mind as often as he findes himself prone to the works of the Flesh that he may fall into Reprobation before he be aware if he continue secure in that Course of life which formerly be hath taken let him withall remember that Praeterita non nocent si praesentia non placent On the Otherside is there any man whose Conscience can truly inform him that he hath sincerely laboured to mortifie the deeds of the Body his Faith upon this Information will assure him that he is in the way of Life and that in patâ—eni Continuance in Well-doing he shall be a Vessel unto honour and make his election sure But let not any man hence Conclude that he is already in the Immutable state of Grace For our Apostle doth not say if ye have mortified the deeds of the body by the spirit ye are in the Immutable state of Life but he saith if ye mortifie the Deeds of the Body ye shall live that is if ye Continue to mortifie the deeds of the Body God will Continue the blessings and means of life unto you yea Confirm you in the Immutable State of Life and saving Grace 25. If any man list to examine himself whether he be in the state of Election or Reprobation let him measure or moderate his perswasions of the one or other Estate by his proficiency or negligence in this duty of Mortification Otherwise to be prepossest with strong perswasions of being in the Immutable State of Grace or Election before we have given all diligence to make our election sure by performing this Duty of Mortification is the readiest or most compendious way that Satan yet hath found out to cast men into a Reprobate Sense that is to make them without sense or feeling of their sinnes or which is worse to misperswade them that those very Deeds whilest done by Them are no sins or sins of Infirmity only which being done by Others are even in their Judgements grosse and Capital sins The Method by which Sathan works this misperswasion in men strongly perswaded of their own Immutable state of Grace before their due time is Immutable and Infallible For it is an Infallible Rule in Logick and Nature That An Vniversal Negative may be Simply converted If no rich man whilst a rich man can be a begger then no begger whilst he is a begger can be a rich man If no convetous no proud no envious no seditious or uncharitable man no doer of any of those works of the Flesh mentioned by S. Paul Gal. 5. can enter into the Kingdome of heaven Then no man whose entrance into it is Immutably determined can be a covetous an evious seditious or uncharitable man Whence if a man be once perswaded that his entrance into the Kingdome of heaven or his estate in Grace is unchangable he cannot possibly perswade himself or be perswaded by others that he is a covetous proud envious seditious or an uncharitable man albeit he do all the works that a covetous proud envious seditious or uncharitable man doth 26. Lastly although it be the safest way to examine our Estate in Grace by our diligence in this duty of Mortification yet I must admonish men not to examine their proficiency or progress in performance of this Duty by Meer Abstinence from the works of the Flesh which they sincerely dislike or condemn in others I know we condemn the blind obedience of the Roman Catholicks that are ready to do and believe as the Church commands them without examination as a work of the Flesh of which we are Freed yet this doth not argue that we have mortified this work of the Flesh this Blind Obedience unlesse our Consciences can truly inform us that we are ready to obey the Church our Mother in things lawfull or in things which upon diligent examination are not Evill but Indifferent We likewise condemn as wel the affected Ignorance of the Romish Catholick in that though he may yet he regards not to hear the Word preached in a Language that he knows as his blind Devotion in that he can be content to make his Prayers or to hear publick Prayers in a Language that he understands not for works of the Flesh In both these we do well yet are neither of these works truly mortified in us by the Spirit unlesse we be as ready and zealous to joyne with the Congregation in publick Prayers of the Church celebrated in a known Tongue as we are to hear or read Sermons The Ministers must preach that the people may know how to pray aright in private And the people must joyn with them in Publick Prayers appointed by the Church that both may practise according to the Rules of Life delivered whether by the word read or preached The Communion of Saints or that part of it which can be had betvvixt Saints here on earth doth specially consist in the Unity of Faith and of Prayers publikely celebrated according to the Common Rule of Faith FINIS Cap. 37. A Note Referring to Fol. 3159. Line 3. and to Marg. Note 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil 1. Tom. Paris 1638. Graeco-Lat Fol. 113. Comment in Psal 1. CHAPTER XXXVIII A Sermon Preached on St. SIMON and JVDE'S Day 1629. Jude Verse 4. For there are Certain men crept in unawares which were before of old ordained to this Condemnation ungodly men turning the Grace of our God into Lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1. THE End and Scope of this Epistle you have set down in the 3. The Scope of the Epistle Verse And it is in Brief to exhort these his Flock or Charge To contend earnestly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints The Word ONCE is Emphatical and imports Thus much That the Rule of Faith had been Once for all delivered unto them so full and so compleat that if they vvould hold close to it and use it as the Rule of Life they should need no other additions The occasion of writing it or increase of new points to be believed or practised The speciall occasion vvhich he had to vvrite unto them for this end and purpose was because there were Certain ungodly men crept in to their Society vvhich did overthrovv or contaminate that Rule of Faith vvhich had been delivered unto the Saints But hovv they did overthrovv it is not exprest in particular Most certain it is for St. Jude expresly affirms it that they did deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ Novv to deny God or Christ Two ways of denying God there be but Two ways possible either by Opinion and Doctrine or by Matter of Fact and Practise And these men it seems did both ways deny God and his Christ though not directly and expresly yet by necessary and unavoidable Consequence But vvherein they did deny God and Christ shall be toucht in the Use and Application The Doctrinal Points to be discussed are Two Two points of
