And the answer to this doth rather explain and confirm than deny it For the Opposers of Lay-mens baptizing say That Preaching is twofold Private and Ministerial and that a man may in Private as Master of a Family instruct others but not Ministerially The distinction it self is ill set together for surely both are Ministerial Acts and more especially that which is denied to be so Private Baptism as having less of Visible power so to do or authority and therefore of an inferiour Ministration But this is just the Case of Baptism For we say not that Lay-men may baptize as Publick and Legal Ministers out of Office but as Private ministers and in extraordinary Cases We bring the example of Zipporah circumcising Moses his son justifying the like power Exod. 4. 28. of Baptizing under the Gospel And they reply nothing hereunto but what makes more against themselves For if she did it as they say in the presence of her husband when there was no need she did it in haste that she might prevent her husband she did it in anger And yet this Circumcision held good and was accepted How much more might it have been
or equity of it or not saying Nay but O man What art thou that replyest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made me thus Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour No man that acknowledges and every Christian must acknowledge the like and greater power and prerogative in God over Man than the Potter hath of his clay can deny that God may order the work of his hands as he pleases neither can he deny but the drift of the Apostle in this comparison was to show the absolute power and dominion of God over all Creatures and therefore let them see how they aggravate matters of this nature and multiply fond ratiocinations which they cannot but know agree not with St. Pauls stating and decision of this Question I do freely grant the adverse Party that St. Paul doth not at all concern himself with that kind of Predestination Election or Vocation as very many confidently presume he doth in his Eighth and Ninth Chapters to the Romans I mean not particular or personal Prae-determination and the like the whole letter and the occasion of his discourse there being concerning the Election of the Gentile Church and the uncessant protection thereof against all threatnings and Oppositions and disputing the equity of Gods deserting the Jewish Church yet thus far his argument being general holds good in particular persons that if it be free to God without any just exceptions to choose and leave a Church or Nation at his pleasure and according to the counsel of his own will it is also reasonable and just for him to favour or show disfavour to any single person in like acts of his Providence without being called in question for what he doth or not doth CHAP. XIV Of Sin more particularly And first of the Fall of Adam Of Original sin wherein it consisteth and how it is traduced from Father to children The Proofs of it The Nature and Evils of it And that it is cured in baptism That Natural Concupiscence hath not the Nature of Sin after baptism BY what is said competent satisfaction may be had in that mystery of Gods Providence in the fall and sin of the first Man created as we have shewed in such perfection of natural Faculties and divine Grace the reason absolute and demonstrative whereof cannot be rendred by the witâ— of Man viz. Why God should make such a fine and exquisite piece and deliver it over presently to ruin and loss It may suffice that God was not the direct cause of such his Fall by impelling him though his Free-will embracing the Temptation he was privy to his errour As it was in that memorable case of the death of Benhadad King of Syria in the second of the Kings when Hazael was sent to enquire Whether he should recover 2 Kings 8. 10. of that Sickness The Prophet Elisha answered Go say unto him thou mayest certainly recover how be it the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely dye And this was the true case of Adam whom God knew to have full power certainly to stand and yet he knew he would surely fall As therefore God in that case spake after the method and manner of mans apprehension so he here acted In that he first said the King might surely recover and this was according to the common order of natural Causes which then were upon him in his sickness which were such as were easily resisted and like to have no such effect But then God withal beholding that which was not seen of man perhaps not thought on by the Actour himself at that time he saw withal a necessary dependencie and connexion between another cause and that effect which followed and so declared surely the contrary to the other In like manner God beholding Adam in that integrity and vigour of gifts and Graces with which he had furnished him saw him in a certain condition to persevere in that state but seeing withal the future outward cause of Temptation he might well see the effect what it would be infallibly So that when we say a thing is contingent we cannot say so in respect of all causes but in respect of some special cause to which in our opinion and observation such an effect may seem properly to belong For it is a true Axiome amongst Logicians All causes accidental are reducible to proper and direct causes So that there was no necessity by Gods appointment of Adams Fall as he was framed of God but somewhat might occurr outwardly which by Gods permission might have as certain effect upon the will of Man though Free of it self and indifferent as had the wet cloath laid by Hazael 2 Kings 8. 15. upon the face of Benhadad this only excepted That what natures simple Act did in this the will of man combining freely against himself with those outward causes suffered in that The thing therefore principally to be here enquired after is rather about the Nature of this Sin in Adam and the Effects thereof And as to the former it is to be observed That what was in him an Actual sin became in us an Original and what was free to him to be subject to it or void of it becomes necessary to us and inevitable It might be called in some sense an Original sin in him as it was the first in nature and time he stood guilty of but not as if his Nature was from the beginning so corrupt as to dispose him unto it Again in him it was of it self purely sinful and a transgression of Gods Law upon which followed evil effects but in us it seems to partake originally of both sin and punishment but chiefly of this latter For though they speak truly in the larger sense who make three things proper and inseparable from Sin Guilt Stain and Punishment yet restraining our selves to the true Nation of it there are these two things only essential to it The matter it self which is the evil act committed against the Law of God or which commeth to the same omitted contrary to the same And the manner or formality of it which consisteth in the perversness and pravity of the will which is so essential to it that it both distinguishes the errours of rational men from them of beasts and mad-men and them of the same Man from one another so that what was done voluntarily and freely differs wholly from that done with incogitancie so not affected for then the will concurs with it and infects it and without any intention so to do as to point of moral Goodness or Evil. And according to the bent or averseness of the will to evil commonly are estimated the degrees of evil But though in Adam all these things concurred to the heightening of his Actual sin yet in those that inherit that evil from him the sin must needs be much less in Nature and lighter because
