Theologia veterum, or, The summe of Christian theologie, positive, polemical, and philological, contained in the Apostles creed, or reducible to it according to the tendries of the antients both Greeks and Latines : in three books / by Peter Heylyn.

Articuli X. Pars Secunda. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (i. e.) Remissionem Peccatorum. (i. e.) The forgiveness of Sins. (Book 10)

CHAP. V. Of the first Introduction of sin: God not the Author of it. Of the na∣ture and contagion of Original sin. No Actual sin so great, but it in capable of forgiveness. In what respect some sins may be counted Venial, and others Mortal.

IT is a saying of St. Augustines (in no point so uncertain as in that of Purgatory) that possibly God could not have bestowed a greater blessing on his Church, than making his onely begotten Son Christ Iesus to be head thereof. By means whereof it com∣eth to pass, that one and the same person, Et orat pro nobis, & orat in nobis, & oratur à nobis, doth both pray for us, and pray with us, and yet is also prayed to by us. How so? That he re∣solves immediately in the words next following, Orat pro nobis ut sacerdos noster, orat in nobis ut caput nostrum, oratur à nobis ut deu•• noster; that is to say, He prayeth for us as our Priest, he prayeth with us as our Head, and is prayed to by us as our God. Himself is both the Suter, and the Mediator, yea, and the party sued unto; and therefore doubt we not, when we call upon him, but he will grant us those Petitions which himself makes for us. As Priest, he represents continually to Almighty God the benefit and effect of that perfect Sacrifice, which he once offered on the Cross for the sins of the world; As Head unto the Church, he recommends our prayers to the Throne of Grace, and joyneth with his Members in their sutes to God, for the more speedy and effectual obtaining of them; As God, he hath his eye still over us, and his ear still open to our prayers, which he hath both the will and the power to grant, so far forth as he seeth it fitting and expedient for us. He suffered for our sins, as he is our Priest; forgives them, as he is our God; and me∣diates, as our Head, with his Heavenly Father, for the remission of those sins which he suffered for. The medicine for our sins was tempered in his precious blood, and therein we behold him in his Priestly Office; the application of this medicine was committed to the sons of men, whom he by his Prophetical Office authorized unto it. The dispensation of the mercy thereof still remains in God, as an inseparable flower of the Regal Diadem; for who can forgive sins, but God alone a 1.1, said the Phari∣sees

truly. And this forgiveness of our sins, as it is the greatest blessing God ca•• give us in this present life, because it openeth us a door to eternal glory; so is it pla∣ced here as the first in order of those signal benefits which do descend upon the Church from her Head Christ Iesus. For we may hopefully conclude, that since Christ was not onely pleased to die for our sins, but doth intercede also with his Hea∣venly Father, that we may have the benefit of his death and passion; those prayers of his will make that death and passion efficacious to us, in the forgiveness of those sins under which we languish. With the like hope we may conclude from the self∣same Topick, That if we have our part in the first Resurrection, that, namely, from the death of sin, to the life of righteousness, we shall be made partakers of the second also, that, namely, from the death of nature, to the life of glory. For Chrysostom hath truly noted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a 1.2, That where the Head is, will the members be; If therefore Christ our Head be risen from the grave of death, the members shall be sure of a Resurrection: If Christ our Head be glorified in his Fathers Kingdom, the members in due time shall be glorified also. So that as well the Article of the Forgiveness of sins, as those of the Resurrection of the body, and The life everlasting, depend upon Christs being Head of this Mystical Body, and that too in the method which is here proposed: The forgiveness of sins being given us as a pledge or assurance that we shall have a joyful Resurrection in the day of judgment; as that is but a way or passage to eternal life.

First then we are to speak of the Forgiveness of sins, and therein we will first behold the whole body of sin, in its own foul nature, that so we may the better esti∣mate the great mercies of God in the forgiveness of the same. And for behold∣ing the whole body of sin in its own foul nature, we must first take notice, That it pleased God in the beginning to exhibite to the world, then but newly made, a lively copy of himself, a Creature fashioned ad similitudinem suam, after his own I∣mage b 1.3, saith the Text. In the creating of the which, as he collected all the excel∣lencies of inferior Creatures, so did he also crown him with those heavenly graces, with which he had before endued the most holy Angels; that is to say, a rectitude or clearness in his understanding, whereby he was enabled to distinguish betwixt truth and error; and with a freedom in his will, in the choice of his own ways and counsels, Ut suae faber esse possit fortunae, That if he should forsake that station wherein God had placed him, he might impute it unto none, but his wretched-self. It is true, God said unto him in the way of Caution, That in what day soever he did eat of the fruit forbidden, he should die the death: But he had neither undertaken to preserve him that he should not eat, and so by consequence not sin; much less had he ordained him to that end and purpose, that he should eat thereof, and so die for ever. And true it is, that God fore-knew from before all eternity, unto what end this Liberty of man would come; and therefore had provided a most excellent remedy for the restoring of lapsed man to his grace and favor: Yet was not this fore∣knowledge in Almighty God that so it would be, either a cause, or a necessity, or so much as an occasion, that so it should be. And it is therefore a good rule of Iustin Martyr, seconded by Origen, and divers others of the Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c 1.4, &c. The Prescience of God (say they) is not cause or reason why things come to pass, but because these and these things shall so come to pass, therefore God fore-knows them. So that God dealt no otherwise in this case, with our Father Adam, than did the Father in the Parable with his younger son; gave him that portion of his goods which fell to his share, and after left him to himself. And as the Prodigal childe being an ill husband on the stock which his Father gave him, did quickly waste the same by his riotous living, suffered the extremities of cold and hunger, and was fain to cast himself again on his Fathers goodness d 1.5; so man not u∣sing well that stock which the Lord had given him, gave himself over to the Epicu∣rism of his eye and appetite; By means whereof, he lost those excellent endowments of his first Creation, was shamefully thrust out of Paradise, without hope of re∣turn, and in conclusion fain to cast himself on the mercies of God, as well for his subsistence here, as his salvation hereafter. The story of mans fall makes this plain enough, and wholly frees Almighty God from having any hand or counsel in so

sad a ruine. For there we finde how God created him after his own Image, placed him in Paradise, commanded him not to meddle with the Tree of good and evil, threatned that in case he did eat thereof, he should surely die; and lastly, with what grievous punishments he did chastise him, for violating that Commandment e 1.6. All which had been too like a Pageant, if God had laid upon him a necessity of sin and death, and made him to no other end, as some teach us now, but by his fall to set the greater estimate on his own rich mercies. So excellently true is that of Ecclesia∣sticus, though the Author of it be Apocryphal, That God made man in the begin∣ing, and left him in the hands of his own counsels f 1.7. And this is the unanimous do∣ctrine of the New Testament also, where it is said, That by man came death, and that not onely of the body, but of the soul, 1 Cor. 15.21. That by one man, sin en∣tred into the world, and death by sin, Rom. 5.12. That by one mans disobedi∣ence many were made sinners, Vers. 19. That all die in Adam, Vers. 22. And in a word, That no man ought to say when he is tempted, that he is tempred of God, for God tempteth no man; but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lusts, and so enticed to do evil g 1.8. If God tempt no man, as it is plain by St. Iames he doth not, then was not Adam (that one man whom St. Paul relates to) either tempted by him, or by his purpose and decree drawn into temptation. If every man ought to ascribe his falling into sin and death, unto a voluntary yeelding to his own desires, then certainly ought Adam so to do, as well as any, who by his own unworthy lusts, was drawn away so visibly to his own destruction. We might pro∣ceed from Scripture to the Primitive Fathers, but that the evidence would be too great to be listned to: Suffice it that we finde not any of that sacred number, which ever made God accessary to the act of sin; scarce any of those blessed Spirits, which either of set purpose, or upon the by, did not oppose so leud a Tenet.

And it was more than time that they should so do, and that the present Church should pursue their courses; for some there were, some desperate and wretched He∣reticks, who had so far made ••old with Almighty God, as to make him the Author of those sins and wickednesses, which ill men committed; and some there have not wanted in these later times, who have not onely made him accessary, but even the very principal in the sin of Adam, and of ours by consequence.

Of the first sort of these were the Cataphrygians, the Scholars of Montanus, a wicked Heretick h 1.9. Some also taught the like in Rome, as did Florinus, Blastus, and their Associates; thereupon Irenaeus published a discourse with this Inscripti∣on, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That God was not the Author of sin i 1.10. And he gave this Inscription to it (as the story telleth us) because Florinus with great earnestness had taught the contrary. It seems Florinus was an Heretick of no com∣mon aims, and would not satisfie himself with those vulgar follies which had been taken up before; but he must ponere os in coelum, break out into blasphemous frenzies against God himself, and vented such an impious Tenet, which never any of the former Hereticks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, had once dared to broach; the Cata∣phrygians laying but the ground which he built upon; yet bold and venturous though he were, we do not finde that he became much followed in this leud opinion; or that his followers, if he had any at the lest, ever attained unto the height of their masters impudence. Some therefore of the following Hereticks, who in their hearts had entertained the same dreadful madness, did recommend it to the world in a fairer dress, and laid the blame of all their sins on the stars and destinies: The power∣ful influence of the one, and irresistable decrees of the other, necessitating men to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit. Thus are we told of Barde∣sanes, Quod fato conversationes hominum ascribet, that he ascribed all things to the power of fate k 1.11. And thus it is affirmed of Priscillianus, Fatalibus astris ho∣mines alligatos, That men were thralled unto the Stars l 1.12; which last St. Augustine doth report also of one Colarbas, save that he gave this power and influence to the Planets onely. But these, if pondered as they ought, differed but little, if at all, from the impiety of Florinus, before remembred: Onely it was expressed in a better lan∣guage, and seemed to favor more of the Philosopher, than the other did; for if the

Lord had passed such an irrevocable Law of Fate, that such and such men should be guilty of such foul transgressions, as they commonly committed; it was all one as if he were proclaimed for the Author of them. And then why might not every man take unto himself the excuse and plea of Agamemnon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m 1.13, It was not I that did it, but the gods and destiny: Or if the Lord had given so irresistible a power to the Stars of Heaven, as to inforce men to be wickedly and leudly given, what differs this from making God the Author of those vicious actions, to which by them we are inforced? And then why might not every man cast his sins on God, and say as did some such good fellows in St. Augu∣stines time, Accusandum potius esse autorem Syderum, quam Commissorem scelerum n 1.14, That he who made the Stars was in all the fault? Which granted, we may pass an Index Expurgatorius on the present Creed, and utterly expunge the Article of Christs coming to judgement. For how could God condemn his Crea∣ture to unquenchable flames? or put so ill an office upon Christ our Saviour, as to condemn them by his mouth, in case the sins by them committed were not theirs, but his? or punish them for that which himself works in them, or to which rather he compels them by so strong an hand? that of Fulgentius being most excellently, and infallibly true, Deus non est corum ultor, quorum est autor o 1.15, God doth not use to punish his own actions in us.

Nor were Florinus, and those other Hereticks before remembred, the onely ones that broached those doctrines; our later times, not being so free as I could wish from so great impiety. The Libertines, a late brood of Sectaries, have affirmed as much p 1.16, and taught as did Florinus in the days of old, Quicquid ego & ••u facimus, Deus efficit, n••m in nobis est; and so make God the Author of those wicked acti∣ons which themselves committed. The Founders of this Sect, Coppinus and Quin∣tinus, both Flemings; and these Prateolus reports for certain to be the Progeny of Calvin, and other leading men of the Protestant Churches. These carne (saith he) è Schola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum q 1.17. Pythagoras could not have spoken it with more authority: Bellarmine somewhat more remisly, Omnino probabile est eos ex Calvinianis promanasse r 1.18, and makes it onely probable, that it might be so, but not rightly neither: For Staphylus reckoning up the Sects which sprang from Luther, however that in other things he flies out too far, yet makes no mention of those fellows. Paraeus on the other side, in his Animadversions on the Cardinal, assures us, That they were both Papists, acquaints us with the place of their Nativi∣ty, and the proceedings had against them. Calvin who writ a Tract against them, makes one Franciscus Poquius, a Franciscan Frier, a principal stickler in the cause: And we may adde ex abundanti, that the said Sect did take beginning Anno 1529. when Calvin had attained to no reputation, no not amongst those very men who have since admired him, and made his word the touchstone of all Orthodox doctrine. So that for the reviving of this Heresie in these later ages, so far forth as it is deliver∣ed positively, and in terms express, which was the blasphemy of Florinus, we are beholding for it to the Church of Rome, or some that had been members of it; how willingly soever they would charge it on the Protestant Doctors: Yet true it is, for magna veritas & praevalebit, that some, and those of no small name in such Pro∣testant Churches, as would be thought a pattern unto all the rest, have given too just a ground for so great a scandal. And well it were they had observed that Cau∣tion in their Publick Writings, which Caesar looked for in his Wife, and that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.19, that they had been as free from the suspition of it, as the crime it self. For howsoever they affirm it not in termes expresse, which was the desperate boldness of that Florinus; yet they come very near it, to a tantamont, by way of necessary consequence and deduction, which was the Artifice of Bardesanes and Priscillian: For if God before all eternity, as they plainly say, did purpose and de∣cree the fall of our Father Adam, Vt sua defectione periret Adam, in the words of Calvin t 1.20; there was in Adam a necessity of committing sin, because the Lord had so decreed it. If without consideration of the sin of man, he hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessariò & inevitabiliter u 1.21, as they please to phrase it, he must needs pre-ordain

them to sin also; there being, as themselves confess, no way unto the end but by the means. And then what can the wicked and impenitent do but ascribe all their sins to God, by whose enevitable Will they were lost in Adam, by whom they were particularly and personally necessitated unto death, and so by consequence, to sin? For thus Lyconides in Plautus pleaded for himself, when he deflowred old Euclios daughter; Deus mihi impulsor fuit, is me ad illam illexit; It was Gods doing, none of his, that he was so vicious. I hope I need not press this further, or shew the true or real difference between the laying the burthen of our sins upon Christ our Savior, as the Iews theirs upon the Scape-Goat by Gods own appointment, and laying the whole blame and guilt of them on our own affections. He is but ill trai∣ned up in the School of Piety, who will not take upon himself the blame of his own transgressions, and fly to God onely on the hopes of pardon. And yet I shall make bold to add, and indeed the rather, that they who first did broach this Doctrine of the necessity and decree of Adams fall, and consequently making God the prime Author of sin, confess they have no warrant for it in the Holy Scripture. For whereas some objected upon Gods behalf, disertis verbis non extare, that the de∣cree of Adams fall had no foundation in the express words of Holy Writ; b 1.22 Calvin returns no other Answer than a Quasi vero, as if (saith he) God made and created man, the most exact peece of his Heavenly Workmanship; without determining of his end. Nay, himself calls it for a farewel, horrible decretum, a cruel and horrible Decree, as indeed it is: A cruel and horrible Decree, to pre-ordain so many millions to destruction, and consequently unto sin, that he might destroy them. If then the introduction of the body of sin came by no other means but by man alone, and that the charging of it upon Gods Decrees have no foundation in the Scriptures; If it run cross unto the constant current of Antiquity, and that the like Err••neous and Blasphemous Tenets were reckoned of as Heresies by the Antient Fathers; If it be founded onely on the ipse dixit, or the why nots, and Quasi veros of a private man, and by him reckoned for an horrible and cruel Decree: Nay more, if it be contra∣ry to the Word of God, and increase of Piety, and tend apparently to the dishonor of God, and bolstring wicked men in their sinful courses; then certainly we may conclude, that God could have no hand in this woful Tragedie, that man alone is Au∣thor of his own calamity, and can accuse himself onely, and his own affections, for giving way to those temptations which brought sin upon him, and not upon himself alone, but his whole Posterity.