For the full resolution of this Question the Sacred Scriptures are not the sole Competent Judge or Rule Nor doth the determination of it belong to the Cognizance of such as are the best Interpreters of Sacred writ for the true Grammatical or Litteral sence of every proposition contained in it This Case must be reserved to the Schools of Arts or to the certain Rules of true Logick and Philosophy which are the best guides of Reason in all discursive faculties But here I am engaged to do that which in other cases I have endeavoured to avoid that is to make repetition of two great Problems in the Science or Faculty of Theologie heretofore in their several places handled and in some ensuing meditations to be hereafter inculcated The first Problem is In what sense or with what limitations the Scripture is held by all reformed Churches to be the only Rule of Faith The Second In what sense or how far it is true that Recta ratio Reason rectified or rightly managed may be admitted a competent Judge in Controversies belonging to the Faculty of Theologie 2. To the First Problem In what sence the Scripture is held by us to be the sole and competent Rule of Faith and manners I have no more to say for the present then hath been long ago published in the second book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 1. Chap. 11. The summe of all in that place delivered is to my best remembrance This No Christian is bound to admit or receive any Doctrine or proposition as an Article of his Faith unlesse it be contained in the Old or New Testament either Totidem verbis or may be Concludently or Demonstratively deduced from some Sacred Maxim or proposition expresly contained in the Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament Such Maxims as are expresly and plainly contained in Scripture Every Christian Man is bound to believe absolutely But such propositions or Conclusions as may be demonstratively inferred from Canonical unquestionable Maxims they only are bound absolutely to believe which have so much use of Reason or skill in Arts as may enable them clearly to discern the Necessity of the Consequence or concludent Proof of the Deduction The ignorant or illiterate are only bound to believe such Deductions Conditionally See the second Book chap. 2. chap. 4 c. or to practise according to their Teachers instructions with such Reservation or under such Conditions as have been expressed in the second and third Book of these Commentaries 3. But what Propositions though expresly contained in Scriptures be Negative or Affirmative Vniversal Indefinite Particular or Singular Or how any or all of these be Convertible whether Absolutely by Accident or by Contraposition or how to Frame a perfect Syllogism out of them These or the like are points which the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets and other Pen-men of Sacred and Canonical Writ did never undertake or professe to teach The discussion or determination of Questions of this nature must be had from the Rules of Reason sublimated or regulated by good Arts or faculties And for the bettering or Advancing of Natural Reason in this search the most learned or most sanctified Christian this day living should be very unthankful to the only Lord his Redeemer and Sanctifier if he do not acknowledge it as an especial branch of his All-seeing Providence in raising up unto the World such Lights of Nature and Guides of Reason as Aristotle Plato and others of the Ancient Philosophers were True Reason in whomsoever seated Whether in the Natural or Regenerate man unlesse it be advanced and guarded by such Rules of Arts as these Sages of the old World have by Gods Providence invented or bettered can be no fit Judge but being so advanced and guarded is the most Competent Judge of Controversies in Divinity of such Controversies I mean as arise from Consequences or Deductions made by way of use or application out of the uncontroverted Maxims of sacred Writ And if we would sequester Grammatical or Rhetorical Pride and partialitie to the several Professions wherein respectively men glory we might easily discern all or most of those unhappy Controversies which have set the Christian World for these late years in Combustion to have been hatched maintained and nourished by such pretended Favorites of the Spirit as either never had faithfully Learned any true Logick Philosophie or ingenuous Arts or else had utterly forgotten the Rules which they had learned or heard before they begun to handle controversies in Theologie or entertain disputes about them 4. Obliquity can have no other Cause beside that which is the Cause of the Act whence it necessarily results The Hypothesis for whose clearer discussion these last Theses have been premised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the Cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her Actual Eating of the Forbidden Fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like Necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the Obliquities which did accompany the positive Acts or did necessarily result from them This is a Case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tried by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the only perspective Glasses which can help the Eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the Consequence to wit Whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the Cause of our Mother Eves first Longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the Cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Arts which serve as prospective Glasses unto the Eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest Contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no Cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the First man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans confirmity to God or his integrity besides him who was the Cause of his manhood or of his Existence with such qualifications as by his Creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true Cause of that Obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result
Church call Original should be no more then a meer Privation of Original Justice Of the Inconveniencies which will follow upon the affirmative Opinion that is of that Image of God wherein the First Man was Created But the Ingenuous Reader wil perhaps demand what further Inconvenience wil follow upon the yielding or granting of the former Postulatum or Supposition unto them This in the Second place That Adams Successors whether immediate or intermediate unto the worlds End should have a greater measure of that which they call Liberum Arbitrium or Free-will then the word of God doth acknowledge or any Ingenuous Man that will subjugate his Reason to be Regulated by the written word or Ancient Rules or Canons of Faith can allow or approve This deduction following is clear by Rules of Reason viz. If the Righteousnesse of the First Man did consist in a Grace Supernatural or in any quality additional to his constitution as he was the Work of God This Grace or Quality might have been or rather was lost without any Real wound unto our Nature Or without any other Wound then such as the Free-will or right use of Reason or other Natural parts which after the losse this of supposed Supernatural Grace or Quality were left might instantly have cured or yet may cure Or in other terms more Scholastical perhaps Thus If the Integrity or Righteousnesse of the First Man were lost only demeritoriè by way of Demerit without any physical or working cause of its expulsion or without any wound made in our nature by such positive cause The same Righteousnesse which the First Man had might have been regained by the right use of Reason which was left unto him or of those natural faculties which he had pro primâ vice abused From these premisses the necessary consequence will be this That the satisfaction of our Lord Christ for sin original at least had been superfluous And according to this Tenet the Opinion of the Socinians would be more tolerable and more justifiable then the Doctrine of the Romish Church so