§. 1. Of the indispensable necessity of Repentance in re­medy to the unavoidable transgressing the Cove­nant of Works.

IN the first entercourse with Man, God made such a Covenant as he might justly make out of his absolute domi­nion, and such as was agreeable with those powers which he gave us, and the instances in which obedience was demanded. For 1. Man was made perfect in his kinde, and God demanded of him perfect obedi­ence. 2. The first Covenant was the Covenant of Works, that is, there was nothing in it, but Man was to obey or die: but God laid but one command upon him that we finde; the Covenant was instan­ced but in one precept. In that he fail'd, and there­fore he was lost. There was here no remedy, no second thoughts, no amends to be made. But be­cause much was not required of him, and the Com­mandement was very easie, and he had strengths more then enough to keep it, therefore he had no cause to complain: God might, and did exact at first the Covenant of Works, because it was at first in­finitely tolerable. But,

From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard, 2 and by degrees became impossible; not onely because mans fortune was broken, and his spi­rit troubled, and his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin, but because man upon the birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations, and consequently had new duties and obligations, and men hindred one another, and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities; and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling, and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty. However, because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty, God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandements, first to Noah, then to Abraham, and then to his posterity; and by this time they were very many: And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works.

Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain: 3 Tanta mandata sunt, ut impossbile sit servari ea, In cap. 3. Gal. said S. Ambrose: the Commande­ments were so many and great, that it was impossible they should be kept. For at first there were no pro­mises at all of any good, nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors; and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of tem­poral good things, which to some men were per­form'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin; and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man, it could not be that man should remain in­nocent; and for repentance, in this Covenant there was no regard, or provisions made. But I said,

The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot; 4 How justly, will appear in the sequel; but the rea­sonableness of it was in this, that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or [Page 3]severe institution restraining their loosenesses, re­collecting their inadvertencies, uniting their distra­ctions. For the world was not then prepar'd by spi­rituall usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke, but by threatnings and se­verities. And this is the account S. Paul gives of it, [...], The Law was a Schoolmaster, Gal. 3.24. that is, had a temporary authority serving to other ends, with no finall concluding power. It could chastise and threaten, but it could not condemn: it had not power of eternall life and death, that was given by other measures. But because the world was wilde and barbarous, good men were few, the bad potent and innumerable, and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity, it was necessary that God should superinduce a law, and shew them the rod, and affright and check their confidences, lest the world it self should perish by dissolution. The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works. Some little it had of re­pentance; Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins; but nothing at all for greater. Every great sin brought death infallibly. And as it had a little image of Repentance, so it had something of Promises, to be as a grace and auxiliary to set for­ward obedience. But this would not do it. The promises were temporall, and that could not secure obedience in great instances; and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance, the law could not justifie, it did not promise life Eternall, nor give sufficient security against the Temporall, onely it was brought in as a pedagogy for the pre­sent necessity.

But this pedagogy or institution was also a ma­nuduction to the Gospel. 5 For they were used to severe laws, that they might the more readily enter­tain the holy precepts of the Gospel, to which eter­nally [Page 4]they would have shut their ears, unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear: And therefore S. Paul also calls it, [...], a pedagogy, or institution lead­ing unto Christ.

For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ, 6 as having commission to open the [...], the hidden myste­ry of Justification by Faith and Repentance. For the law called for exact obedience, but mi­nistred no grace but that of fear, which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience. All therefore were here convinced of sin, but by this Covenant they had no hopes, and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better: Gal. 3.22. according to that saying of S. Paul, The Scripture concludes all under sin (that is, declares all the world to be sinners) that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve. This S. Bernard expresses in these words, Deus nobis hoc fecit, ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet, & Christi avidiores nos faceret. Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Co­venant, that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ.

For since mankinde could not be saved by the Covenant of works, 7 that is, of exact obedience, they must perish for ever, or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission, that is, such a Co­venant as may secure Mans duty to God, and Gods mercy to Man, and this is the Covenant which God made with mankinde in Christ Jesus, the Covenant of Repentance.

This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall. 8 For as soon as the first Covenant, the Cove­nant of works was broken, God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself [Page 5]would finde out. The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man. But this should be acted and published in its own time, not presently. In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance.

Adam confessed his sin and repented. 9 Three hun­dred years together did he mourn upon the moun­tains of India, and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be ac­cepted. And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters, he called upon them to re­pent, but because they did not, God brought upon them the floud of waters. For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow. Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him. And in all ages, in all periods, and with all men God did deal by this measure; and (excepting that God in some great cases, or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example) he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law, but for long and great pre­varications of it: and when he did otherwise, he did it after the man had been highly warned of the particular, and could have obeyed easily, which was the case of the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath; and was like the case of Adam, who was upon the same account judged by the Covenant of works.

This then was an emanation both of Gods ju­stice and his mercy. 10 Until man had sinned he was not the subject of mercy: and if he had not then receiv'd mercy, the infliction had been too severe and unjust, since the Covenant was beyond the mea­sures of man, after it began to multiply into parti­cular laws, and man by accident was lessen'd in his strengths.

From hence the corollaries are plain, 11 1. God was not unjust for beginning his entercourse with man­kind by the Covenant of works, for these reasons.

1. Because Man had strengths enough to doe it, until he lessen'd his own abilities.

2. The Covenant of works was at first instanc'd but in a small Commandement: in abstaining from the fruit of one tree, when he had by him very many others for his use and pleasure.

3. It was necessary that the Covenant of works should begin: for the Covenant of faith and repen­tance could not be at first; there was no need of it, no opportunity for it, it must suppose a defailance, or an infirmity, as physick supposes sickness and mortality.

4. God never exacted the obedience of Man by strict measures, by the severity of the first Cove­nant after Adams fall; but men were sav'd then as now, they were admitted to repentance, and justified by faith and the works of faith. And there­fore the Jews say that three things were before the world, The Law, the name of the Messias, and Repentance; 1 Cor. 2.7. that is, as S. Paul better expresses it, This Repentance through faith in the Messias is the hidden wisdome of God, ordained before the world unto our glory. So that at first it was not impos­sible; and when it was, it was not exacted in the impossible measure; but it was kept in pretence and overture for ends of piety, wisdome and mercy, of which I have given account; it was [...], a wise dispensation, but it was hidden.

For since it is essentiall to a law that it be in a matter that is possible, 12 Plato lib 5. de leg. Demosth. contra Ti­mocratem. Plutar. in Solon. Curius Fortunatianus Rhet. Nemo obligatur ad impossibile. it cannot be suppos'd that God would judge man by an impossible Comman­dement. A good man would not doe it, much lesse the righteous and mercifull Judge of Men and An­gels. [Page 7]But God by holding over the world the Co­venant of works, non fecit praevaricatores sed hu­miles, did not make us sinners by not observing the [...] the minutes and tittles of the law, but made us humble, needing mercy, begging grace, longing for a Saviour, relying upon a better Covenant, waiting for better promises, praying for the Spirit of grace, repenting of our sins, deploring our infir­mities, and justified by faith in the promises of God.

2. 13 This then is the great introduction and neces­sity of repentance. We neither could have liv'd without it, nor have understood the way of the Divine Justice, nor have felt any thing of his most glorious attribute. But the admission of us to re­pentance, is the great verification of his justice, and the most excellent expression of his mercy: This is the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, springing from the fountains of grace, purchas'd by the bloud of the Holy Lamb, the Eternal sacrifice, promised from the beginning, always ministred to mans need in the secret Oeconomy of God, but proclaim'd to all the world at the revelation of God incarnate, the first day of our Lord Jesus.

But what are we eased now under the Gospel, 14 which is a Law of greater holiness and more Com­mandements, and a sublimer purity, in which we are tied to more severity then ever man was bound to under any institution and Covenant? If the Law was an impossible Commandement, who can say he hath strictly and punctually perform'd the injunctions of the Gospel? Is not the little finger of the Son heavier then the Fathers loyns? Here therefore it is to be inquired, Whether the Comman­dements of Jesus Christ be as impossible to be kept as the Law of Moses? If we by Christ be tied to more holiness, then the sons of Israel were by Mo­ses Law, then because that could not be kept, then [Page 8]neither can this. But if we be not tied to more then they, how is the law of Christ a more perfect insti­tution, and how can we now be justified by a law no better then that by which we could not be ju­stified? But then, if this should be as impossible as ever, why is it anew imposed? why is it held over us, when the ends for which it was held over us, now are served? And at last, how can it be agree­able to Gods wisdome and justice, to exact of us a law which we cannot perform, or to impose a law which cannot justly be exacted? The answe­ring and explicating this difficulty will serve many propositions in the doctrine of Repentance.

§. 2. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel.

IT were strange that it should be possible for all men to keep the Commandements, 15 and requir'd and exacted of all men with the intermination or threatning of horrid pains, and yet that no man should ever do it. Lib. 1. Dial. adve. Pelag. S. Hierome brings in Atticus thus arguing: Da exemplum, aut confitere imbecillitatem tuam: and the same also was the argument of Oro­sius; and the reasonableness of it is a great preju­dice against the contrary affirmation of S. Austin, Alipius & Evodius, Aurelius & Possidius, who be­cause it is no good consequence to argue à non esse ad non posse, and though it is not done, yet possibly it might; conclude, that it is possible to keep the [Page 9]Commandements, though as yet no man ever did, but he that did it for us all. But as Marcellinus said well, It is hard to say that by a Man a thing can be done, of which although there was a great necessity and a severe Commandement, yet there never was any example. Because in men there is such infinite variety of tempers, dispositions, apprehensions, de­signes, fears and hopes, purposes and interests, that it were next to a miracle that not one of all man­kinde should do what he can, and what so highly concerns him. But because this, although it be a high probability, yet is no certain demonstration; that which S. Paul taught is certainly to be relied upon, That the Law could not do it for us, that is, Rom. 8. could not bring us justification, in that it was weak through the flesh; meaning that because we were so weak we could not fulfill the righteousness of the Law, therefore we could not be justified by that Covenant. Mosi manus graves, facies cornuta, im­pedita lingua, lapideae tabulae. Moses's hand were heavy, his face bright, his tongue stammering, and the tables were of stone; by which is meant, that the imposition and the burthen was great, but the shoulder is weak and crushed, and therefore was not able to bear it; and therefore much less can it stand under a bigger load, if the holy Precepts of the Gospel should prove so, and we be assisted by no firmer supporters.

For the nature and constitution of man is such, 16 that he cannot perpetually attend to any state of things: Voluntas per momenta variatur, S. Hier. lib. 2. in Gal. c. c. 3.quia solus Deus immutabilis; variety and change, inconstancy and repentance are in his very nature. * If he be negligent, he is soon tempted. * If he be watch­ful, he is soon wearied. * If he be not instructed, he is exposed to every abuse. * If he be, yet he is ig­norant of more then he knows, and may be cou­sened [Page 10]by very many things; and in what he knows or seems to know, he is sometimes confident, sometimes capricious, curious and impertinent, proud and con­temptuous, * The Commandments are instanc'd in things against our naturall inclinations, and are restraints upon our appetite; and although a man may do it in single instances, yet to act a part of perpetual violence and preternatural contentions is too hard and severe an expectation, and the often unavoidable failings of men will shew how impos­sible it is. It is (as S. Hieromes expression is) as if a man should hale a boat against the stream; if ever he slacken his hand, the vessel falls back: and if ever we give way to our appetite in any of the forbidden instances, we descend naturally and easily. * Some vices are proportionable to a mans temper, and there he falls pleasantly and with desire; Rhet. lib. 1. [...], said Aristotle, That which is na­tural is sweet, but that which is violent is trouble­some: to others he is indifferent, but to them he is turn'd by every byas. * If a man be morose, he is apt to offend with sullenness and angry preten­sions: but if he be compliant and gentle, he is easily cousened with fair entreaties. * If he be alone, he is sad and phantastick, and woe to him that is alone: If he be in company, it will be very hard for him to go with them to the utmost limits of per­mission, and not to step beyond it. * No mans lei­sure is great enough to attend the inquiry after all the actions and particulars for which he is to be judged; and he does many things which he consi­ders not whether they be sins or no; and when he does consider, he often judges wrong. * For some things there are no certain measures; and there are very many constituent or intervening things and circumstances of things, by which it is made impos­sible to give a certain judgement of the whole. [Page 11]* Oftentimes a man is surpris'd and cannot delibe­rate for want of time; sometimes he is amaz'd, and wants order and distinction to his thoughts, and cannot deliberate for want of powers. * Sometimes the case is such, that if a man determines it against his temporal interest he determines falsly, and yet he thinks he does it safest: and if he judges in com­pliance with his temporal regards, he cannot be con­fident but that he was mov'd not by the prevailing reason, but by prevailing passion. * If the dispute be concerning degrees, there is no certain measures to weigh them by: and yet sometimes a degree does diversifie the kinde, and vertue and vice are but dif­fering degrees of the same instance: and the wayes of sinning upon the stock of ignorance are as many as there are ignorances and degrees, and parts and vicious causes, and instances of it.

Concerning our infirmities, 17 they are so many that we can no more account concerning the wayes of errour coming upon that stock, then it can be rec­koned in how many places a lame man may stumble that goes a long journey in difficult and uneven wayes. We have beginning infant strengths, which are therefore imperfect because they can grow: Crescere posse imperfectae rei signum est; Seneca ep. 67. and when they are most confirm'd and full grown, they are imperfect still. When we can reckon all the things of chance, then we have summ'd up the dangers and aptnesses of man to sin upon that one principle; but so as they can they are summ'd up in the words of Epiphanius; Haeres. 59. [...]. The condition of our nature, the incon­stancy of our spirits, the infirmity of our flesh, the distraction of our senses, are an argument to [Page 12]make us with confidence expect pardon and mercy from the loving kindness of the Lord, according to the preaching of Truth, the Gospel of Christ.

But besides all this, 18 the numbers of sin are not easily to be told: the lines of account are various and changeable, our opinions uncertain, and we are affrighted from one into another, and all changes from sin are not into vertue, but more commonly into sin. Obsessa mens hominis & undi (que)Zabuli. S. Cypr. de oper. & cleemos.diaboli infestatione vallata vix occurrit singulis, vix resistit; si avaritia prostrata est, exurgit libido. And if we do not commit things forbidden, yet the sins of omission are innumerable and undiscernible, * Bu­sinesses intervene and visits are made, and civilities to be rendred, and friendly compliances to be en­tertain'd, and necessities to be served, and some things thought so which are not so, and so the time goes away, and the duty is left undone; prayers are hindred, and prayers are omitted; and concerning every part of time which was once in our power, no man living can give a fair account.

This moral demonstration of the impossibility of perfect and exact obedience and innocence, 19 would grow too high, if I should tell how easily our du­ties are sowr'd even when we think we walk wisely. Severity is quickly turn'd into ungentleness, love of children to indulgence, joy to gayety, melancholy to peevishness, love of our wives to fondness, li­berties of marriage to licentiousness, devotion to superstition, austerity to pride, feasting to intem­perance, Ʋrbanity to foolish jesting, a free speech into impertinence and idle talking.

There were no bottom of this consideration if we consider how all mankinde sins with the tongue. 20 He that offends not in his tongne, he is a per­fect man indeed. But experience and the following [Page 13]considerations do manifest that no man is so per­fect. For,

Every passion of the Soul is a spring and a shower, 21 a parent and a nurse to sin. Our passions either mistake their objects, or grow intemperate; either they put too much upon a trifle, or too little upon the biggest interest. They are material and sensual, best pleas'd and best acquainted with their own objects: and we are to do some things, which it is hard to be told how they can be in our own power. We are commanded to be angry, to love, to hope, to desire certain things, towards which we cannot be so affected ever when we please. A man cannot love or hate upon the stock and interest of a Commandement, and yet these are parts of our duty. To mourn and to be sorrowful are natural effects of their proper apprehensions, and therefore are not properly capable of a law. Though it be possible for a man who is of a sanguine complexion, in perfect health and constitution, not to act his lust; yet it will be found next to impossible not to love it, not to desire it: and who will finde it possible that every man and in all cases of his temptation should over­come his fear? But if this fear be instanced in a matter of religion, it will be apt to multiply eternal scruples, and they are equivocal effects of a good meaning, but are proper and univocal enemies to piety and a wise religion.

I need not take notice of the infinite variety of thoughts and sentences that divide all mankinde concerning their manner of pleasing and obeying God; 22 and the appendent zeal by which they are furiously driven on to promote their errors or opi­nions as they think for God: and he that shall tell these men they do amiss would be wondred at; for they think themselves secure of a good reward even when they do horrible things. But the danger here [Page 14]is very great, when the instrument of serving God is nothing but opinion and passion abus'd by interest; especially since this passion of it self is very much to be suspected; it being temerity or rashness, (for some zeal is no better) and its very formality is in­advertency and inconsideration.

But the case is very often so, 23 that even the greatest consideration is apt to be mistaken: and how shall men be innocent, when besides the signal precepts of the Gospel, there are propounded to us some gene­rall measures, and as I may call them, extraregular lines, by which our actions are to be directed; such as are, the analogie of faith, fame, reputation, publick honesty, not giving offence, being exemplary; all which, and divers others being indefinite measures of good and evil, are pursued as men please, and as they will understand them. And because concerning these, God alone can judge righteously, he alone can tell when we have observed them; we cannot, and therefore it is certain we very often doe mis­take.

Hence it is that they who mean holiness and pu­rity are forc'd to make to themselves rules and mea­sures by way of Idea or instrument, 24 endevouring to choose that side that is the surest; which indeed is but a guessing at the way we should walk in; and yet by this way also, men do often run into a snare, and lay trouble and intricacy upon their consciences, unnecessary burthens which presently they grow weary of, and in striving to shake them off, they gall the neck, and introduce tediousness of spirit or despair.

For we see when Religion grows high the dangers do increase, 25 not onely by the proper dangers of that state, and the more violent assaults made against Saints then against meaner persons of no religious interest; but because it will be impossible for any [Page 15]man to know certainly what intension of spirit is the minimum religionis, the necessary condition, un­der or less then which God will not accept the acti­on: and yet sometimes two duties justle one ano­ther, and while we are zealous in one, we less attend the other, and therefore cannot easily be certain of our measures; and because sometimes two duties of a very different matter are to be reconcil'd and wait­ed upon, who can tell what will be the event of it, since mans nature is so limited and little that it cannot at once attend upon two objects?

Is it possible that a man should so attend his prayers, 26 that his minde should be alwayes present and never wander? does not every man complain of this, and yet no man can help it? And if of this alone we had cause to complain, yet even for this we were not innocent in others; and he that is an offender in one is guilty of all; and yet it is true that in many things we all offend. And all this is true when a man is well and when he is wise; but he may be foolish and he will be sick, and there is a new scene of dan­gers, new duties, and new infirmities, and new que­stions, and the old uncertainty of things, and the same certainty of doing our duty weakly, and imperfectly, and pitiably.

Since therefore every sin is forbidden, 27 and yet it can enter from so many angles, I may conclude in the words of Sedulius, Lex spiritualis est, In cap. 7. Rom.quia spi­ritualia mandat, ardua praecipit opera spiritus, pro­hibens peccata, & ideò non potest impleri. Gods law is spiritual, and we are carnal and disproportionate to it while we are in the state of conjunction, and therefore it cannot be kept. Deus jugum legis ho­mini [Page 16]imponit, homo ferre non valet, said the Fathers of the Synod of Frankeford. God hath imposed a yoke, but man cannot bear it. For that I may sum up all,

In affirmative Precepts the measure is, 28 To love God with all our faculties and degrees. In negative Precepts the measure is, Not to lust or desire. Now if any man can say that he can so love God in the proper and full measures, as never to step aside to­wards the creatures with whom he daily converses, and is of the same kindred with them, and that he can so abstain from the creature, as never to cover what he is forbidden; then indeed he justifies God in imposing a possible law, and condemns himself that he does not what he ought. But in all he in­fers the absolute necessity of Repentance.

But because we are sure God is just and cannot be otherwise, 29 all the Doctors of the Church have en­devoured to tie these things together, and recon­cile our state of infirmity with the justification of God. Many lay the whole fault upon Man, not on the impossible imposition. But that being the Question cannot be concluded on either hand with a bare Affirmative or Negative: and besides, it was condemn'd by the African Councels to say, that a man might, if he pleas'd, live without sin.

For if it were onely the fault of men, then a man might if he pleased keep the whole law, and then might be justified by the law, Epist. ad Innocent. and should not need a Saviour. S. Augustine indeed thought it no great error, and some African Bishops did expresly affirm [Page 17]that some from their conversion did to the day of their death live without sin. This was worse then that of Pelagius, save onely that these took in the Grace of God, which (in that sense which the Church teaches) the Pelagians did not. But this also was affirmed by S. Lib. 2. de merit. & remiss. c. 6. lib. de Spirit. & lit. c. 1. Austin, upon which account it must follow that the Commandements are therefore pos­sible, because it is onely our fault that they are not kept. But how to reconcile this opinion and saying of S. Austin and some other Africans, with the African Councels, with S. Hierome, Orosius, Lactan­tius, and with S. Serm. 49. de tempo­re. Austin himself, and generally the whole ancient Church against the Pelagians, I can­not understand: but it is sufficiently confuted by all the foregoing considerations.