For if we look into the Scripture, we find that sin did not content it self with the person of Adam, as if it had been a sufficient victory to have brought him under, un∣less in him, his whole Race and Off-spring, which were then radically and poten∣tially in the loyns of Adam, had been infected also with the same contagion. For Adam is not here considered as a private person, who was to stand or fall to him∣self alone, without occasioning either good or evill unto any, more than in way of imitation of his great Example: But as the stock of all mankinde, who were to have a share in his weal or woe. For being the original and root (as before was said) of all mankind descended from him, whom he did represent at his first Crea∣tion; he did receive that stock of righteousness which God gave unto him, not for himself onely, and his own particular benefit, had he used it well, but as the com∣mon Patrimony and Inheritance of himself and his. And having so improvidently lost both himself and it, by yeelding to the motions of that flesh which he was to govern, he lost it not onely for himself when he came under the attainture which the Law brought on him, but he did wholly forfeit it for himself and them; his Race or Off-spring which were then radically in his Loins, being involved with him in the same perdition. For as the Scripture saith of Levi, that he paid Tithes in Abraham unto Melchisedech, because he was in the Loyns of Abraham when Melchisedech met him c 1.23; so may we also say in the present case, that all men sinned and lost themselves in our Father Adam, because they were all of them in the Loyns of Adam when he lost himself. The Scripture saith not onely that sin came to man, or fell on him onely, as if the power thereof had terminated in that one mans person, on whom it first did come or fall, but that it came by man, as a Pipe or Conduit, by

which it passed also unto others. By one man sin entred into the world, saith the Apostle to the Romans d 1.24; By man came death, saith the Apostle to the Corinthi∣ans e 1.25; that is to say, By that one man, our Father Adam, both sin and death found opportunity to enter on his whole posterity. Et per Adamum ex quo omnes mortales originem ducunt, dicitur peccatum introiisse f 1.26, as it is in Origen. This sin thus miserably derived from our father Adam, we call Original sin, or the Birth-sin, as in the Ninth Article of the Church of England. A sin, because it is a taint or stain in the soul of man, by which we are adjudged impure in the sight of God: The Birth-sin, or Original sin, as being naturally and originally inherent in the very birth; and therein different from the sins of our own committing, which for distinction sake are entituled actual. The nature of which Birth-sin, or Original sin, is by the Church of England in her publick Articles defined to be the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is ingendred of the Of-spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gon from Original righteousness, and inclined to evillg 1.27. In which description we may find the whole nature of it, as first, that it is a corrupti∣on of our nature, and of the nature of every man descended from the Loyns of A∣dam. Secondly, That it is a departure from, and even a loss or forfieture of, that stock of Original Iustice, wherewith the Lord enriched our first Father Adam, and our selves in him. And thirdly, That it is an inclination unto evil, to the works of wickedness, by means whereof (as afterwards the Article explains it self) the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and both together do incur the indignation of God. So that if we speak of Original sin formally, it is the privation of those excellent gifts of divine Grace, inabling us to know, love, serve, honor and trust in God, and to do the things that God delights in, which Adam once had, but did shortly lose; If materially, it is that habitual inclination which is found in men, most averse from God, carrying them to the inordinate love and desire of finite things, of the crea∣ture more than the Creator; which is so properly a sin, that it makes guilty of con∣demnation the person whosoever it be in whom it is found. And this habitual in∣clination to the inordinate love of the creature, is named Concupiscence; which being two-fold, as Alensis notes it out of Hugo h 1.28, that is to say, Concupiscentia spiritus, a concupiscience of the spirit, or superior; and concupiscentia carnis, a concupiscence of the flesh, or inferior faculties; the first of these is onely sin, but the latter is both sin and punishment. For what can be more consonant to the Rules of Iustice, than that the Will refusing to be ordered by God, and desiring what he would not have it, should finde the inferior faculties rebellious against it self, and inclinable to desire those things in a violent way, which the Will would have to be declined?

Now that all of us from the womb are tainted with this original corruption and depravation of nature, is manifest unto us by the Scriptures, and by some Argu∣ments derived from the practise of the Catholick Church, countenanced and con∣firmed by the antient Doctors. In Scripture, first, we find how passionately Da∣vid makes complaint, that he was shapen in wickedness, and conceived in sin i 1.29. Where we may note in the Greek and Vulgar Latine, it is in sins and wick∣ednesses in the plural number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Greek, in peccatis, in iniquitatibus, as the Latine hath it. And that to shew us, as Becanus hath right well observed, Quod unum illud peccatum quasi fons sit aliorum k 1.30, that this one sin is as it were the Spring and Fountain, from whence all others are derived. Next, St. Paul tels us in plain words, that by the offence of one (of this one man A∣dam) Iudgement came upon all men to condemnation; and Judgement could not come upon all, or any, were it not in regard of sin. Not that all men in whom Origi∣nal sin is found, without the addition of Actual and Personal guiltiness, are actu∣ally made subject unto condemnation, and can expect no mercy at the hands of God; but that they are all guilty of it, should God deal extreamly, and take the forfeiture of the Bond, which we all entred into in our Father Adam. Thus finde we in the same Apostle, that we are by nature the children of wrath l 1.31, pol∣luted and unclean from the very womb, our very nature being so inclinable to the works of wickedness, that it disposeth us to evil from the first conception; and

makes us subject to the wrath and displeasure of God. Last of all, we are told by the same Apostle, (for we will clog this point with no further evidence) That the wages of sin is death m 1.32; that sin entred into the world, and death by sin; and that death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned n 1.33. And thereupon we may conclude, That wheresoever we behold a spectacle of death, there was a receptacle of some sin. Now we all know, that death doth spare no more the Infant, than the Elder man; and that sometimes our children are de∣prived of life, assoon almost as they enjoy it, sometimes born dead, and sometimes dead assoon as born, Prima quae vitam dedit hora carpsit, in the Poets language. A wages no way due to Infants for their actual sins (for actually as yet they have not offended;) and therefore there must needs be in them some original guilt, some Birth-sin (as the Article calls it) which brings so quick a death upon them. And this is further verified from the constant and continual practise of the Church of Christ, which hath provided, That the Sacrament of Baptism be conferred on In∣fants, before they come unto the use of Speech or Reason; yea, and at some times, and on some occasions (as namely, in cases of extremity, and the danger of death) to Christen them assoon as born. For by so doing, she did charitably, and not unwar∣rantably conceive, that they are received into the number of Gods children, and in a state of good assurance; which could not be so hopefully determined of them, should they depart without the same. And with this that of Origen doth agree ex∣actly, Si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet & indulgentiam per∣tinere, gratia Baptismi superflua videretur o 1.34. Were there not something in an Infant which required forgiveness, the Sacrament of Baptism were superfluously administred to him. Upon which grounds, the Church of England hath maintained the necessity of Baptism, against the Sectaries of this age, allowing it to be admini∣stred in private houses, as oft as any danger or necessity doth require it of her. A second thing we finde in the Churches practise, and in the practise of particular per∣sons of most note and evidence, which serves exceeding fitly to confirm this point; and that is, That neither the Church in general doth celebrate the birth-day of the Saints departed, but the day onely of their deaths; nor any of the Saints them∣selves did solemnize the day of their own Nativity with Feasts and Triumphs. First, for the practise of the Church, we may take this general rule once for all, Non nativitatem sed mortem sanctorum ecclesia pretiosam judicat & beatam, That the Church reckoneth not the day of their birth, but the death-day (if I may so call it) of the Saints to be blest and precious. According unto that of the Royal Psalmist, Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints p 1.35. Upon which grounds, the word Natalis hath been used in the Martyrologies q 1.36, and other publick Monuments of the Catholick Church, to signifie the death, and not the birth-day of the Saints departed. And more particularly we are thus informed by St. Augustine, Solius Domini & Beati Iohannis dies nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur r 1.37, i. e. That onely the day of the nativity of our Lord and Savi∣our, and of St. Iohn Baptist, were celebrated (in his time) in the Church of Christ: Of Christ, because there is no doubt but that he was conceived and born without sin original; and of the Baptist, because sanctified in his Mothers womb s 1.38, as St. Luke saith of him. And for particular men it is said by Origen, Nemo ex sanctis invenitur hunc diem festum celebrasse t 1.39, &c. That never any of the Saints did ce∣lebrate the day of their own nativity, or of any of their sons and daughters, with a Solemn Feast. The reason was the same for both, because they knew that even the best of them were conceived in sin, and brought forth in wickedness; and there∣fore with no comfort could observe that day, which the sense of their original cor∣ruptions had made so unpleasing. But on the other side, those men who either knew not, or regarded not their own natural sinfulness, esteemed that day above all others in their lives, as that which gave them their first-being to enjoy their pleasures; and they, as Pharaoh in the Old Testament u 1.40, and Herod in the New x 1.41, failed not to keep the same as a Publick Festival. Soli peccatores super hujusmodi diem lae∣tantur, as it is in Origen y 1.42. And hereupon we may infer (without doubt or scruple) that having the authority of the Scripture, and the Churches practise, and that pra∣ctise

countenanced by Authors of unquestioned credit, (not to say any thing further in so clear a case from the concurrent Testimonies of the Antient Fathers) That there is such a sin as Birth-sin, or Original sin, a Natural corruption radicated in the Seed of Adam, which makes us subject to the wrath and indignation of God.

Thus have we seen the Introduction of sin, the first act of the Tragedy; let us next look upon the second, on the Propagation, the manner how it is derived from Adam unto our Fore-fathers, and from them to us. And this we finde to be a matter of greater difficulty. St. Augustine, in whose time these controversies were first raised by the Pelagians, did very abundantly satisfie them in the quod sit of it; but when they pressed him with the quo modo, how it was propagated from Adam, and from one man to another, he was then fain to have recourse to Gods secret justice, and his unsearchable dispensation. Et hoc quidem libentius disco quam doceo, ne audeam docere quod nescio z 1.43, as with great modesty and caution he de∣clined the business: For whereas sin is the contagion of the soul, and the soul oweth its being unto God alone, and is not begotten by our parents; the Pelagians either would not, or could not be answered in their Quere, How Children should receive corruption from their Parents, not could the good Father give them satisfaction unto their demand. But as a Dwarf standing on the shoulders of a Giant, may see many things far off, not visible to the Giant himself; so those of the ensuing times, build∣ing on the foundations which were laid by Augustine, have added to him the solu∣tion of such doubts and difficulties, as in his time were not discovered. Of these, some have delivered, That the soul contracts contagion from the flesh, even in the very act of its first infusion, the union of the soul and body; nor is it any thing im∣probable that it should so be. We see that the most excellent Wines retain their natural sweetness, both of taste and colour, as long as they are kept in some curious Vessel; but if you put them into foul and musty bottles a 1.44, they lose forthwith their former sweetness, participating of the uncleanness of the Vessel in which they are: Besides, it is a Maxim amongst Philosophers, Quod mores animae sequuntur tem∣peramentum corporis, That the soul is much byassed and inclined in the actions of it unto the temper of the body; and if the equal or unequal temper of the body of man, can (as it seems) incline the minde unto the actual embracing of good or evil; then may it also be believed, that the corruptions of the flesh may dispose the soul, even in the first infusion of it, to some habitual inclinations unto sin and wicked∣ness. Than which, though there may be a more solid, there cannot be a more conceive∣able Answer: But others walking in a more Philosophical way, conceive that the ac∣complishment of the great work of Generation, consists not in the introduction of the form onely, or in preparing of the matter, but in the constituting the whole compositum, the whole man, as he doth consist both of soul and body: And that a man is, and may properly be said to beget a man, notwithstanding the Creation of his soul by God, because that the materials of the Birth do proceed from man, and those materials so disposed and actuated by the emplastick vertue of the Seed, that they are fitted for the soul, and as it were produced unto Animation. Which reso∣lution, though it be more obscure unto vulgar wits, is more insisted on by the learned, than the former is, and possibly may have more countenance from holy Scripture. When God made man, it is said of him, That he was created after Gods own I∣mage b 1.45, that is to say, Invested with an habit of Original Righteousness, his under∣standing clear, and his will naturally disposed to the love of God: But Adam ha∣ving by his fall lost all those excellent endowments, both of grace and nature, begot a Son like to himself: And therefore it is said in the fifth of Genesis, That he begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and he called his name Seth c 1.46. Though Adam was created after the Image of God, and might have still preserved that Image in his whole posterity, had he continued in that state wherein God crea∣ted him; yet being faln, he could imprint no other Image in the fruit of his Body, than that which now remained in him, his own Image onely, the understanding darkned, and the will corrupted, and the affections of the soul depraved and vitia∣ted. Qualis post lapsum Adam fuit, tales etiam filios genuit; such as himself was

after his Apostasie, such and no other were the Children which descended of him, ••s Paraeus very well observeth * 1.47. And if it fall out commonly (as we see it doth) that a crooked Father doth beget a crook-backed Son; that if the Father look a squint, the Children seldom are right-sighted; and that the childe doth not onely inherit the natural deformities, but even the bodily diseases of his Parents too: It is the less to be admired that they should be the heirs also of those sinful lusts, with which their Parents were infected from the very birth. Nor doth it any way advantage us in this present case, that our Parents were regenerate, (for so we may suppose) when they did beget us; and being washed themselves from Original sin, by the laver of regeneration, should therefore in congruity be inabled also to beget children like themselves, free from that pollution. For the Regenerate are never so absolutely clear∣ed from this corruption, but that there is a law in their members which doth still war against the Spirit, and that which, as the Scripture telleth us, hath in it self such an unpleasingness to God, as maketh it to have somewhat in it of the nature of sin e 1.48. It is true, that by the Sacrament of regeneration the guilt thereof is washed away, and man thereby acquitted from the punishment of it; yet there remaineth in us still, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that wisdom or sensuality of the flesh) as St. Paul en∣tituleth it, whereby we are inclined to resist at all times, and sometimes actu∣ally do rebel against the Spirit: Or were it so, that in the state of grace and rege∣neration, we were all cleansed throughout, yet might our children be partakers of those corruptions which naturally and originally were inherent in us: For let the Husbandman W••ndow, and Rie, and Pick his Wheat with all care and industry, till there be ne••ther Chaff, nor Tare, nor ill Seed amongst it▪ yet when that Wheat is sown, and the stalk grown up into an Ear, those Ears will be as full of Chaff, as was the Seed it self, out of which they came, before such care and pains had been took about it. And so St. Augustine hath resolved it, saying, Oleae semina non oleas generare sed oledstros g 1.49, That the wilde Olive springs from the true Olive Tree.

What then? may any man complain, as it seems too many did in the time of Chrysostom? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h 1.50, What reason is it that we should be punished and afflicted, it is for him we suffer; for Adams fault, and not our own, that we are thus scourged. Assuredly there is no such matter; and we may say to such complainers as that Father did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not so, saith he, it is no such thing, we suffer not for his, but our own trans∣gressions. The best man hath too many sins, which he is to answer for, besides that of Adam; and therefore none to lay the blame of his guilt and punishment upon Adam onely, as if he onely had offended, and not we our selves. There is not one who hath not wretchedly increased that stock of wickedness which his Father left him, adding transgressions of his own, many actual sins, to that original corruption which he had from Adam. And howsoever, we are unthrifts on that stock of grace which God is pleased to give unto us, and ei••her hide our Talents in a Napkin i 1.51, as we know who did, or else mispend them like the Prodigal, on our riotous lusts; yet we are too good husbands on that stock of sin which is bequeathed us by our Parents. There is not a man amongst us, but improves that patrimony, adding one sin unto an∣other, as Lust to Drunkenness, Murder to Adultery, Rebellion to Secret Trea∣sons; Lascivious speech to loose Affections, and unchaste actions unto both: Which though they are the necessary consequents of original sin (unless exceedingly held in by the bridle of grace) so are they daily multiplied, and increased continually, by giving way to our corrupt affections, and following the example of that first Trans∣gressor. Sic instituere majores, posteri imitantur, as he in Tacitus k 1.52; The Fathers manner of life is the Sons example. So that the followers of Pelagius when they imputed sin unto imitation, had they intended it of actual, not original sin, they had not been much wanting of the mark they aimed at. We are made guilty of original sin, immediately from our own Parents, as they from theirs, ascending till they came to Adam, in the way of Propagation; and make their actual sins our own in the way of imitation. Nor need we press this further, than with that of Origen, Parentes non solum generant filium sed & imbuunt, & qui nascuntur non solum filis Paren∣tibus

sunt, sed & Discipuli p 1.53, in reference unto sin and wickedness we are the Scholars of our Parents, not their Children onely: But whether it be by Propa∣gation, or by Imitation, or by transcending all examples which have been before us, most sure it is, that we are all corrupt and become abominable, that there is none that doeth good, no not one q 1.54, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, Maliciousness, full of envy, murther, debate, malig∣nity r 1.55, insomuch as from the Crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there is nothing but swellings, and soars, and putrifaction s 1.56. More sure it is, that even our righteousness is but like to a menstruous cloth, and that our justest actions are not a∣ble to endure the trial, if they should come to be weighed in the sight of God, by the severity of the Law, and the exact ballance of the Sanctuary. Vae enim lau∣dabili hominum vitae, si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam t 1.57; Woe, saith Au∣gustine, to the most commendable part of all our lives, should not God look upon us with the eyes of mercy, and through the Spectacles of the merits of our Lord CHRIST IESVS.