far as it concerns the Valew or Efficacy of Christs Sufferings or Satisfaction by his Merits or Justification by works rather then by faith especially works of the Moral Law or observance of those two great Commandments To love God above all and our Neighbours as our Selves or of that other whatsoever you would that men should do unto you even so do unto them 3. Lastly if all or any of these Opinions were granted to the Church of Rome we of Reformed Churches should be concluded to yield That Adams posterity or as many of them as are or shall be justified were to be Formally justified by inherent Righteousnesse that is they have or might challenge absolution from the first sentence denounced against Adam by way of legal plea or satisfaction The deduction or remonstration of this demonstrative inference is clear to any Artist to any reasonable man unlesse his Reason be overgrown by faction or by mingling of passions with his understanding The Remonstration of this demonstrative inference is thus It is in confesso and more then so an undoubted Maxim subscribed unto by the Church of Rome That the grace which is infused by and from our Lord Jesus Christ is a supernatural quality or a qualification more soveraign then the first grace which God the Father bestowed upon the First Man Now if that Grace were a super addition to his Nature or Constitution as he was the work of God the losse of this Grace or quality could not have made any wound in the humane Nature which the least drop of that Grace which daily distilleth from the second Adam might not more then fully cure Yea such grace would sublimate our Nature so cured unto an higher pitch or fuller measure of Righteousnesse then that which was bestowed upon our Father Adam In respect of these and many other Reasons which might be alledged all such Congregations or Assemblies of Christian Men as have departed or have been extruded out of the Romish Church stand deeply engaged to deny that the Righteousnesse of the First Man was a Grace or quality supernatural CHAP. III. Whether Original Righteousness were a quality Natural or a mean betwixt Natural and supernatural 1. TO affirm that the Righteousnesse wherein the First Man was created was a gift rather Natural then supernatural would be no solaecisme no assertion any way more incongruous then many Resolutions of the Roman Doctors in like Cases are no grosser blemish or deeper impression then might easily be salved or wiped off with that distinction usual amongst them in other the like or rather the same Cases The true state of the Question proposed That the righteousness wherein Adam was created was natural quoad terminum productum non quoad modum productionis A natural Endowment in respect of the essential qualitie produced albeit the manner of producing it were somewhat more then supernatural But this is a dispute which for the present shall be waved because the Original difference betwixt us and them may be more punctually stated and the Questions dependent on it may be more clearly resolved from these Postulata or presumed Maxims First That God did make the First Man after his own image Secondly That the First man being so made was righteous and just Neither of these are denied by any The state of the Original Controversie unto such as are disposed to have it plainly propounded in constant or unfleeting Terms is thus Seeing man was made after the image of God and being so made was just and righteous Whether there were two works of God or two distinct effects of his work of creating the First Man in righteousness and in his own image And whether the one of them was terminated to his own image imprinted in man and the other to his original justice If these two expressions made by Moses of Gods image and mans righteousness expresse or include no more then one and the same work of God or effect of his work in man The losse of Original justice or defacing of Gods image enstamped upon him was more then a meer privation and necessarily presupposeth a positive Cause in our First Parents and a positive Effect wrought by that cause whereunto the privation of Original justice was Concomitant or rather Consequent Whatsoever Controversie may be moved concerning the Cause or manner how this Effect was wrought the effect it self was a deadly wound in our Nature a multitude of wounds all by Nature or any endeavour of Nature or performances of such Free will as was left to mankind after these wounds were once made altogether incurable without the help or assistance of better Grace or endowments then were bestowed upon the First Man The cure of these wounds wholly depends upon that grace whose Being and bestowing the second Adam did merit from the Father of Lights or from the Divine nature or Deity 2. To win the Assent of
every Rational Christian man unto the former part of this determination That Original justice did consist in that image of God wherein the First man was created and did not imply any other work of God whether preccdent or consequent besides the speciall work of his creation no other Argument is either necessary or so available as the taking of the words of Moses where he describes the manner how the First man was created into serious consideration For Original Justice had more Essential dependence upon the image of God in Man then Rotunditie hath with a Sphere or Globositie with a Globe Now in the making of a Sphere or body perfectly round there be not two works nor two distinct effects of the Artificers skill one in making a Round-Body another in making Rotunditie And it is a grosser Soloecism in Divinity to say or think that the Image of God in man was One work of God and Original Justice Another then it would be to maintain that the Rotundity of a Sphere and the Sphere are two works of the same hand severally intended by the Artificer which makes the Sphere 3. To evince the later part of the former Assertion Original sin more then a meer privation That Original sin is more then a meer Privation more then a meer want of Original Justice a multiplicity of wounds or diseases in our nature any man living which hath so much memory or reason as to reflect upon his own disposition or untowardlinesse in his childhood or skill to contemplate the Estate or condition of poor Infants will easily subscribe unto that great Roman Naturalists judgement or observations Plinie in his Preface to the seventh book of his natural History to be insisted upon hereafter when we come to treat of the Symptomes or properties of sin Original The next Enquirie according to the Method proposed is How sin did enter into the world CHAP. IV. Of the manner how Sin found Entrance into the works of God and did seize upon all mankind The Man Christ Jesus only excepted 1. No Creature from the first moment of its Creation was altogether impeccable THe highest Offer of any which I have read for the resolution of this Problem is that inquisition made by some School-men An dari possit creatura impeccabilis so they render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The problem in distinct and plain English is thus Whether it be possible according to the Rules of Reason that any created substance should be from its creation totally secured or absolutely freed from all possibility of falling into sin Some of the Ancient and most Orthodoxal Fathers of