it Chap. V. Of the proper Acts of God Creation and Preservation or Providence What is Creation That God created all things And how Of the Ministers of Gods Providence towards Inferiour Creatures the Angels of God Their nature and office towards man especially Chap. VI. Of the Works of God in this visible World Of the Six dayes work of God All things are good which were made by God Chap. VII Of the Creation of man in particular according to the Image of God Of the Constitution of him and of the Original of his Soul contrary to Philosophers and the Errors of Origen concerning it The Image wherein it consists principally Chap. VIII Of the Second General Act of God towards the Creature especially Man his Providence Aristotles Opinion and Epicurus his rejected What is Providence Three things propounded of Providence And first the Ground of it the knowledge of God How God knoweth all things future as present Of Necessity and Contingencies how they may consist with Gods Omniscience Chap. IX The method of enquiring into the Nature and Attributes of God Vorstius his grounds of distinguishing the Attributes of God from his Nature examined Of the Decrees of God depending on his Understanding and Will Of knowledge of Intelligence Vision and the supposed Middle knowledge The Impertinency of this middle knowledge invented in God How free Agents can be known by God in their uncertain choice Indifferent actions in respect of Man not so in respect of God All vision in God supposes certainty in the thing known Chap. X. Four Doubts cleared concerning the Knowledge and Decrees of God and free Agents and contingent Effects How man that infallibly acts is responsable for his Actions The frivolous Evasion of the said difficulties by them of Dort Chap. XI Of the Execution of Gods Providence in the Predestination and Reprobation of Man How the Decrees and Providence of God are distinguished The Reason and Method of Gods Decrees Righteousness is the effect and not cause of Predestination to Life Predestination diversly taken in Scripture as also Election and Vocation God predestinates no man simply to Death without consideration of Evil foregoing as Calvin and some others would have it Chap. XII Of Gods Providence in the Reprobation and Damnation of Man Preterition is without any cause personal but the corruption of the Mass of Humane Nature Damnation alwayes supposes sin Chap. XIII The occasion of treating of sin here What sin is What Evil Monstrousness in things natural and Evil in moral things illustrate each other Sin no positive or real thing God the direct cause of no evil St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans makes nothing for the contra-Remonstrants literally and primarily taken Chap. XIV Of Sin more particularly And first of the fall of Adam Of Original Sin wherein it consisteth and how it is traduced from Father to Children The Proofs of it The nature and evils of it And that it is cured in Baptism That Natural Concupiscence hath not the nature of Sin after Baptism Chap. XV. Of the Restitution of Man after sin The Means and Motives thereunto In what manner Christs Mediation was necessary to the reconciling of Man to God Socinus his Opinion of Christs mediation refuted That Christ truely and properly satisfied by his Death and Passion for us Chap. XVI Of the Nature and Person of the Mediatour between God and Man In the beginning was the Word proved to be spoken of Christ and that he had a being before he was incarnate The Union of two Natures in Christ explained Christ a Mediatour by his Person and by his Office and this by his Sacrificing himself The Scriptures proving this Chap. XVII How Christ was Mediatour according to both Natures Calvins Opinion and others stated Of the effect of Christs Mediation and the extent thereof Of the Designation and Application of Christs death Of the sufficiencie and efficacie of Christs death How Christs death becomes effectual to all The necessity of Gods Grace to incline the will of man to embrace Christ Of the efficacie as well as sufficiencie of Gods Grace on the Will of Man Several Gradations observed in the Grace of God Chap. XVIII Of the effect and benefit of Christs Mediation in suffering and rising again seen in the Resurrection of Man The necessity of believing a Resurrection The Reasons and Scriptural Testimonies proving a Resurrection Objections against the same answered Chap. XIX Of the most perfect effect of Christs Mediation in the salvation of man Several senses of Salvation noted That Salvation is immediately after death to them that truly dye in Christ And that there is no grounds in Antiquity or Scripture for that middle State called Purgatory The Proofs answered Of the Consequent of Roman Purgatory Indulgences The novelty groundlesness and gross abuse of them The Conclusion of the first part of this Introduction The Contents of the Second Part c. Chap. I. OF the worship of God wherein the Second Part of Christian Religion consists Of the necessity of worshipping God It is natural to worship God Socinus holding the contrary confuted Of the name of Religion the Nature of Religious worship wherein it consisteth Chap. II. Of the two parts of Divine worship Inward and Outward The Proof of Outward worship as due to God and that it is both due and acceptable to God Several Reasons proving bodily worship of God agreeable to him Wherein this bodily worship chiefly consists Certain Directions for bodily worship Exceptions against it answered Chap. III. Of the second thing considerable in Divine worship viz. The state wherein we serve God What is a state The formal cause of a state Divine Vowes What is a Vow The proper matter of Vows Evangelical Councils That it is lawful and useful to make Vows under the Gospel contrary to Peter Martyr The nature of Vowes explained Chap. IV. Of the matter of Vows in particular And first of the Virginal state that it is both possible and landable And that it is lawful to vow Celibacie or Widowhood No Presidents in the Old Testament favouring Virginity The Virgin Mary vowed not Virginity no Votary before the Annunciation Chap. V. Of the second State of special serving God the Clerical State or Ministerial Of the necessity and liberty of singleness of Life in a Clergy-man The Opinion and custom of Antiquity concerning it That it is in the power of the Church at this day to restrain or permit the marriage of Priests The Conveniences and Inconveniences of wedded Life in Priests Chrysostom's Judgment of Marriage and Virginity recited Chap. VI. Of the third State of serving God a Life Monastical That it is not only lawful but may be profitable also The Exceptions of Mr. Perkins against it examined The abuses of Monastical Life touched That it is lawful to vow such a kind of Life duly regulated Chap. VII Of Religious worship the third thing considerable in it viz. The Exercise of it in the several kinds
confession to the Priest or Minister Some indeed very ignorant and no less superstitious persons are offended at the word Auricular from the common use of it amongst them whose Doctrine and Practice have corrupted it But the ancient use thereof was quite otherwise than now adayes it is as it is thus expressed by Bishop Jewel It is learnedly noted by Bishop Rhenanus the Sinner when he began to mislike Jewell Defence p. 156. himself and to be penitent for his wicked life for that he had offended God and his Church came first unto the Bishop and Priest as unto the mouths of the Church and opened unto him the whole burden of his heart Afterward he was by them brought into the Congregation and there made the same confession openly before his brethren and farther was appointed to make satisfaction by open Penance which being duly and humbly done he was restored again openly unto the Church by laying on of the hands of Priests and Elders Perkins on the Galatians speaketh thus This must farther admonish Perkins on Gal. 5. 19 20. us never to hide or excuse our sins but freely to confess them before God and before men also when need requires Whether we confess them or not they are manifest and the ingenuous confession of them is the way to cover them Psal 32. 