Not to insist longer on those curiosities, which are and may be made by unquiet men, about the Introduction, Propagation, and universal over-spreading of the body of sin, we must resolve, as he that fell into a pit did resolve the Passenger who was inquisitive to know how he came into it. At ille, obsecro inquit tecum cogita, quomodo hinc me liberes, &c. u 1.58 My friend, said the poor fellow, take no care to learn how I fell into it, but do the best you can to help me out of it. That we are fal∣len into the pit, not only of Original but of Actual filthiness, we all know too well; and we know too, that we first fell into it by the fault of our Father Adam, but have since plunged our selves more deeply in the mire of sin, then Adam by his personal error could have brought upon us. If we are yet unsatisfied with the manner how, not∣withstanding all that hath been formerly here delivered, and may be elsewhere found in the Antient writers, we may do well to take as much care as we can for our get∣ting out, and not molest our selves and others with those needless questions, which have been made about the manner of our falling in.

And this is that which we are next to go in hand with. For if there were no way to get out of this pit, the knowledge which we have of our falling in, and of the condi∣tion we lie under till we be delivered, would so perplex us and afflict us, that Chri∣stians of all men would be most miserable. But so it is, that God of his great goodness and love to man hath so provided, that no man can complain that he wants help to get out, if he be not wanting to himself, but will stretch out his hand and lay hold of such means as are by God prepared to that end and purpose. If we sing Do∣mine de profundis, and call upon him out of the deeps of our sin and misery, no doubt but he will hear our voyce x 1.59, and take pitty on us, for with him there is mercy, saith the Royal Psalmist, with him is plentious redemption, sufficient to de∣liver Israel from all his sins. The pit of sin is deep, that of mercy bottomless, a kind of Puteus inexhaustus, a Well which can never be drawn dry, as the Pope said of England, when at his devotion. Though man sin grievously and unpardonably in the sight of others, yet hath God mercie still in store for the greatest sinner; Gods goodness being so transcendent as not to be exhausted by mans maliciousness. Boni∣tas invicti non vincitur y 1.60, said Fulgentius rightly. Those of the Church of Rome have made a difference of sins, accounting some to be venial, others mortal; which terms we well enough approve of, rightly understood; but I approve not the di∣stinction of some Protestant Doctors, of remissible and irremissible z 1.61, of sins which may be pardoned, and of sins that may not. First, We deny not the distincti∣on of venial and mortal sins, rightly understood, but do think that some sins are fitly said to be mortal, and some venial, because some are forgiven, some not, accor∣ding to the quality of the sin, and the party sinning. Not that we think that some are worthy in themselves of eternal punishment, and others but of temporal onely, where∣of the first are counted mortal, and the others venial, as the Papists think: but that some sins either in respect of the matter wherein men offend, or ex imperfectione actus, in that they are not committed with a full consent, are not so inconsistent with the Spirit of Grace, but that the Spirit of Grace still remaining in him, which

doth them, and preserves him in the good opinion and esteem of God. These we may call Peccata quotidianae incursionis, sins of daily incursion, vain thoughts, and idle words, and unseemly motions; which the best men are subject to at some time or other. And if God were extream in marking what is done amiss (in these seve∣ral waies) no flesh were able to abide it a 1.62. He that is faulty in these kinds, though he deserve punishment, and eternal punishment at the hands of God, if God should take advantage of the Law against him, yet shall his punishment be lesse, and his stripes far fewer, than it shall be in those who transgress maliciously, and sin with an high hand of presumptuous wickedness. We have not so much of the Stoick as to make sins equal, or to maintain peccata omnia sunt aequalia, in the way of Pa∣radox, as once Tully did, though the Papists falsly charge it on us. For though we use not the distinction in their sense and meaning, yet neither do we say that all sins are equal, and of like deformity, or in the same degree of contrariety with the grace of God; or that they have the same effects, and shall be punished at the last with the like extremity. Onely we take it for a dangerous and presumptuous doctrine, to teach that any sin (if properly and truly sin) is venial, in and of it self, without true repentance, as that which doth include nothing offensive to God, or is merito∣rious of his judgements. For Almain one of their great Doctors doth affirm ex∣presly, that it is a question amongst the Schoolmen, whether there be any such sin or not b 1.63? And himself concludeth out of Gerson, that no sin is venial of it self, but onely through the mercy of God; it being a contradiction that God should for∣bid an act under a penalty, and when he hath done, that act should not be mortal in its own nature; because being thus forbidden, it is against the Law of God, and that which is against Gods Law, must needs be infinitely evil, and by consequence mortal. And so it is also in respect of the party sinning; For as Cajetan hath well observed c 1.64, That which doth positively make sin venial, or not venial, is the state of the subject wherein it is found. If therefore we respect the nature of sin as it is in it self, without grace, it will remain eternally in stain or guilt, and so subject the sinner to eternal punishment: But yet such is the nature of some sins, either in regard of the matter wherein they are conversant, or their not being done with full consent, that they do not necessarily imply an exclusion of Grace out of the subject in which they are found, and so do not necessarily put the doers of them into such a state which positively makes them not to be venial, by removing grace, which is the fountain of remission. So that no sin is positively venial, as having any thing in it self which may claim remission, because it hath not any thing of Grace from whence all remission doth proceed; though many sins ex genere, or ex imperfectione actus (as before was said) that is to say, in reference to the matter wherein man offendeth, or to the manner, as not done with a full con∣sent, may be said to be venial negative, and per non ablationem principii re∣missionis, in that it doth not necessarily imply the exclusion of grace, by the ex∣clusion of which grace from the souls of men, sins are named mortal. For being that Grace onely is the fountain whence remission springs; nothing can make sin positively venial, but to be in Grace, nor nothing make it positively mortal, but to be out of the state of Grace. And so we see that some sins may be called venial, according to the quality of the sin, and the party sinning, in that they bring not alwaies with them eternal punishment, though possibly not repented of particularly: and that all sins are venial ex eventu too (though otherwise mortal in themselves) in that there is no sin so great, but by the blood of Christ, and sincere repentance, may ••e done away, and freely pardoned by the merciful goodness of the Lord our God, who de∣sireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from sin and be saved.

For that there is no sin so great which is unpardonable or irremissible in respect of God, the infinitness of his mercy over all his works, his graciousness in pardoning Davids Murther, Solomons Idolatries, Pauls Persecuting of his Church, Peters de∣nying of his Master, and thousands of the like examples do most clearly evidence. If ever men had reason to despair of pardon, none I am certain could have more than those we did so wilfully and maliciously imbrew their hands in the most innocent

blood of our Lord and Saviour; yet when their hearts were touched at St. Peters Sermon, so that they asked him, What they were to do, that they might be saved e 1.65, He presently chalked them out a way, by Baptism and Repentance to obtain the re∣mission of sins, even of that bloody sin it self, of crucifying by their wicked hands the Lord of glory. If any had more reason to despair than they, it must be none but such of the Scribes and Pharisees, who saying that our Saviour Christ had cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils, may properly be said to have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, and consequently to have committed such a sin, as in the judgment of our Saviour is pronounced unpardonable. He that blas∣phemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, as St. Luke expresly f 1.66. And yet St. Ambrose is so charitable, as to think, that some of them were pardon∣ed g 1.67; it being probable, that some of those very Scribes and Pharisees were pre∣sent at St. Peters Sermon, and so within the compass of repentance and forgiveness of sins. And then withal we may observe, that though it be expresly said, That the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, yet it may well be under∣stood with a qualification; impossibility being sometimes used in holy Scripture to denote a difficulty: As where it is affirmed, as positively, and expresly, to be impossi∣ble for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven h 1.68. Where certainly it was not the intent of Christ, utterly to exclude all rich men from the hopes of Heaven; but onely to declare how hard and difficult it was for those who trusted in their riches, and wallowed in the pride and pleasures of a prosperous fortune, to set their mindes upon the blessings of eternal life. And so it is also in the present case, in St. Chryso∣stoms judgment, Ideo dici nunquam remitti i 1.69, quia difficilius remittitur, Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, saith he, it is therefore said, that it shall never be forgiven, because it is more hardly pardoned, and with greater diffi∣culty, than any other sin whatever. And that this qualification, or the like, is to be admitted, appears yet further by the words which are next before it, and to which, these in question must needs have relation; where it is said, That all sins, and all blasphemies shall be forgiven unto men. In which he did not, could not mean, that all sins, and at all times, should be pardoned to all sorts of men; for then no sin were damnable, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is most untrue. There∣fore the sense must be in both, That all sins ordinarily, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be for∣given unto men upon true repentance, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not so ordinarily be forgiven, or shall more hardly be forgiven, than any other. Not that it cannot be forgiven at all▪ Non utique quod remitti non possit, as most truly Maldonat k 1.70: But because they who do blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, Nullam peccati sui excusationem habent, have seldom any thing to allege in excuse thereof, and so were more unpardonable than other men.

As for those passages pretended from the holy Scripture in maintenance of the irremissibility of some kinde of sin, and in particular of this against the power of the Holy Ghost, they neither prove the point which they are produced for, nor were intended by the Sacred Penmen of the Word of God, of that sin or blasphemy. In the first place, it is alleged from St. Paul to the Hebrews, To be impossible for those who were once enlightned, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to re∣pentance, seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh l 1.71. But this the Fathers understand not of a difficulty or impossibility of admitting such men unto repentance, but that they could not be admitted to a second Baptism, and thereby to be renovated, and illuminated, to die, be buried, and rise a second time in Christ, in so facile and compleat a washing of sin, as the Sacrament of Rege∣neration did afford at first. Chrysostom is express for this m 1.72, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He doth not take away repentance, but a second Baptism. St. Ambrose also saith the same, and sheweth that the meaning of this Text is, and must be, De non iterando baptismate n 1.73, not of repelling sinners from the thought of repentance, and the remission of their sins by the Churches Ministry, as the Novatians falsly taught; but of the not admitting them to a second Baptism,

which some began to introduce upon that occasion. And that the Apostle speaks of a second Baptism, is evident by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or illuminatos, which was used antiently to signifie those that were baptised o 1.74, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or illumination, for Bap∣tism, the very Sacrament it self. Secondly, by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or renovare, which intimates or implies our renovation by that holy Sacrament. Per lavachrum enim renovamur per quod renascimur p 1.75, as St. Ambrose notes it, We are renewed by the laver of regeneration, by which we are new-born to the life of righteous∣ness. And thirdly, from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of crucifying again the Lord of life, our Baptism being as the figure of his death or crucifixion, in which our old man is crucified with him, as St. Paul hath told us q 1.76, That the body of sin might be destroyed, and buried in his grave by Baptism. And thereupon if followeth by St. Pauls illation, Non magis quenquam bis baptizari, quam Christum bis cru∣cifigi posse r 1.77, saith the learned Knight Sir Daniel Heinsius, That the impiety is as great for a man to be baptized again, as if Christ should again be crucified. The like may be affirmed of a second Text alleged from the same Apostle s 1.78, where it is said, That if we sin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. Which Text, as that before, is applied by Calvin to such as fall away from the Faith and Gospel, whom he excludes utterly from all hope of pardon, as men that sin against the holy Spirit of God; but very wrongfully in all.

For first, although we read it wilfully in our last Translation, yet is it onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek originals; which Beza rendreth uliro, the Vulgar Latin, vo∣luntario, our old Translation, willingly, as the Rhemists do. And to say truth, the word doth signifie no more, though to comply with Calvins Comment on the Text, our last Translators who inclined too much unto his opinions, do now read it wil∣fully. And if it be but willingly, as indeed it is not, I would know in what a despe∣rate estate we Christians were, if every sin which is committed willingly, after truth embraced, shall either be reputed in the sight of God for the sin against the Holy Ghost, or utterly past hope of pardon. Nor is the case much better, if we read it wilfully, though better with some sort of men, than it is with others. For miserable were the state of us mortal men, if every sin that is committed wilfully (which too often hapneth) either against the truth of science, or the light of conscience, should make a man uncapable of the mercy of God, as one that blasphemed or sinned (take which word you will) against the power and vertue of the Holy Ghost. A doctrine never countenanced in the Primitive times; the Church extending her indulgence to the worst of Hereticks, and opening both her arms and bosom unto those Aposta∣taes, which with true sorrow for their sins, did return unto her; condemning the No∣vatians for too rigid and severe in their bitter Tenet, touching the non-admittance of them unto publick penance, and after that unto the Sacraments of the Church again. Which being premised, the meaning of the Text will appear to be onely this, That they who willingly offend, after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and Gospel, must not expect another Christ to die for them; or, that he who died once for their sins, should again die for them. St. Ambrose and St. Chry∣sostom do expound it so: Out of whom, Clictoveus in his Continuation of St. Cy∣rils Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Iohn, informs us, That the Apostle doth not hereby take away the second or third remission of sins (for he is not such an ene∣my to our Salvation) but saith onely that Christ our Sacrifice shall not be offered any more upon the Cross, for the man so sinning t 1.79. And this is further proved to be the very meaning of the Apostle in the place disputed, out of the scope and purpose of his discourse; which was to shew unto the Iews, that it was not with them now, as it was under the Law: For under the Law they had daily Sacrifices for their sins, but under the Gospel they had but one Sacrifice once for all * 1.80. Every Priest (saith he) doth stand daily ministring, and offering often times the same sacrifice; but this man (JESUS) after he had offered one sacrifice, sate down for ever at the right-hand of God; than which, there cannot be a clearer explanation of the Text in question. Though Sacrifices were often reiterated in the times of the Law, Hic vero nec baptismus repetitur, neque Christus bis, nisi cum ludibrio mori pro pec∣cato;

yet neither is Baptism to be reiterated in the times of the Gospel, nor can Christ be exposed for sin, to a second death, without a great deal of scorn, as Hein∣sius hath observed from Chrysostom x 1.81. Some light doth also rise to this Exposition, from the words immmediately succeeding, where the Apostle speaks of a certain ex∣pectation of a fearful judgment; Which joyned unto the former verse, have this sense between them, That he which doth not put his whole trust and confidence in the sufficiency of the Sacrifice already offered, but for every sin expects a new Sacrifice also, must look for nothing in the end, but a fearful judgment, which most undoubtedly first or last shall fall upon him.