the Church as their opinions are alledged by some School-men stand for the Negative Part of this Problem to wit That it is not possible for any meer Creature to be from the moment or first time of his creation altogether impeccable or secured from all possibility of falling into sin But whether the reasons or expressions of these Ancient Fathers will reach home or amount unto the Tenents of such School-men as avouch not only their reasons but Authority is not so clear but that the discussion whether of their Authorities Meanings or Expressions might breed more quarrels then the School-men have already begun However The disputes already moved about this Point must in the first place be restrained to meere Creatures rationall that is to Angels and Men. The Rational Creature or son of man who is likewise the Son of God must be exempted from this enquiry And this Additional must in the second place be admitted Whether it were possible that any man or Angel could be perpetually freed from all possibility of falling into sin and have been withall from the first moment of his creation intrinsecally just and righteous 2. That Men and Angels might by the power of God or special contrivance of his Providence have been secured from all possibility of falling into sin is a Position amongst rationall men unquestionable But it is not so whether men or Angels being so secured from all possibility of sinning could have been intrinsecally or formally righteous or by the eternall rules of Justice and Equity it self truly capable of everlasting punishments or torments or of joy and happinesse everlasting The Negative part of this Probleme is in my judgment far more probable then the Affirmative For if the First-man or Angels which fell had been either by the power of their Almighty Creator or by the undefeatable contrivance of his wisdome absolutely freed from all possibilitie of sin from the first creation unto this day they could neither have deserved any great blame or praise by continuing after this manner righteous or conformable to the divine nature for integrity of life The case of the First-man if he had lived to this instant without sin by such contrivance or necessitating guidance of Gods providence had been the same as if the child whiles his master leads his hand should write a Faire Copie being otherwise unable to cast a letter aright when his masters hand should betaken off from his Now if the Child or young Clerk should not in good time learn to cast his letters or draw his lines aright he could not pretend any title to commendation or reward how well so ever his work were performed the whole praise would of right belong unto the manuduction or guidance of his Master But if the young Clerk growing stronger should disturb or wrest the hand of his guide awry or not suffer him to rule his hand as before he had done by thus doing he would deserve both blame and correction 3. Our father Adam in his first Estate had a great deale more power to regulate his own thoughts and actions by the ordinary Guidance of Gods Providence then a child hath either to cast his Letters or draw his Lines aright by the sight of a Copie or ordinary direction of his master Yet this same First Man had a power withall to neglect the guidance or slight the directions of his Creator a power much greater to do both these wayes amiss then a child hath to refuse or resist the Manuduction of his writing-Master By the First womans ignorance or contempt through her husbands negligence or inadvertence to that First and Great Commandement which was given to both of them Of the tree in the middle of the garden ye shall not eat c. that which we call Originall sin or the maine roote of all sins found entrance into the visible world that is into the nature of man The extract of what we have said or have to say Concerning this point is very well set down by St. Austine and some others of the Ancients That the First Man was truly endowed with a Free-will or power not to have sinned at all That if he had used this power aright or implored the assistance of his Creator in competent time for so using it he should have been endowed with a perpetuall immunity
from the Forbidden Act or desire It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act and another Cause of the Obliquity or deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself For no Relation or Entity meerly relative such are obliquity and deformity can have any other Cause beside That which is the Cause of the Fundamentum or Foundation whence They immediately result It remains then that we acknowledg the old Serpent to have been the First Author and Man whom God created male and female to have been the true positive Cause of that Obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable Necessity from the forbidden Act or desire which could have no Necessary Cause at all For the Devil or old Serpent could lay no absolute necessity upon our First Parents Will which the Almighty Creator had left Free to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. That they did de Facto eat of it was not by any Necessity but meerly Contingently or by abuse of that Free-will which God had given them Briefly to say or think that our First Parents were necessitated by the Divine Decree to that Act or any part of that Act or desire whence the First sin did necessarily result or to imagine that the Act or desire was necessary in respect of Gods Decree is to lay a deeper and fouler charge upon the Almighty That Holy One then we can without slander charge the Devil withall 5. Charity binds me to impute the harsh Expressions of some good Writers and wel-deserving of all reformed Churches Yea the Errors of the Dominicans or other Schoolmen which were more faulty then Zwinglius or his followers in this point rather unto Incogitancy or want of Skill in good Arts then unto Malice or such malignancy as the Lutheran long ago had furiously charged upon the Calvinist as if they had chosen the Devil not the Father of lights Much wrong done to worthy writers by unskilful Apologizers for their harsh expresons maker of heaven and earth to be their God And I could heartily wish that Pareus had not entered into that Dispute with Becanus about this Controversie But seeing I cannot obtain my wish I must be sorry that he came off no better then he did especially for Calvins Credit or for his own I did not believe the relation of the conference which I read long ago in Canisius until I read the like set forth by * Tum D. Serarius Scimus Vestros ita distinguere quod non improbamus Calvinus vero in scriptis suis omnem Dei permissionem in peccatis simpliciter rejicit Et opera malorum etiam quoad malitiam efficaciae Dei tribuit atque sic Deum Authorem Peccari manifestè facit Ego verò Utrum haec sit Calvini sententia quam Vos Eitribuitis postea videbimus Jam accipio quod datis Nostros quos Calvinistas vocatis â—o modo quo dixi distinguere Quódque distinctionem nostram non potestis improbare Hinc verò evidentèr conficitur Calvinistas quos vocatis Deum peccati Autorem nequaquam facere Ac proinde salsam esse D. Becani Minorem quòd Calvinistae faciant Deum Authorem peccati eóque Conclusionem esse calumniosam quòd Calvinistarum Deus sit Diabolus Pareus himself wherein he professeth that he likes better of Cardinal Bellarmines opinion then of