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 mankinde and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sense 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 sense 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 finde 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 outcry 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 bels 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 then in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this then 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 concordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet infigniri And what he affirmes 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 beleeve 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 then 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 Psal 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 sin'd for so it followes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sin'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further then 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 sin'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 King 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 childe 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 punish'd 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 sense 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
They may as well press me with his authority in the Article of the damnation of Infants dying unbaptized or of absolute predestination In which Article S. Austin's words are equally urged by the Jansenists and Molinists by the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants and they can serve both and therefore cannot determine me But then My Lord let it be remembred that they are as much against S. Chrysostome as I am against S. Austin with this only difference that S. Chrysostome speaks constantly in the argument which S. Austin did not and particularly in that part of it which concerns Concupiscence For in the inquiry whether it be a sin or no he speaks so variously that though Calvin complains of him that he cals it only an infirmity yet he also brings testimonies from him to prove it to be a sin and let any man try if he can tie these words together De peccator mer. et remission l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi in obedientia contra dominatum mentis Which are the words your Lordship quotes Concupiscence is a sin because it is a disobedience to the Empire of the spirit But yet in another place lib. 1. de civit Dei cap. 25. Illa Concupiscentialis inobedientia quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis It is a sin and it is no sin it is criminal but is without fault it is culpable because it is a disobedience and yet this disobedience without actual consent is not culpable If I do beleeve S. Austin I must disbeleeve him and which part soever I take I shall be reproved by the same authority But when the Fathers are divided from each other or themselves it is indifferent to follow either but when any of them are divided from reason and Scripture then it is not indifferent for us to follow them and neglect these and yet if these who object S. Austin's authority to my Doctrine will be content to subject to all that he saies I am content they shall follow him in this too provided that they will give me my liberty because I will not be tied to him that speaks contrary things to himself and contrary to them that went before him and though he was a rare person yet he was as fallible as any of my brethren at this day He was followed by many ignorant ages and all the world knowes by what accidental advantages he acquired a great reputation but he who made no scruple of deserting all his predecessors must give us leave upon the strength of his own reasons to quit his authority All that I shall observe is this that the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is explicated by S. Austin had two parents one was the Doctrine of the Encratites and some other Hereticks who forbad Marriage and supposing it to be evill thought they were warranted to say it was the bed of-sin and children the spawn of vipers and sinners And S. Austin himself and especially S. Hierom whom your Lordship cites speaks some things of marriage which if they were true then marriage were highly to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather then 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 then 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. Hierom 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 confuted 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 remisâ—ione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to beleeve all that this excellent man wrote will not only finde it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not alwaies the best instrument to finde 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. Jerom 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 then 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 Schoolmen 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 sin'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 finde 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
est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non â—peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnoxios 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 Anima 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 Origial 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 sollicite 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 commandement 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 sense of it and the second verse of that chapter makes it so certain and plain that it is too visible to insist upon it longer But your Lordship addes further And to remember how often he cals concupiscence Sin I know S. Paul reckons Concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from heaven Col. 3.5 Evil concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified but this may and must and the Apostle cals upon us to do it but that this is a superinducing and an actual or habitual lusting appears by the following words vers 7. in which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 7.8 Sin taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence that is so great a state of evil such strong inclinations and desires to sin that I grew as captive under it it introduced a necessity like those in S. Peter who had eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of an Adulteress the women had possessed their eyes and therefore they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not cease from sin because having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all concupiscence that is the very spirit of sinful desires they could relish nothing but the productions of sin they could fancy nothing but Colloquintida and Toad-stools of the earth * Once more I finde S. Paul speaking of Concupiscence 1 Thess 4.5 Let every man knew to possess his vessel in holiness and honour not in the lust of concupiscence as do the Gentiles which know not God In the lust of Concupiscence that is plainly in lustfulness and impurity for it is a Hebraism where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon as Lutum coeni pluvia imbris so the Gall of bitterness and the iniquity of sins Robur virium the blackness of darkness that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outer darkness or the greatest darkness so here the lust of Concupiscence that is the vilest and basest of it I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sense But the like is to be said of the word lust which the Apostle often uses for the habits produced or the pregnant desires but never for the natural principle and affection when he speaks of sin But your Lordship is pleased to adde a subtlety in pursuance of your former advices and notices which I confess I shall never understand Although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redoundding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to persons not to natures Thus I suppose those persons from whom your Lordship reports it intended as an answer to a secret objection For if Concupiscence be a sin and yet remains after baptism then what good does Baptism effect But if it be no sin after then it is no sin before To this it is answered as you see there is a double guilt a guilt of person and of nature That is taken away this is not for Sacraments are given to Persons not to Natures But first where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture or in the prime antiquity or in any moral Philosopher There is no humane nature but what is in the persons of men and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these or rather consider a person in a double capacity in his personal and in his natural that is if I am to speak sense a person may be considered in that which is proper to him and in that which is common to him and others yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events I will put it