The third and last place, which is commonly alleged for proof that there are some sins irremissible in their own nature, is that of St. Iohn, If any man (saith he) see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, and God shall give life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death, I do not say he shall pray for it y 1.82. In which words we finde two sorts of sins, a sin to death, and a sin that is not to death; a sin which is not unto death, for the remission of the which a man is bound to pray in behalf of his Brother; a sin to death, concerning which it seems unlawful for one man to pray for another. And yet it doth but seem so neither: For the Apostles arrow_forward words, I do not say he shall pray for it, amount not to a Negative, that he shall not pray for it, as the fautors of the contrary opinion would full gladly have it; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ather to a toleration, that they might pray if they would, the business being of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a nature, that the Apostle had no minde to encourage them in it, because he could not promise them the success desired; but leaving every man to himself, to pray, or not to pray, as his affections to the party, or Christian pity of the case might induce him to. That by peccatum ad mortem somewhat more is meant than ordinary mortal sins, is a thing past question; but what it is, is not so easie to discover. St. Augustine will have the sin, which is here called a sin unto death, to be that sin wherein a mam continueth until his death without repentance z 1.83; but addes withal, That in as much as the name of the sin is not expressed, many and different things may be thought to be it. Pacianus an old Catholick writer, inter∣prets it of peccata manentia a 1.84, Such sins as men continue in till the hour of death. St. Ierom reckoneth such men to commit this sin, Qui in sceliribus permanent, who abide in their wickedness, and express no sense nor sorrow of their lost estate. The Protestant writers do expound it generally of the sin against the Holy Ghost; For which, say they, no man ought to pray, because our Saviour hath testified it to be irremissible b 1.85. And to this end, they do allege a place from Ierom, affirming, Stultum esse pro eo orare qui peccaverit ad mortem, That it is a foolish thing to pray for him which sins unto death, because the man that is marked out to some visible ruine, nullis precibus erui potest, cannot possibly be reprieved by prayer. But herein Ierom is not consonant to himself elswhere; for in another place he telleth us, with more probability, that nothing else is here meant, but that a prayer for such a sin (whatsoever it be) is very difficulty heard c 1.86. And this I take to be the truer, or at least the more probable meaning of the Apostle, who saith immediately before, This is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us, 1 Iohn 5.14. And therefore lest we should conceive that this holds true in all Petitions whatsoever, which we make for others, he addes, That if it be a great sin, such as is not ordinarily forgiven, but punished with death, I dare not say, that you can either pray with confidence, or that I can give you any great hopes of prevailing in it. According as God said to the Prophet Ieremy, Pray not for this people, for I will not hear thee d 1.87. And though St. Augustine sometimes thought this sin to be final impenitency, or a continuance in sin till death without re∣pentance, yet in his Book of Retractations, he resolves the contrary, affirming, That we must despair of no body, no not of the wickedest, as long as he lives; and that we may safely pray for him, of whom we do not despair c 1.88. So that for ought we see by these Texts of Scripture, there is no sin which properly may be said to be irre∣missible. And therefore I resolve with Maldnonate, though he were a Iesuite f 1.89, Tenendam esse regulam fidei, quae nullum peccatum esse docet quod à Deo remitti non possit, That it is to be imbraced as a rule of Faith, that there is no sin so great

(whatsoever it be) which God cannot pardon; for which, if heartily bewailed and repented of, there is no mercy and forgiveness to be found from God. I shut up all with that of the Christian Poet g 1.90.

Spem capio sore quicquid ago, veniabile apud te, Quamlibet indignum venia faciamve loquarve.

In English thus.

My words (O Christ) and deeds, I hope, with thee, Though they deserve no pardon, venial be.

CHAP. VI. Of the Remission of sins by the Blood of Christ, and of the Abolition of the body of sin by Baptism and Repentance. Of confession made unto the Priest, and the Authority Sacerdotal.

THus have we in the former Chapter discoursed at large of the Introduction and Propagation of Sin, and of the several species or kindes thereof; and also proved, by way of ground-work and foundation, that albeit sin in its own nature be so odious in the sight of God, as to draw upon the sinner everlasting damnation; yet that there is no sin so mortal, so deserving death, which is not capa∣ble of pardon or forgiveness by the mercy of God. We next descend unto those means, whereby the pardon and remission of our sins is conveyed unto us; the means by which so great a benefit is estated on us. The principal agent in this work is Al∣mighty God, of whom the Scripture saith expresly, That it is one God which shall justifie the circumcision by Faith, and the uncircumcision through Faith a 1.91; that it is God which justifieth the Elect; and that the Scriptures did foresee, That God would justifie the Heathen b 1.92. In all which Texts, to justifie the Elect, the Iews, the Gentiles, doth import no more, than freely to forgive them all the sins which they had committed against the Law, and to acquit them absolutely from all blame and punishment, due by the Law to such offences. Which appears plainly by that passage of the same Apostle, where speaking of Almighty God, as of him that justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. he sheweth immediately by way of gloss or ex∣position, in what that justifying doth consist, saying out of David, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin c 1.93. And this God doth, not out of any super∣added or acquired principle, which is not naturally in him; but out of that authority and supream power which is natural and essential to him: In which respect, no Creature can be said to forgive sins, no not our Saviour Christ himself, in his meer humane nature; but must refer that work unto God alone: For who can (so) for∣give sins, but God onely, said the Pharisees truly d 1.94. And as God is the onely natural and efficient cause of this justification, the principal Agent in this great work of the remission of sins; so is the onely moral and internal impulsive cause which in∣clines him to it, to be found onely in himself; that is to say, his infinite mercy, love, and graciousness, toward his poor creature, Man, whom he looks on as the miserable object of grace and pitty, languishing under the guilt and condemnation of sin. Upon which Motives, and no other, he gave his onely begotten Son to die for our sins, to be a ransom and propitiation for the sins of the world e 1.95: That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but (through forgiveness in his Blood) have life everlast∣ing f 1.96. But for the external impulsive efficient cause of this act of Gods, the meri∣torious cause thereof, that indeed is no other than our Lord JESUS CHRIST; the death and sufferings of our most blessed Lord and Saviour. For God behold∣ing Christ, as such, and so great a sufferer for the sins of men, is thereby moved and

induced to deliver those that believe in him, both from the burden of their sins, and that condemnation which legally and justly is due unto them. This testified most clearly by that holy Scripture, Be ye kinde (saith the Apostle) unto one another forgiving one another, even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you g 1.97. Where plainly the impulsive cause inclining God to pardon us our sins and trespasses, is the respect he hath unto the sufferings of our Saviour Christ. Thus the Apostle tells us in another place, That we are freely justified by the grace of God, through the Redemption which is in CHRIST IESUS h 1.98. Justified freely by Gods grace, as by the internal impulsive cause of our Iustification, by which he is first moved to forgive us our sins; through the Redemption procured for us, by the death and sufferings of CHRIST IESUS, as the external moving or impulsive cause of so great a mercy.

In this respect, the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of men, is frequently ascribed in Scripture to the Blood of Christ; as in the Institution of the Sacrament by the Lord himself, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins i 1.99. Thus the Apostle to the Romans, Whom (JESUS CHRIST) did God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God k 1.100. And thus to the Ephesians also, In whom we have redemption through his Blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace l 1.101. To this effect St. Peter also, For ye know that ye were not redeem∣ed with corruptible things, as with silver and gold, but with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot m 1.102. And so St. Iohn, The Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin n 1.103; and, he hath washed us from our sins in his own Blood, in another place o 1.104. Infinite other places might be here produced, in which the forgiveness of our sins is positively and expresly ascribed to the Blood of Christ, or to his death and sufferings for us, which comes all to one. But these will serve sufficiently to confirm this truth, that the main end for which Christ suffered such a shameful ignominious death, accompanied with so many scorns and torments, was thereby to attone or reconcile us to his Heavenly Father, to make us capable of the remission of our sins, through the mercy of God; and to assure us by that means of the favor of God, and our adoption to the glories of eternal life. By that one offering of himself hath he for ever perfected all them that are sancti∣fied p 1.105: Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us, and nailed it to his cross for ever q 1.106; to the end, that being mindful of the price where∣with we were bought, and of the enemies from whom we were delivered by him, We might glorifie God both in our bodies and our souls r 1.107, and serve the Lord in righteousness and holiness, all the days of our lives. For if the blood of Bulls and of Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctified to the puri∣fying of the flesh, in the time of the Mosaical Ordinances: How much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God s 1.108, in the time of the Gospel? This is the constant tenor of the Word of God, touching remission of our sins by the Blood of Christ. And unto this we might here adde the consonant suffrages and consent of the antient Fathers; If the addition of their Testimonies, where the authority of the Scripture is so clear and evident, might not be thought a thing unnecessary. Suffice it that all of them, from the first to the last, ascribe the for∣giveness of our sins to the death of Christ, as to the meritorious cause thereof; though unto God the Father, as the principal Agent, who challengeth to himself the power of forgiving sins, as his own peculiar and prerogative, Isai. 43.25. Peculiar to himself, as his own prerogative, in direct power essential and connatural to him; but yet communicated by him to his Son CHRIST IESUS, whilest he was conver∣sant here on Earth, who took upon himself the power of forgiving sins t 1.109, as part of that power which was given him both in Heaven and Earth. Which as he ex∣ercised himself when he lived amongst us, so at his going hence he left it as a stand∣ing Treasury to his holy Church to be distributed and dispensed by the Ministers of it, according to the exigencies and necessities of particular persons. For this we

finde done by him as a matter of fact, and after challenged by the arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward as a matter of right belonging to them and to their successors in the Ministration. First, For the matter of fact, it is plain and evident, not onely by giving to St. Peter (for himself and them) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, annexing thereunto this promise, That whatsoever he did binde on Earth, should be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever he did loose on Earth, should be loosed in Heaven u 1.110; But say∣ing to them all expresly, Receive the Holy Ghost x 1.111; Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. And as it was thus given them in the way of fact, so was it after challenged by them in the way of right, St. Paul affirming in plain terms, That God was in Christ, re∣conciling the world unto himself, by not imputing their trespasses unto them y 1.112; but that the Ministery of this reconciliation was committed unto him, and others, whom Christ had honored with the title of his Ambassadors, and Legates here upon the Earth.

Now as the state of man is twofold in regard of sin, so is the Ministery of re∣conciliation twofold also in regard of man. As he is tainted with the guilt of ori∣ginal sinfulness, the Sacrament of Baptism is to be applied, the Laver of Rege∣neration, by which a man is born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, Iohn 3.5. As he lies under the burden of his actual sins, the Preaching of the Word is the pro∣per Physick to work him to repentance, and newness of life, that on confession of his sins he may receive the benefit of absolution. Be it known unto you (saith St. Paul) that through this man (CHRIST IESUS) is preached unto you remission of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses z 1.113.

And first for Baptism, It is not onely a sign of profession and mark of differ∣ence, whereby Christian men are discerned from others which be not Christned, (as some Anabaptists falsly taught) but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church, the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is con∣firmed, and Grace increased by vertue of Prayer unto Goda 1.114. This is the publick Doctrine of the Church of England, delivered in the authorised Book of Articles, Anno 1562. In which, lest any should object, as Dr. Harding did against Bishop Iewel, That we make Baptism to be nothing but a sign of regeneration b 1.115, and that we dare not say, as the Catholick Church teacheth according to the holy Scriptures, That, in and by Baptism, sins are fully and truly remitted, and put away: We will reply with the said most Reverend and Learned Prelate (a man who very well understood the Churches meaning) That we confess, and have ever taught that in the Sacrament of Baptism, by the death and Blood of Christ, is given remission of all manner of sins; and that not in half, or in part, or by way of imagination and fancy, but full, whole, and perfect of all together; and that if any man affirm, that Baptism giveth not full remission of sins, it is no part nor portion of our Doctrine. To the same effect also, saith judicious Hooker, Baptism is a Sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church, to the end, That they which receive the same, might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so through his most precious merit, ob∣tain as well that saving grace of imputation, which taketh away all former guilti∣ness; and also that infused divine vertue of the Holy Ghost, which giveth to the powers of the soul the first dispositions towards future newness of life c 1.116. But be∣cause these were private men, neither of which, for ought appears, had any hand in the first setting out of the Book of Articles (which was in the reign of King Edward the Sixth) though Bishop Iewel had in the second Edition, when they were reviewed and published in Queen Elizabeths time; let us consult the Book of Homilies, made and set out by those who composed the Articles; And there we finde, that by Gods mercy, and the vertue of that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour CHRIST IESUS the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross, we do ob∣tain Gods grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after Baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly unto

him again d 1.117. Which doctrine of the Church of England, as it is consonant to the Word of God in holy Scripture, so is it also most agreeable to the common and re∣ceived judgment of pure Antiquity. For in the Scripture it is said expresly by St. Peter, to the sorrowful and afflicted Iews, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sins e 1.118. By Ananias unto Saul, Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord f 1.119. By Paul himself, who had experimentally found the efficacy and fruit there∣of in his own person, That God according to his mercy hath saved us, not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost g 1.120; and finally, by St. Peter also, That Baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Iesus Christ h 1.121. This also was the judgment of the Antient Writers, and that too long before the starting of the Pelagian Heresies, to which, much is ascribed by some as to the advancing of the efficacy and fruit of Baptism, by succeeding Fathers. For thus Tertullian, Quo∣tidiè nunc aquae populos conservant, deleta morte per ablationem delictorum. Ex∣empto scilicet reatu eximitur & poena. Ita restituetur homo Deo ad similitudi∣nem ejus qui retro ad imaginem Dei conditus fuerat i 1.122. Now (saith he) do the Waters daily preserve the people of God, death being destroyed and overthrown by the washing away of sins; for where the guilt is taken away, there is the punish∣ment remitted also. St. Cyprian thus, Remissio peccatorum sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur, propriè Spiritus Sancti estk 1.123; that is to say, that the remission of sins, whether given in Baptism, or by any other of the Sacraments, is properly to be ascribed to the Holy Ghost. The African Fathers in full Council do affirm the same, and so doth Origen also for the Alexandrians, of both which, we shall speak anon in the point of Paedo-baptism. Thus Nyssen for the Eastern Churches, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Baptism, saith he, is the expiation of our sins, the remission of our of∣fences, the cause of our new-birth and regeneration l 1.124. Thus do the Fathers in the Constantinopolitan Council, profess their Faith in one Baptism (or being onely once baptized) for the remission of sins. And finally, That this was the doctrine of the Church in general, before Augustines time, who is conceived to be first that did advance the power and efficacy of Baptism to so great an height, in opposition to the Pelagian Heresies m 1.125, appears by a by-word grown before his time into frequent use; the people being used to say, when they observed a man to be too much addicted to his lusts and pleasures, Sine illum faciat quod vult, nondum enim baptizatus est n 1.126; i. e. Let him alone to take his pleasure, for as yet the man is not baptised. More of this we shall see anon in that which follows. Nor is this onely Primitive, but good Protestant Doctrine as is most clear and evident by that of Zanchius, whom onely I shall instance in, of the later Writers. Cum Minister Baptizat, &c. When the Minister baptizeth, I believe that Christ with his own hand reached, as it were, from Heaven, Filium meum sanguine suo in remissionem peccatorum aspergere, besprinkleth the Infant with his Blood to the remission of sins, by the hand of that man whom I see besprinkling him with the Waters of Baptism. So that I cannot choose but marvel how it comes to pass, that it must now be reckoned for a point of Popery, that the Sacraments are instrumental causes of our justification, or, of the remission of our sins; or that it is a point of learning, of which, neither the Scriptures, nor the Reformed Religion, have taught us any thing o 1.127. So easie a thing it is to blast that with Popery, which any way doth contradict our own private fancies.

But here before I do proceed further in this present Argument, I shall make bold to divert a little upon the antient use of Baptismal-washings, before our Saviour Christ ordained it for an holy Sacrament; that we may see what hint our Saviour took in this Institution, who thought it no impiety to fit the antient usages of the Iews and Gentiles to the advancement of the Gospel; though now to hold confor∣mity with the Church of Rome, in matters very pertinent to the same effect, is reck∣oned for the greatest Error in our Reformation.