Calvins Concerning the Controversies or Questions about the First Cause of sinning But were it any part of my present task I could easily make it appear even by the Testimony and Authority or which is more by the concludent Arguments of some learned Jesuits themselves That Cardinal Bellarmin and many others of Aquinas his followers do make God to be the Author of sin Ibi D. Serarius pro ingenio suo intelligens nodum Ergo inquit deleatur illud starum Erit tamen Diabolus Calvini si non Calvinistarum Deus Quo dicto D. Becanus subrubescens cum Socii ingenuitatem improbare non auderet subjecit ipse Benè deleatur starum Manebit tamen Deus Calvini Diabolus Tum Ego dextra eis praebita pro tanta liberalitate gratias agens Satis mihi nunc est inquam quòd fatemini starum delendum esse ut jam non Calvinistarum sed Calvini Deus secundum Vos sit Diabolus Pareus Act. Swalbacen Parte 1. Coll. 2. De Autore Peccati by as clear infallible Consequence as either Zwinglius or Piscator have done And he that would diligently peruse Aquinas his writings and in particular his resolution of that Question An detur Causa Praedestinationis may find him as strait-lac'd as Calvin was one and the same girdle would be an equall and competent measure for both their Errors The best Apology that can be made for Either must be taken from the Romane Satyrists charity Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum Calvin and Aquinas were Homines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is somewhat more then Authors of long works Authors of many various works in respect of the several subjects or arguments which is the best apologie that Jansenius could make for St. Jeromes contradicting of himself in several works as Espenseus doth the like for Saint Austin 6. But of that Pardon which learned Men that wrot much and handled many much different matters may justly challenge such as stand to be their followers though afarr off are no way Capable Men I meane who having other ordinary works or vocations to follow do busie their braines and abuse their Auditors or Readers with idle and frivolous Apologies for those slips or errors of worthy writers which stand more in need of ingenuous censure of mild interpretation or Correction then a Justifiable Defence More there have not been as I hope nor more peccant in this kinde in any of reformed Churches then In this Church of England though not Of it Some Treatises I have read and heard for justifying the Escapes or ill expressions of Calvin and Beza by improving their words into a worse and more dangerous sense then they themselves meant them in or their Followers in the Churches wherein they lived did interpret them Had these Vnscholastick Apologizers been called to a strict account or examination of their Doctrine by the Rules of Art this haply would have bred a new Question in our Schooles Whether to attribute such Acts or decrees unto God as they do and yet withall to deny that they concludently make him the Author of sin doth not argue as great a measure of Artificiall Foppery or which is more to be feared in some of Supernaturall Infatuation as it would do of impietie toresolve dogmatically in Terminis terminantibus That God is the Author of Sin CHAP. VI. The usuall distinction between the Act and obliquitie of the Act can have no place in the first oblique Act of our first Parents 1. The Illustration of the forementioned distinction retorted upon such as use it THe former Question or Probleme might
Citie of Edessa where this fell out that all the World may see what we do See St. Greg. Nyssen in vita S. Ephr. els I shall not Consent to your desire The Woman starling at this and answering That it would be an open shame to do such a thing in the sight of men The holy man reply'd if she was afraid of the Eyes of men how much more ought she to fear and shame to do it in the sight of God which Correption of his made such an impression upon the woman that she of a Concubine became a Convert See here a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Live Draught of Vertues The other was only as S. Basil Terms it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet such a shadow as may be to us Beneficiall and Compared to the New light of our Modern Good works is a Pillar of Fire The 2. Note relating to Pag. 3115. Some Actions are required in us that Grace may be Created in us I might save my self the labour of saying any thing to this Point by referring my Reader to this Authors Soul-searching Treatise of Justifying Faith 3. Section p. in quarto 278. where he shews that This belief of ours That Faith is the Sole gift of God wholly infused not in part acquired by us should rather quicken then quell Christian Endeavours for attaining it As this Beliefe that God alone infuses the Soule into the Embryo incourages them that intend to be Parents according to the Tenor of Ps 128. Appointed by our Church to be used at Marriages to enter the Holy estate and ascend the undefiled Bed And the Comparison suits well thus As God who can raise Children from the Rock does not infuse the the Rational Soul into Stones and Statues but into Organiz'd Bodies so doth he not ordinarily bestow Grace on every Reasonable Soul but on such only as have a passive Idonietie thereto And as those Parents upon whose Offspring depends the Nursing of Gods people are tyed to be more Cautious then others Even so they that attribute the most to that Fundamental Grace of Faith none can give enough to it The Solifidian that gives it most in words in deeds takes most from it are most obliged to teach men to use all possible meanes to seek the best Instruments of believing planters waterers helpers of Faith above all to sue to God to give the Increase to Chear men up to work out their Salvation with fear and trembling Philip. 2. 13. because it is God that works both will and deed Yet shall I adde de proprio A word to those that have scarce the patience to hear of any thing prerequired in man unconverted that Grace may be Created in him My Argument with such an Adversarie is this Let us take a Polemo that is pro tempore à Ganeo non tantum illecebris sed ipsa infamia Gaudens Vpon this man we desire the work of the Lord by our Ministery may be prosperous We must either tell him that there is something required of him in this present State unconverted as he is and so set him a Taske or that nothing at all is expected from him These two be Points Contradictorie Diametrally there is no Mean betwixt them I say that of this man Something is required The first minimum quod sic is Reflecting upon his own actions Or I would read to him the 18. of Ezekiel and the Law writ in his Conscience Next I would Apply some of Gods words spoke by the Prophets to some sinfull people or person as Isa 1. 16. Wash you make you clean put away the Evill of your doings Cease to do Evil learn to do Good or that of S. James 4. 