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
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
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
leadeth men to assure themselves of the benefit of the promises which are conditional before it be evident unto them that such conditions have been duly observed by them The consideration of this uneven dealing and unreasonable conclusion upon such a supposal hath prevailed with some to make the promises of Salvation so free as not to consist with any condition but peremptory and absolute yea excluding Faith it self the last thing of all that their Religion will suffer them to deny God as a Condition making the only use of it to be to receive what is so freely given them as they falsly and prophanely imagine It will not after this be necessary to lay down the reasons of the contrary opinion having already shewed That there is no Precept for such a point of Faith no Proposition declaring it no Article of our Creed requiring it that falling very short of it which teacheth us to believe in God wherein they say three things are imposed on us to believe First That there is a God Secondly That this God is my God Thirdly That I must trust and put my confidence in him for my salvation All which we readily assent unto But the most pertinent of all these come not home to the case before us For every man may and ought to put his confidence in God for his Salvation and yet be never so much as confident of his Salvation as is plain and that upon this reason That the well grounding of such a confidence as this latter may be very obscure to him and so the thing it self not clear Again It is prescribed by the Lords Prayer and other places of Scripture to pray daily for Remission of Sins saying Forgive us our sins as we forgive them that trespass against us this we are no less to pray for than for our daily bread Therefore since we are not ordinarily so assured of the Pardon of them For as a man hopeth not properly for what he hath neither doth he pray for it knowing he hath it This St. Pauls argument to the Hebrews Heb. 10. 18. proves saying Where remission of sin is there is no more offerings for sin i. e. where the remission of our sins is known to us Praying being our Sacrifice under the Gospel This were ridiculous and displeasing to God we thereby implying that we have not that which we know we have which were unthankfully done of us God in such cases expecting justly from us acknowledgment of his Grace conferring such a blessing by all humble and devout Praise and Thanksgiving for it and not absurdly petitioning him as if we had it not And this is so convincing upon some that I find a bold profession in these words The fourth Petion in the Perkins Lords Prayer must be understood not so much of our old sins or debts as of our present and new sins I grant we must petition for pardon for our new sins but I deny that we are not daily to repent and beg mercy at Gods hands all the dayes of our Life for our ancient as well as moderner offences And therefore the same Author suspecting it may be the insufficiencie of this answer proceedeth I answer again We pray for the pardon of our sins not because we have no assurance thereof because our assurance is small we grow on from grace to grace in Christ c. Which is very soundly and soberly spoken but quite overthrows what was before contended for about Certainty For Assurance that is weak and small is no assurance but a competent degree and a comfortable measure of hope and probability which we not only allow but know to be enjoyned us in holy Scripture by St. Peter saying Make your calling and 2 Pet. 1. 10. election sure for if ye do these things ye shall never fall Where we grant That a man is bound so to walk believe and live as becometh the Faith he professes that his Salvation is sure before God and that he shall in that conjuncture never fall but this is not made so sure thereby to himself and one reason is included in the very words which are If ye do these things which implyes that such things may be omitted and express the consequence thereupon And not only doth this premature Certitude take us off from Prayer and Repentance which alone destroy all true Faith in us and under a glorious shew of most supream and firm assurance leave us really destitute of the proper means to attain that good degree of perswasion to the quieting of the troubled and distrustful Conscience but it also quite alienates the mind and enfeebles the hands of faithful men in the vigorous pursuit of obedience without which no man shall be saved For as a man cannot needs not repent of what he knows to be so fully forgiven nor ask that pardon again which he is thoroughly perswaded is granted him So neither can any man with that solicitude and resolution pursue the means of Salvation principally seen in obeying Gods Laws with Faith in Christs merits when his mind shall be wholly possessed with an opinion that the principal end next to the glory of God is absolutely satisfied namely his soul saved They say indeed that the meditation hereof should rather quicken and incite men to a more exact walking with God out of a greater obligation of gratitude and common ingenuity to make returns answerable to the singular Grace conferred 'T is true it