First for the Iews, that they used very frequent washings, is most clear in Scripture. For not onely the Pharisees particularly, who were a superstitious super∣cilious Sect, but the Iews in general have this Character given them by St. Mark p 1.128, That they eat not, except they wash their hands oft; that they washed as often as they came from market, or any publick place of meeting; and that they did observe upon old Tradition, the washing of Cups, and Pots, of brazen Vessels, and of Tables. And this they did not onely in the way of cleanliness, or in point of man∣ners, to wash away the filth of their bodies when they went to eat, or to make clean their Vessels, and other Vtensiles, which they ate or drank in: But rather out of an opinion, that by those frequent washings they preserved themselves from the filth and corruption of the world; especially in their return from the streets and market places q 1.129, where possibly they might meet with some that were uncircumcised, or otherwise obnoxious to an ill report, by which they thought themselves defiled. And this I take to be an antient custom of the Iews, because I finde it much in use amongst the Samaritans, who were in many, if not most, of their common Ceremonies, but the Apes onely of the Iews. Who on the same opinion of their own dear sanctity, which had so perfectly possessed their neighbors of Iudah, did use when they had visited any of the Nations, to sprinkle themselves with urine upon their return; and if by negligence or necessity of business they had touched any, not of their own Sect, to drench themselves over-head and ears in the next Fountain r 1.130. The reason of which is thus delivered by Epiphanius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Because they held it for an abomination to come near a man that was of a different Religion, or perswasion from them. But this appears more plainly by that passage of St. Iohns Gospel, where there is mention of six water pots of stone, at the marriage-feast of Cana in Galilee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the manner of the purifying of the Iews s 1.131. Where by no means I can consent to Maldon••tes interpretation, who will not have these water-pots to be used at all for any Legal or Mosaical purification, Qua qui secundum legem pollu∣ti erant, mundabantur, in which they used to wash themselves who had incurred some legal pollution; but onely for those Pharisaical washings, which the Pharisees used often in the midst of a feast: Which had it been the meaning of the holy Evange∣list, it is like he would have rather called it, The purification of the Pharisees, than the Purifying of the Iews. We also have the testimony of St. Paul himself, affirming, That the service of God under the first Tabernacle, consisted onely in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal Ordinances t 1.132; where we see divers wash∣ings put for part of the Legal Ceremonies. Not to run over more particulars, that washing of the hands was used as a sign of innocency, a sign of freedom from such guilt as men stood accused of, is not apparent onely by those words of the Royal Psalmist, I will wash my hands in innocency, Psal. 26. But by that memorable passage in the Book of Deuteronomy, where the Elders and Iudges of the people, in the case of an accidental undiscovered murder, are commanded to wash their hands, and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it u 1.133. In imitation of which custom (for the Romans had no such, for ought I have read) Pilate forsooth, must wash his hands at the death of Christx 1.134, as if it had been an accidental (chance-medley, as we use to call it) not a studied murder.

Next, to proceed unto the Gentiles, these Legal washings of the Iews in case of pollution, were quickly taken up by the Neighbor-nations, near whom they lived, and amongst whom their ordinary business and affairs gave them correspondence; insomuch, that they had not onely frequent washings to cleanse them from ordinary offences, but used them also as purgations for their greater crimes, and as prepara∣tories to their Sacrifices and Divine solemnities. Of sprinkling the common people with this holy water we finde this of the Poet, Spargere rore levi, & ramo foelicis Olivae, lustravitque virosy 1.135, that is to say, That the Priest sprinkled the by∣standers with an Olive-bough, and thereby hallowed them (as it were) for the present service. Of the opinion which they had of doing away their greater crimes by the washing of water, we have the example of Orestes, who having killed his Mother, and so lost his wits, is said by Homer to have recovered his understanding again, by

this kinde of washing. The like did Theseus on the murder of the sons of Pallas z 1.136; the like Apollo and Diana on the slaughter of Pytho a 1.137, as we read in Pausanias, a learned writer of the Greeks. Tertullian hath delivered it for a general rule, Penes veteres quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrice aqua se expiabat b 1.138, That an∣tiently they which were guilty of homicide or wilful murder, did use to expiate the crime with a purging water; and that they also did the like in the case of Perjury. Nay, he that was returned from war, and was no otherwise involved in the blood of mankinde, than according to the ordinary course of battels, did either in piety or modesty think himself unfit to deal in any civil, much less sacred matters, Donec me flumine vivo abluero c 1.139, as the Poet hath it; till he had washed himself in the running waters. Of which, and of the Expiations which were conceived to be at∣tained by means thereof, we finde this in Ovid,

O nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis Fluminea tolli posse putatis aqua.

In English thus.

Too facile souls, who think such heinous matters May expiated be with River-waters.

Wherein, although he hit it right, as to the humor of the people in those expiations, yet he was somewhat out in the word fluminea, the waters onely of the Sea serving for expiation of the greater crimes, Propter vim igneam magnopere purgationibus consentaneam d 1.140, as my Author hath it. For which cause questionless, the Papists in the composition of their holy water, make use of Salt, as one of the chief ingre∣dients, that it may come more near in nature unto the water of the Sea; of which, there is enough to be seen in the Roman Rituals. Last of all in their Sacrifices and solemn service of the Gods, it is observed by Alexander ab Alexandro, In omni∣bus sacris sacerdotem, cum diis immolat & rem divinam facit, corporis ablutione purgari e 1.141, That the Priest used to wash himself all over in the way of Purgation. The reason was, because that by such washings they did not onely think themselves to be cleansed from sin, Sed & castimoniam praestari putant, but that chastity and purity of minde was conferred withal: And to come nearer to our business, Tertullian tels us, Sacris quibusdam per lavachrun initiari f 1.142 that unto some of their sacred offices, as to those of Isis, Mithras, and the Games of Apollo, they were conse∣crated or initiated by a kind of Baptism. So that our Savior finding such a general consent both of Iewes and Gentles, in ascribing unto water such an expiating and cleansing power, retained it as the fittest element for the initiating of his followers in his holy Church, and the cleansing of their souls from that filth of sin, which nature and corrupt education had contracted in them. No otherwise than in the in∣stitution of the other Sacrament, he made not onely use of the bread and Wine, but almost also of the accustomed formal words which were in use amongst the Iews at their Paschal Supper: his heavenly wisdom so disposing of these former Rites, that he seemed rather to direct and sanctifie them to his own great end, than any way to innovate in the institution.

Having thus spoke a little of these Baptismal washings used amongst the Iews (for by that name they do occur both in St. Marks Gospel and in Pauls Epistle) and of the efficacy falsly and erroneously ascribed unto them by the ancient Gentiles: We must next look upon them as an Institution of our Lord and Saviours, and of the true ef∣fect of that institution in cleansing of our selves from the filth of sin. Not that we give this power to water, as it is an Element, but do ascribe the same to Baptism as it is a Sacrament ordained by Christ himself to that end and purpose. And so far it is pleaded by Tertullian strongly, that if the Gentiles did ascribe so great power to water in all their Expiations and Initiations, Quanto id verius aquae praestabunt per Dei authoritatem g 1.143, How much more truly may it be made effectual to those very purposes by the authority and appointment of Almighty God? All waters in themselves were alike effectual as to the curing of Naamans Leprosie; Abanah and Pharphar, Rivers of Damascus, as proper to that cure as the river of Iordan h 1.144, had

not God in the way of a present remedy, conferred that blessing upon Iordan, which was not to be found in those other Rivers. It was Gods blessing, not the water, which produced that Miracle, to which all other waters might have been as serviceable, if God had said the word, and disposed so of them. And so it is also in the work of rege∣neration, which we ascribe, not to the water, but the institution; nor to the Sacra∣mental water of it self alone, but to the holy Spirit which is active in it, Et ipsi soli hu∣jus efficienciae privilegium manet p 1.145, to which belongeth the prerogative in this great effect. For as the Spirit of God moving upon the waters of the great Abyss, did out of that imperfect matter produce the world; so the same Spirit moving on the waters of Baptism, doth by its mighty power produce a regenerate Creature. From hence it is, that in the setting forth of so great a work, the water and the Spirit are oft joyned together, as in St. Iohn, Except a man be born again of Water and the Spi∣rit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heavenq 1.146; And in St. Paul, accrrding to his mercy hath he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost r 1.147: And in St. Iohns Epistle also, There be three that bear witness on the earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood s 1.148. And if the Spirit go along with the Waters of Baptism (as we see them joyned together in the holy Scripture) no question but it will be made effectual to the work intended, which is, the washing away of sins, whether smal or great, whether Original or Actual, of what sort soever.

For proof whereof, besides what hath been said of this Point already, let us be∣hold the practise of the Primitive times, when the Discipline of the Church was grown so severe, that some were hardly admitted at all unto publick Penance, o∣thers removed from the communion of the Church, for three, four, or seven years together, and sometimes (as the quality of the sin appeared) for the whole time of their lives. A Discipline which the Church used onely towards those which had gi∣ven up their names in baptism, to be visible members of that body whereof Christ was Head; and that made more unpleasing to most sort of men upon the growth and spreading of the Novatian Heresie, who mistaking the arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward meaning, declared all those to be uncapable of mercy, who sinned after Baptism, and therefore neither would admit them unto publick penance, nor otherwise restore them to the Chur∣ches peace, of whom St. Cyprian thus complaineth, Sic obstinatos esse quosdam ut dandam non putent lapsis poenitentiam t 1.149. And though the Orthodox party did abominate these Novatian rigors, yet were they too strait-laced towards those who fell into any publick or notorious sin, after they had received the Sacrament of Regeneration, it being conceived, that after Baptism, major in sordibus delicto∣rum reatus u 1.150, as it is in Augustine, the smalest sins seemed greater than indeed they were. Upon this ground, and an assurance which they had that all their sins what∣ever were expunged in Baptism, it was the custom of too many to defer their Baptism till the hour of their death, or till they lay so far past hope on the bed of sickness, that nothing but the stroke of death was to be expected. Thus doth the Story tell us of the Emperor Constantine, that in extremo vitae die x 1.151, when he was even brought to the point of death, he was baptized in Nicomedia by the hands of Eusebius; the like of Theodosius a most pious Prince: upon these grounds St. Austine did defer his baptism a long time together, that so he might more freely enjoy those pleasures to which he was addicted in his younger years y 1.152. On the like fear of such relapses as were censured so severely in those rigid times, he put off the baptizing of Adeodatus (his own natural Son) till he came to thirteen years of age, at what time the severity of the Church began to slaken, or rather the good Fathers judgement was then changed to the better, on the right understanding of the use and nature of that holy Sacrament. A custom, as ill taken up, so as much condemned; and subject to the Churches censures when occasion served; those which were so baptized and escaped from death, whom they called Clinici z 1.153, because they were baptized on the bed of sickness, being disabled by the Canons from the holy Ministery a 1.154. But whether censured or not censured it comes all to one, as to the point I have in hand, which was to shew that in the practise and opinion of those elder times, the Sacrament of Baptism was held to be the general plaster for all manner

of sins; and though sometimes deferred till the hour of death, on the occasion and mistakes before remembred, yet then most earnestly desired, ad delenda erratu illa, quae quoniam mortales erant, admiserant b 1.155, as the Historian saith of the Emperor Constantine, for expiating of those sins which they had commit∣ted.

But on the other side, as some did purposely defer it till the time of their death, out of too great a fear of the Church's censures, and a desire to injoy the pleasures of sin yet a little longer; so others, and those the generality of the people of God, out of a greater care of their childrens safety, procured it to be administred unto them in their ••endrest infancy, almost as soon as they were born. And this they did on very pi∣ous and prudential considerations though there be no express command, nor positive precept for it in the holy Scripture, for when we read, that we were shapen in ini∣quity, and conceived in sin, Psal. 51.5. that all men are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. and that except a man be born again of water and the Spi∣rit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Joh. 3.5. What Parent can so far put off all natural affections, as not to bring his child to baptism (especially if there be any danger of death) as soon as all things fitting can be had in readiness for that ministration? And though there be no positive precept, nor express command for Infant-baptism in the holy Scripture, it is sufficient ground for the Church to go on, if it be proved to be an Apostolical practise; and that it is at least an Apostolical practise, there will appear sufficient evidence to any man not prepossessed with pre∣judice, and mis-perswasions: For when we finde particular mention of the bapti∣zing of whole housholds, as of that of Lydia, Act. 16.15. of the Gaoler vers. 33. of the same Chapter, and of Stephanus, 2 Cor. 1.16. Either we must exclude chil∣dren from being part of the houshold, which were very absurd, or else admit them with the rest to this holy Sacrament. But because many exceptions have been made against these instances, some thinking it possible enough that those housholds had no children in them (as we see many families in great Towns and Cities where no Infants are;) others restraining the administration of Baptism unto such of the houshold, as by gi∣ving testimony of their Faith and Repentance were made capable of it; we must for further proof make use of a Rule in Law, and back that Rule of Law by a practi∣cal Maxim delivered by the Ancient Fathers: The Rule is this, That Custom is the best interpreter of a doubtful Law; and we are lessoned thereupon to cast our eyes, in all such questionable matters, unto the practise of the State in the self-same case. Si de Interpretione legis quaeritur, imprimis inspiciendum est, quo ••ure Ci∣vitas retro in hujusmodi casibus usa fuit. Consuetudo enim optima interpretatio Legis est c 1.156, Where we have both the Rule and the Reason too; Which Rule as it holds good in all Legal Controvesies, so there is a practical Maxim of as much validitie in matters of Ecclesiastical nature, delivered by the ancient Writers. This Maxim we will take from St. Augustines mouth, and after shew how conso∣nant it is unto the mind of the rest of the Fathers. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec in Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Apostolica autori∣tate traditum rectissimè creditur d 1.157, i. e. Whatsoever the whole Church main∣taineth, which hath not been ordained by authority of Councils, but been alwaies holden, most rightly may be thought to have been delivered by Apostolical au∣thority. To this agreeth St. Hierom also, saying, Etiamsi Scripturae autoritas non subesset, totius Orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret e 1.158, That were there no authority of the Scripture for it, yet the unanimous consent of all the world were as good as a precept. So doth St. Irenaeus also, who telleth us that in doubtful cases, Oportet in antiquissimas rec••rrere Ecclesias in quibus A∣postoli conversati sunt, & ab iis de praesenti quaestione sumere quod certum & re liquidum est f 1.159, we are to have recourse to the Eldest Churches in which some of the arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward lived, and learn of them what is to be determined in the present que∣stion. And to this Maxim thus confirmed, not onely the Romanists do submit, but even Calvin too; who telleth us he would make no scruple to admit Traditi∣ons, Si modo Ecclesiae traditionem ex certo & perpetuo sanctorum & Orthodox∣orum consensu confirmaret g 1.160, If Pighius could demonstrate to him, that such Tra∣ditions

were derived from the certain and continual consent of Orthodox and godly men. If then, according to this Maxim, it be made apparent, that Infant-baptism hath been generally used in the Church of Christ, not being ordained in any Coun∣cil, but practised in those elder Churches in which some of the arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward lived, and since continued in the constant and perpetual usage of all godly men, we may con∣clude, that certainly it is of Apostolical Institution, though there occur no positive Precept for it in the Book of God.