8. Draw nigh to God Cleanse your hands ye sinners and purisie your hearts ye double minded And would affirm that these words signify'd something were not Empty noises but Precepts and if Praecepts have some Duty correspondent To be perform'd by hâ—m to whom I layd them which is quod quaerimus that I would have done My Adversarie must say nothing is to be done It 's to no purpose for me to exhort or him to Try nothing can be done to purpose Now what will the poor Patient say men are naturally inclined to believe them that most ease and please their natures best The least Consequent of this Doctrine that he will or can make and that if he were a Good natur'd man too will be This why then I will betake my self to a Negative Idleness wrap my body in my arms sit still and wait the Good howr when Grace shall breath uppon me A 2. will say Go to them I will eat my meat with joy and take my portion of the things of this life till Tasts of a Better drop into my mouth from heaven A 3. may perhaps doe worse Wend to a tavern or worse place and make work for Grace with a Gracelesse Desperate hope that the more he sins the more Grace may when it Comes abound that quò scelerator eò gratiae vicinior If my Adversary says nay he must abstain from Lewd Courses we are half agreed is not that part the same with Esay's Cease to do evill If he maintain his Conclusion I have no more to say but to enter an Appeal to God this protestation to Man according to Sense of this Author That I disclaim all such dispositions preparations Endeavours as Cooperating to the production of Grace after the manner that Temperate behaviour concurreth to produce the Habit of Temperance or that natural qualities do to produce Forms meerly Physical And this will quit me from Pelagianism or Poperie But he shall never be able to free himself from the Errors of the Stoick or Manichees that holds it indifferent what works a man does before he be regenerate The 3. Note referrs to Pag. 3121. As a Heathen * Laert. lib. 6. man Confesseth I conceive he means Plinie Junior and therefore I have caused that 26. Epist of his 7th Book to be inserted here being loth to Charge the Margin with it there C. Plinius Maximo suo S. Nuper me cujusdam amici Languor admonuit Optimos esse nos dum infirmi sumus Quem enim insermum aut avaritia aut Libido sollicitat non amoribus servit non appetit honores opes negligit quantulumcúnque ut relicturus satis habet Tunc Deos tunc hominem esse se meminit Invidet nemini neminem miratur neminem despicit ac ne sermonibus quidem malignis aut attendit aut alitur Balnea imaginatur fontes Innoxiam beatámque destinat vitam Possum ergo quod pluribus verbis pluribus etiam voluminibus Philosophi docere Conantur ipse breviter tibi mihique praecipere ut tales esse Sani perseveremus quales nos futuros profitemur infirmi Vale. 4. Note relates to Pag. 3130. Every Slave hath as Free a Will as his Master Oft a great deal more free Seneca L. 3. de Beneficiis
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so much as if he had said in the Beginning or from the beginning much less doth it amount unto so much as if he had said before all worlds or before the foundation of the world was laid which words or the like do import Eternity And unto this literall Importance or signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The material or real Circumstances do fully accord Both do fully witness that he speakes only of some Fore-ordination made or declared in the compass of Time as ver 11. Wo unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain and run greedily after the errour of Balaam for reward and perished in the gainsaying of Core This Wo denounced takes Date only from the Time of their following the ways of Cain of Balaam and Corah God did not ordain either from Eternity or by any written Sentence upon Record That these men by name should go on in the ways of Cain should run after the error of Balaam should perish in the gainsaying of Corah But now that they had visibly followed the wayes of these wicked men they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fore-sentenced or Fore-ordained to the same condemnation which had fallen upon Cain Balaam and Corah The Sentence or Judgment declared of old against these Three was as a Ruled Case for the condemnation of these men that S. Jude speaks of they had incurred the Sentence of condemnation given of old as we say Ipso Facto that is by doing the same things which Cain Balaam and Corah had done And S. Jude whether by the Spirit of Revelation or by Evidence of their Facts themselves doth but declare or pronounce that these ungodly men had fallen fowl upon that immovable Rule or Canon which had formerly been declared against Cain and Corah and his Confederates 10. That these men now were in the same state wherein Cain and Corah were after they had committed these Foul sins for which they were condemned our Apostle takes it as granted ver 12 13. These are spots in your feasts of Charity when they feast with you feeding themselves without fear clouds they are without water caried about with winds trees whose fruit withereth without fruit twice dead plucked up by the roots Raging waves of the Sea foming out their own shame wandring stars to whom is reserved the Blackness of darkness for ever He speakes of them as of Reprobates or men ordained to condemnation For being in the same state or condition for the Quality and measure of their sins that Cain Balaam and Corah had been they were Fore-Ordained with them to the same condemnation and this their Fore-Ordination was upon Record in all that Moses or others had written concerning Gods Judgments upon Cain upon Balaam or Corah That our Apostle means such a Fore-Ordination upon Ancient Record we gather from the 14. verse And Enoch also the seventh from Adam prophecied of these saying Behold the Lord cometh c. If Enoch ALSO did prophecy of them then some other besides Enoch had prophecied of them So had Moses who related Gods Judgments upon Cain prophecied of their Judgments who followed the wayes of Cain and in foretelling Gods fearfull Judgments upon Corah Dathan and Abiram he foretold the condemnation of all such as followed their ways and were Fore-Ordained to the like condemnation in their condemnation But more expresly Fore-Ordained of old unto the same condemnation by Enochs Prophecie which was more ancient then Moses his writings although Moses mentioned it not The form of his Prophecy or of his Judgments denounced against all ungodly men The Book of Enoch Of it See Tertul. De Cultu Foem Lib. 1. Cap. 3. and the Annot upon that place was upon Record in our Apostles time in a Book called the Book of Enoch unto which or so much of which as concerns this place St. Jude gives Authentick testimony ver 14. c. Behold the Lord-cometh with ten thousand of his Saints To execute judgement upon all and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him This Prophecy was literally meant and in particular directed against the ungracious seed of Cain and other such ungodly men of the Old World as did oppose or malign the Church of God then seated in the Posterity of Seth of which Enoch was a principal member a man of high place or dignity but the same Prophecy was literally meant of these ungodly men which did oppose the Church and deny that Lord which Enoch foretold should come to give judgement upon all such as continue in ungodliness And though this Prophecy were verified or in some measure fulfilled in the ungodly men of the Old World yet was it more exactly fulfilled in these ungodly men here in St. Iude and shall be fulfilled again upon all such as they were unto the worlds end and all in whom it is or hath been or shall be fulfilled are by it Ordained to the Condemnation here meant and St. Iude