should so indeed And so should an inheritance put actually and irrevocably into the son and heirs hands before the death of the Father But how many instances have we That so it is not for one That so it is Or who can say That ingenuity and good natur'dness are generally as powerful to keep up order and vertue in the world as the proposing of future favours and penalties to the persons concerned We are not therefore to judge of the future motions of Quod non metuitur contemnitur quod contemnitur utique non colitur Ita fit ut religio majestas honor metu constet metus autem non est ubi nullus irascitur Lactant. De Ira Dei cap. 8 men so much from some moral obligations as from natural propensions And who can say That naturally we are are as prone to do good to others as to ourselves To obey God abstractively i. e. secluding the fears and hopes we have from that service is to do it for Gods sake which is confessed to be the most noble principle a man can act by but when the Evils imminent on disobedience or the Blessing ensuing our obedience thorowly affect us we then will move upon a natural principle actuated and promoted by Faith But to conclude this the Sum of what a good Christian is to believe in this point is First The immutableness of God in his covenanting with man and the mutableness of man on his part in fulfilling the tearms he is tyed to God in Both these
to the phrase of Scripture often ascribed unto God As where we read a Sleep from the Lord was fallen upon the servants of Saul that is a prosound or as it 1 Sam. 26. 12. is there said a deep sleep though I deny not but this might be literally verified And we read according to the original of Oaks of God and Hills of God which import no more than exceeding high and stately ones And I make no doubt but when it is said The sons of God saw the daughters of Genes 6. 2. men that they were fair c. Angels are not thereby intended and doubt whether as is commonly conjectur'd The children of God or holy Seed be there aimed at For no reason can be given why Gyants should be rather born of them than wicked men but rather that they were a race of Men of extraordinary stature called therefore the Sons of God because of their excessive greatness as all other mighty things are said to be of God in which sense egregious hardness is imputed unto God But to the main difficulty we must answer from the various manifestations of Gods love to Mankind And where can we better begin to judge hereof than from the first and second state of Man his Institution and Restauration It is here taken for granted That whole Mankind fell at once in Adam from its pristine perfection And it is no less apparent that God purposing to restore Man again and recover him treated as it were and concluded with the same person Adam and in the same capacity that he fell in He fell as is said equally to all men future without any discrimination of worse or better higher or lower and God treated and covenanted with him without any clause of distinction or exception of any one single person For in truth though all actions relate immediately to persons yet the substance of the Treaty concerned principally the nature in general of Man the promises of God being made with the Seed of the Woman and Man without any restriction or limitation as St. Paul teaches thus saying God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself by which 2 Cor. 5. 19. is signified a general and indistinct gift of God towards the lapsed mass of Mankind which gift likewise is expressed in the same latitude by St. John For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever Joh. 3. 16. believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life But if there were in the first intention of God any disparity in exhibiting his son to the world of that nature that thereby certain persons should be excluded remedilesly from the number for whom Christ dyed then could it no more be said that Christ became incarnate for them then for the Devils whose nature Christ took not But surely there was a distinction made between reprobate Men and reprobate Spirits But this is not answered by the distinction in general of Sufficiencie and Efficiencie or efficacie of Christs death used by Perkins saying That Christs death was sufficient for all but became not effectual to all This is notoriously true and undenyable and that as he sayes it was sufficient for the redemption of many worlds if case required For so it might be said It was sufficient for the redemption of Devils too for ought we know And what of this But Perkins seems to make a little bolder and farther step where he grants a kind of efficacie too but somewhat of the harshest sense For distinguishing between Potential and Actual Efficacie he addeth Christ dyed potentially effectually for all men but not actually effectually But this potential efficacie rightly understood amounts to no more than a simple Sufficiencie in regard that this Vertue according to him was never intended by God to be actuated in the behalf of the unpredestinated to life and glory A second prejudice against that interpretation is That the Scripture speaking of the death of Christ and his Passion doth not speak of it as of a sufficient rate and price in general but a payment also actually made for