S. Hierome sayes, 30 that the observation of the Commandements is possible to the whole Church, but not to every single person, but then the diffi­culty remains. For the whole Church being a col­lection of single persons is not the subject of a law. Nothing is universal but Names and Words; a thing cannot be universal, it is a contradiction to say it is. To say the Church can keep it, is to say that every man can keep it; To say that every man of the Church cannot keep it, is to say that the whole Church cannot keep it: As he that sayes Mankinde is reasonable, sayes that every man is; but he that sayes every man is not just, sayes that all mankinde is not just. But if it contains in it another sense, it is a dangerous affirmative, which I shall represent in his own words: Lib. 1. dial. adv. Pelag. Ita fit ut quod in alio aut primum aut totum est, in alio ex parte versetur, & tamen non sit in crimine qui non habet omnia, nec condemnetur ex eo quod non habet, sed justificetur ex eo quod possidet. I will not be so severe as S. Austin, who in his 19 Sermon de tempore, calls it blasphemy. It is indeed a hard saying, if he means that a man can be justified [Page 18]by some vertues, though he retains some vices: For he that sins in one is guilty of all. But yet some per­sons shall be crowned who never converted souls, and some that never redeem'd captives, and mil­lions that never sold all and gave to the poor: and there are many graces, of which some lives have no opportunities. The state of Marriage hath some graces proper to it self; and the Calling of a Mer­chant, and the Office of a Judge, and the imploy­ment of an Advocate hath some things of vertue which others do not exercise, and they also have their proper graces: and in this sense it is true what S. Hierome sayes, that he that hath not all, may be justified by what he hath, and not sentenced for what he hath not, it not being imputed to him that he hath not that of which he hath no use. Now although this be true, yet it is not sufficient to ex­plicate the Question: For the Commandements are not onely impossible in this sense, but even in that where the scene of his duty does lie, and where his graces ought to have been exercised, every man is a sinner, every man hath fail'd in his proper duty and calling. So that now to say the Commandements are possible to the whole Church, and not to every single person, is to divide the duty of a Christian, & to give to every one a portion of duty, which must leave in every one a portion of impiety; and to say that this is keeping the Commandments, or a sufficient means of justification, is that which S. Austin cal'd blasphemy.

But S. 31 Hierome hath another answer: Hoc & nos dicimus, posse hominem non peccare si velit, pro tem­pore,Dial. extr. adv. Pelag. l. 3.pro loco, pro imbecillitate corporeâ, quamdiu intentus est animus, quamdiu chorda nullo vitio laxa­tur in Citharâ. God hath not impos'd an impossi­ble law. For there is no Commandement, but a man that considers that endevours, that understands, that watches, that labours, may do in time and [Page 19]place, and so long as he adverts, and is dispassionate, so long as his instrument is in tune. Which answer is like that saying of the Schools, That there is no difficulty in things, but every thing is easie to be un­derstood; but that we find difficulty, is because of the weaknes of the understanding; that is, things are easie to be understood, if we were wise enough to un­derstand them: But because our understanding is weak, therefore things are hard; for to be intelligi­ble is a relative term; and it is not sense to say, that a thing is in it self easie to be understood, but hard to the understanding; for it is as if it were said, It is easie, but that it is hard: and that's the thing which in this question is complain'd of on all hands. For an Oak is easie to be pull'd up by the roots, if a man had strength enough to do it; but if this be impos'd upon a weak man or a childe, they have reason to complain: and a Bushel or two of Wheat is no great thing to carry, but it is too great for me, I cannot do it. So by this account of S. Hie­rome, the Commandements are not impossible, for there is not any one of them, but any man can do at some time, while he considers and is in perfect disposition. But then we are to remember, that the Commandements are alwayes imposed, and we are not alwayes in that condition of good things to be wise and watchful, well dispos'd, and well resolv'd, standing upon our guard, and doing what we can at other times; and therefore it is that the Commande­ments are impossible. So that still the difficulty re­mains and the inquiry must go on, How we are to un­derstand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible law? or if he does not exact it, how we understand the way of the Divine Wisdome in imposing that law which he cannot justly exact?

To the first I answer, 32 that God doth not exact of us what is not possible to be done. The highest severity [Page 20]of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul, that is, to love him as much as we can love him; and that is certain we can do. Every man can do as much as he can, and God requires no more: and even those things which we can do, though he calls upon us to do the most, yet he punishes us not if we do it heartily and sincerely, though with less passion and exactness. Now as Gods justice was secur'd in the imposition of the law of Moses, because whatever severity was held over them to restrain their loose­nesses, yet God exacted it onely by the measures of a man, and healed all their breaches by the medicine of Repentance: So now in the Gospel he hath done it much more [...], God hath taken the vail off, and profess'd it openly, he hath included this mercy in the very constitution of the Covenant. For the Gospel is the Covenant of Repentance; we shall not have leave to sin, but we shall have leave to repent if we have sinned: so that God hath im­posed a law of perfection, but he exacts it according to the possibilities of imperfect persons, S. August. lib. 1. Re­tract. c. 19. Omnia man­data Dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur, and then we have kept the Commande­ments, when we have received our pardon for what we have not kept.

2. 33 As the law of Moses was not of it self im­possible absolutely and naturally: so neither are the Commandements of the Gospel. For if we con­sider the particular of Moses law, they were such a burthen which the Jews themselves were loth to part withall, because it was in the Morall part of it but a law of abstinence from evil; to which fear and temporal promises was, as they understood it, a suf­ficient endearment: But that burthen which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, was the sting of the law, that it allowed no repentance for great crimes, Heb. 10.28. but the transgressor should die without mercy [Page 21]under two or three witnesses. Now then since in the Go­spel there is no such thing, but there is an allowance of repentance, this must needs be an easie yoke. This onely is to be added, That the righteousness of the law was in abstinence from evil; the righte­ousness of the Gospel is in that, and in the doing all the affirmative Commandements of Christ. Now this being a new obligation, brought also with it new abilities, I mean the glorious promises of the Gospel, which whosoever believes heartily, will finde himself able to do or suffer any thing for the enjoying of them; and this is that which is taught us by S. Paul: For what the law could not do, Rom. 8.3.in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, made it possible by the Spirit of Grace, and by our spirituall conversation.

3. 34 There is a Natural possibility, and a Moral: there are abilities in every man to do any thing that is there commanded, and he that can do well to day may do so to morrow; in the nature of things this is true: and since every sin is a breach of a law which a man might and ought to have kept, it is naturally certain, that when ever any man did break the Commandement he might have done otherwise. In man therefore speaking naturally and of the Phy­sical possibilities of things, there is by those assistan­ces which are given in the Gospel, ability to keep the Commandements Evangelical. But in the Moral sense, that is, when we consider what Man is, and what are his strengths, and how many his enemies, and how soon he falls, and that he forgets when he should remember, and his faculties are asleep when they should be awake, and he is hindred by inter­vening accidents, and weakned and determin'd by superinduc'd qualities, habits and necessities, the keeping of the Commandements is morally impos­sible. Now that this may also be taken off, there is [Page 22]an abatement and an allowance made for this also. Our infirmities are pitied, our ignorances excused, our unavoidable errours not imputed. These in the law were imputable, and it was lawful for the aven­ger of blood to kill a Manslayer who sinn'd against his will, if he could overtake him before he got to Sanctuary. These I say in the Law were imputable, but they were not imputed; Gods mercy took them off privately upon the accounts of his Mercy and a general Repentance: But in the Gospel they are neither imputed, nor imputable: They were paid for beforehand, and put upon the accounts of the Cross: God winked at the times of your ignorance; and, The Lord had pity on me, because I did it in ignorance, said S. Paul, and so Christ prayed, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. But ye did it igno­rantly, as did also your Rulers; so S, Peter, and upon that account he called them to accept of mercy. And it is certain in reason, that if God forgives those sins of malice of which we repent, infinitely rather will he not impute what we cannot probably or pos­sibly avoid. Apud Diodor. Sicul. For to do otherwise, were [...]: It is a severity above the measures of humane suf­ferance and capacity, to be punished for infirmities when they do not sin wilfully; and therefore God who remembers and pities our infirmities, will never put these into his account, especially the holy Jesus having already paid our symbol Upon the account of these particulars it is certain, God does not exact of us an impossible Commandement; that is, not in the impossible measure: for that is the meaning of those words of S. Hom. 3 [...] inter. 19. Basil, [...]. It is impious to say the Commandements of the Spirit, i.e. of the Gospel, are impossible, viz. in that sense in which they are ex­acted.

But now to the second inquiry: 35 Since in justice God exacts not an impossible law, how does it con­sist with his wisdome to impose what in justice he does not exact? I answer, 1. That it was necessary the Law in its latitude and natural extension should be given; for if in the sanction any limits and les­senings had been described, it had been a permission given to us to despise him in a certain degree, and could in no sense have been proportionable to his infinity. God commands us to love him with all our hearts, and all our strengths; that is, alwayes and with all that we can; if less then this had been impo­sed, and we commanded to love God but to a less, and a certain proportion, besides that it would not have been possible for us to understand when we did what was commanded, it would have been either a direct lessening our opinion of God, by tempting us to suppose no more love was due to him then such a limited measure, or else a teaching us not to give him what was his due, either of which must ne­cessarily tend to Gods dishonour.

2. 36 The commanding us to do all that we can, and that alwayes, though less be exacted, does invite our greatest endevours, it entertains the faculties and labours of the best, and yet despises not the meanest, for they can endevour too, and they can do their best: and it serves the end of many graces besides, and the honour of some of the Divine Attri­butes.

3. 37 By this means still we are contending and pressing forwards; and no man can say he does now comprehend, or that his work is done, till he die; and therefore for ever he must grow in grace, which could not be without the proposing of a Comman­dement, the performance of which would for ever sufficiently imploy him: for by this means the Commandements do every day grow more possible [Page 24]then at first. In epistolâ ad Inno­centium dictum est, multos Ca­tholicos vi­ros dixisse posse homi­nem esse sine peccato per gratiam Dei, non à nativitate sed à con­versione. A lustful person thinks it impossible to mortifie his lust: but when he hath long conten­ded and got the mastery, it grows easie, and at last in the progressions of a long piety, sin is more im­possible then duty is. He that is born of God sinneth not, neither indeed can he; so S. John: and, Through Christ that strengthens me I can do all things, saith S. Paul. It is long before a man comes to it, but the impossibility by degrees turns into a possibility, and that into an easiness, and at last into a necessity. It is a trouble for some to commit a sin. By this also we exercise a holy fear, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It enlarges our care, and endears our watchfulness and caution. It cures or prevents our pride and bold challenges of God for rewards which we never can deserve. It convinces us of the necessity of the Divine aid, and makes us to relie upon Gods goodness in helping us, and his mercy in pardoning us; and truly without this we could neither be so sensible of our infirmities, nor of the excellent gifts and mercies of God: for al­though God does not make necessities on purpose that he may serve them, or introduce sin that he might pardon it, yet he loves we should depend up­on him, and by these rare arts of the Divine Oeco­nomy make us to strive to be like him, and in the midst of our finite abilities have infinite desires, that even so we may be disposed towards the holiness and glories of eternity.

4. 38 Although God exacts not an impossible law under eternal and insufferable pains, yet he imposes great holiness in unlimited and indefinite measures, with a design to give excellent proportions of re­ward answerable to the greatness of our endeaovur. Hell is not the end of them that fail in the greatest measures of perfection; but great degrees of Hea­ven shall be their portion who do all that they can [Page 25]alwayes, and offend in the fewest instances. For as our duty is not limited, so neither are the degrees of glory: and if there were not this latitude of duty, neither could there be any difference in glory; neither could it be possible for all men to hope for heaven, but now all may: The meanest of Gods servants shall go thither, and yet there are greater measures for the best and most excellent ser­vices.

Thus we may understand that the imposing of the Divine Laws in all the periods of the world, 39 was highly consistent with the Divine Justice, and an excellent, infinite wisdome, and yet in the exacting them, Mercy prevail'd; because the Covenant of Works or of exact obedience was never the rule of life and death, since the Saviour of the world was promised, that is, since the fall of Adam, but all Mankinde was admitted to repentance, and wash'd clean in the blood of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and was slain from the beginning of it. Repentance was the measure of our duty, and the remedy for our evils; and the Commandements were not impossible to him that might amend what was done amiss.

§. 3. How Repentance and the Precept of Per­fection Evangelicall can stand together.

THat the Gospel is a Covenant of Repentance, 40 is evident in the whole design and nature of the thing, in the preparatory Sermons made by the Ba­ptist, by the Apostles of our Lord, by the seventy two Disciples, and the Exhortations made by S. Pe­ter at the first opening the Commission, and the se­cret of the Religion. Which Doctrine of Repen­tance, lest it should be thought to be a permission to sin, a leave to need the remedy, is charged with an addition of a strict and severe holiness, the Pre­cept of Perfection. It therefore must be such a re­pentance as includes in it perfection, and yet the perfection is such as needs repentance. How these two are to stand together, is the subject of the pre­sent inquiry. Mat. 5.48. Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect; that's the charge. To be perfect as God, and yet to repent as a Man, seem contrary to each other. They seem so onely. For,

1. 41 It does not signifie perfection of degrees in the natural sense of the word. For as Philo said well, [...], Perfections and the heights of excellencies are onely proper to one: [...], said Clemens of Alexandria, God alone is wise, he alone is perfect. All that we do is but little, and that little is imperfect, and that imperfection is such as could be condemned, if God did not use gentleness and mercy towards us. But,

2. 42 Although perfection of degrees cannot be understood to be our duty in the periods and spaces of this life, because we are here in the state of la­bour and contention, of pilgrimage and progression, yet even in this life we are to labour towards it: and Be ye perfect, viz. with the highest degrees of ho­liness, is to be understood in a current and transient sense. For this Precept thus understood, hath its obligation upon our endevour onely, and not upon the event. When a General commands his Army to destroy the Enemy, he bindes them onely to a prudent, a possible and vigorous endevour to do it, and cannot intend the effect, but by several parts an­swerable to the steps of the progression. So is that in the Psalms, Psal. 2. Be learned ye that are Princes of the world, that is, learn, and so by industry and attention arrive at knowledge. For although every man be a sinner, yet he that does not endevour to avoid all sin, is not onely guilty of the sin he commits, but the negligence also, which is the parent of the sin, is another sin, and directly criminal. So it is in the degrees of perfection, what we cannot attain to, we must at least desire. In this world we cannot arrive thither, but in this life we must alwayes be going thither. It is status viae, grace is the way to glory. And as he that commands us to enter into a City from which we are hugely distant, means we should pass thorough all the wayes that lead thither: so it is here. The Precept must be given here, and begun, and set forward, and it will be finished hereafter. But as a man may be an adulterer, or a thief, with his heart and his eye, as well as with his hand; so it is also in good things: A mans heart and eye may be in heaven, that is, in the state of perfection, long before he sets his feet upon the golden threshold. His desires are first crown'd and sainted, and then the work shall be made perfect.

3. 43 There is another sort of perfection which may not be improperly meant in this charge of duty, and that is, a perfection of state. Be ye perfect, that is, Be ye holy; for [...] is sanctifico, and [...] is festum, or a holy day, a day that hath the perfe­ction added to it of which a day is capable, a day sanctified to the Lord. For [...] is the same with [...], Heb. 7.19. to sanctifie is to make perfect. Nihil enim sanctificavit lex, so the Latine reades the words of S. Paul; but in the Greek it is [...], The law made that perfect which it did sanctifie. So that, Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, is Be ye holy like him, or in imitation of him. And thus the word is expounded in Plato, [...]. That's the perfection of good to be like God; but to be like him is to be just, and holy, and prudent. Thats [...], as much as we can, that is, with a hearty, righteous, sincere endevour: for so [...] or holy is used. It signifies sincere, true, without errour. [...]. So Damascius in Suidas. It is not likely or true, that he that is not wise in little things should be wise in great things. But to live holily in the Christian sense, is to live in faith and good works, that's Christian perfection. [...]. He is good and holy, who by faith and good works is like unto God. For this perfection or [...] holiness is nothing else but a pursuance of that which is just and good; for so said Moses concerning the man that forsook God, and denied that he had made a Covenant with him, [Do not say in thine heart, [...], let it be lawful or holy, or permitted to me to depart from the Lord. To this sense was that of Justin Martyr, who expounds this phrase of [Be [Page 29]ye perfect] by Christianum fieri, Be perfect, that is, Be Christians, be Christs Disciples; for he who came [...] to fulfil, to consummate obe­dience, to perfect the law, to obey him, and be Disciples of his institution, is our perfection and consummation.

4. 44 This perfection of state, although it does not suppose a perfection of degrees, yet it can be no less then 1. A perfection of parts. It must be a Religion that is not mingled with interest, piety to God that is not spoiled with cruelty to our neigh­bours, a zeal that hath in it no uncharitableness or spite, that is, our Religion must be intire, and not defective in any constituent part. So S. Jam. 1.4. James uses the word [...] for [...], perfect and intire want­ing nothing. 2. To which adde this also, That to this perfection of state, perseverance is of necessity to be added. For so we are taught by the same Apostle, Let patience have her perfect work, that is, let it bear you through all your trials, lasting till all your sufferings are over; For he that endures to the end shall be crowned, because he onely is perfect. Our holiness must persevere to the end. But 3. it must also be growing all the way. For this word perfect is sometimes in Scripture used for degrees, and as a distinction between Christians in the mea­sures of duty. S. Paul uses it to signifie well grown Christians, or men in Christianity. Col. 4.12. [...]; stand perfectly and full, or confidently fulfilling all the will of God: for therefore we preach Christ, and exhort every man, and teach every man in all wisdome, that we may pre­sent every man [...] perfect in Christ Jesus; that is, 1.28. that they should not alwayes be as babes, for whom milk and weak nutriment is to be provided; nor like those silly women alwayes lear­ning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the [Page 30]truth; but it is commanded us to be wise and per­fect, to be men in Christ; so S. Paul makes the anti­thesis, 1 Cor. 14.20. Be ye babes in malice, but in your mindes [...] be perfect, that is, be men, wise and con­fident, and strong, and well grown. Perfectly in­structed; that is, readily prepared to every good work; not alwayes imployed in the elements and infant propositions and practises of Religion, but doing noble actions, well skill'd in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness. This is agreeable to that expres­sion of S. Paul, who having laid the foundation of Christianity by describing the fundamentals, intend­ing to speak of the more mysterious points of the Religion, Heb. 6.1. calls it a going on to perfection: So that by this Precept of perfection it is intended we should do more then the lowest measure of our duties, and there is no limit, but even the utmost of our power; all that we can is the measure of our duty: I do not say, all that we can naturally or possibly, but all that we can morally and probably, according to the measures of a man, and the rate of our hindrances and infirmities.

5. 45 But the last sort and sense of perfection, is that which our blessed Saviour intended particularly in the instance and subject matter of this Precept, and that is, a perfection in the kinde of action, that is, a choice and prosecution of the most noble and excellent things in the whole Religion. Three are especially instanc'd in the holy Gospel.

1. The first is, a being ready, or a making our selves ready to suffer persecution, prescrib'd by our blessed Saviour to the rich young man, If thou wilt be perfect, Mat. 19.21.sell all and give to the poor, that is, if thou wilt be my disciple, make thy self ready, and come and follow me. For it was at that time necessary to all that would follow Christs person and fortune, to quit all they had above their needs. For they that [Page 31]followed him, were sure of a Cross; and therefore to invite them to be disciples, was to engage them to the suffering persecution; and this was that which our blessed Saviour calls perfection.

It is an easie thing to follow God in festivals and dayes of Eucharist; but to serve him in hard battels, to die for him, is the perfection of love, of faith and obedience. Obedient unto death, was the Chara­cter of his own perfection; for Greater love then this hath no man, then to lay down his life. Scis quem dicam bonum, perfectum, absolutum? Seneca.Quem malum fucere nulla vis, nulla necessitas potest. He is good, absolute and perfect, whom no force, no necessity can make evil.

2. The second instance is, being merciful; for S. Luke recording this Precept expounds it by [...], Be ye perfect, that is, Luk. 6.36. Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful; for by mercy onely we can be like him. [...]. Scriptor act Diogne­tum. He that bears his neighbours burthen, and is willing to do benefit to his inferiors, and to minister to the needy of the good things which God hath given him, he is as God to them that receive, he is an imitator of God him­self. And Justin Martyr reciting this Precept of our blessed Saviour, in stead of [...] uses the word [...], Be ye good and bountiful as your heavenly Father is. And to this purpose the story of Jesus and the young man before mentioned, is inter­polated in the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Nazarens, ‘The Lord said unto him, How [Page 32]sayest thou, I have kept the Law and the Prophets, when it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self? and behold many of thy bre­thren the sons of Abraham are covered in filth, and die with hunger, and thy house is full of good things, and nothing goes forth to them from thence. If therefore thou wilt be perfect, sell all and give to the poor.’ Charity, which is the fulfilling the Com­mandement, is also the perfection of a Christian: and that a giving of alms should be perfection, is not disagreeing with the design of the word it self; [...], say the Grammarians; it signifies to spend, and [...] is a great spender or a boun­tiful person.

3. The third is the very particular to which our blessed Master did especially relate to in the words of the sanction or institution: and we are taught it by the particle [...] or therefore. For when the holy Jesus had describ'd that glory of Christianity that we should love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use us and persecute us; he propounds the example of our heavenly Father; for he maketh his Sun to rise on the evil and on the good. But the Publicans love their friends, and salute their bre­thren: but more is expected of us; Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect; that is, do more then the Publicans, do as your Father does, be perfect as he is, that is, love your ene­mies.

6. 46 Now concerning this sense of the Precept of perfection, which is the choice and pursuance of the noblest actions of Religion, we must observe that they are therefore perfection, because they suppose a man to have pass'd through the first and beginning graces, to have arrived at these excellencies of piety and duty. For as no man can on a sudden become [Page 33]the worst man in the world, his soul must by degrees be unstript of holiness, and then of modesty, and then of all care of reputation, and then of disuse, and by these measures he will proceed to the consum­mation of the method of Hell and darkness: So can no man on a sudden come to the right use of these graces. Not every man that dies in a good Cause shall have the reward of Martyrdome; but he that having liv'd well, seals that doctrine with dying, which before he adorn'd with living. And therefore it does infinitely concern all them that suf­fer in a good Cause, to take care that they be not prodigal of their sufferings, and throw them away upon vice. Peevishness or pride, lust or intempe­rance, can never be consecrated by dying or by alms. But he that after a patient continuance in well doing, addes Charity or Martyrdome to the collective body of his other graces, he hath made them perfect with this kinde of perfection. Martyrdome can supply the place of actual baptisms, but not of repentance: Because without our fault it may so happen that the first cannot be had; but without our fault the se­cond is never left undone.