having perfect notice that these ungodly men had followed the wayes of Cain and of Corah doth but pronounce or declare them to be lyable to the Condemnation foretold by Enoch But whether all of them were at this time in the absolute State of Reprobation that is irreversibly ordained to everlasting death or whether the Gate of Mercy and Way to Repentance were everlastingly shut up against all of them That we leave to the eternall Judge seeing the 22. verse mentions Compassion for some and making a difference 11. The Jews highest Excommunication taken from Enochs words However This Prophecy of Enoch was so famous and so Authentick in the Jewish Church before St. Iude wrote this Epistle that their GREAT AND FEARFVL EXCOMMVNICATION was conceived in the very Form of Words which S. Iude here out of Enochs useth And as Writts amongst us have their name or Title from the First and Principal words contained in them as some are called Sub Poena some Nisi prius c. so the greatest and most fearfull Excommunication which the Jewish Church did use was called THE EXCOMMVNICATION OF DOMINVS VENIET THE LORD SHALL COME St. Paul as we read Rom. 9. 3. did wish that he himself might be Anathema one excommunicated or separated from Christ for his Countrey-men or kinsmen according to the flesh But he did not wish himself to be Anathema Maranatha for their sakes This kind of Anathema or Excommunication though he considently denounceth against all such in the Church of Corinth as did not love their Saviour If any man saith he 1 Cor. 16. 22. love not the Lord Ièsus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha that is all one as if he had said Let that Sentence which Enoch first denounced against all vngodly and wicked men especially against all Blasphemers of God of Christ or the wayes of the
rightly believe in him specially against such as duly administer his holy Sacraments may with its improvement be concludently inferred by the Tenents and daily Practises of that Church both which are as punctually and as fully contradictory to the Doctrine of the Author of this Epistle Chap. 9. and 10. and to many other principal Maxims of Christian Religion as any Doctrine Tenent or Practise can be one to another For the Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually to make the Comers thereunto perfect For then would they not have ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of Sins But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sinnes every year For it is not possible that the bloud of Bulls and Goates should take away sins c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3 4. By the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sinnes But this man or rather this Priest after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sinnes for ever sat doâ—n on the right hand of God from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Whereof the holy Ghost also is a witness to us for after that he had said before this is the Covenant that will make with them after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more Now where Remission of these is there is no more offering for Sin ver 10. to 18. 4. The force of our Apostles Inference and the very Pith of his Discourse throughout these Passages presented to the Readers View doth more punctually refute the Doctrine of the Romish Masse then it did the Contradicting Jews or other Blasphemers of Christs Name and Office either before or since this Divine Epistle was written The Pith and Marrow of all his Arguments consists in This That even the best of Legal Sacrifices or services were they bloudy or unbloudy were altogether Unsufficient to Purifie the Conscience could never take away sin Because They were to be Reiterated the best and most solemn of them every Year and many of them every Day others as oft as Casual Occasions did require Now if this Argument be Concludent as no Christian can denie it to be against the Jews which pleaded for the Sufficiencie of Legal Sacrifices it will conclude a fortiori or with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 9. 14. against the absolute Perfection or Sufficiencie of our Saviours Sacrifice of Himself supposing that it should be as the Romanists teach Thus much it will inevitably inferre according to the Peremptory Canons of the Roman Church which plainly teach and under pain of damnation injoyn all Christians to believe that Christs Body and Bloud That very same Body that very same bloud which were once offered by himself upon the Crosse are daily offered by the Masle-Priest Or as if this were not enough to out-vie the Jewish Synagogue in the Sin of Contradiction to Christ they adde that every such offering is a propitiatorie Sacrifice as well for some that be dead as for the living And I think such Oblations as they make do the one sort as little good or as little harm as they doe the other unlesse they sollicite the Priest to make this kind of Attonement for them But to such Sollicitors or Executors of such Sollicitations both Doctrine and Practise must needs create as great danger as any Heresie or Branch of Contradicting Infidelitie hath done or can do to the mainteiners of it This Branch of the Roman Churches Doctrine doth as punctually Contradict that Fundamental Doctrine Heb. 9. 13. If the bloud of Bullocks and Goats c. as it doth the forecited Passages Heb. 10. 5. But the authorized practise of consecrating their Holy water for remission of sinnes and Sanctification is most palpably Contradictory to our Apostles meaning or to the meaning of the holy Spirit in that other Instance of the Water of Sprinkling wherein the Ashes of the Red Cow were Special Ingredients and gave the vertue and Tincture unto it for purifying men from such Legal uncleannesse as the best Ceremonies of the Law and This Water in special was Consecrated for The Law for the Consecrating This water and the Use or Ends for which it was Consecrated we have Numb 19. The mistaking of which place and the gross misse-use of the like water solemnly consecrated by that Canonical Authoritie which the Romish Church doth challenge â—ver all other Churches is set down in such plain terms that no honest hearted Roman Catholick specially of the English Scotish Netherlandish or German Nation if he be able to read the New Testament in his own Native Language but he will be either heartily sorry for Alexander the fifth who made this Canon or at least ashamed that their Forefathers should approve it or that it should be practised by their Instructers if they would permit them to have the reason of the Canon or Decree rightly translated into a Language which they understand The Canon with the Glosse upon it is here transcribed in the same words wherein it was first conceived and published In Decreti 3. part de Consecrat distinct 3. c. 20. prout habetur in Corpore Juris Canonici Jussu Gregorii 13. Lugd. impressâ— Anno 1618. 6. Sic se habet Glossa in hunc locum Aquam Sale Haec est decima pars distinct Secundùm Jo. de Fant CASUS Quaeritur cur aqua cum sale benedicatur Et respondetur ut ea homines aspersi sanctificentur Cum enim in vetere Testamento cinis vitulae sanctificabat sal per manum Helisaei Prophetae sanavit sterilitatem aquae multò magis aqua cum sale benedicta omnia conspersa purificat Aquam sale u ¶ Aquam Sale Quia per aquam confessio per salem amaritudo signatur morsio unde haec est mistura unde geminus procedit partus divisio sc delictorum ortus virtutum bonorum operum 32. q. 1. c. Cum renuntiatur Haec designata est per mistionem Judae qui confessio dicitur Hu stands for Hugo Card. Arch. for Archidiaconus su for supra in for infra Thamar quae amaritudo dicitur unde Phares divisio Zaran ortus geminus sc partus provenit H U. conspersam populis benedicimus ut eâ cuncti aspersi sanctificentur x ¶ Sanctificentur Quaeritur quomodo aqua benedicta dicatur populum sanctificare vel mundare ADDITIO Ad hoc potest responderi secundum id quod no Su. ea dist 2. c. Signum in