1 4. Luther in his Colloquies delivers his opinion of Confession in these words â—â—ther Coll. Com. p. 257. English The chiefest Cause why we hold the Confession is this that the Catechism may be rehearsed and heard particularly to the end they may learn and understand the same However I for my part will never advise Confession to be intermitted for it is not a man that absolveth me from my sins but God himself And see pag. 258. How sins are to be confessed Another of our Church speaketh thus No kind of Confession either publick Archbishop 〈◊〉 Ansâ—â—â— to the 〈◊〉 p. â—â— or private is disallowed by us that is any ways requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the Keys which Christ bestowed on his Church the thing that we reject is that new Pick-lock of Sacramental Confession obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation by the Canons of the late Council of Trent Sess 14. c. 6. The Canon here intended I suppose is the Fifth of the Fourth Session under Julius the Third Mr. Perkins again in another place saith In troubles of conscience it is Cases of Conscience lib. 1. cap. 1. meet and convenient that there should be always used private Consession For James saith ch 5. v. 16. Confess yoou faults one to another and pray one for another c. For in all reason the Physician must first know the Disease before he can apply the remedy and the grief of the heart will not be discerned unless it be manifested by the confession of the Party diseased In private Consessions these Caveats must be observed First It must not be urged as a thing absolutely necessary without which there can be no satisfaction Again It is not fit that Confession should be of all sins but only of the Scruple it self Here Perkins's assertion is meerly of his own pleasure and against his own rule which requireth that the Spiritual as well as Corporal Physician should understand all Diseases and are not all sins diseases and of all diseases that the greatest which we are not sensible of 3. Though yet it is specially to be made to the Prophets Ministers of the Gospel Lastly He must be a person of fidelity able to keep secret things that are revealed Many more suffrages for the usefulness of Confession might be alledged of men of unquestioned authority in such cases as this but now I shall come briefly to declare what is to be received and what rejected in this Confession 1. In speaking of the Original or Institution 2. The Necessity 3. The Tradition concerning it 4. The due Practise of it And the Church of Rome however the Council of Trent hath determined it of Divine institution to whose servile Canons we ascribe not so much as to the less servile judgment of some of the Learned Doctors of that Church being divided in its opinion concerning the institution of it the ancienter of them generally denying any such Divine Precept and they who come after the Council being obliged to hold up its Credit affirming we may without great danger or difficulty affirm that Christ hath not in particular and precisely required any such Sacramental Confession but by general Rules of Piety and Prudence inferring so much as a Council and holy direction to assure our Salvation which possibly may be obtained without and more possibly be lost for want of it For the Priest under the Gospel being the same to the uncleanness of the Soul as was the Levitical Priest to the uncleanness and leprosie of the Body it agreeth exactly with the Analogy between the Old and New Testament that the like power be allowed to him in his Sphere as was to the other in his and the like real though not formal and express command Yea I could shew were it a place Scholastically to handle this matter here how according to the opinion of the Learned ancient Jews the people under the Law did practise this Confession and that upon opinion of a Precept in their Law But I do not rest upon any other than what the Gospel affords either in Letter or Inclusively under those duties which it prescribes a Christian Yet what Solomon hath in the Proverbs I take not to be so much Legal as Evangelical He that covereth his sins shall not prosper Prov. 28. 13. but who so confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy And that of Job cleering himself from the concealing of his sins as a great crime commends the revealing them as a necessary act If I covered my transgression Job 31. 33. as Adam by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom seem to be counsel in common with the Gospeâ— as having nothing ceremonial in them And though that of Leviticus was truly Legal as concerning outward absolutions and Levit cap. 13. 14. pollutions yet I see not how they who allow any weight in the Type to infer the thing signified under the Gospel can deny the like obligation in spiritual matters upon us as was on the Jews in respect of matters carnal By that Law the polluted and diseased person was to appear before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in c. 1. ad Rom v. 26. Levit. 5. v. 6. Prâ—eâ—t he was to be examined by him judged and sentenced for clean or unclean whole or unsound Sin is certainly the Leprosie of the soul and 't is because men are led more by Sense than Faith or by a monstrous Faith rather than truly Evangelical which dispatches compendiously more than safely all duties of Religion in a word or single act that they apprehend not the like
subjection and obedience to his will he should not dye So that Adam was not simply and in his own nature immortal as were Angels and immaterial Spirits but by this Supernatural Priviledg and Grace of Justice given of God whereby he was well able to persevere in that state of Holiness and secure himself from falling into sin And a sufficient argument of the former is that Man before his fall did or was to eat and drink as appeareth from the indulgence of God to him saying Of every tree of the Garden Gen. 2. 16. thou mayst eat Now eating and drinking do necessarily of themselves inferr such an alteration both in the body eating and eaten as tendeth to corruption and therefore a more immediate hand and power of God was required to obviate that propensity And the manner of propagation being contrary to the imagination of some of the Ancients by that natural way that now it is though much purer prove the same inclination to dissolution and the necessity of a Divine Grace to secure man from Corruption And thirdly it is proved from the manner of the Fall which spoiled us not of any thing natural in a proper sense to us but lost to us the Supernatural Aids which otherwise should never have forsaken us Lastly a Fifth Beam of the Image of God in man was and is the Dominion he hath over the inferiour Creatures and the subserviency of them to him For this an express Charter is given to him as Gods Vicegerent on Earth in Genesis in this manner And God blessed them and God said unto Gen. 1. 28 them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the Sea and over the foul of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth Which Right of Rule was not altogether extinguished after the Fall but as experience sheweth that man partly by strength and partly by wit and understanding bringeth all things under him so the Scripture affiâ—meth Every Jam. 3. 7. kind of Beasts and of Birds and things in the sea is tamed and hath been tamed of Mankind And after the Flood God in especial manner re-enstated man in his right of dominion saying The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the Earth and upon every Foul Gen. 3. 2. of the Air upon all that moveth upon the Earth and upon all the Fishes of the Sea into your hand are they delivered CHAP. VIII Of the Second General act of God towards the Creature especially Man his Providence Aristotles opinion and Epicurus's rejected What is Providence Three things propounded of Providence And First the Ground of it the Knowledge of God How God knoweth all things future as present Of Necessity and Contingencies how they may consist with Gods Omniscience THUS far of the Power of God exemplified chiefly in man It follows now that we speak of the Second General Act of God towards the Creature and specially Man known to be his Providence The Providence of God is one of those things Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. pag. 547. Vid Theodor. Haereticar Fabul L. 5. C. 10. saith Clemens Alexandrinus of which to desire a demonstration or proof is most absurd it so manifestly displaying itself over the whole Universe And therefore next to that opinion of Epicurus denying God to take any Care of things in the world lest it should trouble him too much is that of Aristotle in absurdity and impiety that his Care and providence extended no farther than the Heavens committing as it were the management of this inferiour world to inferiour Officers both so unworthy of wise men to affirm that we shall bestow no other confutation of them than what obliquely may be inferred from the positive assertion of this divine Attribute of God For God being in Being and Power infinite and as the Apostle saith upholding all things by the word of his Power that is meer will Heb. 4. 