Thus perfection and repentance may stand toge­ther. 47 Perfection does not suppose the highest in­tention of degrees in every one, but in all accord­ing to their measures of grace and time. Evangeli­call perfection is such as supposes a beginning, an in­fant grace, progression and variety, watchfulness and fear, trembling fear. And there are many gra­ces required of us, whose materiall and formal part is Repentance: Such as are Mortification, Peniten­tial sorrow, Spiritual mourning, Patience, some parts of Humility, all the parts and actions of Humilia­tion; and since in these also perfection is as great a du­ty as in any thing else, it is certain that the perfecti­on of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention.

But yet perfection cannot be less then an intire piety, 48 a holiness perfect in its parts, wanting no­thing material, allowing no vicious habit, permit­ting no vile action, but contending towards the grea­test excellency, a charitable heart, a ready hand, a confident Religion, willing to die when we are called to die, patient, constant and persevering, endevou­ring [...] according to the measures of a man, to be pure and pleasing to God in Jesus Christ. This is the summe of all those several senses of per­fection which are prescrib'd in the several uses of the word in holy Scripture. For though God through Jesus Christ is pleased to abate for our unavoidable infirmities, that is, for our Nature, yet he will not abate or give allowance to our superinduc'd evil cu­stomes; and the reason is plain for both, because the one can be helped and the other cannot; and there­fore as to allow that is to be a patron of impiety, so not to allow for this, is to demand what cannot be done: that is against the holiness, this against the goodness of God.

There is not a man upon earth that sinneth not, 49 said Solomon; 1 Kings 8.46. Psal. 37.29. vet. edit. and, the righteous shall be punished, said David; and he found it so by a sad experience: for he, though affirmed to be blameless save in the matter of Ʋriah, and a man after Gods own heart, yet complains that his sins are innumerable, more then the hairs upon his head. But though no man can live without errour or mistake, the effects of weakness and ignorance, inadvertency and surprise, yet being helped by Gods grace, we can and must live with­out great sins, such which no man admits but with deliberation.

For it is one thing to keep the Commandements in a sense of favour and equity, 50 and another thing to be without sin. To keep the Commandements [...] or exactly, is to be without sin; because [Page 35]the Commandement forbids every sin, and sin is a transgression of the Commandement: But as in this sense no man can keep the Commandements; so in no sense can he say, that he hath not sinned. But we can by the help of Gods grace keep the Com­mandements acceptably through Jesus Christ, but we cannot keep them so as to be without sin. Which S. Gregory thus expresses, Multi sine crimine, nul­lus verò esse sine peccatis valet. Many live without crimes, none without offence. And it is now as it was under the law, many were then righteous and blameless; David, Josiah, Joshua, Caleb, Zachary and Elisabeth, Saul before his conversion according to the accounts of the Law; and so are many now, according to the holy and merciful measures of the Gospel, not by the force of Nature, but by the helps of Grace, not alwayes, but at some time, not absolutely, but in a limited measure; that is, not innocent, but penitent, not perfect absolutely, but excellently contending, and perfect in their desires, not at their journeys end, but on their way thither; free from great sins, but speckled with lesser spots, ever striving against sin, though sometimes failing. This is the Precept of perfection, as it can consist with the measures and infirmities of a man.

We must turn from all our evil wayes, 51 leaving no sin unmortified, that's one measure of perfection, it is a perfect conversion. * We must have Charity; that's another perfection, it is a perfect grace. * We must be ready to part with all for a good conscience, and to die for Christ; that's perfect obedience, and the most perfect love. * We must conform to the Di­vine Will in doing and suffering, that's perfect pa­tience: we must live in all holy conversation and god­liness; that's a perfect state. * We must ever be going forward and growing in godliness, that so we may be perfect men in Christ. * And we must perse­vere [Page 36]unto the end; that's perfection, and the crown of all the rest. If any thing less then this were intended, it cannot be told how the Gospel should be a holy institution, or that God should require of us to live a holy life; but if any thing more then this were intended, it is impossible but all mankinde should perish.

To the same sense are we to understand those o­ther severe Precepts of Scripture of [being pure, 52 un­blameable, without spot or wrinkle, without fault] that is, that we be honest and sincere, free from hy­pocrisie, just in our purposes and actions, without partiality and unhandsome mixtures. S. Paul makes them to expound each other, [...] and [...], sincere, Phil. 1.10. that is, without fault, pure and clear in conscience.

Like to this is that of [Toto corde] loving and serving God with all our heart, 53 and with all our strength. That this is possible, is folly to deny. For he that saith he cannot do a thing with all his strength, that is, that he cannot do what he can do, knows not what he sayes: and yet to do this, is the highest measure and sublimity of Christian perfection, and of keeping the Commandements. But it signifies two things: 1. [...], without hypocrisie, sincerely and heartily, opposite to that of Corde & corde in the Psalmist. Corde & corde lo­quuti sunt; 1 Chron. 12.33. they spake with a double heart: but the men of Zebulon went out to battel abs (que) corde & corde, they were not of a double heart, so S. Hierome renders it, but heartily or with a whole heart they did their business. 2. It signifies diligence and la­bour, earnestness and caution: Totus in hoc sum; so the Latines use to speak, I am earnest and hear­ty in this affair. I am wholly taken up with it.

54 Thus is the whole design of the Gospel rarely ab­breviated in these two words of Perfection and Re­pentance. [Page 37]God hath sent Jesus to bless you [...], whilest, or so that, Act. 3.36.every one of you turn from your iniquities. He blesses us, and we must do our duty; He pardons us, and we obey him; He turns us, and we are turned. And when S. 2 Pet. 3.11. Peter had represented the terrors of the day of Judgement, he infers, What manner of persons ought we to be [...], Ver. 14. in holy living and holy worshippings? This he calls a giving diligence to be found [...], without spot, and un­blameable; that's Christian perfection: and yet this very thing is no other then what he calls a little before [...], a coming to repentance. Ver. 9. Living in holy conversation and piety, in the faith of Christ, is the extent and burthen of repentance, and it is the limit and declaration of the [spotless and un­blameable] This is no more, and that is no less.

Upon this account the Commandements are not onely possible but easie, 55 necessary to be observed, and will be exacted at our hands as they are impo­sed. That is, 1. That we abstain from all delibe­rate acts of sin. 2. That we never contract any vicious habit. 3. That if we have we quite rescind and cut them off, and make amends for what is past. 4. That our love to God be intire, hearty, obedi­ent, and undivided. 5. That we do our best to un­derstand Gods will and obey it, allowing to our selves deliberately or by observation not the smallest action that we believe to be a sin. Now that God requires no more, and that we can do thus much, and that good men from their conversion do thus much, though in differing degrees, is evident upon plain experience and the foregoing considerations. I conclude with the words of the Arausican Coun­cel. Omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante & cooperante possunt & debent quae ad salutem pertineut, si fideli­tèr laborare voluerint, adimplere. All baptized Chri­stians [Page 38]may by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, if they will faithfully labour, perform and fulfill all things that belong to their salvation.

The summe of all is this: 56 The state of regene­ration is perfection all the way, even when it is im­perfect in its degrees. The whole state of a Chri­stians life is a state of perfection. Sincerity is the formality or the Soul of it: A hearty constant en­devour is the Body or materiall part of it: And the Mercies of God accepting it in Christ, and assisting and promoting it by his Spirit of Grace, is the third part of its constitution, it is the Spirit. This perfection is the perfection of Men, not of Angels; and it is as in the perfection of Glory, where all are perfect, yet all are not equal. Every regenerate man hath that perfection, without which he cannot be accepted, but some have this perfection more, some less. It is the perfection of state, but the perfection of degrees is not yet. Here men are [...], made perfect according to the measure of their Fa­thers (as Porphyrie express'd it) that is, by the measures of mortality, or as it pleases God to en­able and accept them.

§. 4. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practise.

1. THe Law is either taken for the Law of Moses, or the Law of Works: The Law of Works is that Empire and Dominion which God exercised over man, using his utmost right, and obliging man to the rigorous observation of all that Law he should impose upon him. And in this sense, it was a Law of death, not of life, for no man could keep it, and they that did not, might not live. This was impos'd on Adam onely.

But when God brought Israel out of Egypt, 2 he began to make a Covenant with them, with some compliance to their infirmities: For because little things could not be avoided, Sacrifices were appoin­ted for their expiation; which was a mercy as the other was a misery, a repentance as the sin: But for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed, no re­pentance ministred. And therefore still we were in the ministration of death; for this mercy was not sufficient, as yet it was not possible for a man to be justified by the Law. It threatned sinners with death, it inflicted death, it did not promise eternal life, it ministred no grace, but fear and temporal hope: It was written in Tables of stone, not in their hearts; that is, the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason, but arbitrary impositions; they were not perfective of a man, but very often destructive. This was a little alteration or ease of the Covenant of Works, but not enough.

From this state of evil things we were freed by Christ; 3 The Law was called the letter, the ministra­tion of death, the ministration of condemnation, the old Testament; apt to amaze and confound a sinner, but did not give him any hopes of remission, no glimpse of heaven, no ministery of pardon: But the Gospel is called, the Spirit, or the ministration of the Spirit, the law of faith, the law of liberty; it ministers repentance, it enjoyns holiness, it gives life, and we all have hopes of being saved.

This which is the state of things in which the whole world is represented in their several periods, 4 is by some made to be the state of every returning sinner; and men are taught that they must pass through the terrors of the Law, before they can receive the mercies of the Gospel. The Law was a Schoolmaster to bring the Synagogue to Christ; it was so to them who were under the Law, but it cannot be so to us, who are not under the law but un­der grace. For if they mean the law of Works, or that imposition which was the first entercourse with man, they lose their title to the mercies of the Go­spel; If they mean the law of Moses, then they do not stand fast in the liberty by which Christ hath made them free. But whatsoever the meaning be, neither of them can concern Christians. For God hath sent his Son to establish a better Covenant in his blood, to preach repentance, to offer pardon, to condemn sin in the flesh, to publish the righteous­ness of God, to convince the world of sin by his holy Spirit, to threaten damnation not to sinners absolutely, but absolutely to the impenitent, and to promise and give salvation to his Sons and Ser­vants.

1. 5 The use that we Christians are to make of the Law, is onely to magnifie the mercies of God in Jesus Christ, who hath freed us from so severe a [Page 41]Covenant, who does not judge us by the measures of an Angel, but by the span of a mans hand. But we are not to subject our selves so much as by fiction of law or fancy to the curse and threatnings of the Covenant of Works, or of Moses Law, though it was of more instances and less severity, by reason of the allowance of Sacrifices for expiation.

2. 6 Every Christian man sinning, is to consider the horrible threatnings of the Gospel, the severe intermination of eternal pains, the goodness of God leading to repentance, the severity of his Justice in exacting great punishments of criminals, the reason­ableness of this Justice punishing such persons into­lerably, who would not use so great a grace in so pleasing a service, for the purchase of so glorious a reward. The terrors of the Law did end in tem­poral death, they could affright no further; but in the Gospel Heaven and Hell were opened, and laid before all mankinde: and therefore by these measures a sinner is to enter into the sorrows of con­trition and the care of his amendment. And it is so vain a thing to think every sinner must in his repen­tance pass under the terrors of the Law, that this is a very destruction of that reason for which they are fallen upon the opinion. The Law is not enough to affright sinners, and the terrors of the Gospel are farre more to persevering and impenitent sinners, then the terrors of the Law were to the breakers of it. The cause of the mistake is this: The Law was more terrible then the Gospel is, because it al­lowed no mercy to the sinner in great instances: But the Gospel does. But then if we compare the state of those men who fell under the evils of the Law, with these who fall under the evils threatned in the Gospel, we shall finde these to be in a worse condi­tion then those by farre, as much as hell is worse then being stoned to death, or thrust through with [Page 42]a sword. This we are taught by that excellent Au­thor of the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb. 10.28, 29. He that despised Moses law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment sup­pose ye shall he be thought worthy, who hath troden un­der foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was saenctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace? So that, under the Gospel, he that sins and repents is in a farre better condition, then he that sinn'd under the Law, and repented. For repentance was not then allowed of, the man was to die without mercy. But he that sins and repents not, is under the Gospel in a farre worse condition then under the Law; for under the Gospel, he shall have a farre sorer punish­ment, then under the Law was threatned. Therefore let no man mistake the mercies of the New Cove­nant, or turn the grace of God into wantonness. The mercies of the Gospel neither allow us to sin, nor inflict an easier punishment; but they oblige us to more holiness, under a greater penalty. In pur­suance of which, I adde,

3. 7 The Covenant by which mankinde must now be judged, is a Covenant of more Mercy, but also of more holiness: and therefore let no man think that now he is disobliged from doing good works, by being admitted to the Covenant of Faith: For though the Covenants are oppos'd, as Old and New, as a worse and a better, yet Faith and Works are not oppos'd. We are in the Gospel tied to more, and to more excellent works then ever the subjects of any Law were; but if after a hearty endevour we fall into infirmity, and still strive against it, we are pitied here, but there we were not. Under the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works, no endevour was sufficient, because there was no allowance made for infirmities, no abatements for ignorance, no de­ductions [Page 43]of exact measures, no consideration of surprises, passions, folly, and inadvertency: but un­der the New Covenant our hearty endevour is ac­cepted; but we are tied to endevour higher and more excellent things then they. But he that thinks this mercy gives him liberty to do what he please, loses the mercy, and mistakes the whole design and Oeconomy of Gods loving kindness.

4. 8 To every Christian it is enjoyned that they be perfect; that is, according to the measure of eve­ry one. Which perfection consists in doing our en­devour. He that does not do that, must never hope to be accepted, because he refuses to serve God by something that is in his power. But he that does that, is sure that God will not refuse it, because we cannot be dealt withall upon any other account, but by the measures of what is in our power; and for what is not, we cannot take care.

5. 9 To do our endevour, or our best, is not to be understood equally in all the periods of our life, according to the work or effect it self, nor according to our natural powers, but it is accounted for by the general measures and great periods of our life. A man cannot pray alwayes with equal intention, nor give the same alms, nor equally mourn with sharpness for his sins. But God having appointed for every duty proper seasons and solennities, hath declared, that He does his best, who heartily ende­vours to do the duty in its proper season: But it were well we would remember that he that did a good act to day, can do the same to morrow in the same circumstances; and he that yesterday fought a noble battel and resisted valiantly, can upon the same terms contend as manfully every day, if he will consider and watch. And though it will never be that men will alwayes do as well as at some times, yet when at any time they commit a sin, it is not [Page 44]because they could not, but because they would not help it.

6. 10 He that would be approved in doing his best, must omit no opportunity of doing a good action; because when it is plac'd in its proper circumstances, God layes his hand upon it, and calls to have it done, and there can be no excuse for the omission. He does not do his best, that does not do that, Be­cause such a person does voluntarily omit the doing of a good, without just cause; and that cannot pro­ceed from an innocent principle.

7. 11 He that leaves any thing undone which he is commanded to do, or does what he is commanded to forbear, and considers or chooses so to do, does not do his best, cannot plead his privilege in the Gospel, but is fallen under the portion of sinners, and will die, if he does not repent and make it up some way or other, by sorrow, and a future dili­gence.

8. 12 To sin against our Conscience can at no hand consist with the duty of Christian perfection; Be­cause he loves not God with all his heart, nor serves him with all his strength, who gives some of his strength, and some of his affection to that which God forbids.

9. 13 No man must account that he does his duty, that is, his best, or according to the perfection re­quir'd of Christians, but he that does better and better, and grows toward the measures of the ful­ness of Christ. For perfection is an infinite word; and it could not be communicated to several per­sons of different capacities and degrees, but that there is something common to them all which hath analogy and equivalent proportions. Now nothing can be perfect, but that to which nothing is want­ing; and therefore a man is not any way perfect but by doing all, all that he can; for then nothing [Page 45]is wanting to him, when he hath put forth all his strength. For perfection is not to be accounted by comparing the subjects which are perfect, for in that sense nothing is perfect but God; but perfection is to be reckoned by every mans own proportions: For a body may be a perfect body, though it have not the perfection of a soul; and a man is perfect when he is heartily and intirely Gods servant, though he have not the perfection of S. Paul; as a man is a meek man, though he be not so meek as Moses or Christ. But he is not meek, if he keeps any fierceness or violence within. * But then be­cause to be more perfect is incident with humane na­ture, he that does not endevour to get as much as he can, and more then he hath, he hath not the perfection of holy desires. Therefore

10. 14 Every person that is in the state of grace, and designs to do his duty, must think of what is before him, not what is past; of the stages that are not yet run, not of those little portions of his course he hath already finish'd.

For so did the Contenders in the Olympick Races, never look behinde but contend forwards: And from hence S. Paul gives the rule I have now de­scribed. Brethren, Phil. 3.13, 14.I count not my self to have ap­prehended; but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behinde, and reaching forth un­to those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling: Let there­fore as many as be perfect be thus minded. That is, no man can do the duty of a Christian, no man can in any sense be perfect, but he that addes ver­tue [Page 46]to vertue, and one degree of grace unto an­other.

Nothing is finish'd, as long as any thing is undone. For our perfection is alwayes growing; it stands not, till it arrive at the [...] the crowning of him that runs. For the enforcing of which the more, I onely use S. Chrysostoms argument, [...]; If S. Paul who had done so much, and suffered so much, was not very confident, but that if he did look back, he might also fall back; what shall we say, whose perfection is so little, so infant and im­perfect, that we are come forwards but a little, and have great spaces still to measure?

11. 15 Let every man that is or desires to be per­fect, endevour to make up the imperfection or mean­ness of his services, by a great, a prompt, an obedi­ent, a loving and a friendly minde. For in the Pa­rable our blessed Lord hath taught us, Luk. 17.7. that the ser­vant who was bidden to plow the field, or feed the cattel, is still called an unprofitable servant, because he hath done onely what was commanded him; that is, they had done the work, utcun (que), some way or other the thing was finish'd, though with a ser­vile spirit; for [...] properly signifies to do the outward work; and the works of the Law are those which consisted in outward obedience, and by which a man could not be justified. But our blessed Saviour teaching us the righteousness of the Kingdome, hath also brought the word [...] to sig­nifie the internal also; a mixture of faith and ope­ration. John 6.28, 29. For to the Jews enquiring, What shall we do to work the works of God? Jesus answers, [...], [Page 47]&c. This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent: and since this [to do] in the Christian sense is to do bona benè, good Works with a good minde. For since the works are not onely in themselves inconsiderable, but we also do them most imperfectly and with often failings, a good minde and the spirit of a friend or a son will not onely heighten the excellency of the work, but make amends for the defect too. The doing what we are commanded, that is in the usual sense of do­ing, still leaves us unprofitable; for we are servants of God, he hath a perfect and supreme right over us, and when this is done, still can demand more, when we have plowed, he will call upon us to wait at supper; and for all this, we are to expect onely im­punity and our daily provisions. And upon this account, if we should have performed the Cove­nant of Works, we could not have been justified. But then, there is a sort of working, and there are some such servants which our Lord uses magis ex aequo & bono, quàm ex Imperio; Luke 12.37. with the usages of sons, not of slaves or servants. He will gird himself and serve them, Luke 12.he will call them friends and not servants; these are such as serve animo liberali, such which Seneca calls humiles amicos, humble friends, serving as S. Paul expresses it, [...], in the simplicity of their heart; not [...], with eye-service, but honestly, heartily, zealously, and affectionately, [...]; so S. Peter, freely, readily, not grudingly, or of ne­cessity.

12. 16 The proper effect of this is, that all the per­fect do their services so, that their work should fail rather then their mindes, that they do more then is commanded. Exiguum est ad legem bonum esse, To be good according to the rigour of the law, to do what we are forc'd to, to do all that is lawful to [Page 48]do, and to go toward evil or danger as farre as we can, these are no good signs of a filial spirit, this is not Christian perfection; [...], That, slaves consider; This is commanded and must be done under horrible pains: and such are the negative precepts of the Law, and the proper duties of every mans calling. [...], This is an act of piety of mine own choosing, a righteous­ness that I delight in; that is the voice of sons and good servants, and that's rewardable with a migh­ty grace. And of this nature are the affirmative precepts of the Gospel, which being propounded in general terms, and with indefinite proportions, for the measures are left under our liberty and choice, to signifie our great love to God. [...], said S. Chry­sostome; Whatsoever is over and above the Com­mandements, that shall have a great reward. God forbids unmercifulness, he that is not unmerciful keeps the Commandement; but he that besides his abstinence from unmercifulness according to the Commandement, shall open his hand and his heart, and give plentifully to the poor, this man shall have a reward; he is amongst those servants whom his Lord will make to sit down, and himself will serve him. When God in the Commandement forbids unclean­ness and fornication; he that is not unchaste, and does not pollute himself, keeps the Commandement. But if to preserve his chastity he uses fasting and prayer, if he mortifies his body, if he denies him­self the pleasures of the world, if he uses the easiest, or the harder remedies, according to the proportion of his love and industry, especially if it be prudent, so shall his greater reward be. If a man out of fear of falling into uncleanness shall use austerities, and finde that they will not secure him, and therefore to ascertain his duty the rather shal enter into a state of [Page 49]marriage, according as the prudence and the passion of his desires were for God and for purity; so also shall his reward be. To follow Christ is all our duty; but if that we may follow Christ with grea­ter advanges we quit all the possessions of the world, this is more acceptable; because it is a doing the Commandement with greater love. We must so or­der things that the Commandement be not broken, but the difference is in finding out the better wayes, and doing the duty with the more affections.