all for such is the importance of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which signifie an actual payment in relation to an obligation of Debt or Bondage which places of Scripture we have before given Thirdly the Decree of exhibiting Christ actually and effectually in special manner to some elect persons who receive him by Faith being thereunto moved and enabled by Gods inspirations is altogether posteriour to the exhibition of Christ to Mankind in general and therefore can be no real cause of Gods distinct intention then or that God should at his first propounding put a difference in the manner of exhibiting Christs Persons For all this while we must allow two distinct Periods of Gods favourable Providence toward Man in restoring him the one in his general Ordination of his Son to redeem him the other in the special collation and application of that benefit to man God gave his Son and in him his Obedience both in life and death to All men But the effect and benefit of these redounded actually only to some select persons This latter is undenyable by all sides For who did ever say that all men were actually saved by Christ I know the former i. e. That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Payment made for all is rejected by Perkins and his Assertour and Apologist Twisse And true it is that in very tearms above-mentioned it is scarce to be found that Christ gave himself without a note of Restitution and Limitation such as Many or To them that receive him and believe in him But then as the Scripture saith not in express tearms that Christ was a Ransom or Payment made for all so neither doth it say Only for the Elect exclusively And when it saith Christ was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World And that God John 1. 29. John 3. 16. 1 John 4. 14. so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son And elsewhere That the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World We shall not need to shew how the Scripture doth frequently use the word World in opposition to true Believers as where St. John hath these words The World knew him John 1. John 17. 9. not And again I pray for them I pray not for the World c. and so in other places which do imply a Right the very Wicked and Reprobates have in Christ And whereas a principal argument is drawn from the words in St. John last cited to prove an inequality of interest in Christs death and mediation thus Christ only dyed for them he prayed for but Christ prayed not for the World i. e. the Wicked Therefore he dyed not for them If this were true that Christ never prayed for the wicked or for those that were not then given actually
God in Christ Jesus necessary to a Christian Sanative Grace and Operative or Healing and Helping Grace The soul of Man being maimed and disabled by his Fall must have a Grace to cure and restore the broken state thereof before outward means can avail to the enabling it to be obedient and to perform acts of a new and spiritual Life adding That it would be all one for to offer Grace to the soul of man so diseased as it would be to offer a pair of Spectacles to a blind man or a staff to him whose leggs be broken And I wonder much to find him charged by a very learned Authour of late that he hath not given us the true efficient cause of the wills of obedience wherein as he well observes consisteth the principal difficulty of all but only the Formal and wherein the efficacie of Grace consisteth For he that shall consult his Fourth Book De Gratia Christi cap. 1. and so on will easily perceive he Id. Tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 1. makes it to be The Grace of God sweetly and unutterably delighting by which the Will is prevented and bowed to will and do whatever God hath ordained it should do and will Surely this is much more than a formal Cause whereby a thing actually is whatever it is And in this manner is the true Believer made partaker of the benefits of Christs Death and Passion to his Sanctification and Justification 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 OF the Justification and Sanctification of a man by Christ we have heretofore spoken it remains now for the Conclusion of this First Part that we here speak of the most perfect and noble effect of Christs mediation seen in the salvation of Man or his state of perfect Restitution in bliss to which Grace here in this life is but a Prelude and an Introduction And to this end the immediate way hereunto the Resurrection is to be explained as a principle Article of Christian Faith For this also is an effect of Christ our Mediatour as St. Austin witnesseth in these words The Resurrection Aug. Tract 23. in Joann John 6 54. of souls is effected by the eternal and immutable substance of Father and Son but the Resurrection of the Body is by the temporal and not co-aeternal Dispensation of the humanity of the Son And St. Ambrose speaks well to this Ambros de Fide Resurrect Illi quidam qui dicunt animas c. purpose They who think that souls are immortal do not sufficiently pacifie me while they redeem me but in part For what great favour can it be to me when I am not wholly delivered What life can that be if the work of God in me must perish Where is Gods justice if the same natural end be to the just and