3. and pleasure declared it were ridiculous to conceive any toil or labour in Gods conservation and administration of all the things in the world As it were most absurd to say that the glorious body of the Sun and the influences thereof should be be disparaged in giving vertue unto Gnats and Nits and pittiful weeds growing out of the earth and not confining it self to more high and excellent Offices But Providence is as Boetius defines it that Boetius de Consolat Lib. 4. Pros 6. Highest Reason residing in that Supream Prince of all things which disposes all things And surely if God did not foul his fingers or degrade himself in making man as well as Angels and Beasts as well as Man and Earth and Water and Air as well as Beasts and that to us there may be such things which we call clean and unclean but to God there is no such distinctions in the natures of things then truly could it be no blemish to him to regard them being made And if to make them was no labour properly so called though it is so termed by the Scripture for our instruction to preserve them can be nothing of molestation to God My Father worketh Joh. 5. 17 hitherto and I work saith Christ of God and himself in St. John meaning nothing more than a continued Creation as Conservation is well called by Philosophers or an Act of Providence proportionable to the Act of Creation infinitely â—asie to God as well as Effectual towards the Creature The thing then being thus declared and supposed we shall consider it in this threefold manner First in the foundation and Ground or Prepararation of his Divine Providence Secondly in the Execution of it Thirdly in the Object of it And concerning the First Providence being an Act of infinite Supream wisdom as Boetius saith doth suppose knowledg in God And the exercise or Execution hereof implies a Will in God so inclined And the Object the Effect of both For as the Apostle saith Who hath resisted his will Rom. 9. 19. And as to the Knowledg of God it hath been before shewed how it must be commensurate unto God himself and that is Infinite He must be and is Omniscient And therefore well hath Lactantius said If there be Lactan. de Iâ—a Cap. 9. a God certainly he is Providential as God neither can Deity be otherwise ascribed to him but as he retaineth things past knows things present and foresees things future or to come And truly I cannot but here insert besides my General purpose the most excellent saying of the Heathen Salust It Salust ad Câ—sar de Repub. Ordinan appears to one as a certain truth that the Divine Nature inspects the life of all Mortals and that neither the Good nor Evil Acts of men go for nothing but naturally there follows different rewards for Good and Evil men This Reward is that outward ground inferring Providence but the Inward taken from
Family is gone out the house falls into disorder and so finding it he sentences his servants to their several punishments or may turn them out of doors So God having the liberty to depart from his Creature at his pleasure in this way of Preterition whether Supralapsarian or Sublapsarian there doth upon that spring up from it evil and disorder in the soul contrary to Gods will revealed which he reflecting upon may safely and justly decree to entertain it in his favour no longer but reprobating it adjudge it to the punishment deserved God doth not therefore primarily as some have boldly delivered propound to himself the positive pains and ruine of any Creature no inducement no grounds going before but he may very well in a negative sense be said to reprobate it not affording those preservatives needfull to its security This doth sufficiently appear in the first act of his Reprobation of men and Angels whom without all doubt he could have preserved in their original state but he freely refused and they both freely chose to leave him and expose themselves to his severest judgement which was by this positive Reprobation to bring them under the effects of their sins damnation So that they who deny any cause out of God of his first Reprobation do not deny a cause sufficient of his second and positive but the Devils and those men as are signaliz'd Reprobates are undoubtedly the free and full authors of Gods reprobating them and condemning them in this manner Of the Angels St. Peter and Jude speak expresly rendring 2 Pet. 2. 4. their offences a reason why God proceeded so against them and not the simple will of him God spared not the Angels that sinned but cast them down to Hell and delivered them to chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment And the same is repeated by St. Jude And when God saith Jude 6. Gen. 2. 17. in hie Covenant with Adam In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye he implyeth the reason of his Decree to punishment to be sin And when the Wise man exhorteth saying Seek not death in the error of your life Wisd 1. 12. and pull not upon your selves destruction with your own hands he doth necessarily imply a direct cause in Man of his own ruine And the words 13. following exempt God from any hand in such things as the Author For God saith he made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living And here come in that in its due place though it were not intended of a spiritual or eternal destruction O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self For though without any supposition taken from the Creature God may pass him over and deny him grace and glory yet doth he not design any man directly to damnation but upon supposition of sin going before And from this state of things may competent reconciliation be made to the seeming oppositions of Scripture and to St. Austin himself The Scriptures say Because thou hast rejected knowledg I will also reject thee And Hos 4. 6. Mat. 23. 37. Luk. 8. 18. by St. Matthew How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not And Whosoever hath not from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have And St. John Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life And in the Joh. 5. 40. Act. 13. 46. Acts Paul and Barnahas It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you but seeing ye put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life And St. Peter God is not willing that any 2 pet 3. 9. Isa 5. 3 4. should perish c. And amongst others that of the Prophet Esay must not be forgot And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah judge I pray you betwixt me and my Vineyard What could I have done more to my Vineyard that I have not done in it All which places and divers more do charge man altogether with his own misery On the other side in that Gen. 1. 26. the Scriptures tell us how God made man according to his own image whereof freedom of will was no small portion And in Deuteronomy Ye Deut. 29. 2. have seen all that the Lord aid before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharoah and unto all his servants and to all Land Yet the Lord hath not 4. given you an heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear unto this day And in Jeremy Turn thou me O Lord and I shall be turned And Ezekiel Jer. 31. 18. Lam. 5. 41. Ezek. 36. 26. I will give you a new heart also and a new spirit will I put into you and will take away the stony heart of your flesh and will give you an heart of flesh And St. Matthew All men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it Mat. 19. 11. Joh. 6. 44. Joh. 12. 39 40. is given And Christ in St. John saith No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me draw him And elsewhere Therefore they could not believe because Esaias said again He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts And the whole ninth Chapter to the Romans mightily Rom. 9. 16. favours this side of which the substance seems to be contained in this one Verse So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And to the Philippians To will and to do is of Phil. 2. 13. God These with others seem to deny liberty of will to man and to ascribe the reason of good and evil to which man is subject to God as the author making man rather passive under both To that of Free-will we may speak by and by To the present case taking in also what St. Austin saith God doth not forsake but where he is forsaken which may ill consist with what he so largely and often delivers on the other side we answer by the help of the former distinction of simple Preterition and direct Reprobation and the effect of it damnation viz. That the foresaid places suppose an evil affection in the parties so rejected by God and are to be interpreted of his just determination to punish sin and hard-heartedness in them But the incapacity of Grace and Conversion and Salvation are meant by the latter Texts proceeding from the sole Preterition of God refusing to prevent the evil and malignity of mens wills which for want of that preventing Grace do certainly tend to evil and are incurable of themselves But upon this I see divers shrewd Objections to arise as First That by this with-holding of Gods Grace his Preterition there is brought a necessity upon mans will to evil and his indifferency to life and death quite taken away as all use of the means of Grace To this