Now in this case they are highly mistaken that think any thing of this nature is a work of superero­gation: 17 For all this is nothing but a pursuance of the Commandement. For [...] or Commandement] is taken in a general sense, for the prescription of whatsoever is pleasing and acceptable to God, what­soever he will reward with mighty glories. So loving God with all our heart, with all our soul, Mat. 22.37.and all our minde, and all our strength, is called [...], the first and the great Commandement; that is, nothing is more pleasing, nothing is more accepta­ble to God, because it proceeds out of an excellent love. But some Commandements are propounded as to friends some as to servants; some under the threatning of horrible pains, others not so, but with the proposition and under the invitation by glorious rewards. It was commanded to S. Paul to preach the Gospel; if he had not obeyed, he should have perished: Woe is me (saith he) if I preach not the Gospel: he was bound to do it. But he had another Commandment also, to love God as much as was pos­sible, and to love his neighbour: which precepts were infinite, and of an unlimited signification, and there­fore were left to every servants choice to do them with his several measures of affection and zeal. He that did most, did the Commandement best; and therefore cannot be said to do more then was com­manded; [Page 50]but he that does less; if he preaches the Gospel, though with a less diligence, and fewer ad­vantages, he obeys the Commandement, but not so nobly as the other. For example: God commands us to pray. He obeys this, that constantly and de­voutly keeps his morning and evening Sacrifice, of­fering devoutly twice a day. He that prayes thrice a day, does better, and he that prayes seven times a day, hath done no work of supererogation, but does what he does in pursuance of the Commandement. All the difference is in the manner of doing what is commanded; for no man can do more then he is commanded. But some do it better, some less per­fectly; but all is comprehended under this Com­mandement of loving God with all our hearts. When a father commands his children to come to him, he that comes slowly, obeyes the commandement, but he that runs does obey more willingly and readily: now though to come running was left to the choice of the childes affection, yet it was but a brisk pursuance of the commandement. Thus when he that is bound to pay Tithes, gives the best portion, or does it cheerfully, without contention, in all questions ta­king the worse of the thing, and the better of the duty, does what he is commanded, and he does it with the affection of a son and of a friend, he loves his duty. Be angry, but sin not: so it is in the Com­mandement; but he that to avoid the sin, will en­devour not to be angry at all, is the greater friend of God, by how much the further he stands off from sin. Thus in all doubts to take the surest side, to determine alwayes for Religion, when without sin we might have determin'd for interest; to deny our selves in lawful things, to do all our duty by the measures of Love and of the Spirit, are instances of this filial obedience, and are rewarded by a [...], a perswasion and confidence of [Page 51]Gods love to us, enabling us to call him Father, as well as Lord. Thus this Parable, or one like it is told in the book of Hermas. The Lord commanded his servant to put pales about his vineyard: He did so, and digg'd a ditch besides, and rooted out all the weeds; which when his Lord observ'd, he made him co­heir with his son. When S. Paul exhorted the Co­rinthians to give a free contribution to the poor Saints at Jerusalem, he invites to do it nobly & cheer­fully, not as of constraint; for Gods Commande­ment nam'd not the summe, neither can the degree of affection be nam'd; but yet God demands all our affection. Now in all the affirmative Precepts, the duty in the lowest degree is that which is now made necessary under the loss of all our hopes of Eternity; but all the further degrees of the same duty are imposed upon the condition of greater rewards, and other collaterall advantages of duty.

When Hystaspes ask'd Cyrus the Persian why he preferr'd Chrysantas before him, 18 since he did obey all his Commands: The Prince answered, [...]. Chrysantas does not stay till he is cal­led; and he does not onely what is commanded, but what is best, what he knows is most pleasing to me. So does every perfect man, according to the degrees of his love and his perfection; Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. [...]. The righteousness of a perfect man consists not in legal innocence, but in love and voluntary obe­dience. This is that charity which is the glory of Christianity, the crown of all other graces, that which makes all the external works of obedience to [Page 52]be acceptable, and every act of the most excellent piety and devotion is a particular of that grace, and therefore though it is highly acceptable, yet it is also commanded in the general, and in the sense be­fore explicated; and he that does no more then he is particularly commanded, obeys God as a Lion obeys his keeper; meat and stripes are all the en­dearments of his peace and services.

The servant that must be called upon at every step, is but an unprofitable and unworthy person: To do onely what we are commanded, will never bring us to the portion and inheritance of Sons. We must do this chearfully, and we must do more; even contend to please God with doing that which is the righteousness of God, striving for perfection, till perfection it self becomes perfect; still obeying that law of Sons, Love the Lord with all thy heart, till our charity it self is crown'd. Therefore.

13. 19 Let no man propound to himself a limit of duty, saying, he will go so far, and go no further. For the Commandement is infinite, and though every good man obeys it all the way of his holy conversa­tion, yet it shall not be finish'd till his life is done. But he that stints himself to a certain measure of love, hath no love at all; for this grace grows for ever: and when the object is infinite, true love is not at rest till it hath possess'd what is infinite; and therefore towards that there must be an infinite progression, never stopp'd, never ceasing, till we can work no more.

14. 20 Let every man be humbled in the sense of [Page 53]his failings and infirmities. De spir. & lit. c. 36. Multum in hâc vitâ ille profecit, qui quàm longè sit à perfectione justitiae pro­ficiendo cognovit, said S. Austin. It is a good de­gree of perfection to have proceeded so farre, as well to know and observe our own imperfections. The Scripture concludes all under sin; not onely because all have fail'd of the Covenant of Works, of the exactness of obedience, but by reason of their prevarication of that law which they can obey. And indeed no man could be a sinner, but he that breaks that law which he could have kept. We were all sinners by the Covenant of Works, but that was in those instances where it might have been otherwise. For the Covenant of Works was not impossible, be­cause it consisted of impossible Commandements; for every Commandement was kept by some or other, and all at some times: but therefore it was impossible to be kept, because at some time or other men would be impotent, or ignorant, or surpris'd, and for this, no abatement was made in that Cove­nant. But then since in what every man could help he is found to be a sinner, he ought to account it a mighty grace that his other services are accepted. In pursuance of this,

15. 21 Let no man boast himself in the most glo­rious services and performances of Religion. Qui in Ecclesiâ semper gloriosè & granditer operati sunt, Epist. ad lapsos.& opus suum Domino nunquam imputaverunt, as S. Cyprian's expression is; They who have greatly served God in the Church, and have not been for­ward to exact and challenge their reward of God, they are such whom God will most certainly re­ward. For humility without other external works is more pleasing to God, then pride though standing upon heaps of excellent actions. It is the saying of S. Chry­sostome. * 1 For if it be as natural to us to live ac­cording to the measures of reason, as for beasts to [Page 54]live by their nature and instinct, what thanks is due to us for that, more then to them for this? And therefore one said well, Ne te jactes si benè servi­sti: Obsequitur Sol, obtemperat Lunae. Boast not if thou hast well obeyed: The Sun and the Moon do so, and shall never be rewarded. 2 * But when our selves and all our faculties are from God, he hath power to demand all our services without reward, & therefore if he will reward us, it must wholly be a gift to us, 3 Concil: A [...]ausic. 2. c. 18. D [...] ­betur mer­ocs bonis operibus: sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit ut fiant. that he will so crown our services. * But he does not onely give us all our being and all our faculties, but makes them also irriguous with the dew of his Divine Grace; sending his holy Son to call us to repentance, and to die to obtain for us pardon, and resurrection, and eternal life; sending his holy Spirit by rare arguments, and aids external and internal to help us in our spiritual contentions and difficulties. So that we have nothing of our own, and therefore can challenge nothing to our selves. 4 * But besides these considerations, many sins are forgiven to us, and the service of a whole life cannot make recompence for the infinite favour of receiving pardon: 5 * Especially since after our amendment and repentance, there are remaining such weaknesses and footsteps of our old impieties, that we who have daily need of the Divine Mercy and Pity, cannot challenge a reward for that which in many degrees needs a pardon; for if every act we do should not need some degrees of pardon, yet our persons do in the periods of our imperfect work­ings. 6 * But after all this, all that we can do is no advantage to God, he is not profited or obliged by our services, no moments do thence accrew to his felicities; and to challenge a reward of God, or to think out best services can merit heaven, is as if Galileo when he had found out a Star which he had never observed before, Job 35.7. and pleased himself in [Page 55]his own fancy, should demand of the Grand Signior to make him King of Tunis: for what is he the bet­ter, that the studious man hath pleased himself in his own Art, and the Turkish Empire gets no ad­vantages by his new Argument. 7 * And this is so much the more material, if we consider that the littleness of our services (if other things were away) could not countervail the least moment of Eternity: Rom. 8.18. and the poor Countryman might as well have de­manded of Cyrus to give him a Province for his handful of river water, as we can expect of God to give us Heaven as a reward of our good works.

16. 22 But although this rule relying upon such great and convincing grounds, can abolish all proud expectations of reward from God as a debtor for our good works, yet they ought not to destroy our modest confidence and our rejoycings in God, who by his gracious promises hath not onely obliged himself to help us if we pray to him, but to reward us if we work. For our God is merciful, Psa. 62.12.he rewardeth every man according to his work: so said David; ac­cording to the nature and graciousness of the work, not according to their value and proper worthiness; Mat. 5.12. 1 Cor. 3.8. Matt. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 4.17. 2 Thess. 1.5. Apoc. 3.4, & 16.6. Rom. 8.18. not that they deserve it, but because God for the communication of his goodness was pleased to pro­mise it. Promissum quidem ex misericordiâ sed ex justitiâ persolvendum, said S. Bernard. Mercy first made the promise, but Justice payes the debt. Which words were true, if we did exactly do all that duty to which the reward was so graciously promised; but where much is to be abated even of that little which was bound upon us by so glorious promises of re­ward, there we can in no sense challenge Gods ju­stice, but so as it signifies equity, In Matth. lib. 3. cap. 20. v. 8. and is mingled with the mercies of the chancery. Gratis promisit, gratis reddit. So Ferus. God promised freely, and payes freely. If therefore thou wilt obtain grace and favour, [Page 56]make no mention of thy deservings. And yet let not this slacken thy work, but reinforce it, and enlarge thy industry, since thou hast so gracious a Lord, who of his own meer goodness will so plentifully re­ward it.

17. 23 If we fail in the outward work, let it be so ordered that it be as little imputable to us as we can; that is, let our default not be at all voluntary, but wholly upon the accounts of a pityable infirmity: For the Law was a Covenant of Works, such as they were; but the minde could not make amends with­in for the defect without. But in the Gospel it is otherwise: for here the will is accepted for the fact, in all things where the fact is not in our power. But where it is, there to pretend a will, is hypocrisie. Nequam illud verbum est, benè vult, nisi qui benè fa­cit, said the Comedian. This rule is our measure in the great lines of duty, in all negative Precepts, and in the periods of the law of Christ, which can­not pass by us without being observed. But in the material and external instances of duty, we may without our fault be disabled, and therefore can only be supplied with our endevours and desires. But that is our advantage: we thus can perform all Gods will acceptably. For if we endevour all that we can, and desire more, and pursue more, it is accepted as if we had done all: 2 Cor. 8.12. for we are accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not. Unless we can neither endevour, nor desire, we ought not to complain of the burthen of the Divine Commandements. For to endevour truly, and pas­sionately to desire and contend for more, is obedience and charity, and that is the fulfilling of the Command­ments.

§. I.

THe Greeks use two words to express this duty, 1 [...] and [...]. is from [...], Post fa­ctum angi & cruciari, to be afflicted in minde, to be troubled for our for­mer folly; it is [...], saith Phavorinus; a being displeased for what we have done: and it is generally used for all sorts of Repentance, but more properly to signifie either the beginnings of a good, or the whole state of an ineffective Repentance. In the first sense we finde it in S. Matthew 21.32., [...]; and ye seeing, did not repent that ye might believe him. Of the second sense we have example in Judas, [...], he re­pented too, but the end of it was, Mat. 27.3 he died with an­guish and despair; and of Esau it is said, [...], He found no place for an [effective] re­pentance; but yet he repented too, for he was [...], and [...], Heb. 12, 17. he fain would have had it otherwise, and he sought it with tears; [Page 64]which two do fully express all the meaning of this [...], when it is distinguished from the better and effective Repentance. There is in this Repen­tance, a sorrow for what is done, a disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect; and so farre also it is a change of minde. But it goes no further then so farre to change the minde, that it brings trouble and sorrow, and such things which are the natural events of it. [...], saith Suidas. It is an affection incident to man, not to God, who cannot repent: where although by [...] he means an Accident or property of Man, that is, a quality in the general sense; yet that it is properly a passion in the special sense, was the sense of all men, Lib. de poenit. as Tertullian observes; saying, that the Heathens know Repentance to be passionem animi quandam, (the same with [...] in Suidas) a passion quae veniat de offensâ sententiae prioris, co­ming from our being offended, or troubled at our former course. But Tertullian uses the Latine word, of which I shall give account in the following pe­riods.

But when there was a difference made, 2 [...] was the better word; which does not properly signi­fie the sorrow for having done amiss but something that is nobler then it, but brought in at the gate of sorrow. For [...], a godly sorrow, that is {fo, or the first beginning of Rapentance, [...], worketh this better Repentance, 2 Cor. 7.11. [...], and [...], a repentance not to be repented of, not to be sorrowed for, a repen­tance that is unto salvation. Sorrow may go before this, but dwells not with it, according to that of S. Chrysostome, Homil. 9. de Poenit.Medicinae hic locus, non judicii, non poenas sed peccatorum remissionem poenitentia tribuit. [...] is the word. Repentance brings not pains, but pardon with it; for this is the place of medicine [Page 65]and remedy, not of judgement or condemnation: meaning that this Repentance is wholly salutary, as tending to reformation and amendment. Lib. [...]adv. Marcion. cap. 20. But Tertul­lian made the observation more express. In Graeco sono Poenitentiae nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione compositum est. To repent among the Greeks signifies not a confession of our fault, but the change of minde. He speaks of the Gramma­tical sense of the word; for in the whole use of it, it is otherwise.

For however the Grammarians may distinguish them, 3 yet the words are used promiscuously; for [...] is sometimes used in the bad sense, and [...] signifies the better repentance; not often, but sometimes it does. The son that told his Father he would not work in his Vineyard, afterwards was sorry for refusing, and he went to work, [...]; and in the same Chapter, Matth. 21.29. [...]; ye seeing were not troubled, and sor­rowful, that ye might believe, that is, amend your fault. [...] is in both places used for a salu­tary repentance. And on the other side, [...] is used to signifie in the evil sense, a state of misery, without remedy. [...], so the Septuagint read that of Solomon, Prov. 14.The wicked man cometh to repentance, that is, to misery, and sor­row. So that there is nothing of usefulness which can be drawn from the Grammatical sense of these words; They both signify a change of minde; and they both signify a sorrow; and they both are used for the same thing: and indeed that will be the best use of them: No man can be truly said to re­pent, but he who being sorrowful for doing evil betakes himself to wiser courses. So Phavorinus, [...], Repentance is a sense and compunction of the soul for those things which were done foolishly.

Repentance does exact pu­nishment for evils done, and good undone; but be­sides this, it is [...], a conversion to that which is better. Sum Dea, cui nomen nec Cicero ipse dedit. So Aretas defines it. [...], The same with the former; an eschewing evil, and doing good.

And thus the Holy Scriptures understand this word and this duty. 4 It is a whole change of state, and life; [...] Heb. 6.1. 1 Kings 8.35. Isai. 59.20. 2 Chron. 7.14. Jer. 18.7, 8, 9. & 31.19. 2 Tim. 2.19., a turning from sin; and it is emphatically called by the Apostle [...], a re­pentance from dead works, that is, a forsaking them with sorrow that ever we committed them: And it is also [...], a conversion to God 2 Sam. 12.5, 13. Deut. 30.2. Jer. 3.7. Act. 26.18. Eph. 5.14. Ezek. 33.12. Luke 19.8, 9, 10.; from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God: [...], a returning to sobriety, the same with [...], in Ju­stin Martin, all signifying a departing from our fol­lies and a changing to a better life. And though sometimes to Repent is in Scripture taken for sorrow onely, or a being troubled that the fact is done; yet it is called Repentance, no otherwise then as alms is called Charity; that is, it is an effect of it, a part, or action, or adjunct of the duty and state of Re­pentance: which ought to be observed lest (as it is too commonly) one act be mistaken for the whole state, and we account our selves perfect peni­tents, if we have onely wept a penitential shower; which is also to be observed in the definitions which the Doctors give of it.

Tertullian De poe­nit. in princip. cals it [a passion of the minde, 5 or grief for the offence of our former acts] S. Austin Lib. de ver. & fals. poenit. c. 8. cals it [a revenge always punishing in it self that which it grieves to have committed] These doe onely describe that part of repentance which is sometimes signified by [...], and is nothing else but a godly sor­row, the porch, or beginnings of Repentance. On the other side Lactantius Lib. 6. Divin. in­stit. c. 13. describing Repentance, gives onely the Grammatical sense of [...]. Agere autem poenitentiam nihil aliud est quàm profi­teri & affirmare se ulteriùs non peccaturum: To re­pent (saith he) is nothing else but a profession and affirmation, that he will sin no more; which de­scriptions of Repentance are just as if we should say, A man is a creature that speaks, or laughs, or that can learn to reade. These are effects of his na­ture, but not the ingredients of a proper defini­tion. Sorrow, and Revenge, and holy purposes and protestations are but single acts of a returning and penitent man: whereas Repentance is a whole state of a new life, an intire change of the sinner, with all its appendages and instruments of ministery.

As the Greeks have, 6 so have the Latins also two words to signify this duty, Poenitentia and Resipiscen­tia, and these have almost the same fate and the same usages with the other. Poenitentia is used by the old Latin translation; and is most tenaciously retained by all them who make the very life of Re­pentance to run into corporal austerities (like the juice of luxuriant trees into irregular suckers and excrescencies) which therefore by way of eminency they call Penances; for they suppose the word in its very nature and institution to signify something that is punitive, and afflictive. So Hugo, Lib. 3. de myste [...]. Eccles.Poenitentia quasi punientia, quòd per eam homo in se puniat, quod malè admisit. Much like that of Scotus; poenitentia quasi poenae tenentia? which they both learned from S. Au­stin; [Page 68]poenitere est idem quod rei commissae aliquem pu­dere ac pigere,Solil. cap. 19.ita ut, poenitet, sit idem quod poena te­net. This sense of the word prevailed long and there­fore some that would speake exactly, observing that the duty of Repentance did principally consist in the amendment of our lives, were forc'd to use the word Resipiscentia, which better renders the Greek [...]. Lib. 6. c. 24. So Lactantius expresly, Graeci meliùs & significantiùs [...] dicunt: quam Latinè possu­mus resipiscentiam dicere. Resipiscit enim ac mentem suam quasi ab insaniâ recipit quem errare piget, ca­stigátque seipsum dementiae, & confirmat animum suum ad rectiùs vivendum. He truly repents who recovers his minde from folly, and chastising his er­ror, and grieving for his madness, strengthens his purposes to better living.

Either of the words will serve the turn. 7 Poeniten­tia, or Penance, is the old Latine word; Resipiscen­tia is the new one, but very expressive and signifi­cant: and it is indifferent which be used, if men had not a design upon one, which cannot prudently be effected by it. But such is the force of words, especially when men choose and affect one particu­larly and studiously reject another which is apt to signify the same thing, that in the Greek Church because their words for Repentance did imply onely or principally a change of life, they usually describe Repentance in that formality; but the later Latins practise and discourse to other purposes; and the College of Rhemes render [...], word for word after their vulgar Latin, agite poenitentiam, doe pe­nance, which is so absurd a reddition that their interest and design is more apparent then their skill in Grammar, or their ingenuity. It is much very much better which we learn from a wise Heathen, who gives such an account both of the words and thing as might not misbecome the best instructed [Page 69]Christian, so far as concerns the nature and morali­ty of the duty: His words are excellent words, and therefore I shall transcribe them. [...]. We ought prin­cipally to take care that we doe not sin; but if we be overtaken, then to make diligent haste to return to ju­stice or righteousness as the cure of our wickedness: that we may amend our evil counsels or wils, by the help of a better. For when we are fallen from goodness, we receive or recover it again [...], by a wise or well principled penitential sorrow, admitting a Divine correction. [...], but repen­tance it self is the beginning of wisdome, a flying from foolish words and deeds, and the first institution of a life not to be repented of. Where besides the definition of repentance and a most perfect descri­ption of its nature and intention, he with some cu­riosity differences the two Greek words; making [...] to be but the beginning of [...]: sorrow the beginning of repentance; and both toge­ther the reformation of the old, and the institution of a new life.

But to quit the words from being the subject matter of a Quarrel, 8 it is observable that the La­tine word poenitentia does really signify (by use I mean and custome) as much as the Greek [...], and is expressive of the whole duty of Repentance; and although it implies that sorrow and grief which is the natural inlet of reformation of our lives, and the consequent of our shame and sin, yet it also does signify correction and amendment, [Page 70]which is the formality and essence of Repentance; and therefore Erasmus more warily and in imita­tion of the old Latines, sayes that poenitere is from pone tenere, quod est posterius consilium ca­pere; to be wiser the next time; to choose again and choose better; Noct. Att. lib. 17. c. 1. and so A. Gellius defines it, Poenitere, tum dicere solemus, cum quae ipsi fecimus, aut quae de nostrâ voluntate nostróque consilio fa­cta sunt, ea nobis pòst incipiunt displicere, senten­tiámque in iis nostram demutamus. To repent is when those things which we have done displease us, and we change our minds. So that here is both a Displeasure and a Change; a displeasure and sor­row for the evil, and a change to better. And there ought to be no scruple in this; for by the first sorrow of a penitent man, is meant nothing else but the first act of eschewing evil: which whether it be by grief alone, or by fear, or by hope, or by all these, it is not without some trouble of minde, and displeasure; for if it were still in all senses a pleasure to go on, they would never re­turn back. And therefore to suppose repentance without displeasure, is to suppose a change of minde without alteration, or a taking a new course without disliking the old. But then to suppose any other sorrow naturally necessary, then this which naturally is included in the change, is to affirm that to be true which experience tels us is not true, and it is to place self-affliction and punition at the head, which is to be look'd for in the retinue of repentance; to make the daughter to be before the Mother, and the fruit to be kept in the root, not to grow upon the branches. But the Latine words can no way determine any thing of Que­stion in this article; and the Greek words are used promiscuously; and when they are distinguished, they differ but as the more and less perfect, as [Page 71]the beginning of Repentance and the progress of perfection; according to that saying, Poenitentia erroris magnus gradus est ad resipiscentiam, To ac­knowledge and be sorry for our sin is a great step to repentance; and both together signify all that piety, that change, and holiness which is the duty of the new man, of the Returning sinner: and we can best learn it by the words of him that revealed and gave this grace to all his servants; even of the Holy Jesus speaking to S. Paul at his Conversion, from whose blessed words, together with those of S. Paul in his narrative of that story, we may draw this more perfect description. To repent is to turn from darkness to light, Acts 26.18, 20.from the power of Satan unto God, doing works worthy of amendment of life, for the forgiveness of sins, that we may receive inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus.