Which ground so laid, we will proceed unto our proofs for this general practise, taking our rise from Augustines time, without looking lower, because his Autho∣rity is conceived to have carryed the Baptism of Infants, almost without controul in the following ages h 1.161. First then for Augustine, he is positive and express herein, Infantes reos esse Originalis peccati, & ideo baptizandos esse, That Infants being guilty of Original sin, are to be Baptised i 1.162, and this he cals antiquam fidei regu∣lam, the old Rule of Faith, and saith expresly, Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, sem∣per tenuit, & à majorum fide recepit k 1.163, That the Church alwaies held and used it, de∣riving in from the authority and credit of their Predecessors. St. Chrysostom a Presbyter of the church of Antioch, where St. Peter sometimes sate as Bishop, somewhat before S. Augustins time, speaks of Infant-Baptism, as a thing generally received in the Chri∣stian Church; Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubi{que} diffusa, The Catholick Church (saith he) over all the world doth approve of this. Some what before him lived St. Hierom, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, which questionless was one of the Aposto∣lick Sees, founded both by St. Peter and St. Paul, the two great arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward of Iew and Gentile, as the Antients say l 1.164, And he is clear for Infant-Baptism. Qui parvulus est Parentis in Baptismo vinculo solvitur, &c. Children, saith he, are freed in Bap∣tism from the sin of Adam, in the guilt whereof they were involved, but men of riper years from their own and his m 1.165. And in conclusion he resolves, Infantes eti∣am in peccatorum remissionem baptizandos, &c. That Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins, and not as the Pelagians taught, into hopes of Heaven, as if they had been guilty of no sin at all. A little before him flourished St. Ambrose, successor to Barnabas the Apostle in the See of Millainn 1.166, who speaking of the Pela∣gian Heresies, who published amongst other things, that the hurt which Adam did unto his posterity, was exemplo non transitu, rather by giving them such a bad ex∣ample of disobedience, than by driving on them any natural sinfulness, doth there∣upon infer, that if this were true, Evacuatio Baptismatis parvulorum o 1.167, The Baptism of Infants were no longer necessary. And in the same age, but before, flou∣rished Gregory Nazianzen, who calling Baptism Signaculum vitae cursum ineunti∣bus, a Seal imprinted upon those who begin to live, requires, That children should be brought unto holy Baptism, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lest they should wart the common grace of the Church p 1.168. And though he afterwards advise, that the Baptism of Children should be deferred till they be three years old, that so they might be able to make answer to some Catechetical questions; yet in a case of dan∣ger he doth press it home; it being better (as he grants) that they be sanctified insen∣sibly, they not perceiving it (by reason of their tender years) than that they should depart hence without that signature. Ascend we from the fourth to the third age of the Church, and there we finde St. Cyprian the Great, Bishop of Carthage, as great a stickler for the Baptism of Infants, as any one whosoever in the times succeed∣ing. He in an Epistle to one Fidus doth thus plead the case, Porro si etiam gravis∣simis delictoribus, &c q 1.169. If, saith he, remission of sins be given to the greatest offenders, none of which, if they afterwards believe in God, are excluded from the grace of Baptism: Quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens na∣tus nihil peccavit, &c. How much rather should an Infant be admitted to it, who being new-born, have not sinned at all, save that they have contracted from Adam that original guilt, which followeth every man by nature; and therefore are more capable of the forgiveness of sins, than others are, Quod illis remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata, Because it is not their own, but anothers sin: Nor was this the opinion of St. Cyprian onely, but the unanimous consent of Sixty and six African Bishops convened in Council, by whom it was declared (as he there relateth) That

Baptism was to be ministred as well to Infants, as unto men of riper yeers. Before him flourished Origen, and he telleth us plainly, Ecclesiam ab Apostolis traditi∣onem accepisse, etiam parvulis Baptismum dare r 1.170, That the Church received the Baptism of Infants from Apostolical tradition. And more than so, he sheweth, That it is ministred to them in reference to original sin; which were it not to be found in Infants, and that they did not stand in need of remission of sins, Gratia Baptismi superflua videretur, the grace conferred in Baptism would be thought superfluous * 1.171. And in another place, speaking of the Ceremonies of Baptism, and of the Questions and Answers which are therein used, he makes them to be matters of such antiquity, that few or none (Quis facile explicat rationem t 1.172, as his words there are) were able to assign the true reason of them. Which questionless must be understood of Infant-Baptism, or else it could be no hard matter to assign a Rea∣son, of any Question there propounded unto men of years. And in this age I place the Author of the Questions and Answers ascribed to Iustin Martyr, and found a∣mongst the rest of his works, but are none of his: Which Author, whosoever he was, speaking of this Infant-Baptism, as a thing usual in his time, and of the dif∣ferent estates of such Infants as died baptized, from those that departed without Baptism, resolves it thus, That the baptized receive good things at the Resur∣rection, which the other do not u 1.173; and that they are accounted worthy of the good things they receive by Baptism, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of the faith of those who present them to it, their God-fathers, and God-mothers, as we call them now. In the beginning of this third Century, or the end of the second, did Tertullian write his Book of Baptism; in which, though he seem to disallow of Baptizing Infants, in regard of the danger which may arise unto the Sureties, (Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri x 1.174?) if either they should die before they see their undertaking performed, or the childe fall into a vitious course of life; yet even his disallowance is a proof sufficient, That Infant-Baptism, in his time, was a thing in use. And I hope no man will conceive, who rightly understands what Tertullian was, that his dislike or disallowance, is to be put in ballance with a Catholick custom, retained for so many ages in the Church of Christ; or if it were, not onely children must be barred from the favor of Baptism, but all unmarried per∣sons, whether Maids or Widows, Batchelors or Widowers, (for them he would have put off too in the self-same Chapter,) unless they can give good assurance of their future continuance. But before him, about the middle of this second Century flourished Irenaeus, one who conversed with Polycarpus, and others of St. Iohns Disciples; and he seems very clear also for Infant-Baptism, Christus venit omnes per seipsum salvare, omnes inquam qui per ipsum renascuntur in Deum, Infantes, & parvulos, & pueros y 1.175. Christ, saith he, came into the world to save all by him∣self; even all, which by him are born again unto God, whether they be Infants, Boyes, or Youths. Upon which words the Glosser makes this observation, Nomine renascentiae Dominica & Apostolica phrasi Baptismum intelligi; that is to say, that under the name of new-birth, or of being born again unto God, both our Redeemer, Iohn 3.5. and his arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward , and St. Paul, Tit. 3.5. understand the Sacrament of Baptism. Which note, by whomsoever made, is not alone agreeable unto holy Writ, but to the meaning and acception of most Catholick Doctors, as might be made apparent, had I place and time. And so far we are able to go in a direct line towards the very time of the Lords arrow_back Apostles arrow_forward ; and doubt not but we could have pur∣sued it higher, had the writings of those few Worthies which went before, come un∣corrupted to our hands. But this I hope will prove without further search, That In∣fant-Baptism hath the countenance of Apostolical Tradition, though not of any Positive precept.

But here two Questions will arise, which require an Answer. For being that Faith in Christ hath been always reckoned for a necessary condition in them that come to be baptized; what Faith can possibly be expected at the hands of Infants? And secondly, If Baptism be so necessary, as it seems to be by most of the authorities be∣fore produced, for purging us from the corruption of original and actual sins, what is to be conceived of them who die unbaptized?

First, For the Faith which is by some supposed to be in Infants born of Chri∣stian Parents, I can by no means yeeld unto it. For actual Faith they can have none, in regard they are not able to distinguish between good and evil; and though the Seeds of Faith are sown in them by Baptism, or that thereby they are prepared to receive an habit of Faith, which may be afterwards acquired by them, or infused into them; yet that they do bring with them an Habitual Faith, I can by no means understand. How then were children justified? by what faith baptized? I answer, By the faith of others. The faith of those who do present them unto Baptism, and of the Church which doth admit them, and finally of their Christian Parents, with whom the Covenant was made for themselves and theirs. St. Augustine is express for this, in more places than one. Sicut eos renasci per ministerium baptizantium, ita eos credere per corda & ora confitentium a 1.176: As they are born again (saith he) by the Ministry of those who do baptize them, so they believe by the hearts and mouths of those who confess Christ for them. Again, saith he, Satis piè recteque creditur prodesse parvulo eorum fidem, à quibus consecrandus offertur b 1.177, That it may piously be believed, that little children are benefited by the faith of them, by whom they are offered unto Baptism. And in another place he saith, Accommodat illis, mater ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum corda ut credant c 1.178; The Church our Mother doth supply them with other mens feet, that they may come, and with other mens hearts too, that they might believe. The like saying may be also alleged (as B. Iewel doth acknowledge d 1.179) out of St. Cyprian, Ierom, and others. And to what other material purpose, if not to this, served God-fathers and God-mothers in those early days, whereof we finde mention in Tertullian, and in the Quaestiones ad Orthod. ascribed to Iustin Martyr, as before was shewn? Or who made answer to those Interrogatories proposed in Baptism, unto Infants, whereof Origen speaks, but the Sponsores or Presenters spoken of by the other two? And though St. Bernard be a Postnatus, one of later date, yet, in my minde, he gives a very special reason why it should be so; why God should graciously accept the faith of others for those tender Infants, who have none of their own. Nec enim omnipo∣tentis justitia propriam ab his putat exigendam fidem, quos novit nullam propri∣am habere culpam e 1.180; The justice of Almighty God (saith he) doth not think it fitting, that having committed no particular sin of their own, he should exact of them a proper and particular faith of their own; but as they were undone by an∣others fault, so they should be relieved by anothers faith. To which effect, though not so fully, I have read somewhere I am sure in St. Ierome, but cannot well remem∣ber where, Qui peccavit in altero, credat in altero; That he which hath sinned in others, may believe by others.

For the next point, though we maintain the necessity of Baptism, as the ordinary outward means to attain salvation; and do correct those Ministers by the Churches censures, by whose gross negligence or default (if required to do it) an Infant shall die unbaptized f 1.181, Yet we conceive it not so absolutely necessary in the way to Hea∣ven, but it is possible for a man to be saved without it. For antiquity supplied in some, the want of water, by blood, which many times was the case of Martyrs; in others, the inevitable want of Baptism, by the Holy Ghost, the earnestness of the desire, if it might have been had, supplying the defect of the outward Ceremony. Hence came the old distinction of Baptismus fluminis, Baptismus flaminis, and Bap∣tismus sanguinis. Concerning which, the Fathers teach us this in brief g 1.182, That where men are debarred by an evitable impossibility from the outward Sacrament, Faith and the inward conversion of the heart, flying unto God in IESUS CHRIST, through the sweet motion and gracious instinct of the Holy Spirit, may be reckon∣ed for a kinde of Baptism, because thereby they obtain all that, which they so earnest∣ly sought after in the Sacrament of Baptism, if they could have been partakers of it. And if it be so, that an ordinary degree of Faith do sometime obtain salvation with∣out the Baptism of Water; much more may that which makes men willing to suffer death for Christs and the Gospels sake, and be baptized, as it were, in their dearest blood. It was not simply the want of Baptism, but the neglect and contempt thereof, which antiently in the Adulti, men of riper years, was accounted damnable. But

what may then be said in the case of Infants, in whom are no such strong desires, no such sanctified motions? Shall we adjudge them with St. Augustine to eternal fire, (as some say he did) who thereby worthily got the name of Infanto-mastyx, or the scourge of Infants, as he had gloriously gained the title of Malleus Pelagianorum, The Maul or Hammer of the Pelagian Hereticks? No: God forbid, that we should so restrain his most infinite mercies unto outward means. Or shall we feign a third place for them, near the skirts of Hell, as our good Masters do in the Church of Rome? We have as little ground for that in the holy Scripture: Rather than so, we may resolve, and I think with safety, that as the Faith of the Church, and of those which do pre∣sent such as are baptized, is by God accepted for their own; so the desire and wil∣lingness of the same Church, and of their God-fathers, and Parents, where Bap∣tism cannot possibly be had, is reputed theirs also. Or if not so, yet we refer them full of hope to the grace of God, in whose most rigorous constitutions and sharpest denunciations, deepest mercies are hid; and who is still the Father of mercies, though the God of justice. And so I shut up this discourse with these words of Hooker h 1.183, That for the Will of God to impart his grace to Infants without Bap∣tism, the very circumstance of their natural birth, may serve in that case for a just Argument; whereupon it is not to be misliked, that men in a charitable pre∣sumption do gather a great likelihood of their salvation, to whom the benefit of Christian parentage being given, the rest that should follow is prevented by some such casualty, as man hath no power himself to avoid. So he, of those which are descended of a Christian stock. What may be thought of children born of unbelievers, hath been said elswhere: And so much of the first ordinary out∣ward means ordained by Christ for the remission of our sins, the holy Sacrament of Baptism.

Proceed we next unto the other, which is the power of the Keys committed in the person of St. Peter to the Catholick Church, and those which by the Churches or∣der are authorized and appointed to it: That miserable man being wrought upon unto repentance, by the power and preaching of the Word, may on confession of his sins be forgiven of God, or have the benefit of absolution from the hands of his Ministers, if their spiritual necessities do so require. For certainly there is not a more ready way to forgiveness of sins, than by sincere and sound repentance; nor any speedier means to beget repentance, than to present our sins unto us in their own deformity, by the most righteous myrror of the Word of God. For when the sin∣ner comes to know by the Word of God, the heinousness of his misdeeds, the wrath which God conceives against him for his gross offences, together with the punishment which is due unto them according to his rigorous judgments: The thought thereof must needs affect him both with fear and horror, and make him truly sensible of his desperate state. To whom then shall he flie for succor, but to God alone, humbly confessing unto him both his sins and sorrows? How can he look to be recovered of the biting of these fiery Serpents, but by looking with the eye of faith on that brazen Serpent, which was exalted on the Cross for his Redemption? Or if he finde his Conscience troubled, and his minde afflicted, and that he hath not confidence enough to draw near to God; then let him go unto the Priest, whom God hath made to be the Iudge between the unclean and the clean i 1.184, whom God hath authorized to minister the word of comfort, to raise up them that be faln, and support the weak, to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, and to guide their feet in the way of peace. This is the Method to be used, the course to be pursued by those who do desire to profit in the School of repentance. And about this, as to the main and substance of it, there is but little difference amongst knowing men. For that Repentance is a necessary means required for the remission of sins, committed after Baptism, the Antients and the Moderns do agree in one. The Fathers used to call it secundam tabulam post naufragium, the second Table after Spiritual shipwrack; on which, all those who had made shipwrack of the Faith and a good conscience used to lay hold (after they had foregone the benefit received in Baptism) to keep them up from sinking in the depth of despair, from being over∣whelmed in the bottomless Ocean of sin and judgment. The Moderns set as

high an estimate upon it, if they go not higher: For Calvin placeth in repentance and forgiveness of sins the sum and substance of the Gospel; Non abs re summa E∣vangelii statuitur in poenitentia & remissione peccatorum k 1.185. And Beza maketh it a necessary preparation, ad perendum & recipienduns Christi beneficium, for seeking and obtaining of those benefits which we have by Christ l 1.186. The like doth Zanchius in his Book De Relig. Cap. 18. Thes. 1. And it is generally agreed on also, That confession of our sins must be made to God, to whom alone belongs the pro∣per and original power of forgiving sins; and who alone is able to renew those heavenly characters of divine graces in our souls, which had been formerly de∣faced by the continual batteries and assaults of sin. If we confess our sins, saith the Apostle▪ he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness m 1.187. But if we say, we have not sinned, we both deceive our selves, and make God a lyer. Upon which words there cannot be a better gloss than that of Ambrose. Considering (saith he) that there is no man free from the guilt of sin, Negate hoc sacrilegum n 1.188, it was an high degree of sacrilege to affirm the contrary; that being one of the Prerogatives of Almighty God, and far above the common law of nature? But on the other side, Remedium confiteri, It is, ••aith he, a present remedy to confess the same; all manner of diseases being then most dan∣gerous, when they are hid from the Physician. And it is generally agreed on by all parties too, according to the holy Scripture, that none but God hath proper and original power of forgiving sins, (for who can so forgive sins, but God alone? said the Pharisees rightly, Luke 5.21.) and that it appertains unto him alone to create in us a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within us, Psal. 5••.10. Nor do I finde it much disputed amongst moderate men, but that satisfaction unto men for the wrong sustained, and to the Church for publick scandals, hath always been account∣ed a concomitant of sincere repentance. The old rule holds unquestionably true in the present times; and, non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum, that sin is never fully pardoned, till the party wronged have satisfaction, either in fact or in the reality of our intentions, is a good peece of Pro••estant doctrine for ought I can tell. And as for satisfaction to the Church in the case of scandal, St. Augustine doth require it in his Encheiridion, Vt fuit etiam satis ecclesiae in qua remittun∣tur peccata o 1.189, That the Church have also satisfaction in which sins are pardoned. He must be very ignorant in all Antient writers, who makes doubt of this, and not much conversant in the writings of the late Divines, who knows not how this satis∣faction is insisted on by the strictest of our Reformators. Nay, I will go a little fur∣ther, and say according to the Scriptures, and the Primitive Fathers, That satisfacti∣on also must be given to God. Not satisfaction of condignity as the Schoolmen call it p 1.190, which is a just and equal compensation for the sin committed; for so Christ onely satisfied for the sins of men; but satisfaction of congruity and impetration, by which God is incited on the part of man, by his contrition, and humiliation, and other peni∣tential actions, to free him from the punishment which he hath deserved. The Sa∣crifice of God is a broken spirit, an humble and a contrite heart, he will not de∣spise q 1.191. With which, and such like sacrifices is the Lord well pleased r 1.192; better than with a Bullock which hath horns and hoofs s 1.193. And in this sense, (not in relation unto temporal punishments, remaining after the remission of the guilt it self, as the Papists use it) we are to understand the word in the Antient Fathers; as Per delictorum poenitentiam Deo satisfacere, in Tertullian, Lib. de poenit. Cap. 5. Precibus & operibus suis Deo patri misericordi satisfacere, in St. Cyprian. Epist. 10. Per poenitentiae dolorem, humilitatis gemitum, cordis contriti sacrificium co-operantibus eleemosynis, in St. Ambrose.