of no personal concurrence to such deformity Yet not so neither but that it justly is denominated Sin from the very nature and effects of it For seeing whatever is in the Will must be good or evil and if the Will be found crooked perverse or averse to that it ought to incline to this is contrary to Gods institution and Law and whence ever this proceeds from an immediate act of our own or by traduction from others seeing it is found in the Will it must needs be contrary and consequently odious to God and in conclusion sinful Again as the fountain poisons and corrupts all streams flowing from thence so the Will being thus corrupt and naturally thus ill inclined all the other defects even in his body as well as soul contracted by this fall are as so many deformities in man which render him deservedly hated of God seeing such disparity and unlikeness to the worse to that which he first fram'd Thirdly Original sin in Man hath this more of disorder in it that it not only is a corruption of the will and thereby a deformity and vitiosity in the inferiour parts and faculties but it is of ill consequence For if this depravation went no farther than that evil born with us if it stand there and wrought no more evil the nature of it had been less sinful and more tolerable but being of an active nature and having taken up the chiefest room in the soul of Man it disposeth and impelleth to more mischief in actual transgressions As a Garrison held by a Rebel doth not only offend Sacred Majesty by standing out against him it self but when it finds it self strong enough and hath opportunity sallies out and makes invasion upon its proper Soveraign and offers actual and active violence against him So by this Original Evil first possessing the Soul doth Concupiscence stir and act by outward practises contrary to the Law and Will of God And therefore when St. Austin saith alledged by the corrupters of this Doctrine of Original Corruption They are born not properly but originally evil he no wayes contradicts his own Doctrine whereby he most of all farther explained and maintained this Original sin being the first that gave the name Original to that Pravity in man For true it is that that only is called properly Original Sin which Adam and Eve in person committed and were not subject to by nature as their Posterity are because it was the first in respect of mankind as well in order of time as nature and causality Again though this be traduced unto us his Off-spring and be the cause and fountain of all other sins actually committed afterward and for the same causes may rightly be called Original yet considering that this Evil thus vitiating our nature had no consent of our personal will we neither understood it nor any wayes affected it it cannot be so properly called sin as others which we act knowingly and willingly our selves For nothing is in strict way a sin which we do not consent unto in some manner either immediately or in its remoter causes And this doth yet farther appear because no man is bound to repent properly of Original sin Proper Repentance being an Act contrarying and reversing so far as in us lyes some evil by us done and not suffered involuntarily But Original sin is rather suffered than acted by the children of Adam Yet though in the severst sense we cannot be said to repent of Original sin we are bound to exercise some Act of Repentance for the same As grief and sorrow of mind and heart for the evil we lye under Confession and Recognition of our sad state before God Imploration of his mercie and favour to remove the same from us and restore us to our pristine innocencie and integrity For this those many places of Scripture describing this Evil do seem to require at our hand And no where doth the Scripture more fully declare this unto us than in the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans which because Socinus and such as plough with his Heifer and are tickled with his pretty phansies in eluding the Apostles meaning and the constant interpretation of the most Ancient and Modern Expositours we shall more particularly consider It is undeniable that St. Paul Rom. 5. amplifying the grace of God and benefits unto mankind even the Gentiles by Christ Jesus doth there make a comparision from the Twelfth verse to the end of the Chapter of the first and second Adam and of the Evil we sustained by the first Man Adam and the benefits we receive by the second Man Christ To this he supposes the ground of his Comparison which is this that By one v. 12. man Sin entred into the world and death by Sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is made no more of than that Adam being the first Man in the world and sinning Sin must needs enter first into the world by him if he sinned first and that death followed upon that sin of Adam But if this be all how come the effects to exceed the cause and death to extend farther than sin For it is not only said that death entred into the world in seizing upon that single Malefactour Adam but So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned where two things are to be noted First the note of dependance and consequence So. For if St. Paul had meant that Adam by himself and only for himself introduced death wherefore serves the tearm So which is a certain indication of the manner how death came into the world upon all persons and as much as if it had been said Adam first sinning and bringing death into the world so it was that this death fell upon all men for that all have sinned Now it is certain that all that dye have not sinned personally and therefore Secondly the Note So must also ralate to the Cause of that death which was sin and is as much as Adam sinning his Posterity also sinned and became obnoxious to death For to say as some eminently learned and useful otherwise in their Doctrine of Repentance Death passed upon all i. e. say they Upon all the whole world who were drowned in the floud of Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam is as much as if another Scholiaâ—t like him had said That is upon all Senacheribs Armies before Jerusalem in the dayes of Hezekiah or Upon all the Romans in the battle of Canna with Hannibal For it is certain that all men dye and it is no less certain that all men without exception died not in the floud And therefore what is added upon these words In as much as all have sinned that by them is meant All have sinned upon their own account we have already shown that it is not absolutely true and therefore cannot be St. Pauls meaning For all that dye have not as did Adam or following Adams