Upon this account, 9 the parts of Repentance are two; 1. leaving our sins: which is properly repentance from dead works. And 2. doing holy actions in the remaining portion of our dayes; actions meet for repentance; so the Baptist called them. This is in Scripture by way of propriety called Repentance; [...], Mat. 3.8. so the Baptist used it; distinguishing Repentance from its fruits; that is, from such significations, exercises and prosecu­tions of this change, as are apt to represent, and to effect it more and more; such as are confession, weeping, self-afflictions, alms, and the like. Acts 26.2 [...]. So S. Paul, using the same words before King Agrip­pa. But by way of Synedoche, not onely the fruits and consequent expressions, but the beginning sor­row also is signified by the same word: and all are under the same Commandement, though with different degrees of necessity, and expression; of which I shall afterwards give account. Here I onely [Page 72]account concerning the essentiall and constituent parts and definition of Repentance.

All the whole duty of Repentance, 10 and every of its parts, is sometimes called Conversion. Thus godly sorrow is a conversion or change: and upon that account S. James cals upon sinners, Be afflicted, James 4.and mourn, and weep, let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into weep­ing. This is the first change of our affections, which is attended with a change of our judge­ment: when we doe no longer admire the false beauties of sin; but judge righteously concerning it. And of this the Prophet Jeremy gives testi­mony, Jer. 31.19. Surely, after that I was turned, I repented. And by this word [...] the Hebrews express the duty; which the LXX. indifferently render by [...] and [...], and is best rendred, Con­version. And then followes the conversion of the whole man, body and soul, minde and spirit, all are set in opposition against sin, and apply them­selves to the service of God, and conformity to Jesus.

§. 2. Of Repentance in generall; or Conversion.

REpentance and Faith in Scriptures signifie some­times more generally; 1 and in the foederal sense are used for all that state of grace and favour which the holy Jesus revealed, and brought into the world. They both signifie the Gospel: For the whole Gospel is nothing else but that glad tidings which Christ brought to all mankinde, that the Go­venant of Works, or exact measures should not now be exacted, but men should be saved by second thoughts, that is, by Repentance and amendment of life, through faith in the Lord Jesus. That is, if we become his Disciples, (for that is the condition of the Covenant) we shall finde mercy, our sins shall be blotted out, and we shall be saved if we obey hear­tily and diligently, though not exactly. This be­coming his Disciples is called Faith, that is, coming to him, believing him, hoping in him, obeying him; and consequent to this is, that we are admitted to Repentance, that is, to the pardon of our sins. For him hath God exalted on his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour [...], Act. 5.31. to give repentance and remission of sins. This is the summe Total of the Gospel. That we have leave to repent, supposes that God will pardon what is past. But then that we have leave to repent, supposes us al­so highly bound to it. It is in meer pity to our infir­mities, our needs and our miseries, that we have leave to do it: and this is given to mankinde by faith in Jesus Christ, that is, by becoming his Disciples; for [Page 74]he hath power to pardon sins, and to take them a­way, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, viz. which we have committed. This is that which all the world did need, and long'd for; it was the [...], the hidden mystery from all ages, but revealed in Christ; whose blood (as S. Clement expresses it) [...], brought to all the world the grace of Repentance.

This is the Gospel. 2 For the Gospel is nothing else but Faith and Repentance. The Gospel is called Faith by S. Paul, Gal. 3.23. [...], before that faith came, we were under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; that is, to the Gospel, or the glad tidings of Repentance; which is called [...], Ver. 2. the hearing of faith. For Faith be­ing here opposed to the Law, that is, the Covenant of Mercy to the Covenant of Works, must mean, the Covenant of Repentance. And therefore although, if we consider them as proper and particular graces and habits, they have differing natures and defini­tions; yet in the general and foederal sense of which I now speak, Faith and Repentance are onely distin­guished by relations and respects, not by substance and reality. Acts 20.21. Repentance towards God, and faith to­wards our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, Repentance for having sinned against God; a Repentance, I say, through faith in Jesus Christ; that is, a Repentance procured, and preach'd and enjoyn'd by Christ, be­ing the summe of his Discipline. And that it may appear Faith and Repentance to be the same thing, and differing onely in name and manner of expres­sion, S. Paul confounds the distinction which he formerly made, and that which he called, Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus, in his Sermons in Asia; in his Epistles to the Hebrews he calls, Repentance from dead works and faith in God. [Page 75]And the words are used for each other promiscu­ously in S. Luke; for that which the rich man in hell called [...], Abraham called [...], If one comes from the dead they will repent: No, said Abraham, If they will not hear Moses and the Pro­phets, then if one come from the dead, they will not be­lieve, or be perswaded. And S. 2 Pet. 3.9, 15. Peter giving an account of the delaying of the coming of the Lord for the punishment of the obdurate Jews and enemies of Christ, sayes, it is because God of his infinite good­ness expects even them also to be converted to the faith, or becoming Christians, as the whole design of the place infers; & this he calls [...], a coming to Repentance, that is, to the faith of Christ. And therefore the Gospel is nothing else but an uni­versal publication of Repentance and pardon of sins in the Name of Christ, that is, procured for all them who are his Disciples: and to this we are baptized, that is, adopted into the Religion, into that Disci­pleship under which God requires holiness, but not perfect measures; sincerity without hypocrisie, but not impeccability or perfect innocence.

And as the Gospel is called Faith, 3 and Faith is Repentance, that is, it is the same Covenant of Grace and Mercy, with this onely difference, that it is cal­led Faith, as it relates to Christ who procured this mercy for us, Repentance, as it signifies the mercy it self so procured: So Baptism by the same analogy is called the Baptism unto Repentance, [...], the Baptism of Repentance, so it is called in the Jerusalem Creed; that is, the admission to the grace of the Gospel; which the Fathers of CP. in their appendage to the Nicene Creed, thus ex­press: I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins, that is, to remission of sins we are admitted by Ba­ptism alone; no other way shall we have this grace, this title, but by being once initiated into the Gospel [Page 76]to be Disciples of Jesus. Not that it is to be sup­posed that our sins are onely pardon'd when we are baptized; but that by Baptism we are admitted to the state and grace of Repentance and pardon of sins. And this is demonstratively certain, not onely upon those many instances of baptized penitents, ad­mitted to pardon, and baptized Criminals called up­on in Scripture to repent, but upon the very nature of the Evangelical Covenant, and the whole design of Christs coming. For if we were not admitted to Repentance after Baptism, then we were still to be judged by the Covenant of Works, not by the Covenant of Faith; and we should inherit by the Law, or not at all, and not be heirs according to pro­mise; and then Christ were dead in vain, we are yet in our sins; and all the world must perish, because all men have sinned, and so none should go to hea­ven but newly baptized Infants, or newly baptized Catechumens: and how then could the Gospel be a New Covenant, it being exactly the same with the Law; for so it must be, if it promise no mercy or Repentance to them that sin after our admittance to it. * But Baptism is a new birth, and by it we are [...], renewed unto Repentance, unto that state of life which supposes holiness and imperfection, and consequently needs mercy all the way; according to that saying, Justus ex fide vivet, The just shall live by faith; that is, all our righte­ousness, all our hopes, all our spiritual life is con­served by, and is relying upon this Covenant of Mer­cy, the Covenant of Faith, or Repentance: all his life time the just shall still need pardon, and finde it, if he perseveres in it, that is, endevours to obey accor­ding to the righteousness of Faith, that is, sincerely, diligently, and by the measures of a man. Of this we shall in the sequel make use.

For the present I consider, 4 that Repentance or [Page 77]Conversion admits of degrees according to the ne­cessities of men. For that Repentance which Christ and his Apostles preach'd at the opening of the Kingdome, was an universal change of life, which men did lead in the darkness of Heathen ignorance, and idolatrous impieties among the Gentiles, and the more then Heathen crimes among the Jews; the whole Nation being generally false, superstitious, bloody, persecutors, proud, rebellious, and at last rejecters and crucifiers of their Messias, whom they had long'd for ever since they were a people: But in the perswasion and effecting of this Repentance, there was some difference of Dispensation and Mi­nistery.

John the Baptist began, 5 and he preach'd Repen­tance to the Jews, that they might believe in the Mes­sias, and so flee from the wrath to come, that is, from the destruction of their Nation, which he prophe­tically foretold should come to pass for their reject­ing him whom the Baptist did fore-signifie. Christ and his Apostles pursued the same Doctrine, still thrusting forward the design, that is, preaching such a Repentance as was proportionable to his purpose; that is, obedience to the Gospel, the admission of such doctrines which did destroy the gayeties and cursed usages of the world. So that the Repentance which was first preached was in order to Faith; that is, the Baptist, and Christ, and Christs Apostles preaching Repentance, did mean such a conversion or change as would take them off from those crimes which so prepossess'd their hearts, that by them they were indispos'd to receive Christs person and do­ctrine, both which were so contrary to their pre­judices of Pride and Covetousness, Malice and Am­bition.

And therefore among the Jews, 6 Repentance was to go before Faith: for they were already suffici­ently [Page 78]disposed to believe the Revelations of God, they had been used to Prophets, and expected the Messias, and pray'd for his day, and long'd passio­nately for it; so that they were by nothing hindred in their faith, but by their lusts and secular thoughts; and the way to make them believe, was to cure their pride. Joh. 5.44. How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another? Their hunting after praise among the people, did indispose them to the believing and receiving Christs person and doctrine. Therefore un­till they did repent of that, they could not believe; and accordingly our blessed Saviour complain'd, that when they saw the light which shin'd in the Mi­nistery of John the Baptist, yet they would not repent, that they might believe. * But afterwards the Jews when they were invited to the Religion, that is, to believe in Jesus, were first to be called to Repen­tance, because they had crucified the Lord of life: and if they should not repent for crucifying an in­nocent person, they would be infinitely farre from believing him to be the Lord of life, and their long desired Messias.

But the Repentance that was preached to the Gentiles, 7 though it had the same design (as to the event of things) yet it went in another method. Their Religion taught them impiety, lust and folly was plac'd upon their Altars, and their gods bore in their hands smoking firebrands kindled with the coals of Sodom: they had false confidences, and evil examples, and foolish principles; they had evil laws, and an abominable Priesthood, and their Daemons, whom they call'd Gods, would be worship­ped with lusts and cruelty, with drunkenness and revellings; so that their false belief and evil Reli­gion betrayed them to evil lives, therefore they were to be recovered by being taught a better belief, and a more holy Religion, therefore in these, faith was [Page 79]to go before Repentance. Poenitentiae stimulus ex fide acciderat, as Tertullians expression is. Faith was the motive of their Repentance. [...]. So S. Clemens Alexandrinus. Strom. 2. [...]. Repentance is the perfe­ction and consummation of Faith. For unless the sinner believes his action to be a sin, and that evil is his portion if he sins, and that he shall be happy if he live by the rule of the Commandements, he can never be converted: Therefore in the conversion of the Gentiles, Faith was to be ordinarily the first.

In proportion to these several methods, 8 the do­ctrine or state of Christianity was sometimes called Faith Mark 1.15., sometimes Repentance Acts 26.20.2.38.3.19.: He that believed Jesus Christ, would repent of his sins; and he that did repent, would believe. But sometimes Infidelity stood at the gate, and sometimes Malice and vile Affections. That which stood next, was first to be removed.

Now the access of both these to Christ is in Scri­pture called Conversion, 9 or Repentance. Where Faith onely was wanting, and the man was of Mo­ses and a good man, the becoming a Christian was a [...], a perfection or consummation, a progres­sion rather then a returning, [...] not [...]. But when Christ had been preached, all the obfirma­tion and obstinacy of minde by which they shut their eyes against that light, all that was choice, Acts 14.15. & 26.18. 2 Cor. 3.16. Rom. 13.12, 13. Eph. 5.8. and interest, or passion, and was to be rescinded by Re­pentance. But Conversion was the word indifferently used concerning the change both of Jews and Gen­tiles, because they both abounded in iniquity, and did need this change, called by S. Paul, [...] [Page 80]a redemption from all iniquity; by S. Peter [...], Tit. 2.14. Acts 3.26. a conversion from wickedness.

In analogy and proportion to these Repentances and Conversions of Jews and Gentiles, 10 the Repentan­ces of Christians may be called Conversion. Luke 22.32. Jam. 3.20. Mat. 13.15. Joh. 12.40. We have an instance of the word so used in the case of S. Peter, When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren; that is, when thou art returned from thy folly and sin of denying the Lord, do thou confirm thy bre­thren, that they may not fall as thou hast done. This is [...], and [...], a conver­sion from vanity, and impiety, or injustice; when a person of any evil life returns to his duty, and his undertaking in Baptism: from the unregenerate to the regenerate estate, that is, from habitual sin to ha­bitual grace. But the Repentances of good men for their sins of infirmity, or the seldome inter­ruptions of a good life by single falls, is not pro­perly Conversion. But as the distance from God is, from whence we are to retire, so is the degree of our Conversion. The term from whence, is various, but the term whither we go, is the same. All must come to God through Jesus Christ in the measures and strictnesses of the Evangelical holiness, which is, that state of Repentance I have been now descri­bing, which is, A perfect abrenuntiation of all ini­quity, and a sincere obedience in the faith of Jesus Christ: which is the result of all the foregoing con­siderations and usages of words; and is further ma­nifested in the following appellatives and descri­ptions, by which Repentance is signified and recom­mended to us in [...]cripture.

1. 11 It is called Reconciliation. [...]. We pray you in Christs stead to be reconciled to God; that is, to be friends with him, no longer to stand in terms of distance; for every habitual sinner, every one that [Page 81]provokes him to anger by his iniquity, is his enemy: not that every sinner hates God by a direct hate; but as obedience is love, so disobedience is enmity or hatred by interpretation, [...], enemies in their minde by wicked works. Col. 1.21. So S. Paul expresses it: and therefore the reconciling of these, is to represent them holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight. 23, Pardon of sins is the least part of this reconciliation; Our sins and our sinfulness too must be taken away; that is, our old guilt, and the remanent affections must be taken off, before we are friends of God. And therefore we finde this reconciliation press'd on our parts; we are reconciled to God, not God to us. For although the term be relative, and so signifies both parts; as con­junction, and friendship, and society, and union do: yet it pleased the Spirit of God by this expres­sion to signifie our duty expresly, and to leave the other to be supposed; because if our parts be done, whatsoever is on Gods part, can never fail. And 2. Although this reconciliation begins on Gods part, and he first invites us to peace, and gave his Son a Sacrifice; yet Gods love is very revocable till we are reconciled by obedience and conformity.

2. 12 It is called Renewing, and that either with the connotation of the subject renewed, or the cause renewing. The renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit. 3.5. Rom. 18.2 Eph, 4.23. and the renewing of the minde, or the spirit of the minde. The word is exactly the same with [...], which is a change of minde from worse to better, as it is distinguished from the fruits and effects of it. So, be renewed in your minde, that is, throw away all your foolish principles, and non-sense propositions by which you use to be tempted and perswaded to sin, and inform your minde with wise notices and sentences of God: That ye put off concerning the old conversation the old man, which is corrupt according [Page 82]to the deceitfull lusts; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness; which is an excellent description of Re­pentance: In which it is observable, that S. Paul uses two words more to express the greatness and nature of this change and conversion. It is

3. 13 A new Creature; The new Man; Created in Righteousness: Eph. 2.10.3.9. John 3.6. for the state of Repentance is so great an alteration, that in some sense it is greater then the Creation; because the things created had in them no opposition to the power of God, but a pure capacity obediential: Jam. 1.18. but a sinner hath dis­positions opposite to the Spirit of Grace, and he must unlearn much before he can learn any thing; He must die before he can be born.

Our sins, the body of sin, the spirit of uncleanness, the old man must be abolished, mortified, crucified, bu­ried; Jude Rev. 7.14, Heb. 10.22, 23. Psal. 50.9. 2 Cor. 7.1. 1 Joh. 3.3. our sins must be laid away, we must hate the garments spotted with the flesh, and our garments must be whitened in the blood of the Lamb; our hearts must be purged from an evil conscience, purified as God is pure, that is, as S. Paul expresses it, from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, denying or renoun­cing all ungodliness and worldly lusts.

And then as the antithesis or consequent of this is, 14 when we have laid away our sin, and renounced ungodliness; We must live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world; Gal. 2.20. we must not live either to the world, or to our selves, but to Christ: Hic dies aliam vitam adfert, alios mores postulat; Our manner of life must be wholly differing from our former vanities, so that the life which we now live in the flesh, we must live by the faith of the Son of God, [Page 83]that is, according to his Laws and most holy Disci­pline.

This is pressed earnestly upon us by those many Precepts of obedience, 15 to God, to Christ,Rom. 6.17. Acts 6.7. 1 Pet. 4.3. Eph. 2 3. Jam. 1.22.23. 1 Joh. 3.22. Joh. 3.4. 1 Joh. 1.6. 2 Cor. 8.21. Col. 1.10. 1 Cor. 15.58.to the holy Go­spel, to the Truth, to the Doctrine of Faith; * of doing good, doing righteousness, doing the truth; * serving in the newness of the Spirit; * giving our members up as servants of righteousness unto holiness; * be­ing holy in all conversations; * following after peace with all men and holiness; being followers of good works; providing things honest in the sight of God and men; abhorring evil, and cleaving to that which is good; * perfecting holiness in the fear of God; to be perfect in every good work; * being filled with the fruits of righteousness; walking worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing; being fruitfull in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; * abounding in the work of the Lord. [...] and [...] are the words often used, fill'd full, and perfect.

To the same purpose is it, 16 that we are comman­ded to live in Christ, and unto God, that is, 2 Tim. 3.12. to live according to their will, and by their rule, and to their glory, and in their fear and love, called by S. Paul to live in the faith of the Son of God: Gal. 2.20. 1 Cor. 2.1. 1 Thess. 16. Joh. 2.6. Eph. 2.10.to be followers of Christ, and of God, to dwell in Christ, and to abide in him; to walk according to the Commande­ments of God, in good works, in truth, according to the Spirit, to walk in light, to walk with God; which was said of Enoch: of whom the Greek LXX. reade [...], He pleased God. * There are very many more to the same purpose. For with great caution and earnestness the holy Scriptures place the duties of mankinde in practice and holiness of living, and removes it farre from a confidence of notion and speculation. Qui fecerit, & docuerit, He that doth them and teaches them, Mat. 5 19. Luke 5.46.shall be great in the Kingdome; and, Why do you call me Lord, Lord, [Page 84]and do not the things I say to you; Joh. 15.14. and, Ye are my friends if ye do what I command you. [...]. Ignat. ad Magnes. We must not onely be called Christians, but be so; for not to be called but to be so, brings us to felicity; that is, since the life of a Christian is the life of Repentance, whose work it is, for ever to contend against sin, for ever to strive to please God, a dying to sin, a living to Christ, he that thinks his Repentance can have another defi­nition, or is compleated in any other, or in fewer parts, must be of another Religion then is taught by Christ and his holy Apostles. This is the Faith of the Son of God, this is that state of excellent things which he purchased with his blood: and as there is no other Name under heaven, so there is no other Faith, no other Repentance whereby we can be saved.

Upon this Article it is usual to discourse of Sor­row and Contrition, of Confession of sins, of ma­king amends, of self-affliction, and some other par­ticulars: but because they are not parts, but actions, fruits, and significations of Repentance, I have re­served them for their proper place. Now I am to apply this general Doctrine to particular states of sin and sinners, in the following Chapters.

§. 3. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the holy Scriptures.

¶ WHen heaven is shut up, 1 Kings 8.35, 36. and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee: if they pray towards this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin when thou afflictest them: * Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance.

¶ And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, Isa. 59.20, 21. and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob (saith the Lord.) * As for me, this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Again, when I say unto the wicked, Ezek. 33.14, 15 16. Thou shalt surely die: if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawfull and right: * If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had rebbed, walk in the statutes of life without committing iniquity; he shall even live, he shall not die. * None of his sins that he hath com­mitted, shall be mentioned unto him; he hath done that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live.

Knowing this, Rom. 6.6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19. that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. * Likewise reckon [Page 86]ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. * Let not sin therefore reign in your mortall body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. * Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield your selves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead and your members as instru­ments of righteousness unto God. * Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righ­teousness. * I speak after the manner of men, be­cause of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your mem­bers servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Wherefore my brethren, Rom. 7.4, 5, 6. ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit un­to God. * For when we were in the flesh, the mo­tions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. * But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in the newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

And that, Rom. 13.11, 12, 13. knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer then when we believed. * The night is farre spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. * Let us walk honestly as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. * But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved) let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh 2 Cor. 7.1, 10, 11.[Page 87]and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. * For godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salva­tion not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. * For behold, this self same thing that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what care­fulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of your selves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what re­venge? in all things ye have approved your selves to be clear in this matter.

For the love of Christ constraineth us, 2 Cor. 5.15, 17. because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. * Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are past away, behold all things are become new.

That ye put off, Ephes. 4.22, 23, 24. concerning the former conversa­tion, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts: * And be renewed in the spirit of your minde. * And that ye put on that new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: Eph. 5.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17. for be­cause of these things cometh the wrath of God up­on the children of disobedience. * Be not ye there­fore partakers with them. * For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord, walk as children of light. * For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. * Pro­ving what is acceptable unto the Lord: * And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of dark­ness, but rather reprove them. * See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise: * Re­deeming the time, because the dayes are evil. * Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

If ye then be risen with Christ, Col 31, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right [Page 88]hand of God. * Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. * For ye are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. * Mortifie therefore your members, which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. * But now, you also put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. * Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; * And have put on the new man, which is renewed in know­ledge after the image of him that created him.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation, Tit. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. hath appeared to all men, * Teaching us, that de­nying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world: * Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ: * Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie unto him­self a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, Heb. 12.1, 2, 14, 15. let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us: * Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the Cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. * Follow peace with all men, and holiness, with­out which no man shall see the Lord: * Looking di­ligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, Jam. 1.18, 21, 22. that we should be a kinde of first fruits of his creatures. * Wherefore lay apart all filthiness, [Page 89]and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the ingraffed word, which is able to save your souls. * But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers onely, deceiving your own selves.