But the main matter in dispute, (for we will not trouble our selves further about this particular) is, Touching the confession of our sins to men, and the authority of Sacerdotal Absolution: In the first of which we differ from the Church of Rome; and in the other, from the Grandees of the Puritan faction.

First, For confession to be made to the Priest or Minister, it is agreeable both to the doctrine and intent of the Church of England, though not so much in pra∣ctise as it ought to be. For in an Exhortation before the Sacrament of the Lords

Supper, the Priest as Minister is required to say unto the People t 1.194, That if there be any of them which otherwise cannot quiet his own conscience by the means afore∣said, but requireth further comfort or counsel, then let him come to me (the Parish Minister) or some other discreet and learned Minister of Gods Word, and open his grief, that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, as his conscience may be relieved; and that by the ministery of Gods Word he may receive comfort, and the benefit of absolution, to the quieting of his conscience, and the avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness. So also in the form of Visita∣tion of the sick, the infirm person is required to make a special confession (to the Minister) if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter; after which confession, the Priest shall absolve him in this sort u 1.195. But because men might be un∣willing to make such confession, for fear their secret sins should be brought to light, both to their danger and disgrace; in case some obligation lay not on the Priest or Minister, for his concealing of the same; the Church hath taken order for their secu∣rity: For in her Ecclesiastical Constitutions she hath thus ordained▪ That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburthening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation, and ease of minde from him; the said Minister shall not at any time reveal and make known, to any person what∣soever, any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secresie (except they be such crimes as by the Laws of this Land, his own life may be called into question for concealing the same) under pain of irregularity x 1.196. And poena irregularitatis, as the Canonists tell us, not onely doth deprive a man of all his spiritual promotions for the present time, but makes him utterly uncapable of any for the time to come; and therefore is the greatest penalty, except degradation from his Priesthood, which possibly a Clergy-man can be subject to. And finally, because good Laws are nothing worth, unless some care be taken for their execution, it was made one of the en∣quiries in the Book of Articles established in the Convocation of the year 1640. for a perpetual rule and standard in all Episcopal and Archidiaconal Visitations y 1.197, and proposed thus to the Church-wardens, viz. Have you ever heard that your said Priest or Minister hath revealed and made known at any time to any person whatsoever, any crime or offence committed to his trust and secresie, either in extremity of sickness, or in any other case whatsoever (except they be such crimes as by the Laws of this Land, &c.) declare the name of the Offender, when and by whom you heard the same z 1.198. In which we see, this Church allows of one Key one∣ly to unlock Confession, and that the Gallican Church doth allow of also. For in the Re-admission of the Iesuites into the University of Paris, it was especially condition∣ed and provided for, amongst other things, That if they heard of any attempt or conspiracy against the King, or his Realm, or any matter of treason in Confessi∣on, they (and all other Clergy-men on the like occasions) should reveal the same unto the Magistrate a 1.199. But to proceed, As is the purpose of the Church, such also is the judgment of those learned men which are most eminent therein, both for parts and piety, especially for their aversness from all Popish fancies.

First, Bishop Iewel thus for one, Abuses and errors being removed, and specially the Priest being learned, we mislike no manner of Confession, whether it be private or publick. For as we think it not unlawful to make open Confession before many, so we think it not unlawful (abuses always excepted) to make the like confession in private, either before a few, or before one alone b 1.200. The like saith Bishop Morton in his Appeal, It is not questioned between us whether it be con∣venient for a man burdened with sin, to lay open his conscience in private unto the Minister of God, and to seek at his hands, both counsel of instruction, and the comfort of Gods pardon: But whether there be, as from Christs institution, such an absolute necessity of this private confession, both for all sorts of men, and every Ordinance and particular sin, so as without it there is no pardon and remis∣sion to be hoped for from God c 1.201. Bishop Overal put it into his Enquiries amongst the Articles of his Episcopal Visitation, Anno 1619. Whether the Minister did his duty in exhorting people to confession, according to the order of the Common-Prayer Book; or had revealed any thing so made known unto him, contrary to

the 113 Canon, that so he might be punished accordingly d 1.202. And finally, thus Bishop Usher, the now Primate of Armagh, Be it therefore known, that no kinde of con∣fession, either publick or private, is disallowed by us, which is any ways requisite for the due execution of the antient power of the Keys, which Christ bestowed up∣on his Church. The thing which we reject is, that new Pick-lock of Sacramental Confession, obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation e 1.203: Others as eminent as they, might be here produced: But I content my self with these, because that even in the opinion of those very men who have cast scandals upon those others, as inclined to Popery, they are not chargable with any correspondence with the Church of Rome. Nor shall I shew, how consonant this doctrine is to the An∣tient Fathers, who require this confession of us; nor of the Lutheran Churches who do still retain it, as appears plainly by the Augustane confession, saying, Nam & nos confessionem retinemus f 1.204 &c. and by the Testimony of Gerrardus, and o∣ther of their learned Writers g 1.205 Onely I shall adde here what Bellarmine hath af∣firmed of Calvin, because his judgment, I am sure, will be worth the having, Ad∣mittit etiam Calvinus privatam confessionem coram Pastore, quando quis ita an∣gitur & afflictatur, peccatorum sensu, ut se explicare nisi alieno adjutorio neque∣at h 1.206. Calvin (saith he) admits of private confession before a Minister, when a man is so perplexed and troubled in his minde, that he cannot extricate him∣self no otherwise out of these anxieties.

What then? Is there no difference in this point between Rome and us? Assu∣redly, much every way, especially as to the necessity, and particularity: For those of Rome impose an absolute necessity of this Sacramental Confession, as they call it, and that De jure divino, by vertue of some positive, and direct command even from Christ himself; and that too of all sins, and with all the circumstances, which is a tyranny and torture to the souls of men. But the Protestants (saith Bishop Morton) acknowledge the use of it with these two restrictions: The first, That it be free in regard of Conscience; the second, That it be possible in regard of performance i 1.207. And Bellarmine informs of Calvin also, that he puts these limitations upon Confessi∣on, Ut libera sit, nec ab omnibus exigatur, nec necessario de omnibus k 1.208; that is to say, That it be left at liberty, and neither exacted of all men, nor the enumeration of all particular sins required of them. First then, the Papists make it absolutely ne∣cessary to a mans salvation, and that too by Divine precept. Without it there is no way to Heaven, saith P. Lombard l 1.209. Pope Innocent the third denied Christian bu∣rial unto such as die without Confession m 1.210. And Hugo in his Book De potestate Ec∣clesiae, is bold to say, That whosoever cometh to the Communion unconfessed, be he never so repentant and sorry for his sins, doth without doubt receive it to his condemnation n 1.211 How so? for that we will enquire of the Council of Trent, where we shall finde, Ad salutem necessariam esse jure divino, That it is necessary to salvation by the Law of God o 1.212; one of the Sacraments of the New Testament, and therefore not to be omitted upon any terms. And yet for all their great brags of the Ius Divinum of Sacramental or Auricular Confession, call it which you will, though they have ransacked many Texts of Scripture to finde it out, it hath been hitherto but to little purpose. Some build it on those words in St. Matthews Gospel, where he speaks of those that were baptized by John in Jordan, confessing their sins, Matth. 3.6. But, what saith Maldonate to this? Quis unquam Catholicus tam indoctus fuit ut ex hoc loco Confessionis probaret Sacramentum p 1.213: Was ever Ca∣tholick so unlearned, as to go about to prove Sacramental Confession from that Text? Some hope to finde it in those words of our Saviour Christ, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Iohn 20.23. But Vasquez saith, that of all those who have undertook it, Vix invenies qui efficaciter inde deducat, You shall hardly meet with any that have effectually deduced a good proof from thence q 1.214. Others presume as much on that place of the Acts, where it is said, That many which beleeved, came and confessed, and shewed their deeds, Acts 19.18. But this, sa••th Cajetan, was a publick Confession, and in generals onely, sed non confessio Sacramentalis r 1.215, Not such a private and particular one as is now required; not such a Sacramental one as is now defended. But we might well have saved this particular search, it

being ingenuously confessed by Michael de Palacios, a Spanish Writer, That not∣withstanding all their pains, to found it on some Text of Scripture, they are so far from being agreed amongst themselves s 1.216, that it is much to be admired, Quanta sit de hac re concertatio, What contention there is raised about it, and how badly they agree with one another. And if they have no better ground for the main foundation, how little hopes may we conceive of finding any good in their superstructures? And yet upon no better grounds do they exact a most unreasonable particularity of all mens affairs, to be delivered to them in confession; requiring of all persons, being of age, a private and distinct confession of all and every known mortal sin, open and secret, of outward deed, and inward consent, together with all circumstances there∣of, though obscene and odrous, not fit to be communicated to a modest ear; and that too once a year, at least, if they do not oftner. For this we need not go much further than the Council of Trent, where we shall finde, Oportere à poenitentibus omnia peccata mortalia, quorum post diligentem sui discussionem conscientiam habent, in confessione recenseri, etiamsi occultissima sunt, & tantum adversus duo ultima Decalogi mandata (remember that they divide the last Commandment into two) commissa, &c t 1.217. Which how impossible it is to do, should one go about it, what an intanglement it may prove unto the conscience of a penitent sinner, and what a temptation also to the Priest himself, to be acquainted with particulars so unchast and lustful, I leave to any sober Christian to determine of, who shall finde more hereof in Alvares Pelagius de Planctu Ecclesiae, L. 2. Art. 2, 3, 27, 73, 83. and Agrippa de Vanitate Scientiarum, cap. 64. Writers of their own, than I think fitting at this time they should hear from me, who do not love to rake in such filthy puddles. So then, the business of Confession doth stand thus between us, That we conceive it to be free, whereas those of Rome will have it obligatory; we, that it is Iuris positivi onely, but they Iuris divini; we, that it is a matter of conveniency, and they of ab∣solute necessity. And then for the performance of it, they do exact a punctual enu∣meration of all sins, both of commission and omission, together with all the accidents and circumstances thereunto belonging; which we conceive in all cases to be impossi∣ble, in some not expedient, and in no case at all required by the Word of God.

Now as we disagree with those of the Church of Rome, about the nature and necessity of private confession, so have we no less differences with the Grandees of the Puritan faction, about the efficacy and power of Sacerdotal Absolution, which they which speak most largely of it, make declarative onely, others not so much; whereas the Church hath taught us, that it is authoritative and judicial too. Authoritative, not by a proper, natural, and original power, for so the absol∣ving of a sinner appertains unto God alone; but by a delegated and derived power, communicated to the Priest in that clause of their Commission, Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted; and whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained, Iohn 20.23. Which proves the Priest to have a power of remitting sins, and that in as express and ample manner, as he can receive it. But though it be a delegated, Ministerial power, yet doth not the descent thereof from Almighty God, prove it to be the less judicial: Then Judges, and other Ministers of Justice sitting on the Bench, may be said to exercise a judicial power on the lives and fortunes of the Sub∣jects; because they do it by vertue of the Kings Commission, not out of any Sove∣raign power which they can chalenge to themselves in their several circuits. Now that the Priests or Ministers of the Church of England, are vested with as much power in forgiving sins, as Christ committed to his Church, and the Church to them, the formal words, Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, &c. which are still used in Ordinations, do expresly signifie. Which though some of the Grandees of the Puritan faction have pleased to call Papisticum ritum, an old Popish ceremony u 1.218 foolishly taken up by them, continued with small judgment by our first Reformers, & minore adhuc in ecclesia nostra retentus, and with far less retained by the present Church; yet we shall rather play the fools with the Primi∣tive Christians, than learn wit of them. And for the exercise of this power, we have this form thereof laid down in the Publick Liturgy; where, on the hearing of the sick mans confession, the Priest is to absolve him with these formal words x 1.219,

viz. Our Lord Iesus Christ, who hath left power unto his Church to absolve all sinners, which truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. In which we finde, that the Sacerdotal power of forgiving sins, is a derived or delegated Ministerial power, a power committed to his Ministers by our Lord and Saviour; but that it is Iudicial also, not Declarative onely. It is not said, That I do signifie or declare, that thou art absolved, which any man may do as well as the Priest himself; but I do actually absolve thee of all thy sins, which no mortal man can but he. In this the Priest hath the preheminence of the greatest Potentate. And in this sense it is, that St. Chrysostome saith, Deus ipse subjecit ca∣put Imperatoris manui Sacerdotis y 1.220, i.e. That God himself hath put the head of the Prince under the hand of the Priest: For as no man whatsoever, although he use the same words which the Minister doth, can consecrate the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, because he wants the power of Order, which should inable him unto it; so no man not in Priestly order can absolve from sin, though he may comfort with good words an afflicted Con∣science, or though he use the same words which are pronounced by the Minister in absolution. The reason is, because he wants the power of order, to which the pro∣mise is annexed by our Saviour Christ, which makes the sentence of the Priest to be so judicial; which when the penitent doth hear from the mouth of the Minister, he need not doubt in foro conscientiae, but that his sins be as verily forgiven on Earth, as if he had heard Christ himself in foro judicii, pronouncing them with his own mouth to be forgiven in Heaven: According to the promise made unto St. Peter (or the Church in him) when he delivered him the Keys; that whatsoever he did loose on Earth, should be loosed in Heaven z 1.221. And so we are to understand St. Chryso∣stomes words, Iudex sedet in terris, dominus sequitur servum a 1.222. The Judge re∣mains upon the Earth, the Lord followeth the servant. His meaning is, That what the servant doth here upon the Earth, according to his Masters will, the same the Lord himself will confirm and ratifie. To which effect, it is affirmed by others of the Antient Writers, but in clearer words, That the judgment of man goeth before the judgment of God. The Priest is then a Iudge to pronounce the sentence, and not a Cryer onely (as some say) to proclaim what the Judge pronounceth; and as a Judge doth actually absolve or condemn the sinner, by the same power of pardoning or re∣taining sins which he had from Christ, or which Christ executes by him as his law∣ful deputy. For as Kings are said to minister Justice to their Subjects, though they do it not in their own persons, but by a power devolved on subordinate Officers; and as Christ himself may properly be said to have fed the multitudes, though he gave the loaves onely unto his Disciples, and his Disciples to the multitudes b 1.223: So he may also be affirmed to absolve the penitent, although he do it by the mouth of the Priests or Ministers; it being his act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and theirs but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, originally his, and ministerially theirs, the same power in both. And this may further be made good by that form of Speech, used by our Saviour in the delegation of this power unto his arrow_back Apostles, and by them to his Ministers in all ages since, being the very same with that which he himself hath given us in the Pater noster. In his Commission it is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whose sins soever ye remit, Iohn 20.23. And in the Lords Prayer it is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and forgive us our sins, Luke 11.4. The same word used in the original for the one, and the other. And if it be a Solecism to say, as no doubt it is, That we desire no more of God in that clause of the Prayer, than that he would signifie or declare that our sins are pardoned: The Solecism must be as great (for ought I can see) to say, That they are onely signified or declared to be pardoned by the mouth of the Minister.