Apostle speaks of the state of Evil or Condemnation in the next of the state of Restitution and Justification For as all persons were included in the Condemnation of Adam so were all included in the Justification of Christ But as of all them only some many were through his disobedience made Sinners that is became such sinners as not to return to actual Righteousness and Salvation so by the obedience of Christ not all who were called and chosen came to Life and Holiness but many only were made Righteous actually and not all Or if we take the word Sin as he of whom we speak doth not so much for the real inward vitiousness of the soul but for any outward defect and which is yet more for the Punishment of Sin in which sense the Sacrifice for sin was called Sin in the Old Law and Christ in the New Testament is said to be made Sin for us that is a Sacrifice for Sin so that to be made sinners should import as much as to be made lyable to the punishment of sin the matter is the same But because this Authour not only inclines to the Opinion of Pelagius and of Socinus after him making the corruption of nature nothing and therefore exempting Infants from any such natural infection as we here suppose but uses the same evasion of Imitation of Adams sin and not propagation as the original of all Evil to us therefore let us hear what St. Austins argument was against that Opinion If saies he the Apostle spake Aug. Epist 87. of Sin by imitation and not propagation entring into the world he could not have said that by one Man Sin entred into the world but rather by the Devil for he sinned before man and as the Wiseman saith Through envie Wisd 2. 24. of the Devil came death into the world And Christ tells us how aptly the Devil may be said to propagate sin by imitation as well as Adam thus reprehending the Jews Ye are of your Father the Devil and the Lusts of John 8. 44. your Father ye will do he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him when he speaketh a lye he speaketh it of his own for he is a lyar and the Father of it And when St. Paul saith We were by nature the children of wrath as well Ephes 2. 3. Psalm 51. 5. as others And the Psalmist Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in Sin did my mother conceive me that these places must be accounted hyperbolical and not to have a proper sense is the special evasion of Modern Wits not comparable to Ancienter Judgments more simply understanding them I know a more colourable interpretation is made by others who interpret Conceiving in sin as relating to the Parents and not to the Children But this is less probable than the ordinary and obvious sense applying it to David For though it may be probable enough that Parents may offend in acts of Procreation and so the child may be said to be conceived by them in sin yet David being at the speaking of these words in deepest repentance for his own sins cannot be said to leave off that subject and to confess the sins of others and charge his parents with that which concerned him not Again when he says He was shapen in iniquity nothing could he say more intimately to signifie his proper state at the time of his first conception But the Scriptures do not only barely say we are originally thus infected and sinful but by the effects and certain other indications declare the same The first and chiefest of which may be Death and punishments sticking close to infants at their birth and even before they come into the world Now the Law of God being unalterable that punishment should follow and not go before sin it must be that somewhat of the nature of sin must prepare the way for such sufferings Secondly That all men come to years of discretion are effected with Actual sin few of the opposers of Original sin deny But according to Reason and Scripture both the fountain being so infected and corrupted whatever flows from it must of necessity partake of the same evil For Job 14. 4. Jam. 3 11 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Anâ—ae Gazaei Thâ—â—â—hrastus Biblioth P P. pag. 392. To. 8. Non eniâ— es ex â—â—lis qui modo nova quaedam gannire câ—perunt dicentes nullum reatum esse ex Adam tractum qui per baptisâ—um in infante sâ—lvatur Aug. Epist 28. Hieronymo Ad neminem ante bona mens â—enit quam mala Omnes prâ—â—ccupati sumus Sen. Ep. 50. Nemo difficulter ad naturam reducitur nisi qui ab â—a defecit ibid. who saith Job can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one And St. James Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter Can a fig-tree my brethren bear olive-berries either a vine figs so can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh From whence it follows by way of just Analogy That the Fountain being corrupt there must be derived to the Rivolets the like unsoundness And thirdly we see this by experience that both bodily and mental infirmities and disorders are traduced from Father to Son in actual Evils as the Gout Stone and Leprosie are transinitted to posterity from the Father and Anger and other passions in like manner It may as well be said That the Son hath the Gout and halts by imitation and not by propagation as that such other affections which are common to Father and Son so proceed Fourthly The Argument which St. Augustine could never by the Pelagians be answered taken from Baptism For this they could not deny but the Church universally practised Paeda-baptism that is held an opinion manifested in practise that Children were capable of that Sacrament and received the benefit of it however some particular persons deferred the same and held it of use unto them for the entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore surely there must be some impediment and that impediment could be nothing but what hath the nature of sin in it therefore they bring sin with them into the World Pelagius had a good mind indeed as Austin observed to have denyed the use of Baptism but as bold as he and his great second Julian of Capua was the general Judgment of the Church declared in the practise of it put a stop to his inclinations but Socinus bolder than any Heretick before him sticks at no such thing but flatly denyes the use of it to all but such as are converted newly to the Christian Faith as in the times of the Apostles This was freely and roundly invented and uttered and which suffices alone to convince us of the former errour denying Original Sin which was alwayes held a principal cause of Baptism Lastly Thus much may be observed by natural Reason to the confirmation of Original Sin
which Seneca noted but could give no reason of No man saith he is of a good mind before he is of a bad one we are all prevented And in the same place he saith No body is with difficulty reduced to Nature but he that hath made a defection from it Now supposing that God made all things perfect and instituted the nature of man more inclinable to acts agreeable to that perfection than to the contrary whence can it come that contrariwise Man naturally inclineth to that which is base and unworthy and is hardly taken off that corrupt way of acting contrary to reason and vertue and reduced to a perfection becoming his Institution and End but that the very principle of his nature is hurt and the root corrupt And because nothing can be Author of its own Principles by which it subsists no man can be said by his own act to have corrupted them Indeed we say a Man is of corrupt Principles when he hath contracted some evil habits disposing to wickedness but that is accessorie and not innate to him And if it be farther urged That no man can be guilty by anothers fault nor corrupted by anothers principle it is answered as before so long as it is only that others and not his own in some degree For as Thomas hath distinguished There is a Principle of Nature and a Principle of a Person and a Sin of Nature and a Sin of a Person Adam had not only principles whereby he himself subsisted but also was the principle of all his Successours So that Original sin was as well the sin of the one as the other So that from the depraved will of Adam as the first principle of all came the corruption of the Will of all Whereupon speaking strictly as we have said this Original sin is not properly sin in the Infant but a want of Original Justice seizing him and exposing him to destruction as Thomas and Catharinus also have taught which two are the effects of the sin of Adam upon himself and children but the very formal Reason of sin in his Posterity For where as some say It is natural Concupiscence moving to Evil and others That it is the absence of Divine Justice and Grace they differ rather in the niceties of speech than in the matter it self For to me it seems that the loss of Divine Perfection and Grace superadded to the nature of Man whereby he was abundantly able to secure himself and glorifie God in that state of happiness most neerly expresses the nature of it as in the sons of Adam For in Adam himself it was actual disobedience but Concupiscence inordinate doth rather express the consequence of it For upon that desolation in the soul of Man quickly arose a disorder of the inferiour Affections which by a general name is called Concupiscence or Lust by the Apostle in his Seventh Chapter to the Romans And Natural it is called because as out of the cursed ground sprang up briers thorns weeds and thistles where more useful fruit of the earth was intended so upon this curse of mans soul Evil motions arose to the hurrying him to Actual sin being themselves really sinful Again it is observable for the true resolution of the Question That there is commonly an ambiguity in this tearm Concupiscence it being sometimes taken for the act and exercise of that vitious principle in man fallen and sometimes for the Pravitie and degenerate temper of the soul making it prone to actual sins This latter is that which is properly called Original Sin though more properly Original unholiness or want of that instituted Integrity with which man was at first endowed and in it three things are to be considered First the privation of Supernatural Good Secondly Proneness to unnatural Evil against God Thirdly Odiousness and Culpableness before God who must needs be offended at the sight of so much deformity in his Creature contrary to his first Institution of it and Intention though this evil habitude should never break out into actual Rebellion against him by the exercise or putting it in execution by actual Concupiscence against the Law of God St. James seemeth Jam. 1. 