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, 2 Pet. 1.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. that by these you might be parta­kers of the divine nature, having escaped the corru­ption that is in the world through lust. * And besides this, giving all diligence, adde to your faith, vertue; and to vertue, knowledge; * And to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to pa­tience, godliness; * And to godliness, brotherly kind­ness; and to brotherly kindness, charity: * For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. * But he that lacketh these things is blinde, and cannot see farre off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Wherefore gird up the loins of your minde, 1 Pet. 1.13, 14, 15, 16. be sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. * As obedient children, not fashioning your selves ac­cording to the former lusts in your ignorance. * But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; * Because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins, 1 Pet. 2.24.should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes ye were healed.

§. 1.

MEn have not been satisfied with devising infinite retirements and disguises of their follies to hide them from the world, but finding themselves open and discerned by God, have endeavoured to discover means of escaping from that Eye from which no­thing can escape but innocence, and from which no­thing can be hid, but under the cover of mercy. For besides that we expound the Divine Laws to our own purposes of ease and ambition, we give to our sins gentle censures, and adorn them with good words, and refuse to load them with their proper characters and punishments, and at last are come to that state of things, that since we cannot allow to our selves a liberty of doing every sin, we have di­stinguished the Question of sins into several orders, and have taken one half to our selves. For we have found rest to our fancies in the permissions of one whole kinde, having distinguished sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature; that is, sins which [Page 102]may, and sins which may not be done, without dan­ger; so that all the difference is, that some sins must be taken heed of, but others there are, and they the most in number, and the most frequent in their in­stances and returns, which we have leave to com­mit, without being affrighted with the fearful noi­ses of damnation; by which doctrine, iniquity and confidence have much increased and grown upon the ruines and declension of the Spirit.

And this one Article hath almost an infinite in­fluence to the disparagement of Religion in the de­termination of Cases of Conscience. 2 For supposing the distinction to be believed, experience and certain reason will evince, that it is impossible to prescribe proper limits and measures to the several kindes; and between the least Mortal, and the greatest Venial sin, no man is able with certainty to distinguish: and therefore (as we see it daily happen, and in every page written by the Casuists) men call what they please Venial, take what measures of them they like, appoint what expiation of them they fancy, and consequently give what allowance they list to those whom they please to mislead. For in innumerable Cases of Conscience it is oftner inquired, whether a thing be Venial or Mortal, then whether it be law­ful or not lawful; and as Purgatory is to Hell, so Venial is to Sin, a thing which men fear not, be­cause the main stake they think to be secured: for if they may have Heaven at last, they care not what comes between. And as many men of the Roman perswasion will rather choose Purgatory, then suffer here an inconsiderable penance, or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it: so they choose venial sins, and hug the pleasures of trifles, warming themselves at phantastick fires, and dancing in the light of the glo-worms; and they love them so well, that rather then quit those little [Page 103]things, they will suffer the intolerable pains of a temporary Hell; for so they believe: which is the testimony of a great evil and a mighty danger; for it gives testimony, that little sins can be beloved passionately, and therefore can minister such a de­light as is thought a price great enough to pay for the sufferance of temporal evils, and Purgatory it self.

But the evil is worse yet when it is reduc'd to practise. 3 For in the decision of very many questions, the answer is, It is a venial sin; that is, though it be a sin, yet there is in it no danger of lo­sing the favour of God by that, but you may do it, and you may do it again a thousand thousand times; and all the venial sins of the world put toge­ther, can never do what one mortal sin can, that is, make God to be your enemy: Lib. 1. de amiss. gra­tiae cap. 13. §. alterum est. So Bellarmine expresly af­firms. But because there are many Doctors who write Cases of Conscience, and there is no measure to limit the parts of this distinction, (for that which is not at all cannot be measured) the Doctors differ infinitely in their sentences; some calling that Mortal which others call Venial, (as you may see in the little Summaries of Navar and Emanuel Sà) the poor souls of the Laity, and the vulgar Clergy who be­lieve what is told them by the Authors or Confes­sors they choose to follow, must needs be in infinite danger, and the whole body of Practical Divinity, in which the life of Religion and of all our hopes depends, shall be rendred dangerous and uncer­tain, and their confidence shall betray them unto death.

To bring relief to this state of evil, 4 and to esta­blish aright the proper grounds and measures of Re­pentance; I shall first account concerning the dif­ference of sins, and by what measures they are so differenc'd. 2. That all sins are of their own na­ture [Page 104]punishable as God please, even with the highest expressions of his anger. 3. By what Repentance they are cur'd, and pardon'd respectively.

§. 2. Of the difference of sins, and their measures.

1. 5 SIns are not equal, but greater or less in their principle as well as in their event. It was one of the errours of Jovinian, which he learned from the Schools of the Stoicks, that all sins are alike grievous;

For they supposed an absolute irresistible Fate to be the cause of all things; and therefore what was equally necessary, was equally culpable, that is, not at all: and where men have no power of choice, or (which is all one) that it be necessary that they choose what they do, there can be no such thing as Laws, or sins against them. To which they adding that all evils are indifferent, and the event of things, be it good or bad, had no influence upon the felicity or infelicity of man, they could neither be diffe­renc'd by their cause, nor by their effect; the first being necessary, and the latter, indifferent. * Against this I shall not need to oppose many Arguments; for though this follows most certainly from their doctrine, who teach an irresistible Decree of God [Page 105]to be the cause of all things & actions; yet they that own the doctrine disavow the consequent, and in that are good Christians, but ill Logicians. But the Article is sufficiently cleared by the words of our B. Lord in the case of Judas, whose sin (as Christ told to Pilate) was the greater, because he had not power over him but by special concession; Mat. 23.24. Luk. 6.41. in the case of the ser­vant that knows his Masters will, and does it not; in the several condemnations of the degrees and expres­sions of anger in the instances of Racha, and [...] Ira festu­ca est: odi­um verò trabs. Aug., Thou vain man, or Thou fool: by this comparing some sins to gnats, and some to Camels: and in pro­portion to these, there are [...] in S. Luke, many stripes; a [...] in S. James, a greater condemnation. Ira festu­ca est: odi­um verò trabs. Aug. Thus to rob a Church is a greater sin then to rob a Thief; To strike a Father is a higher impiety then to resist a Tutor; To oppress a Widow is clamorous, and calls aloud for vengeance, when a less repentance wil vote down the whispering murmurs of a trifling injury, done to a fortune that is not sensible of smaller diminutions.

He is a greater criminal that steals the Chalice from a Church, then he that takes a few Coleworts, or robs a garden of Cucumers. But this distinction and difference is by something that is extrinsecal to the action, the greatness of the mischief, or the dignity of the person; according to that,

2. 6 But this when it is reduc'd to its proper cause, [Page 106]is, because such greater sins are complicated; they are commonly two or three sins wrapt together, as the unchastity of a Priest, is uncleanness and scan­dal too: Adultery is worse then Fornication, be­cause it is unchastity and injustice, and by the fear­ful consequents of it, is mischievous and uncha­ritable.

So Sacrilege is theft and impiety. And Apicius kil­ling himself, when he suppos'd his estate would not maintain his luxury, was not onely a self-murtherer, but a gluttonous person in his death: ‘Nil est Apici tibi gulosius factum. Lib. 3.22. Epign. Mart.’ So that the greatness of sins is in most instances by extension and accumulation; that as he is a greater sinner who sins often in the same instance, then he that sins seldome; so is he who sins such sins as are complicated and intangled, like the twinings of combining Serpents. And this appears to be so, be­cause if we take single sins, as uncleanness and theft, no man can tell which is the greater sin; neither can they be differenc'd but by something that is be­sides the nature of the action it self. A thought of theft, and an unclean thought, have nothing by which they can excel each other; but when you clothe them with the dress of active circumstances, they grow greater or less respectively; because then two or three sins are put together, and get a new name.

3. 7 There is but one way more by which sins can get or lose degrees, and that is the different propor­tions of our affections. This indeed relates to God [Page 107]more immediately, and by him alone is judg'd; but the former being invested with material circumstan­ces, can be judg'd by men: But all that God re­serves for his own portion of the Sacrifice, is the Heart; that is, our love and choice; and therefore the degrees of love or hatred, is that measure by which God makes differing judgements of them. For by this it is, that little sins become great, and great sins become little. If a Jew had maliciously touch'd a dead body in the dayes of Easter, it had been a greater crime, then if in the violence of his temptation he had unwillingly will'd to commit an act of fornication. He that delights in little thefts, because they are breaches of Gods Law, or burns a Prayer book, because he hates Religion, is a greater criminal then he that falls into a material heresie by an invincible or less discerned deception: Secure but to God your affections, and he will secure your innocence or pardon; for men live or die by their own measures. If a man spits in the face of a Priest to defie Religion, or shaves the beard of an Embas­sador to disgrace the Prince (as it hapned to Davids Messengers) his sin is greater then if he kill'd the Priest in his own just defence, or shot the Embassa­dor through the heart, when he intended to strike a Lion. For every negligence, every disobedience being against Charity or the love of God, by inter­pretation; this superaddition of direct malice is open enmity against him, and therefore is more se­verely condemned by him who sees every thought and degrees of passion and affection. For the in­crease of malice does aggravate the sin, just as the complication of material instances. Every degree of malice being as distinct and commensurate a sin, as any one external instance that hath a name; and therefore many degrees of malice combine and grow greater as many sins conjoyn'd in one action, [Page 108]they differ onely in Nature, not in Morality; just as a great number and a great weight: So that in ef­fect, all sins are differenc'd by complication onely, that is, either of the external or the internal in­stances.

4. 8 Though the negligence or the malice be natu­rally equal, yet sometimes by accident the sins may be unequal, not onely in the account of men, but also be­fore God too; but it is upon the account of both the former. It is when the material effect being diffe­rent upon men, God hath with greater caution se­cur'd such interests. So that by interpretation the negligence is greater, because the care was with greater earnestness commanded; or else because in such cases the sin is complicated: for such sins which do most mischief, have besides their proper malignity, the evil of uncharitableness, or hating our brother. In some cases God requires one hand, and in others both. Now he that puts but one of his fingers to each of them, his negligence is in nature the same, but not in value, because where more is required, the defect was greater. If a man be equally careless of the life of his Neighbours Son and his Neighbours Cock, although the will or attendance to the action be naturally equal, that is, none at all, yet morally, and in the divine ac­count they differ, because the proportions of duty and obligation were different, and therefore more ought to have been put upon the one then upon the other: just as he is equally clothed that wears a single garment in Summer and Winter, but he is not equally warm, unless he that wears a silk Mantle when the Dog-star rages, claps on Furres when the cold North-star changes the waters into rocks.

5. 9 Single sins done with equal affection or dis­affection, do not differ in degrees as they relate to God, [Page 109]but in themselves are equally prevarications of the Divine Commandement. Nihil invenies rectius recto, non magis quàm verius vero, quàm temperato temperatius, omnis in modo est virtus: mo­dus certa mensura est. Con­stantia non habet quò prore­dat, non magis quàm fiducia, aut veritas, aut fides. Sen. Ep. 67. As he tells a lie that says the Moon is foursquare, as great as he that says there were but three Apostles, or that Christ was not the Son of Man: and as every lie is an equal sin against truth; so every sin is an equal disobedience and recession from the Rule. But some lies are more against Charity, or Justice, or Reli­gion, then others are, and so are greater by complica­tion; but against truth they are all equally oppos'd: and so are all sins contrary to the Commandement. And in this sense is that saying of S. Basil: In regul, brevior.Primò enim scire illud convenit, differentiam minorum & majorum nusquam in Novo Testamento reperiri. Si­quidem una est & eadem sententia adversus quaelibet peccata, cum Dominus dixerit, Qui facit peccatum servus est peccati: & item, Sermo quem loquutus sum vobis, ille judicabit eum in Novissimo die: & Johan­nes vociferans dicat, Qui contumax est in filium, non videbit vitam aeternam; sed ira Dei manet super eum: cum contumacia non in discrimine peccatorum, sed in violatione praecepti positam habeat futuri supplicii de­nunciationem. The difference of great and little sins is no where to be found in the New Testament. One and the same sentence is against all sins; our Lord say­ing, He that doth sin is the servant of sin; and the word that I have spoken, that shall judge you in the last day; and John crieth out, saying, He that is dis­obedient to the Son, shall not see eternal life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: for this contumacy or disobedience does not consist in the difference of sins, but in the violation of the Divine Law; and for that it is threatned with eternal pain. But besides these Arguments from Scripture, he addes an excellent Reason: Prorsus autem si id nobis permittitur, ut [Page 110]in peccatis hoc magnum, illud exiguum appellemus, in­victo argumento concluditur magnum unicui (que) esse il­lud à quo quis (que) superatur: contrá (que) exiguum quod unusquis (que) ipse superat. Ʋt in athletis qui vicit fortis est; qui autem victus est, imbecillior eo unde victus est, quisque ille sit. If it be permitted that men shall call this sin great, and that sin little; they will con­clude that to be great which was too strong for them; and that to be little which they can master. As among Champions, he is the strongest that gets the victory. And then upon this account, no sin is Venial that a man commits, because that is it which hath prevail'd upon and master'd all his strengths.

The instance is great whatsoever it be that God hath chosen for our obedience. 10 To abstain from the fruit of a tree, not to gather sticks or dew after a certain hour, not to touch the Curtains of the Ark, not to uncover our fathers shame, all is one as to God; for there is nothing in all our duty that can adde any moments to his felicity, but by what he please he is to try our obedience. Let no man therefore despise a sin, or be bold to plead for it, as Lot for Zoar, Is it not a little one? For no man can say it is little, if God hath chosen the Commande­ment which the sin trangresses, as an instrument of his glorification and our felicity. Disobedience is the formality of sin; and since the instance or the matter of sin is all one to God, so also is the dis­obedience. The result of this consideration is this: 1. That no man should indulge to himself the smal­lest sin, because it is equally against God as the greatest: and though accidentally it may come not to be so exacted, yet of it self it may, and God is just if he does. 2. There is no sin, but if God enters into judgement with us, he may justly sen­tence us for it to the portion of accursed Spirits. For if for any, then for all, there being (as to him) [Page 111]no difference. But these things are to be proved in the following Section.

§. 3. That all sins are punishable as God please, even with the pains of Hell.

1. 11 IN the aggravation of sins, the injured person is as considerable as any other circumstance. He that smites a Prince, he that fires a Temple, he that rails upon the Bible, he that pollutes the Sacra­ments, makes every sin to be a load: and therefore since every sin is against God, it ought not to be cal­led little, unless God himself should be little estee­med. And since men usually give this account, that God punishes a transient sin with an immortal pain, because though the action is finite, yet it was against an infinite God, we may upon the same ground esteem it just, that even for the smallest sin, God in the rigour of his justice can exact the biggest cala­mity. For an act of Murther, or a whole year of Adultery, hath no nearer proportion to an eternity of pains, then one sinful thought hath: for greater or less are no approaches towards infinite; for be­tween them both, and what is infinite, the distance is equally infinite.

2. 12 In the distinction of sins Mortal and Venial, the Doctors of the Roman Church define Venial sins to be such which can consist with the love of God, which never destroy or les­sen it Venialia peccata ex consensu omnium Theologorum, ne (que) tollunt ne (que) minuunt habitum charitatis, sed solum actum & fervorem ejus impediunt. Bellarm. de amiss. grat. c. 13. §, alterum est.; in the very definition supposing that thing which [Page 112]is most of all in question; and the ground of the definition is nothing but the analogy and propor­tion of the entercourses and usages of men, who for a small offence do not neglect or cast away the endearments of an old friend Idem ib. cap. 11. §. Quartum argum.: of which when I have given account, I suppose the greatest difficulty of the question is removed. Against this therefore I oppose this proposition, The smallest sins are de­structive of our friendship with God. For although Gods mercies are infinite and glorious, and he for­gives millions to us that grudge to remit the trifles of our brother; and therefore whatsoever we can suppose a man will forgive to his friend, that and much more, infinitely more may we expect from the treasures of his goodness and mercy; yet our pre­sent consideration is, not what we can expect from Gods mercy, but what is the just demerit of our sins; not what he will forgive, but what he may justly exact; not what are the measures of pardon, but what are the accounts of his justice: for though we have hopes upon other reckonings, yet upon the account even of our smallest sins, we have nothing but fear and sadder expectations. For we are not to account the measures and rules of our friendship with God, by the easiness and ignorance, by the necessities and usual compliances of men. For

1. 13 Certain it is, that in the usual accounts of men some things are permitted, which are not so in the accounts of God. All sorts of ignorance use to lessen a fault amongst men, but before God some sorts of ignorance do aggravate; such as is, the volun­tary and malicious, which is the worst sort of vincible. Not that men do not esteem him vicious and un­worthy who enquires not for fear he should know, but because men oftentimes are not competent judges whether they do or no.

2. 14 Because men know not by what purpose [Page 113]their neighbours action is directed, and therefore reckon onely by the next and most apparent cause, not by the secret and most operative and effe­ctive.

3. 15 Because by the laws of Charity we are bound to think the best, to expound things fairly, to take up things by the easier handle; there being left for us no other security of not being confounded by mutual censures, judgements and inflictions, but by being restrained on the surer side of Charity, on which the errors of men are not judged criminal and mischievous, as on the other side they are. But God knows the hearts of men, their little obliquities and intricate turnings, every propensity and secret purpose, what malice is ingredient, and what error is invincible, and how much is fit to be pitied, and therefore what may justly be exacted. For there are three several wayes of judgement according to the several capacities of the Judges. * First, the laws of men judge onely by the event, or material action, and meddle not at all with the purpose, but where it is open'd by an active sign. He that gives me a thousand pounds to upbraid my poverty, or with a purpose to feed my crimes, is not punishable by law: but he is that takes from me a thousand shillings, though secretly he means to give it to my needy brother. Because as in the estimation of men no­thing is valuable but what does them good or hurt: so neither can their Laws and Tribunals receive testi­mony of any thing but what is seen or felt. And thus it is also in the measures of sins. To break or­der in a day of battel, is but a disorder, and so it is to break order at S. Georges show, at a training, or in a Procession; and yet that is punished with death, this with a Cudgel; the aptness to mischief, and the evil consequent, being in humane Judicatories the onely measures of judgement: Men feel the effects, [Page 114]and the Laws do judge accordingly. 2. In the pri­vate judgements of men, mercy must interpose; and it can oftner then in the publick: because in the pri­vate entercourses of men, there is a sense, and can be a consideration of particulars, and little acci­dents and significations of things, and some purposes may be privately discerned, which cannot publickly be proved. He that went to help his friend out of a river, and pull'd his arm out of joynt, was excused by the wronged preserved person: the evil accident was taken off by the pious purpose: But he that to dishonour his friend throws a glass of wine in his sace, and sayes he did it in sport, may be judged by his purpose, not by his pretence, because the pre­tence can be confuted by the observation of little circumstances and adherencies of the action, which yet peradventure cannot legally be proved. Alitèr leges, alitèr philosophi tollunt asturias: leges, quate­nus tenere manu res possunt; philosophi, quatenus ra­tione & intelligentiâ. Laws regard the great mate­rialities of obedience, the real, sensible effect. But wise men. Philosophers and private Judges take in the accounts of accidental moments and incidencies to the action, Offic. lib. 3. said Cicero. But 3. Gods judgement is otherwise yet; for he alone can tell the affection, and all that which had secret influence into the event: and therefore he can judge by what is se­cret, by the purpose and heart, which is indeed the onely way of doing exact justice. From hence it follows, that what ought not to dissolve the friend­ship of man, may yet justly dissolve our friendship with God, for he takes other measures then men may or can.

4. 16 Because offences against God may be avoi­ded, but it is not so in our entercourses with men; for God hath told us plainly what is our duty, what he expects, what will please, and what will displease [Page 115]him: but men are often governed by Chance; and that which pleases them to day, shall provoke them to morrow; and the next day you shall be their ene­my, for that for which three dayes ago they paid you thanks.

5. 17 If men exact little things, it becomes their own case; for we sin against our brother and need his pardon: and therefore ‘Hanc veniam petimús (que) damús (que) vicissim;’ We give and ask pardon; ‘Det ille veniam facilè, cui veniâ est opus;’ But we never found iniquity in God, or injustice in the most High, and therefore he that is innocent may throw a stone at the criminal.