VIII CHAP. LIV. Three Errors Disparaging Christs Priest-hood 1. The Novatian denying the Reception of some Sort of Sinners 2. A Late Contrary Error affirming That every Sin which some sort of men Committ is pardoned before it be Committed 3. The Romish Doctrine of the Masse giving scandal to the Jew All of them Respectively derogating from the Infinite value or Continual Efficacie of Christs Everlasting Priesthood THe First Error in this kind which did grow into an Heresie was that of Novatus Qui negavit lapsis poenitentiâ—m who would not have Backsliders or Revolters from Christianitie Of Novatus See Euseb L. 6. c. 42. Socrates Lib. 4. ch 23. to be upon any Terms or testifications of repentance re-admitted into the Church or made partakers of Absolution This Heresiâ— as all others took its Original from a plausiâ—le Truth or practise of former times The Truth is that in those times wherein men professing Christianitie were every day called unto the Fierie Tryal This Backsliding or Relapse unto Idolatrie or outward Profession of Idolatrie even after Baptism was so rife that the Church would not admitt any such as had thus revolted unto the Estate or Condition of Penitentiaries nor give them Absolution upon private testifications of sorrow for their Revolt Now if Novatus did only deny that unto such backssiders or Revolters which the Church in her purest times would not Grant them why was he condemned by the Church in Ages following for an Heretick If his Opinion were an Heresie why was not the Practise of the Antient Church Heretical Some Grave and Learned late Writers would have the Novatas Heresie not precisely to consist in that he denyed Absolution or Communion with the Church unto Revolters but in that he maintained That the Church had no right or Power to grant Absolution unto such Backsliders as Cornelius then Bishop of Rome with the Advice and consent of his Clergie did grant unto but that this was a Case reserved to God himself That such Backsliders or Revolters might at the point of death be Absolved Novatian himself had once solemnly profest But after Cornelius his Competitioner for the Bishoprick of Rome being preferred to that Dignitie had authorized this Practise he begun to set abroach his Error whatsoever that were and to accuse Cornelius and his adherents as Authors of Heresie and Novelties in the Church Had this Novatian been constant to his former Tenets and Profession made before Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome against him he could not have denyed either of these Two Points of Truth Either that God had mercie in store for Revolters from Christianitie when they did repent or the Churches Power to grant Absolution or other comfort spiritual unto those to whom she might out of charitable discretion presume God was merciful or to whom God had not forbid her to shew mercy or compassion For Christ had commanded her to be merciful as her Heavenly Father is merciful But it were too much Charitie to presume that a man of such a proud and turbulent Spirit as Novatian was in the depth of such discontent as took possession of his spirit upon Cornelius his Preferment to so great a dignitie as the Bishoprick of Rome unto his prejudice would be constant to his former Principles either in whole or in part As either to grant that God had mercy in store for Revolters or that the Church had power to Absolve them upon such significations of repentance as belonged unto her Cognizance Nor can we without breach of Charitie think that either Novatian or any other Heretick in those times would be so gross as to deny the Churches Power to Absolve men from any sinne from which they were perswaded God had or would absolve them And it is a clear Case that the Novatians did ground their Errour or Contradiction to the Church wherein they lived upon that place of the Apostle Heb. 6. 4 5 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost And have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come if they fall away to renue them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame and grounding their Error or maintaining it by this place it is evident that they held Lapsos or Revolters from Christianitie unto Heathenism to be in the same estate Which modern Divines conceive all such to bâ— in as sin against the Holy Ghost But of the true meaning or extent of the Apostles words in the forecited place or how the absolute unpardonablness of sin against the holy Ghost may be thence concluded I have nothing for the present to say It sufficeth to know that this Error of the Novatians was by the Ancient Church wherein they lived Condemned for an Heresie Yet hence it will not follow that their Heresie in the Judgment of them which condemned it did properly or precisely consist in denying the Churches authoritie to absolve sinnes of what kind soever but rather in avouching this particular sin of Apostasie or revolting from Christianitie to be in it self unpardonable or uncapable of Repentance If it had been in it self unpardonable or so adjudged by the Primitive Church Navatian had been no Heretick in withstanding Cornelius Bishop of Rome and the particular Churches which consented with him or in denying to admit the Revolters from Christianitie unto the estate or Condition of Penitentiaries in the Church or in refusing to give them Absolution or to hold Communion with them after they had voluntarily or otherwise observed such a course of Life as the Church had appointed for Penitentiaries That the Antient Church did neither admit open Revolters to enter into this Course or Rule of life nor Absolve them after they had Uoluntarily though most strictly to the eyes of men observed it doth no way argue that the Church in which Cornelius lived or which lived after him did erre much lesse incurre the Censure of heresie which Novatian objected unto them in admitting open Revolters unto the estate and Condition of Penitentiaries or in absolving them from their sinnes after performance of such religious duties as were by the Church required of men admitted into that estate or Condition 2. The Primitive Church did hold both to be lawfull but not expedien for the present Times The Primitive Church did deny unto Revolters Both these Favours 1. Admission to the state of Penitentiaries 2. Absolution upon their good behaviour after testification of repentance onely de Facto not de Jure The Church in later times did onely alter the Practise or discipline as is to be presumed upon good cause or consideration And to conclude or limit the Authoritie of the present Church onely by Matter of fact or practise of the Church in former times is matter of Heresie at least of Schism And this it may be