14. to justifie this distinction where he saith Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed This gives us the original Lust or Concupiscence which inclines and moves to sin and to this is it to be imputed that a man so easily is withdrawn from truth and righteousness and noble acts becoming his high nature He goeth on Then when Lust hath conceived it bringeth forth Sin c. that is when the Radical Concupiscence or Concupiscibleness in man becomes impregnated and matured by outward opportunities and occasions of sinning it bringeth forth into outward act sin and the event and consequence of this sin is death So that the innate Lust lurking in the Soul and not actuated by outward occasions either inwardly to effect and desire or outwardly to act sin is not properly sin but metonymically only either as it is the effect of Adams sin or the cause of our sins but it is properly odious to God and exposing us to his heavy wrath so far at least as is seen in the deprivation of that be atitude to which man was at first designed And this exactly agrees with the nature of that sin For as that which was in Adam was actual disobedience in his Posterity is only want of that perfection which was due to their nature So Adam not only incurred the loss of that bliss he was capable of and in the ready way to enjoy but likewise the punishment of Sense answerable to his Sin of Commission and his Posterity was made subject to the punishment and loss of Gods favour and that bliss they were in Adam once ordained unto But when their Sins become Actual they are subject to punishment of Pain and torment for the same And by this the way is well prepared to make answer to that common doubt concerning the effect of Baptism and the state of the Regenerate in reference to Original sin and Concupiscence viz. whether Concupiscence remaining after Baptism in the Regenerate be sin or not Scriptures are alledged with great colour on both sides It is observed by Bishop Davenant that St. Paul calls Original Concupiscence sin in fourteen Davenant Deâ—â—rm â— several places in his sixth seventh and eighth Chapter to the Romans which if so Original sin it self must needs be oftner mentioned in Scripture than will be granted by many For mine own particular I see none of those places so exprest in the description of it that the law of Sin the Body Lex Peccati est violentiâ— consuctudinis qua trabit tenetur etiam invitus animus â—â— merito quo in cam volens illabitur Aug. in Confess Lib 3 c. 5. of Sin the Law of the Members the Lust of the Mind and Flesh and some other expressions to the same effect may not be
understood as well of an evil habit and inveterate custome acquired of sinning which is wont to give Law to the Reason and Mind of Man as of Original sin we now speak of contra-distinct to it were it not that the stream of Ancient and Modern Interpreters hath given another sense not with modesty to be opposed Therefore yielding those many places to be meant of Concupiscence natural we are to distinguish answerable to what is abovesaid with the Bishop between Inhabiting Concupiscence and Actual Concupiscence And herein a little vary from him if he doth mean that those places are to be applyed to Concupiscence resident only and not actuated But of this latter he seems to speak and no doubt so is St. Paul to be understood and not of the other And without all doubt Concupiscence coming to act inwardly in the mind by coveting only inordinately or outwardly by executing the evil purposes of the mind are sin even in the most Regenerate And when this becomes a habit then it is called by St. Paul to the Romans The Old Man and the Body of Sin But when the Rom. 6 6. remains of that inhabiting Concupiscence which only can be properly called Original never come after the death and burial with Christ in baptism as the Apostle speaks often to recover new life and motions by Rom. 6. 3 4. Colos 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. conceiving new warmth from outward temptations as in Infants dying before they come to be actual sinners and in those of riper years immediately after their baptism it cannot properly be said to be sin or to expose to damnation as all sin properly so called doth St. Austin quoted by that learned Bishop plainly affirmeth thus much saying Tale Aug. lib. 6. c. 5. In Julian tantum malum and such and-so great Evil as that Original only because it is in a man would oblige us to death and drag us to the last death but that its chain was broken in baptism All this we subscribe to and do profess that the hold Original sin had over us is loosed by Baptism Yet we profess with Thomas also quoted that when ever such Concupiscence comes into the Will be it of Regenerate or Unregenerate it puts on the nature of sin But we suppose the remains of that Original Evil to contain themselves where Baptism left them and not to proceed farther For this God certainly hates I mean progress of Concupiscence and as it is well argued God cannot hate any thing but sin But after Regeneration by Baptism or restauration to the vertue and power of Baptism and the benefit thereof by Repentance the Sin in kind as Lust Envie Murder Malice is odious unto God but as it relates to the Person once guilty of it it is no longer odious unto God why because it is covered it is pardoned it is not imputed it is as if it had not been For otherwise it could not be said Blessed is the man whose transgression Psal 32. 1 2. is forgiven whose sin is covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity and in whose spirit there is no guile But St. Paul to the Corinthians having recited those notorious sins unto which unmortified and unregenerate men were subject and guilty of adds And such were some 1 Cor. 6. 11. of you but ye are washed but ye are sactified but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of his Grace Meaning that upon their conversion unto Christ their washing in Baptism their having received the Holy Ghost they were acquitted from their former sins and judged innocent and pure before him And the Author to the Hebrews tells us Hebr. 9. 26. how Christ as an High Priest once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself And to what end should any man multiply Texts to prove this to them who will affirm that all sin is damnable and grant that the Regenerate are not in a state of Damnation then surely they are not properly sinners or guilty I speak of the state of Remission and Absolution and as such as all Infants baptised are And the grown Christian because he may and is most prone to incur new sins after such absolution and purgation is not therefore to be said not to have been truly absolution and purgation is not therefore to be said not to have been truly freed from the guilt of sin passed before his baptism and thorow repentance For that this may happen experience and the testimony of St Peter witnesseth For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world 2. Pet. 2. 