6. 18 God hath in the smallest instance left us without excuse; for he hath often warned us of small offences. * He hath told us their danger. He that despiseth little things, shall perish by little and little. * He hath told us, they asperse us with a mighty guilt; for he that offends in one Commande­ment, is guilty of all. * He hath told us that we are not certainly excused, though our conscience do not manifestly accuse us; for so S. Paul, I am not hereby justified, for God is greater then my conscience. * He hath threatned loss of heaven to him that is guilty of the breach of one, [...], though of the least of these Commandements ( [...], these which Christ had reckoned in his Sermon, where fetters are laid upon thoughts and words) shall be called the least in the Kingdome, that is he shall be quite shut out: for minimus here is as much as nullus; miaimus vocabi­tur, that is, minimi aestimabitur, In resp. ad orthod. a­pud Justin. he shall not be esteem'd at all in the accounts of doomsday mercy, [...] [Page 116]in the accounts of the Doomsday book, where there shall be a discerning of them who shall be glorified, from them that are to be punished. And this which is one of the severest periods of holy Scripture, can by no arts be turned aside from concluding fully in this question. De amiss. grat. cap. 12. § Re­stat ultim. Bel­larmine sayes it means onely to condemn those who by false doctrines corrupt these severe precepts, and teach men as the Pharisees did of old; not all those who break them themselves, if they teach others to keep them. He that breaks one of these, and shall teach men so to do; so are the words of Christ. But it is a known thing that [...] is oftentimes used for [...]; He that breaks one of these, or shall teach others. The words were spoken to the persons of the Apostles, who were to teach these doctrines [...] exact­ly as Christ preach'd them; but without peradven­ture they were also intended to all the Church: and the following words, and the whole analogy of the adjoyned discourse make it clear to every observing Reader; and the words plainly say this, He that shall break one of these least Commandements, and He that shall teach men so, each of them shall be cal­led the least in the Kingdome. But 2. why did our blessed Lord so severely threaten those that should teach others to break any of these severe Comman­dements by false interpretation? but onely because it was so necessary for all to keep them in the true sense, and so fearful a thing to any to break them. 3. Those who preach severe doctrines to others, and touch them not with one of their fingers, are guilty of that which Christ reproved in the Pharisees; and themselves shall be cast-awayes, while they preach to others: so that the breaking it by disobedience is damnable, as well as the breaking it by false interpretation: [Page 117]

Indeed it is intolerable to teach men to be vicious; but it is a hateful baseness to shew others that way which our selves refuse to walk in. Whatever there­fore may not be allowed to be taught, may not also be done; for the people are not to be taught evil, because they must not do evil; but may the teachers do what they may not teach, and what the people may not do, or is not the same punishment to them both? 4. Now upon these grounds this very gloss which Bellarmine gives being a false interpretation of these words of Christ (which are a summary of his whole Sermon, and as it were the sanction and establishment of the former and following periods into laws) must needs be of infinite danger to the inventer and followers of it: for this gloss gives leave to men to break the least of these Commande­ments, some way or other (if they do not teach others so to do) without being affrighted with fears of Hell; but in the mean while, this gloss teaches, or gives leave to others to break them, but allows no false interpretation of them but its own. 5. But then it is worse with them who teach others so to do, and command all men to teach so; and if the Roman Doctors who teach that some breach of these Com­mandements is not of its own nature, and by the divine threatnings, exclusive of the transgressors from the Kingdome of God, be not in some sense a teaching men so to do, then nothing is: For when God said to Adam, That day thou eatest of the forbid­den fruit, thou shalt die; the Tempter said, Nay, but ye shall not die; and so was author to Adam of com­mitting his sin. So when our blessed Saviour hath [Page 118]told us, that to break one of these least Commande­ments is exclusive of us from heaven, they that say, that not every solution or breaking of them is exclusive from heaven (which are the words of Bel­larmine and the doctrine of the Roman Church) must even by the consequence of this very gloss of his fall under the danger of the [...] of the false teachers, or the breakers of them by false interpre­tation. However, fearful is the malediction even to the breakers of the least: [...], that is, [...] (that I may use the words of Theophylach) he shall be last in the resurrection and shall be thrown into hell: for that is the meaning of [least in the Kingdom of hea­ven] & fortasse ideò non erit in regno coelorum, ubi nisi magni esse non possunt, said S. Austin; least is none at all; for into heaven none can enter but they which are great in Gods account.

7. 19 Lastly, God hath given us the perpetual assi­stances of his Spirit, the presence of his grace, the ministery of his word, the fear of judgements, the endearment of his mercies, the admonition of friends, the severity of Preachers, the aid of Books, the apprehension of death, the sense of our daily dangers, our continual necessities, and the recolle­ction of our prayers, and above all, he hath promi­sed heaven to the obedient, which is a state of bles­sings so great and infinite, as upon the account of them, it is infinitely reasonable and just if he shall exact of us every sin, that is, every thing which we can avoid.

Upon this account it is, 20 that although wise and prudent men doe not despise the continual endear­ments of an old friend, yet in many cases God may and doth; and from the rules and proper measures of humane friendship, to argue up to a presumption of Gods easiness in not exacting our duty, is a fal­lacious [Page 119]proceeding, but it will deceive no body but our selves.

2. 21 Every sin is directly against Gods law; and therefore is damnable and deadly in the accounts of the Divine justice, one as well, though not so grie­vously, as another. For though sins be differenc'd by greater and less, yet their proportion to punish­ment is not differenc'd by Temporal and Eternal, but by greater and less in that kinde which God hath threatned. So Origen. Homil. 35. in Lucam.Ʋnusquisque pro quali­tate & quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit. Si parum est quod peccas, ferieris damno minuti, ut Lucas scripsit, ut verò Matthaeus, quadran­tis. Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod exstitisti debitor, solvere. Non eniminde exibis, nisi & mini­ma quaeque persolveris. Every one according to the quantity and quality of his sin must pay his fine; but till he hath paid he shall not be loosed from those fearful prisons; that is, he shall never be loo­sed, if he agree not before he comes thither. The smallest offence is a sin, and therefore it is [...], a transgression of the Law, a violation of that band by which our obedience unites us unto God. And this the holy Scripture signifies unto us in various expressions. For though the several words are vari­ously used in sacred and profane writers, yet all of them signifie that even the smallest sin is a pre­varication of the Holy laws; [...]. Lib. 4. de orthod. fide cap. 23. [...], so Damascen cals sin; which we render well by Transgression: and even those words which in di­stinction signify a small offence, yet they also sig­nify the same with the greater words, to shew that they all have the same formality, and doe the same displeasure, or at least that by the difference of the words, no difference of their natures can be re­gularly observed. [...]. * Sins against God onely are by Phavorinus called [...]; [Page 120]and the same word is also used for sin against our neighbours; [...], If thy brother sin against thee, that is, doe thee injury; [...]. and this is properly [...], injustice; But Demosthenes distinguishes injustice from sin, [...] from [...], by voluntary and involuntary; [...].Orat. [...].He that does wrong willingly is unjust, he that does it unwillingly is a sinner.

The same indistinction is observable in the other words of Scripture; 22 [...]. [...] is by S. Hierome used for the beginnings of sin, Cum cogitatio tacita sub­repit, & ex aliquâ parte conniventibus nobis, nec dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam; when a sudden thought invades us without our advertency and observation, and hath not brought forth death as yet: and yet that death is appendent to whatsoever it be that can be signified by [...] we may observe, be­cause the sin of Adam that called death upon all the world is called [...]; Rom. 5.18. Eph. 2.1. and of the Ephesian Gen­tiles S. Paul said they had been dead [...], in trespasses and sins; and therefore it cannot hence be inferred that such little obliquities, or beginnings of greater sins are onely [...] besides the law, not against it, for it is (at least the word hinders not but it may be) of the same kinde of malignity as was the sin of Adam: Lib. 3. quaest. su­per Levit. q. 20. And there­fore S. Austin renders the word [...] deli­ctum or offence, and so do our Bibles. And the same also is the case of [...], which is attributed even to concupiscence or the beginnings of mischief, Rom. 7.5. In cap. 2. Ephes. Jam. 1.15. by S. Paul and by S. Hierome: but the same is used for the consummation of concupiscence in the mat­ter of uncleanness by S. James; Lust when it hath conceived [...]; Vid. Com. DD. in Ti­tum verb. [...]. peccatum is the Latine word, which when it is used in a distinct and pres­sed sense, it is taken for the lesser sins, and is di­stinguished [Page 121]from crimen. Paulus Orosius Apol. de liber. arbit. uses it to signify onely the concupiscence or sinful thoughts of the heart, and when it breaks forth to action, he cals it a crime; peccatum cogitatio concipit, crimen verò non nisi actus ostendit: and it was so used by the ancient Latins. Peccatus it was called by them; quasi pellicatus, that inticing which is proper to un­cleanness. So Cicero in A. Gellius, Lib. 13. c. 19.Nemo ita mani­festo peccatu tenebatur, ut cum impudens fuisset in facto, tum impudentior videretur si negaret. Thus the indistinction of words mingles all their significati­ons in the same common notion and formality. They were not sins at all, if they were not against a Law, and if they be, they cannot be of their own nature venial, but must be liable to that punishment which was threatned in the Law whereof that acti­on is a transgression.

2. 23 The Law of God never threatens, the justice of God never inflicts punishment, but upon trans­gressors of his Laws; the smallest offences are not only threatned, but may be punished with death; there­fore they are transgressions of the Divine Law. So S. Basil argues; Nullum peccatum contemnendum ut parvum, quando D. Paulus de omni peccato gene­ratim pronunciaverat stimulum mortis esse peccatum; The sting of death is sin; that is, death is the evil consequent of sin, and comes in the tail of it; of every sin, and therefore no sin must be despised as if it were little. Now if every little sin hath this sting also (as it is on all hands agreed that it hath) it follows that every little transgression is perfectly and intirely against a Commandement. And indeed it is not sense to say any thing can in any sense be a sin, and that it should not in the same sense be against a Commandement. For although the par­ticular instance be not named in the Law, yet every instance of that matter must be meant. It was an ex­treme [Page 122]folly in Bellarmine to affirm, De amiss. grat. cap. 11. §. As­sumptio probatur. Peceatum veni­ale ex parvitate materiae est quidem perfectè volun­tarium, sed non perfectè contra legem. Lex enim non prohibet furtum unius oboli in specie, sed prohibet fur­tum in genere. That a sin that is venial by the smal­ness of the matter is not perfectly against the Law, because the Law forbids theft indeed in the gene­ral, but does not in particular forbid the stealing of a half-peny: for upon the same reason it is not per­fectly against the Law to steal three pound nineteen shillings three pence, because the Law in general onely forbids theft, but does not in particular for­bid the stealing of that sum. * But what is besides the Law, and not against it, cannot be a sin; and therefore to fancy any sin to be onely besides the Law is a contradiction; so, to walk, to ride, to eat flesh or herbs, to wear a long or a short garment, are said to be besides the Law; but therefore they are permitted and indifferent. Indifferent I say in respect of that Law which relates to that particular matter, and indifferent in all senses; unless there be some collateral Law which may prohibit it indirectly. So for a Judge to be a Coachman, for a Priest to be a Fidler or Inne-keeper, are not directly unlawful, but indirectly they are, as being against decency and publick honesty or reputation, or being inconveni­ent in order to that end whither their calling is de­sign'd. To this sense are those words of S. Paul, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; That is, some things which directly are lawful, by an indirect obligation may become unfit to be done; but otherwise, Licitum est quod nullâ lege prohibetur, saith the Law. If no Law forbids it, then it is lawful; and to abstain from what is law­ful though it may have a worthiness in it more then ordinary, yet to use our liberty is at no hand a sin. The issue then is this; either we are forbidden to [Page 123]doe a venial sin, or we are not. If we are not forbid­den, then it is as lawful to doe a venial sin as to mar­ry, or eat flesh: If we are forbidden, then every such action is directly against Gods Law, and conse­quently finable at the will of the supreme Judge, and if he please, punishable with a supreme anger. A [...]d to this purpose there is an excellent observa­tion in S. Austin, Lib. 3. Quaest. su­per Levit. q. 20.Peccatum & delictum si nihil differ­rent inter se, & si unius rei duo nomina essent, non curaret Scriptura tam diligentèr unum esse utriusque sacrificium; There are several names in Scripture to signify our wandrings, and to represent the several degrees of sin; but carefully it is provided for, that they should be expiated with the same sacrifice; which proves that certainly they are prevarications of the same Law, offences of the same God, provo­cations of the same anger, and hei [...]s of the same death: and even for small offences a Sacrifice was appointed, lest men should neglect what they think God regarded not.

3. 24 Every sin, even the smallest, is against Charity, which is the end of the Commandement. For every sin or evil of transgression is far worse then all the evils of punishment with which mankinde is affli­cted in this world; and it is a less evil that all man­kinde should be destroyed, then that God should be displeased in the least instance that is imaginable. Now if we esteem the loss of our life or our estate, the wounding our head, or the extinction of an eye to be great evils to us, and him that does any thing of this to us, to be our enemy, or to be injurious, we are to remember that God hates every sin worse, then we can hate pain or beggery. And if a nice and a tender conscience, the spirit of every excellent person does extremely hate all that can provoke God to anger or to jealousy; it must be certain that God hates every such thing with an hatred infi­nitely [Page 124]greater, so great that no understanding can perceive the vastness of it and immensity. For by how much every one is better, by so much the more he hates every sin; and the soul of a righteous man is vexed and afflicted with the inrodes of his una­voidable calamities, the armies of Egypt, the lice and flies, his insinuating, creeping infirmities: Now if it be holiness in him to hate these little sins, it is an imitation of God; for what is in us by derivation, is in God essentially; therefore that which angers a good man, and ought so to do, displeases God, and consequently is against charity or the love of God. For it is but a vain dream to imagine, that because just men, such who are in the state of grace, and of the love of God, do commit smaller offences there­fore they are not against the love of God; for eve­ry degree of cold does abate something of the heat in any hot body; but yet because it cannot destroy it all, cold and heat may be consistent in the same subject; but no man can therefore say, they are not contraries, and would not destroy each other if they were not hindred by something else; and so would the smallest offences also destroy the life of grace, if they were not destroyed themselves. But of this afterwards. For the present, let it be consi­dered, how it can possibly consist with our love to God, with that duty that commands us to love him with all our heart, with all our strength, with all our might, and with all our soul, how (I say) it can be consistent with a love so extended, so intended, to entertain any thing that he hates so essentially. To these particulars I adde this one consideration; That since there is in the world a fierce opinion, that some sins are so slight and little, that they doe not destroy our relation to God, and cannot break the sacred tie of friendship, he who upon the inference and presumption of that opinion shall choose to [Page 125]commit such small sins, which he thinks to be the All that is permitted him, is not excused by that supposition: For if it be said that he is therefore supposed to love God, because he onely does those little sins which he thinks are not against the love of God, and if he did not think so, he would not do them; This excuses him not, but aggravates the sin, for it is turning the grace of God into wantonness. For since that such little things are the easier par­don'd, is wholly owing to Gods grace and his singu­lar goodness, he that abuses this goodness to licen­tiousness, makes his sin to abound, because Gods grace abounds; because God is good, he takes leave to do evil, that is, to be most contrary to God. For it is certain that every man in this case, hath affections for sin as formerly; indeed he entertains it not in the ruder instances because he dares not, but he does all that he dares doe; for when he is taught that some certain sins are not damnable, there he will not ab­stain: which is a demonstration that though he does something for fear, yet he does nothing for love.

4. 26 From this it follows, that every sin, though in the smallest instance, is a turning from God and a conversion to the creature. Suidas defines [...] sin to be [...], a declension from good; and [...], that is, [...], to shoot besides the mark, to conduct our actions by an indirect line to a wrong object, from God to the Creature. Peccare est tanquam lineas transilire; so Parad. 3. Cicero: a sinner goes out of those limits and marks which are appointed him by God. Then this, no greater evil can be spoken of any thing, and of this, all sin partakes more or less. Some few sins are direct aversions from God; so Atheism, Blas­phemy, Apostasie, Resolution never to repent, and some few more: but many other very great sins are turn­ings from God not directly, but by interpretation, [Page 126]He that commits fornication may yet by a direct act of understanding and a full consent, believe God to be the chiefest Good: and some very vicious persons have given their lives for a good cause, and to pre­serve their innocence in some great instance, where the scene of their proper and natural temptation does not lie. Some others there are who out of a sincere but an abused Conscience persecute a good cause; these men are zealous for God, and yet fight against him: But because these are real enemies, and but supposed friends, therefore by interpretation and in effect they turn from God and turn to the Creature. Lib. 3. Quaest. in Lev. c. 20. Delictum quasi derelictum, said S. Austin; because in every sin God is forsaken. They have left me the living Fountain, and digged to themselves ci­sterns that hold no water. So God complains by the Prophet. He that prefers pleasure or profit before his duty, rejects God, but loves money, and payes his devotion to interest or ease, or sensuality. And just so does the smallest sin. For since every action hath something propounded to it as its last end, it is certain he that sins, does not do it for God, or in order to him. He that tells a lie to promote Reli­gion, or to save the life of a man, or to convert his soul, does not tell that lie for God, but tells the lie to make way for something else which is in order to God; he breaks his legs, that he may the better walk in the path of the Divine Commandements. A sin cannot be for God, or in order to him, no not so much as habitually. For whatsoever can never be referred to God actually, c [...]nnot at any time be referred habitually. Since therefore the smallest sins cannot be for God that which is not with him is against him; if it be no way for God, it is either directly or by interpretation for pleasure or ease, or profit or pride, for something that is against him.

And it is not to be neglected, 27 that the smaller the sin is, the less it is excusable if it be done when it is observed. For if it be small, is it not the sooner obeyed, and the more reasonably exacted, and the more bountifully repaid, when Heaven is given as the price of so small a service? He that pursues his crime for a mighty purchase, to get a Kingdome, or a vast estate, or an exquisite beauty, or something that is bigger then the ordinary vertues of easie and common men, hath something (not to warrant and legitimate, but) to extenuate the offence by great­ning the temptation. But to lose the friendship of God for a Nut-shell, to save six pence, to lose hea­ven with peevishness, to despise the Divine Laws for a non-sense insignificant vapour, and a testy pride hath no excuse, but it loads the sinner with the disreputation of a mighty folly. What excuse can be made for him that will not so much as hold his peace to please God? What can he do less for him? How should it be expected he should mortifie his lusts, deny his ambition, part with his goods, lose an eye cut off a hand, give his life for God, when he will not for God lose the no pleasure of talking vainly, and proudly, and ridiculously? If he will not chastise his wanton thoughts to please God how shall he throw out his whole body of lust? If he will not resist the trifling temptations of a drinking friend to preserve his temperance, how shall he choose to be banished or murther'd by the rage of a drunken Prince, rather then keep the circle in their giddy and vertiginous method? The less the instance be, the direct aversation from God is also most commonly the less; but in many cases the aversation is by interpretation greater, more unrea­sonable, and therefore less excusable; as when the small instance is chosen by a perfect & distinct act of election; as it is in those who out of fear of Hell quit [Page 128]the acting of their clamorous sins, and yet keep the affections to them, and consequently entertain them in thoughts and little reflexions, in remembrances and phantastick images.

5. 28 But if we reduce this Question a little nearer to practise and clothe it with circumstances, we shall finde this account to be sadder then is usually sup­pos'd. But before I instance in the particulars, I shall premise this distinction of venial sins, which is necessary not onely for the conducting of this Que­stion, but our Consciences also in this whole Arti­cle. The Roman Schools say, that sins are Venial either by the imperfection of the agent, as when a thing is done ignorantly, or by surprise, or inadver­tency: or 2. A sin is Venial by the smalness of the matter; as if a man steals a farthing, or eats a little too greedily at his meal, or lies in bed half an hour longer then would become him: or 3. A sin (say they) is Venial in its whole kinde, that is, such which God cannot by the nature of the thing punish with the highest punishment; such as are idle words and the like. Now first, I suppose that the two latter will be found to be both one: For either God hath not forbidden idleness or falsness, or he hath made no restraint at all upon words, but left us at liberty to talk as we please; for if he hath in this case made a law, then idle words either cannot pretend to an excuse, or it must be for the smalness of the matter; or else it must fall in with the first, and be excused, because they cannot alwayes be attended to.

Now concerning the first sort of venial sins, 29 it is not a kinde of sins, but a manner of making all sins venial, (that is) apt for pardon: for by the imper­fection of the agent or the act, all great sins in their matter, may become little in their malice and guilt. Now these are those which Divines call sins of infirmity; and of them I shall give an account [Page 129]in a distinct Chapter, under that title.

Concerning the second, 30 i. e. sins venial for the smalness of the matter; I know none such. For if the matter be a particular that God hath expresly commanded or forbidden respectively, it is not lit­tle, but all one to him as that which we call the greatest. But if the particular be wholly relating to our neighbour, the smalness of the matter does not absolutely make the sin venial: for amongst us no­thing is absolutely great, or absolutely little, but in comparison with something else; and if a vile per­son had robb'd the poor woman that offered two mites to the treasury of the Temple, he had undone her; a farthing there was all her substance: so that the smalness of the matter is not directly an excuse. If a man had robb'd a rich man of a farthing, he had not indeed done him so great a mischief: but how if the rich man was not willing to part with his far­thing, but would be angry at the injury, is it not a sin, because the theft was small? No man questi­ons but it is. It follows therefore that the smalness of the matter cannot make a sin venial, but where there is a leave expresly given, or justly presumed: and if it be so in a great matter, it is as little a sin as if the matter were small, that is, none at all.

But now concerning the third, 31 which the Roman Schools dream of, sins venial in their own nature, and in their whole kinde; that is it which I have been disputing against all this while, and shall now further conclude against by arguments more practi­cal and moral. For if we consider what are those par­ticulars which these men call venial sins in their whole kinde and nature, we shall finde that Christ and they give measures differing from each other. The Catalogues of them I will take from the Fa­thers, not that they ever thought these things to be in their nature venial, (for they that think so of [Page 130]them are strangers to their writings: and to this pur­pose Bellarmine hath not brought one testimony pertinent and home to the question:) but because they reckon such Catalogues of venial sins, which demonstrate that they do mean sins made venial by accident, by mens infirmity, by Gods grace, by par­don, by repentance, and not such which are so in their own nature. But the thing it self will be its own proof.