Now that this is the meaning and intent of the Church of England, some of our Romish adversaries do not stick to grant, though others to calumniate this most Or∣thodox Church have given out the contrary. For one of their great Controversors hath declared in print, that it is the doctrine of some of the Protestants, That Priests have power not onely to pronounce the remission of sins, but to give it also;

And that this seemeth to be the doctrine of the Communion Book, in the Visitation of the sick, where the Priest saith, And by his authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, &c. c 1.224. And therefore when a foul-mouthed Iesuite had been pleased to charge us with denying power unto the Priests of forgiving sins; Bishop Usher telleth him to his face, That he doth us wrong d 1.225, and proves it by the very formal words in our Ordination, Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins soever ye retain they are retained. But no man can say more to this, than hath been said already by Bishop Morton, now Lord Bishop of Durham, The power of absolution (saith that learned Prelate) whether it be general or par∣ticular, whether in publick or in private, is professed in our Church; where both in our Publick Service is proclamed Pardon and Absolution upon all Peni∣tents; and a particular applying of particular Absolution unto Penitents by the Office of the Ministery. And greater power than this, hath no man received from God e 1.226. And this hath also been acknowledged by the Leaders of the Puritan faction, who in their Petition to King Iames at his first coming to this Crown, ex∣cepted against the very name of Absolution f 1.227, (as being a Forinsecal and Iuridical word▪ importing more, surely, than a Declaration) which they desired to have correct∣ed. And thereupon it was propounded in the Conference at Hampton Court, That to the word Absolution in the Rubrick following the general Confession, these words, Remission of sins, might be added for Explanations sake g 1.228. And though Dr. Ray∣nolds, one of the Four Proctors for the said Petitioners, in the foresaid Conference, may be conceived to have been of the same opinion with these of the agrieved sort, whom he did appear for; yet he was so well satisfied in the power and nature of Sa∣cerdotal Absolution, that he did earnestly desire it at the time of his death, humbly received it at the hands of Dr. Holland, the Kings Professor in Divinity in the Vni∣versity of Oxon, for the time then being h 1.229; and when he was not able to express his joy and thankfulness in the way of speech, did most affectionately kiss the hand that gave it. But what need more be said for manifesting this judicial power in the remitting of sins, than what is exercised and determined by the Church in the other branch of this Authority, in retaining sins? By which, impenitent sinners are so∣lemnly and judicially cut off from the sacred Body of the Church, and utterly ex∣cluded from the company and Communion of the rest of the faithful. Of which, the Church hath thus resolved in her publick Articles, viz. That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and Excommunicate, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until be be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Iudge, that hath authority thereunto i 1.230 Where clearly we have found a Iudicial power, and a Iudge to exercise the same; and that not onely in the point of retaining sins, in case of excommunication, but also in reconciling of the penitent, in remitting sins, in the way of ordinary absolution. Which whe∣ther it be given in Foro poenitentiae, or in Foro Conscientiae, either in private on the confession of the party, or publickly for satisfaction of the Congregation, doth make no difference in this point; which onely doth consist in the proof of this, That the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel, lawfully ordained, have under Christ a power of forgiving sins: Which comfortable doctrine of the remission of sins, by Gods great mercy at all times, and the Churches Ministery at some times (as occasion is) is the whole subject of this branch of the present Article. Proceed we next to those great benefits which we reap thereby, The Resurrection of the Body, and the Life Everlasting.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Luke 5.21.
• a 1.2

  Chrysost. Hom. in 1 ad Cor. 15.
• b 1.3

  Gen. 1.27.
• c 1.4

  Iustin Mart. ad Orthod. qu. 58.
• d 1.5

  Luke 15.18.
• e 1.6

  Gen. 2.17.
• f 1.7

  Ecclus. 15.14.
• g 1.8

  Jam. 1.13.
• h 1.9

  Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 14.
• i 1.10

  Ibid. c. 19.
• k 1.11

  August. de Haeres. c. 35.
• l 1.12

  Ibid. c. 70. & 15.
• m 1.13

  Homer. Iliad.
• n 1.14

  August. de Gen. ad lit. l. 2.27.
• o 1.15

  Fulgent. ad Monimum.
• p 1.16

  Calv. advers. Liberti. c. 12.
• q 1.17

  Prateol. E∣lench. haer. in Quintino.
• r 1.18

  Bellar.
• * 1.19

  Plutarch. Pa∣ral. in I. Cae∣sare.
• t 1.20

  Calv. Instit. l. 3. c 23. sect. 7.
• u 1.21

  V. Synod. Remonstrant.
• b 1.22

  Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. sect. 7.
• c 1.23

  Heb. 7 9, 10.
• d 1.24

  Rom. 5.12.
• e 1.25

  1 Cor 15.21.
• f 1.26

  Origen. in Rom. cap. 5.
• g 1.27

  Artic. of Rel. 9. 1562.
• h 1.28

  Alens. part 2. qu. 105. memb. 2.
• i 1.29

  Psal. 51.5.
• k 1.30

  Becan. Man. cont. l. 4. c. 1.
• l 1.31

  Eph. 2.3.
• m 1.32

  Rom. 6.23.
• n 1.33

  Ibid. 5.12.
• o 1.34

  Origen,
• p 1.35

  Psal. 116.15.
• q 1.36

  V. Ma••yrol. Rom. & alia passim.
• r 1.37

  August. de Sanct. Serm. 21.
• s 1.38

  Luke 1.15.
• t 1.39

  Orig in Levit. Hom. 8.
• u 1.40

  Gen. 40 20.
• x 1.41

  Matth. 14.6.
• y 1.42

  Orig. in Lev. Hom. 8.
• z 1.43

  August. adv. Iulian. l. 5.
• a 1.44

  Matth. 9.17.
• b 1.45

  Gen. 1.27.
• c 1.46

  Gen. 5.3.
• * 1.47

  Paraeus.
• e 1.48

  Heb. 11.6. Tit. 1.15.
• g 1.49

  August. de Pecc. Orig. l. 2. c 40.
• h 1.50

  Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 17.
• i 1.51

  Luke 19.20.
• k 1.52

  Tacit. de Mor. German.
• p 1.53

  Origen in Ro. Cap. 5.
• q 1.54

  Psal. 14.2.
• r 1.55

  Rom. 1.29.
• s 1.56

  Isa. 1.6.
• t 1.57

  August. Conf. lib. 9.13.
• u 1.58

  Id ibid.
• x 1.59

  Psal. 130.2. & ver. 7, 8.
• y 1.60

  Fulgen. ad Monimum.
• z 1.61

  Vrsin. Catech. part 1. qu. 7.
• a 1.62

  Psal. 130.3.
• b 1.63

  Alnain. Moral. tract. 3. c. 20.
• c 1.64

  Cajetan ap. Field of the Ch. l. 3. c. 9.
• e 1.65

  Acts 2.37, 38.
• f 1.66

  Luke 12.10.
• g 1.67

  Ambr. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 4.
• h 1.68

  Matth. 19.24, 25.
• i 1.69

  Chrysost. in Matth. 12.31.
• k 1.70

  Mald. in Matth. 12.
• l 1.71

  Heb. 6.4, 6.
• m 1.72

  Chrysost. in locum.
• n 1.73

  Ambr. de Poe∣nit. l. 2. c. 2.
• o 1.74

  Dionys. in Hierarch. Eccl. Passim.
• p 1.75

  Ambr. ubi su∣pra.
• q 1.76

  Rom. 6.6, 4.
• r 1.77

  Heins▪ Annot. in Heb 6.
• s 1.78

  Heb. 10.26.
• t 1.79

  Cyril in Joh. l. 5. c. 17.
• * 1.80

  Heb. 10.11.
• x 1.81

  Heins.. Annot. in Heb. 6.
• y 1.82

  1 John 5.16.
• z 1.83

  August. de corrept. & grat. c. 12.
• a 1.84

  Pacian. Epl. 3.
• b 1.85

  Fulk. on the Rhemist. Test. 1 Joh. 5.16.
• c 1.86

  Ierom.
• d 1.87

  Jere. 7.16.
• c 1.88

  Aug. Retract.
• f 1.89

  Maldon. in Matth. 12.
• g 1.90

  ••rudens. Ha∣mart in fu••••.
• a 1.91

  Rom. 3.••0. & 8.33.
• b 1.92

  Gal. 3.••.
• c 1.93

  Rom. 4.7, 8.
• d 1.94

  Mark 2.7.
• e 1.95

  1 John 2.2.
• f 1.96

  John 3.16.
• g 1.97

  Eph. ••.32.
• h 1.98

  Rom. 3.24.
• i 1.99

  Matth. 26.28.
• k 1.100

  Rom. 3.25.
• l 1.101

  Eph. 1.7.
• m 1.102

  1 Pet. 1.18, 19.
• n 1.103

  1 John 1.7.
• o 1.104

  Apoc. 1.5.
• p 1.105

  Heb. 10.14.
• q 1.106

  Col. 2.14.
• r 1.107

  1 Cor. 6.20.
• s 1.108

  Heb. 9.13, 14.
• t 1.109

  Matth. 9.2, 6. & 28.18.
• u 1.110

  Matth. 16.19.
• x 1.111

  John 20.22, 23.
• y 1.112

  2 Cor. 5.19, 20.
• z 1.113

  Act 13.38.
• a 1.114

  Artic of Rel. 27. An. 1562.
• b 1.115

  Defence of the Apol. part. 2. cap. 11. sect. 3.
• c 1.116

  Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. n. 59. & 67.
• d 1.117

  Homil. of Sal∣vation, p. 2.
• e 1.118

  Acts 2.38.
• f 1.119

  Acts 22.16.
• g 1.120

  Tit. 3.5.
• h 1.121

  1 Pet. 3.21.
• i 1.122

  Tertul. de Baptism c. 5.
• k 1.123

  Cypr. de Bap∣tism. Christi.
• l 1.124

  Nyss. in Orat. de Baptis. Christ.
• m 1.125

  V. Tombs his Book against Infant-Bap∣tism.
• n 1.126

  August. Conf. l. 1. c 11.
• o 1.127

  Goodw. of Justifie part. 2. c. 4. sect. 12.
• p 1.128

  Mark 7.3, 4.
• q 1.129

  Mark 7.4.
• r 1.130

  Epiphan. in Panar.
• s 1.131

  John 2.6.
• t 1.132

  Heb. 9.10.
• u 1.133

  Deut. 21.7.
• x 1.134

  Matth. 27.2••
• y 1.135

  Virg. Aeneid.
• z 1.136

  Pausan. in Attic.
• a 1.137

  Id. in Corin∣thiac.
• b 1.138

  Tertul. de Bapt. c. 5.
• c 1.139

  Virg. Aeneid. 2.
• d 1.140

  Alex. ab Alex. Dier. Genial. l.
• e 1.141

  Id. ibid.
• f 1.142

  Tertul. de bap: c. 5.
• g 1.143

  Tertul. de bap. c. 5.
• h 1.144

  2 King. 5.12.
• p 1.145

  Cypr. de bap∣tismo Chri.
• q 1.146

  Joh. 3.5.
• r 1.147

  Tit. 3.5.
• s 1.148

  1 Joh. 5.8.
• t 1.149

  Cypr. l. 4. Epl 2.
• u 1.150

  August. Con∣fes. l. 1. c. 11.
• x 1.151

  Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4. cap. 51.52.
• y 1.152

  Aug. Confes. 1.
• z 1.153

  Euseb Eccles. hist. l. 6. c 42. &
• a 1.154

  Concil. Neo∣caesar. Can 12.
• b 1.155

  Euseb. de vita Const. l. 4. c. 1.
• c 1.156

  De legib & long. Consuet.
• d 1.157

  August. Cont. Donat. l. 4. c. 23.
• e 1.158

  Hierom. adv. Lucifer.
• f 1.159

  Iren. advers. haer. l. 3 c. 4.
• g 1.160

  Calv. cont. Pigh. de lib. Arbit.
• h 1.161

  Tombs Exam. of Marsh. p. 12.
• i 1.162

  August. Serm. 8. de Verb. Apl. c 8.
• k 1.163

  Id. Serm. 10. de Verb. Apl. c. 2.
• l 1.164

  Iren. adv. hae∣res. l. 3. c. 3.
• m 1.165

  Hieron. adv. Pelag. l. 3. in fine.
• n 1.166

  Martyro••. Rom. in Jun. 10.
• o 1.167

  Ambr. lib. 10. Epl. 84.
• p 1.168

  Nazianz. de Baptism. Orat. 41.
• q 1.169

  Cypr. Epl. 59. ad Fidum.
• r 1.170

  Origen. in Rom. c. 6.
• * 1.171

  Id. in Levit. hom. 8.
• t 1.172

  Id. in Numer. homil. 5.
• u 1.173

  Iustin. Mart. Qu 56. ad Or∣thod.
• x 1.174

  Tertul. de Baptis. c. 18.
• y 1.175

  Irenaeus adv. haeres. l. 2. 39.
• a 1.176

  August. Epl▪ 105▪
• b 1.177

  Id. de lib. Arbitr. l. 3.23.
• c 1.178

  Id. Serm. 10. de verb. Apl.
• d 1.179

  Defence of the Apol. part. 2. c. 11.
• e 1.180

  Bernard. Epl. 77.
• f 1.181

  Can. 69. of the year 1603.
• g 1.182

  Field. of the Church. l. 3. c. 21.
• h 1.183

  Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5.
• i 1.184

  Levit. 10.10.
• k 1.185

  Calvin. Instit. l. 3. c 3. n. 1.
• l 1.186

  Bez. Epl. 20.
• m 1.187

  1 Joh. 1.9. Vers. 8, 10.
• n 1.188

  Ambros. in Psal. 118. ult.
• o 1.189

  August. En∣chei••id. c. 65.
• p 1.190

  Vasquez in 3. part. Tho. Tom. 4.
• q 1.191

  Psal 51.17.
• r 1.192

  Heb. 13.16.
• s 1.193

  Psal. 69.31.
• t 1.194

  Second Ex∣hortation be∣fore the Com∣munion.
• u 1.195

  Form of visi∣tation of the sick.
• x 1.196

  Canon 113. of the year 1603.
• y 1.197

  Canon 9. of the year 1640.
• z 1.198

  Article of Vi∣sit. c. 2. n. 25.
• a 1.199

  Contin of the Fr. hist. p. 30.
• b 1.200

  Defence of the Apol. part. 2. c. 7. sect 2..
• c 1.201

  Mortons Ap∣peal. l. 2. c. 14.
• d 1.202

  See the whole Article in Montag. Gagg. c. 12.
• e 1.203

  Answer to the Jesuites Cha∣lenge. c.
• f 1.204

  Confess. Aug. cap. de Conf.
• g 1.205

  Gerrard. Lo. Com. Tom 3. de poenit.
• h 1.206

  Bellarm.
• i 1.207

  Mort. App. l. 2. c. 14.
• k 1.208

  Bellar. ut su∣pra.
• l 1.209

  P. Lomb. Sent. l. 4. dist. 17.
• m 1.210

  Innocent. in Concil. Later. c. 21.
• n 1.211

  Hugo de pot. Eccles.
• o 1.212

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 5.
• p 1.213

  Maldonat. in Matth. 3.
• q 1.214

  Vasq. Tom 4. Qu. 90 Art. 1.
• r 1.215

  Cajetan in Acts 19.18.
• s 1.216

  Palacios in Sent. l. 4. dist. 17.
• t 1.217

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. cap 5. ca. 4, 7.
• u 1.218

  Travers de Discipl. Eccl. p. 53.
• x 1.219

  In the Visita∣tion of the sick.
• y 1.220

  Chrysost. de Esaiae Verb. Homil. 5.
• z 1.221

  Matth 6.19.
• a 1.222

  Chrysost. de verb. Isai. Hom. 5.
• b 1.223

  Matth. 14.19.
• c 1.224

  Ap. Montag. Answer to the Gogger. c. 11.
• d 1.225

  Answer to the Jusuites cha∣lenge, p. 109.
• e 1.226

  B. Morions Appeal, p 270.
• f 1.227

  Answer of Oxon to the Petition.
• g 1.228

  Conference at Hampton-Court, p. 14, 88.
• h 1.229

  See Practice of Piety in fine.
• i 1.230

  Article of Re∣ligion 33. An. 1562.