wicked in common They that would therefore make sure work against infidelity bring their grounds for this point from the Gentiles themselves whom they would convert to this opinion But both the artificial and inartificial arguments reason and testimony of the most famous Philosophers not taken from and grounded upon Divine Revelations will certainly be found insufficient For surely it may be said of the profession of this Article of Faith what Christ saith of Peters confession of him Flesh and Bloud hath not revealed it unto thee For what the Heathen invented of their own heads concerning the Immortality of the Soul if that they invented and not rather received from others better informed they soon corrupâ—ed into an opinion of Transmigration and shifting of Possessions as men do Farms when their Lease is expired or as Liquor is transfused from vessel to vessel For so much one of their principal words imports used to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their meaning And of the Bodies Resurrection little or nothing do we read amongst them But this is the chief point in our Christian Faith and this is that which the ancient Fathers contend for proving there is no proper resurrection but this as particularly the Constitutions of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cons Apost Lib. 5. c. 6. Epiphan Lib. 2. Haeres 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theodoret. Haeretic Fabular lib. 5. cap. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas de Incarnatione 2 Macch. 7. 9. Heb. 11. 35. 2 Kings 4. Wisd 3. Resurrection say they is of things that were fallen Which solid argument is also used by Epiphanius shewing that because the Body only properly falls to earth therefore it is the body chiefly we are to believe shall be raised again And therefore the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds as supplements to the Apostolical express the body in particular and the flesh to be restored And however fair and laudable attempts are made by the Ancients to perswade rather then prove a Resurrection from the several prettie Analogies found in nature of things perishing and after a while returning again to their pristine beauty and perfection yet not to except against them particularly How can we suppose they who knew little of the true God should understand so much as Gods people who had not this revealed in direct terms but in types and shadows and resemblances which have a more litteral and historical sense than this would be And it hath exercised the Pens of learned men both wayes to enquire Whether the Jews generally believe any more than Pythagoras or Plato might have learnt of them a life after the dissolution of the body and a state of bliss after a just and miserable life and death in this world all which as they prove not the Resurrection of the body which is the chief point of Christian Faith The expressions in the Book of Maccabees of the Mother expecting to have her children raised again especially taking the Comment of St. Paul upon that Text as is generally believed along with it though it may well be understood of those more Canonical Histories relating how the Shunamites son was restored to Life again by Elisha And the many divine sayings in the Book of Wisdome do declare a great and glorious prerogative belonging to the Just and Righteous above the wicked in the world to come but what is said may be restrained to the Immortality of the Spirit of men little or no mention being made of the Resurrection of the Body Yet in Esdras we have these words expresly Wheresoever thou findest the 2 Esdr 2. 23. dead take them and bury them and I will give thee the first place in my Resurrection But this Book is not received by the Romanists themselves and in all probality was much later then the rest however it may be said to deliver the current opinion of that Church then And in Maccabees there 2 Macc. 7. 14. is mention
oppressed truth they could in no tolerable sense be called a Church at all But by reason of that small struggling for Life in that Church they may be termed a Church out of Charity at least if not verity For Charity believeth all things CHAP. XV. Of Idolatry in the Romish Church in particular viz. In worshipping Saints Angels Reliques and especially the supposed blood of Christ No good foundation in Antiquity or the Scriptures for the said Worship FROM what hath passed may we with greater expedition conclude what remains of the Object of Worship and the superstition even to Idolatry committed in worshipping of Saints and Angels not only in themselves but Reliques For certainly Prayer to them or invocation of them is a proper Act of adoration no man doubts it And therefore see in what degree men pray to them they worship them as likewise what outward honor they give them or their Remains or Images And for the Spirits of just men made perfect as also their Reliques really such we allow due respect proper for such Objects But for the Images of Saints we know none proper to them as not at all belonging to them no part of them bearing no relation to them but as it shall please vain men to appoint it Yet though we hold no reverence at all is due to the Image of Saints or Angels for their own sakes or for the sakes of them they represent yet