20. through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ they are again entangled therein and overcome the latter end is worse with them than the beginning And what do they but in effect come off from their opinion of sinfulness in that Concupiscibleness rather than Concupiscence in the Regenerate who after all plainly grant that there is no guilt remaining in it of it self and thus answer the argument which proveth that it is no such sin as they hold because Original sin is the death of the soul and makes a man an enemy to God but Concupiscence in the Regenerate doth not this thus Original sin doth not cause spiritual death but only as it is linked with guilt but pardon being obtained in Baptism the guilt is taken away and makes not any man lyable to wrath but as he is found in the old Adam so soon as a man is of the number of the Regenerate he is found in the new Adam i. e. in Christ Now would it be known how any thing of the true nature of sin may be separated from guilt which is too hard for me to apprehend they being so intimately coupled together and convertible that as there cannot be conceived any guilt without sin so neither any sin without guilt And if they say the guilt is done away in Baptism or Repentance I will say the sin is done away too and maintain it If they had distinguished between the effects and fruits of Original sin and the sin it self the matter had been much plainer and easier and by their manner of proceeding in this Question it should seem they only drive at this For I grant what they allow that Baptism doth not free from all corruption of Original sin such as are blindness of the Mind and debility of the Will to embrace good entirely and infirmities of the body which by a Metonymie are called sin sometimes but the guilt it must necessarily or do nothing at all but what Calvine and Perkins and Cartwright and many dancing after their Pipe to the scandal of the Sacraments and the Reformation admit us into the outward communion of the Church and signifie the pardon of our sins from all eternity without including Baptism or Repentance which is made no more then a sign too I conclude this
all modesty and moderation but what fear of their necks may suggest is laid aside and all become a prey to them that fall into their hands To which may be referred all unjust and unreasonable and tyrannical Laws extorting from Subjects that which no cause requires of which Esay complaineth Thy Princes are rebellious and companions of Thieves Esay 1. 23. And probably may intend to condemn all excessive Fees of Lawyers and Physicians who though they directly rob not men of what is theirs yet discover such unsatisfiedness and ravenousness in their Offices that unless they find unconscionable consideration for their pains they will neglect the trust put in them Secondly to clandestine frauds and cousenages which are committed sundry wayes 1. By direct stealing from another his Goods which being privily acted is called properly Thievery against which God hath specially declared in Exodus 2. v. 2. c. And it is either against the Publick and is called Peculatus or Pillaging when a man robs the Common Stock or uses artifices to refuse to pay those legal dues of Custom or Tribute or other just Taxes made legal by good Authority Many men think it scarce any sin which in truth is a notorious one to cheat the Civil Powers of what is due to them but Solomon implyeth the contrary when he Prov. 28. 4. saith Whose robbeth his Father or his Mother and saith it is no transgression the same is companion of a destroyer And Christ commandeth by St. Paul Rom. 13. to all their dues tribute to whom tribute is due custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour So that there seems to be and really is a justice in giving outward reverence and honour to our Superiours and rudely and stoutly to deny them this is to rob them of their dues before God and to offend against this Commandment Thirdly not to pay what we owe and according to the Circumstances we owe any thing to another and especially to detain the wages of the hireling or labourer from him Lev. 19. 13. James 5. 4. which will cry against the hard Master who delayeth to pay what is earnt according to agreement For as Casuists hath observed He that payeth not exactly according to the known custom and rule though he afterwards payeth all in kind yet in effect he doth not pay all was due seeing many inconveniencies do commonly happen to the dammage of the Creditour upon such delays But that which is most intolerable and unjust is the too common craft of covetous and wicked minds to withold or refuse due payment of debts upon many vain and unconscionable pretences so long till the Credit our becoming almost desperate of that debt shall be wrought upon by fear to abate of his due least he should loose all They who do not pay according to the agreed time ought rather to adde for satisfaction of so long detaining to their debt than to make new capitulations whereby the principal sum should be impaired to the loss of the Creditour Fourthly to use adulterations in Commodities contrary to the common rule and expectations of men is a sort of stealing and unjustice here condemned as to mix and corrupt Wines Siders Money Bread or after the manner of Druggists and Apothecaries to sophisticate any Drugg or Liquor or to counterfeit any more precious thing with a viler and baser is to commit an offence against this Command and no better than stealing in the eyes of God how customary soever this may be and with a seared Conscience and bold face carried on Nay frequently this is worse a great deal than simple filching and stealing in that the bodies of men are often by such sophistications if not poysoned yet corrupted and so ends in a degree of murder and if not for the present and particular mischief yet for the general and gentle deserves the halter and hell no less than direct Thieves and Murderers Fifthly Sacriledge and open or subtile or private alienation of what is devoted to sacred and common ends of Religion and usurping the same to a mans private secular use against the intention of the thing hath this double aggravation above common simple theft First in that what was designed for publick uses and ends is perverted to particular For example Endowments and Donations made to Churches serve not only to the maintenance of that Person who in that capacity possesses them but to the benefit and comfort of all in that district communicating in Spiritual things wrong is done unto all them who upon the withdrawing of such due support want their due ministrations Secondly in ordinary thefts or injustice the matter passes but from secular to secular ends but in Sacrilegious Thefts it passes from one kind to another from Spiritual to Secular or Temporal besides the particular injury done to the Person to whom it is due And whereas it is said in defense of Sacriledge that the owners of such Spiritual Maintenances abuse them themselves by lazy luxurious and other vitious courses contrary to the true end of them all this may be granted and lamented But they who preach up vertue out of such wicked principles and ends should withal consider how this involves the secular as well as spiritual Person For no man hath any legal temporal Right to any estate so far as that it should prejudice the common good And if upon vitiousness of the one the estate he owneth may be alienated will it not hold good in the other And have not the King and Judicial Courts as great power over Temporal estates as Ecclesiastical We can give many instances sacred and humane whereby it should seem he hath greater And would these zealous men for vertuous and sober life hold it reasonable the Estates of Spendthrifts and Drunkards and Whoremasters should be taken from them by violence and given to soberer men I would fain see the disparity This scarce any but sees to the advantage of Ecclesiastical revenues above Secular That if the Party possessing them committeth Treason against his Soveraign neither Religion nor Common Laws do adjudge such Estates to be confiscated to the Crown as they do others which argues that Ecclesiastical Estates are put more out of the Kings power than are Secular and therefore more unreasonably are seized on than these It is true the King is in a more immediate way a Guardian and Protectour of Church-estates than of the Secular but Guardians have no more Interest or intrinsick Right to the Estate they dispose of to the true owner than they have of other mens Or does it at all extenuate the crime that frequently it is committed against such persons as cannot help themselves Yet even cold Friends to the Churches Right in such Cases hath observed and been constrained to confess that the displeasure or to speak without mincing the Curse of God hath pursued those more then ordinary and egregiously frustrated their hopes and expectations who have fingered or