also hold we it unlawful to offer any indignity to them unless constrained from the abuses and superstitions used toward them which when they arrive at that height as to be made objects mediate or immediate of religious worship may lawfully suffer the same fate with the brazen Serpent in Hezechiah's dayes But first of Invocation of Saints in any sense How can we sufficiently wonder at the uncertainty yea contradiction of the greatest Patrons of it Whereof not only some affirm and some deny but the same Persons sometimes affirm and sometimes deny any such thing to be required or mentioned in Scripture Pighius and Cope give their reason why Saints were not worshipped under the Old Testament to be because they were not then partakers of the beautiful Vision as afterward Bellar. de Batitud Sanct. l. 1. c. 19. And this reason gives Bellarmin likewise yet for all that presums to alledg the words of Jacob Gen. 48. very ridiculously First because he confessed the Old Testament afforded no Presidents or Precepts for it Secondly because those words have quite another Sense than that he would draw them to I shall therefore cut off all that may be answered to the frivolous allegation of Scripture in that behalf as duly examined making more suspected of error than point than confirming it so very violent is the use of them And enquire rather first about the manner and then the reason and lastly the Authority or Tradition for this very briefly Of the three several distinct wayes wherein we are said to pray unto Saints one is not to pray to Saints at all but unto God For the first named by learned men which is to pray to God that upon intuition or consideration of Saints worth or prayers or intercession he would hear us doth not make Saints at all the Object of our prayers but the subject or matter of them which whether convenient to be used or not is besides our present question and belonging to another place and therefore may well be passed over and rather granted to be lawful and useful than disputed For certainly he that petitions a King to grant him any thing for such a Favorites sake who is about him and is his friend doth not thereby petition such a Courtier himself And this may be proved out of the ancient offices of the Church A second way is when we directly pray to them but not Particularly supposing they should either particularly understand all that we do or beg but by a general Petition desiring that they would pray for us A Third way is when we desire of Saints and Angels such things as are proper only to God to give us As if we should pray unto them to forgive us our sins to give us grace of mind and health of Body But these two do not seem to be distinct kinds but only differing in extent and matter For in the first a man doth make the matter of his request that they would promote that request which tendeth principally to God and ultimately In the second that they would procure to them the things prayed for which two differ in degrees not kind of Invocation Again they are wont here also to distinguish of Civil worship and religious And of Religious worship again into Divine proper and improper As for the former I see no reason how common soever it is to grant any such thing to Saints or Angels seeing all the ground of civil reverence given from one to another as in profession of our service honor and obedience to our Parent Masters or Governors wholly dependeth upon our civil and visible communion with them and civil Acts passing from one to another which communion or relation is extinguished quite by their natural death and departure out of this world as appeareth in the most intimate of all relations between men in this world which is that of Man and Wife which Nature Reason and the Scripture teach us to be as free as if they had never met together or known one another after the decease of either And surely all civil relations being founded on flesh and blood or Nature the foundation taken away must also cease and come to nothing Should a subject ask a Petition of his Soveraign that were alive but some hundred miles distant or out of hearing or of whose capacity to hear his prayers he had no competent assurance I cannot tell what more to call it but I am sure it were very absurd and ridiculous Now whether the communion of Saints and Angels which generally is no more than mystical and not at all civil or natural with us be such as doth not wholly render them unsensible of our Acts though directed to them here I at present determine not but this I may say that the bond of civil communion is quite broke between us and them and therefore are all Acts of that nature vain and groundless So that I may pray any Christian brother to pray for me here while we hold both civil and religious communion together but thiâ— being built upon that ceaseth together with that and becoms no longer of a mixt nature partly religious and partly natural or civil but purely Mystical and not to be exercised by such mixt acts as Invocation or outward veneration there being no known intercourse or reciprocation civil between us Therefore of necessity whoever maintains worship to be given to Saints must ascribe and defend divine worship to them and so in express terms we find them to do however they please to mollifie and extenuate