S. 32 Austin reckons, Vanas cachinnationes; in escis aviditatem, Lib 50. homil. hom. 50.7. Serm. 244. de temp. Enchir. c 78.& immoderatiorem appetitum; in vendendis & emendis rebus, charitatis & vilitatis vota perver­sa; usum matrimonii ad libidinem; judicia apud in­fideles agitare; Dicere fratri Fatue. Vain laughter, greediness in meat, an immoderate or ungovern'd ap­petite; perverse desires of dearness and cheapness in buying and selling commodities; the use of marriage to lustfulness and inordination;Dial. 2. adv. Pelag.the use of marriage to lustfulness and inordination; to go to law before the unbelievers; to call our brother Fool. S. Hierome rec­kons, jestings, anger, and injurious words. Caesarius Arelatensis the Bishop reckons, Homil. 8. & 13. excess in eating and drinking, idle words, importune silence, to exasperate an importunate begger, to omit the fasts of the Church, sleepiness or immoderate sleeping, the use of a wife to lustfulness, to omit the visitation of the sick and of prisoners, and to neglect to reconcile them that are at va­riance, too much severity or harshnes to our family, or too great indulgence, flattery, talkings in the Church, poor men to eat too much when they are brought rarely to a good table, forswearings [unwary perjury] slander or reproaches, rash judgment, hatred, sudden anger, en­vy, evil concupiscence, filthy thoughts, the lust of the eyes, the voluptuousness of the ears, or the itch of hear­ing, the speaking filthy words: and indeed he reckons almost all the common sins of mankinde. De Prae. cept. & dispens. c. 14. S. Ber­nard reckons, stultiloquium, vaniloquium, otiose di­cta, facta, cogitata; talking vainly, talking like a [Page 131]fool, idle or vain thoughts, words and deeds. These are the usual Catalogues, and if any be reckoned, they must be these; for many times some of these are least consented to, most involuntary, most rea­dy, less avoidable, of the highest effect, of an eter­nal return, incurable in the whole, and therefore plead the most probably, and are the soonest likely to prevail for pardon; but yet they cannot pretend to need no pardon, or to fear no damnation. For our blessed Saviour sayes it of him that speaks an angry word, that he shall be guilty of hell fire. Now since we finde such as these reckon'd in the Cata­logue of venial sins; and S. Austin in particular calls that venial to which our blessed Saviour threat­ned hell fire; it is certain he must not mean that it is in its own nature venial, but damnable as any other: but it is venial, that is, prepared for par­don upon other contingencies and causes, of which I shall afterwards give account. In the mean time, I consider,

6. 33 When God appointed in the Law expiatory Sacrifices for sins, although there was enough to signifie that there is difference in the degrees of sin, yet because they were eodem sanguine eluenda, and without shedding of blood there was no remission, they were reckon'd in the same accounts of death and the Divine anger. And it is manifest that by the seve­rities and curse of the Law no sin could escape. For cursed is he that continues not in every thing written in the law, to do them. The Law was a Covenant of Works and exact measures. There were no venial sins by vertue of that Covenant; for there was no remission: and without the death of Christ we could not be eased of this state of danger. Since therefore that any sin is venial or pardonable, is onely owing to the grace of God, to the death of Christ; and this death pardons all upon the condi­tion [Page 132]of Faith and Repentance, and pardons none without it: it follows that though sins differ in degree, yet they differ not in their natural and es­sential order to death. The man that commits any sin, dies if he repents not, and he that does repent timely and effectually, dies for none. The wages of sin is death; of sin indefinitely, and therefore of all sin, and all death: for there is no more di­stinction of sin then death; onely when death is threatned indefinitely, that death is to be under­stood, which is properly and specifically threat­ned in that Covenant where the death is named; as death temporal in the Law, death eternal under the Gospel.

And thus it appears in a very material instance relating to this question: 32 for when our blessed Sa­viour had threatned the degrees of anger, he did it by apportioning several pains hereafter of one sort, to the several degrees of the same sin here, which he expresses by the several inflictions passed upon Criminals by the Houses of Judgement among the Jews. Mat. 5.22. Now it is observable, that to the least of these sins Christ assigns a punishment just pro­portionable to that which the gloss of the Pha­risees and the Law it self did to them that com­mitted Murther, which was capital; He shall be guilty of judgement; so we reade it, [...], not [...]: so it is in the Greek: He shall be guilty in the [...], that is, in the Court of Judge­ment, the Assembly of the twenty three Elders; and there his punishment was death, but the gentlest manner of it, the decapitation or smiting him through with the sword, and there­fore the least punishment hereafter answering to death here, can mean no less then death hereafter Ita interpretantur hunc locum Barradius, Maldonatus, & Estius ad hunc locum: & apud vetustiores eadem sententia praeva­luit. Haec enim erat mens Strabi Fuldensis qui glossam ordinariam compilavit, & Hugonis Cardinalis.. * And so [Page 133]also was the second; [...], he that cals Racha shall be guilty, that is, shall be used as one that stands guilty in the Sanhedrim, or Councel, meaning that he is to die too, but with a severer execution by stoning to death: this was the greatest punishment by the houses of judgement; for Cru­cifixion was the Roman manner. These two al­ready signify hell, in a less degree, but as certainly and evidently as the third. For though we read Hell-fire, in the third sentence onely, yet [...] no otherwise signifies Hell, then the other two, by ana­logy and proportionable representment. The cause of the mistake is this: When Christ was pleased to adde yet a further degree of punishment in hell to a further degree of anger and reproach, the Jews having no greater then that of stoning by the judge­ment of the Sanhedrim or Councel, he would bor­row his expression from that which they and their Fathers too well understood, [...] a barbarous custome of the Phoenicians of burning children alive in the valley of Hinnom, which in succession of time the Hellenists called [...] not much unlike the He­brew word: and because by our blessed Lord it was used to signify or represent the greatest pains of hell that were spoken of in that gradation, the Christians took the word and made it to be its ap­pellative, and to signify the state or place of the damned: just as [...] the garden of Eden is called Paradise. But it was no more intended that this should signify Hell, then that any of the other two should. The word it self never did so before; but that and the other two were taken as being the most fearful things amongst them here, to represent the degrees of the most intolerable state hereafter: just as damnation is called death; the second death; that because we fear the first as the worst of present evils, we may be affrighted with the apprehensions [Page 134]of the latter. From this authority it follows; that as in the Law no sins were venial, but by repentance and sacrifice; so neither in the Gospel are they: nor in their own nature, not by the more holy Covenant of the Gospel, but by repentance and mortification. For the Gospel hath with greater severity laid restraint upon these minutes and little particles of action and passion: and therefore if in the law every transgression was exacted, we cannot reasonably think that the least parts of duty, which the Gospel superadded with a new and severer caution, as great and greater then that by which the law exacted the greatest Commandements, can be broken with indemnity, or without the highest danger. The law exacted all its smallest minutes; and therefore so does the Gospel, as being a Co­venant of greater holiness. But as in the law for the smaller transgressions there was an assignment of expiatory rites; so is there in the Gospel of a ready repentance, and a prepared mercy.

7. 35 Lastly, those sins which men in health are bound to avoid, those sins for which Christ did shed his most precious bloud, those sins which a dying man is bound to ask pardon for, though he hopes not, or desires not to escape temporal death, certain it is, that those sins are in their nature, and in the Oeconomy or dispensation of the Divine threat­nings, damnable. For what can the dying man fear but death eternal? and if he be bound to repent and ask pardon even for the smallest sins which he can remember, in order to what pardon can that repentance be, but of the eternal pain, to which every sin by its own demerit naturally descends? If he must repent and ask pardon when he hopes not, or desires not the temporal, it is certain he must repent, onely that he may obtain the eternal. And they that will think otherwise, will also finde them­selves. [Page 135]deceiv'd in this. * For if the damned souls in hell are punish'd for all their sins, then the un­pardon'd venial sins are there also smarted for. But so it is, and so we are taught in the doctrine of our great Master. If we agree not while we are in the way, we shall be cast into the eternal prison, and shall not depart thence till we have paid the uttermost farthing: that is, even for our smallest sins, if they be unremitted, men shall pay in hell their hor­rible Symbol of damnation. And this is confessed on all hands Aquinas 1.2. [...] quaest. 87. art. 5.: that they who fall into hell, pay their sorrows there, even for all. But it is preten­ded, that this is onely by accident Bellar. de amiss. gra. lib. 1. c. 14. §. Extusad., not by the first intention of the Divine justice; because it hap­pens that they are subjected in such persons, who for other sins (not for these) goe to hell. Well! yet let it be considered, whether or no do not the smallest unremitted sins, in crease the torments of hell in their proportion? If they doe not, then they are not at all punished in hell; for if without them the perishing soul is equally punished, then for them there is no punishment at all. But if they doe increase the pains, as it is certain they doe, then to them properly, and for their own malignity and demerit, a portion of eternal pains is assigned. Now if God punishes them in hell, then they deserv'd hell; if they be damnable in their event, then they were so in their merit; for God never punishes any sin more then it deserves, though he often does less. But to say that this is by accident, that is, for their conjunction with mortal sins, is confuted infi­nitely, because God punishes them with degrees of evil proper to them, and for their own demerit; There is no other accident by which these come to be smarted for in hell, but because they were not repented of; for by that accident they become Mortal; as by the contrary accident, to wit, if the [Page 136]sinner repents worthily, not onely the smallest, but the greatest also become Venial: The impenitent payes for all; all together. But if the man be a wor­thy penitent, if he continues and abides in Gods love, he will finde a mercy according to his circum­stances, by the measures of Gods graciousness, and his own repentance: so that by accident they may be pardoned, but if that accident does not happen, if the man be not penitent, the sins shall be punished directly, and for their own natural demerit. The summe is this.

If a man repents truly of the greater sins, he also repents of the smallest; for it cannot be a true re­pentance which refuses to repent of any; so that if it happens that for the smallest he doe smart in hell, it is because he did not repent truly of any, great­est, nor smallest. But if it happens that the man did not commit any of the greater sins, and yet did in­dulge to himself a licence to doe the smallest, even for those which he cals the smallest, he may perish; and what he is pleased to call little, Serm. 1. de coenâ Dom. & Serm. 1. de convers. Pauli. God may call great. Cum his peccatis neminem salvandum, said S. Bernard: with these (even the smallest sins) actu­ally remaining upon him unrepented of in general or particular, no man can be saved.

§. 4. The former doctrine reduc'd to practice.

I Have been the more earnest in this article, 34 not onely because the Doctrine which I have all this while opposed makes all the whole doctrine of mo­ral Theology to be inartificial, and in many de­grees useless, false and imprudent; but because of the immediate influence it hath to encourage evil lives of men. For,

1. 35 To distinguish a whole kinde of sins is a cer­tain way to mak repentance and amendment of life imperfect and false. For when men by fears and ter­rible considerations are scar'd from their sins, as most repentances begin with fear, they still retain some portions of affection to their sin, some look­ings back and phantastick entertainments, which if they be not par'd off by repentance, we love not God with all our hearts; and yet by this doctrine of distinguishing sins into Mortal and Venial in their whole kinde and nature, men are taught to arrest their repentances, and have leave not to proceed further: for they who say sins are Venial in their own nature, if they understand the consequences of their own doctrine, do not require repentance to make them so, or to obtain a pardon which they need not.

2. 36 As by this means our repentances are made imperfect, so is a relapse extremely ready; for while such a leaven is left, it is ten to one but it may sowre the whole mass. S. Gregory said well, Lib. 10. Moral. c. 14. Si cu­rare parva negligimus, insensibiliter seducti auden­tèr etiam majora perpetramus: we are too apt to re­turn [Page 138]to our old crimes, whose reliques we are per­mitted to keep and kiss.

3. 39 But it is worse yet. For the distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their nature is such a se­paration of sin from sin, as is rather a dispensation or leave to commit one sort of them; the expiation of which is so easy, the pardon so certain, the re­medy so ready, the observation and exaction of them so inconsiderable. For there being so many ways of making great sins little, and little sins none at all, found out by the folly of men and the craft of the Devil, a great portion of Gods right, and the duty we owe to him, is by way of com­promise and agreement left as a portion to careles­ness and folly: and why may not a man rejoyce in those trifling sins, for which he hath security he shall never be damned? As for the device of Purgatory, indeed if there were any such thing, it were enough to scare any one from committing any sins, much more little ones. But I have conversed with many of that perswasion, and yet never observed any to whom it was a terror to speak of Purgatory, but would talk of it as an antidote or security against hell, but not as a formidable story to affright them from their sins, but to warrant their venial sins, and their imperfect repentance for their mortal sins. And indeed let it be considered: If venial sins be such as the Romane DD. describe them; that they neither destroy nor lessen charity or the grace of God, that they onely hinder the fervency of an act, which sleep or business, or any thing that is most innocent may doe; that they are not against the law, but besides it; as walking and riding, standing and sitting are; that they are not properly sins, that all the venial sins in the world cannot amount to one mortal sin, but as time differs from eternity, as finite from infinite, so doe all the Venial sins in the world put together, from [Page 139]one Mortal act; that for all them a man is never the less beloved, and loves God nothing the less; I say if venial sins be such (as the Roman Writers affirm they are) how can it be imagined to be agreeable to Gods goodness to inflict upon such sinners who onely have venial sins unsatisfied for, such horrible pains (which they dream of in Purgatory) as are, during their abode, equal to the intolerable pains of hell, for that which breaks none of his laws, which angers him not, which is not against him or his love, which is incident to his dearest servants? Pro peccato magno paulum supplicii sat is est patri; But if fathers take such severe amends of their children for that which is not properly sin, there is nothing left by which we can boast of a fathers kindness. In this case, there is no remission; for if it be not just in God to punish such sins in hel, because they are consistent with the state of the love of God, and yet they are punished in Purgatory, that is, as much as they can be punished; then God does remit to his children nothing for their loves sake, but deals with them as severely as for his justice he can, in the matter of venial sins; indeed if he uses mercy to them at all, it is in remitting their mortal sins, but in their venial sins he uses none at all. Now if things were thus on both sides, it is strange, men are not more afraid of their venial sins, and that they are not more ter­rible in their description, which are so sad in their event; and that their punishment should be so great, when their malice is so none at all; and it is stran­gest of all, that if men did believe such horrible ef­fects to be the consequent of venial sins, they should esteem them little, and inconsiderable, and warn men of them with so little caution. But to take this won­der off, though they affright men with Purgatory at the end, yet they make the bugbear nothing by their easy remedies and preventions in the way. [Page 140]Venial sins may be taken off (according to their doctrine) at as cheap a rate as they may be commit­ted; but of this I shall give a fuller account in the 6. §. of this Chapter. In the mean time, to believe Purgatory, serves the ends of the Roman Clergy, and to have so much easiness and leave in venial sins, serves the ends of their Laity; but as truth is dis­serv'd in the former, so is piety and the severities of a holy life very much slackned by the latter.

But as care is taken that their doctrine doe not destroy charity or good life by loosness and indul­gence, 38 so care must be taken that ours doe not de­stroy hope, and discountenance the endevours of pious people; for if the smallest sins be so highly punishable, who can hope ever to escape the intole­rable state of damnation? And if God can be eter­nally angry for those things which we account small sins, then no man is a servant or a friend of God; no man is in the state of the Divine favour; for no man is without these sins; for they are such, ‘Quae non possit homo quisquam evitare cavendo,’ a man by all his industry cannot wholly avoid. Now because the Scripture pronounces some persons just and righteous, as David and Josiah, Zechary and Elizabeth, who yet could not be innocent and pure from small offences: either these little things are in their own nature venial, or the godly have leave to doe that, which is punished in the ungodly, or some other way must be found out, how that which is in its own nature damnable, can stand with the state of grace; and upon what causes, sins which of themselves are not so, may come to be venial, that is, more apt and ready to be pardoned, and in the next dispositions to receive a mercy.

§. 5.

1. 39 NO just person does or can indulge to him­self the keeping of any sin whatsoever; for all sins are accounted of by God according to our affections, and if a man loves any, it becomes his poison. Every sin is damnable when it is cho­sen deliberately, either by express act or by inter­pretation; that is, when it is chosen regularly or fre­quently. He that loves to cast over in his minde the pleasures of his past sin, he that entertains all those instances of sin, which he thinks not to be damnable, this man hath given himself up to be a servant to a trifle, a lover of little and phantastick pleasures. Nothing of this can stand with the state of grace. No man can love sin and love God at the same time; and to think it to be an excuse to say the sin is little, is as if an adulteress should hope for pardon of her offended Lord, because the man whom she dotes up­on is an inconsiderable person.

2. 40 In sins we must distinguish the formality from the material part. The formality of sin is dis­obedience to God, and turning from him to the Creature by love and adhesion. The material part is the action it self. The first can never happen with­out our will; but the latter may by surprise and in­deliberation, and imperfection of condition. For in this life our understanding is weak, our attention trifling, our advertency interrupted, our diversions many, our divisions of spirit irresistible, our know­ledge little, our dulness frequent, our mistakes many, our fears potent, and betrayers of our reason; and at any one of these doors sin may enter, in its mate­rial part, while the will is unactive, or the under­standing [Page 142]dull, or the affections busie, or the spirit otherwise imployed, or the faculties wearied, or rea­son abused: Therefore if you enquire for venial sins, they must be in this throng of imperfections, but they never go higher. Let no man therefore say, I have a desire to please my self in some little things; for if he desires it, he may not do it, that very desire makes that it cannot be venial, but as damnable as any, in its proportion.

3. 43 If any man about to do an action of sin, en­quires whether it be a venial sin or no, to that man, at that time that sin cannot be venial: for whatso­ever a man considers, and acts, he also chooses and loves in some proportion, and therefore turns from God to the sin, and that is, against the love of God, & in its degree destructive or diminutive of the state of grace. Besides this, such a person in this enqui­ry asks leave to sin against God, and gives a testimo­ny that he would sin more if he durst. But in the same degree in which the choice is lessened, in the same degree the material part of the sin receives also diminution.

4. 44 It is remarkable, that amongst the Ancients this distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial, or to use their own words, Graviora & Leviora, or Pec­cata [...] Crimina, does not mean a distinction of kinde, but of degrees. They call them mortal sins which shall never, or very hardly be pardon'd, not at all but upon very hard terms. So Pacianus. De modo criminum edisserens nequis existimet omnibus omnino peccatis summum discrimen impositum, In Paraen.sedu­lóque requirens, quae sint peccata, quae crimina, ne­quis existimet propter innumera delicta, quorum frau­dibus nullus immunis est, me omne hominum genus in­discretâ poenitendi lege constringere. The highest danger is not in every sin; offences and crimes must be distinguished carefully: for the same severe im­positions [Page 143]are not indifferently to be laid upon Cri­minals, and those whose guilt is in such instances from which no man is free. ‘Wherefore cove­tousness may be redeem'd with liberality, slander with satisfaction, morosity with cheerfulness, sharp­ness with gentle usages, lightness with gravity, perversness or peevishness with honesty and fair carriage. But what shall the despiser of God do? what shall the Murtherer do? what remedy shall the Adulterer Fornica­tor, promis­cuè. Saepius usurpantur fornicatio & adulte­rium. have? Ista sunt capitalia Fra­tres, ista mortalia. These are the deadly sins, these are capital crimes:’ meaning that these were to be taken off by the severities of Ecclesiastical or publick Repentance (of which I am afterwards to give account) and would cost more to be cleansed. To a good man, and meliorum operum compensatione (as Pacianus affirms) by the compensation of good works, that is, of the actions of the contrary gra­ces, they are venial, they are cured. For by venial they mean such which with less difficulty and ha­zard may be pardon'd: such as was S. Pauls blasphemy and persecuting the Church; for that was venial, that is, apt for pardon, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief: and such are those sins (saith Caesarius) which are usual in the world, though of their own nature very horrible, as forswearing our selves, slan­der, reproach, and the like; yet because they are extremely common, they are such to which if a continual pardon were not offered, Gods numbers would be infinitely lessen'd. In this sense every sin is venial, excepting the three Capitals reckoned in Tertullian, Idolatry, Murther, and Adultery; eve­ry thing but the sin against the Holy Ghost, and its branches reckoned in Pacianus; every thing but the seven deadly sins, in others. Now according to the degree and malignity of the sin, or its abatement by any lessening circumstance, or intervening conside­ration, [Page 144]so it puts on its degrees of veniality, or be­ing pardonoble. Every sin hath some degree of be­ing venial, till it arriv'd at the unpardonable state, and then none was. But every sin that had many degrees of Venial, had also some degrees of Damn­able. So that to enquire what venial sins can stand with the state of grace; is to ask, how long a man may sin before he shall be damn'd; how long will God still forbear him, how long he will continue to give him leave to repent? For a sin is venial upon no other account but of Repentance. If Venial be taken for pardonable, it is true that many circumstan­ces make it so, more or less; that is, whatever makes the sin greater or less, makes it more or less venial: and of these I shall give account in the chapter of sins of Infirmity. But if by Venial. we mean actually pardon'd, or not exacted: Nothing makes a sin venial, but Repentance, and that makes every sin to be so. Therefore,

5. 43 Some sins are admitted by holy persons, and yet they still continue holy; not that any of these sins is permitted to them; nor that God cannot as justly exact them of his servants as of his enemies; nor that in the Covenant of the Gospel they are not imputable; nor that their being in Gods favour hides them, for God is most impatient of any re­maining evil in his children: But the onely reason­able account of it is, because the state of grace is a state of Repentance; these sins are those which as Pacianus expresses it, contrariis emendata proficiunt, they can be helped by contrary actions: and the good man does perpetually watch against them, he opposes a good against every every evil; that is, in effect he uses them just as he uses the greatest that ever he committed. Thus the good man when he reproves a sinning person over-acts his anger, and is transported to undecency, though it be for God: [Page 145]Some are over zealous, some are phantastick and too apt to opinion, which in little degrees of inordina­tion are not so soon discernible. A good man may be over-joyed, or too much pleas'd with his recrea­tion, or be too passionate at the death of a childe, or in a sudden anger go beyond the evenness of a wise Christian, and yet be a good man still, and a friend of God, his son and his servant: but then these things happen in despite of all his care and ob­servation; and when he does espy any of these ob­liquities, he is troubled at it, and seeks to amend it: and therefore these things are venial, that is, pitied and excused, because they are unavoidable, but avoi­ded as much as they well can (all things considered) and God does not exact them of him, because the good man exacts them of himself. * These being the Rules of Doctrine, we are to practise accordingly.

To which adde the following measures.

6. 46 This difference in sins, of Mortal and Ve­nial, that is, greater and less, is not to be considered by us, but by God alone, and cannot have influ­ence upon us to any good purposes. For 1. We do not alwayes know by what particular measures they are lessened: In general we know some proportions of them, but when we come to particulars, we may easily be deceived, but can very hardly be exact. S. Austin said the same thing. Quae sint levia, Enchirid, cap. 78.& quae gravia peccata, non humano sed Divino sunt pensanda judicio. God onely, not man, can tell which sins are great, and which little. For since we see them equally forbidden, we must with equal care avoid them all. Indeed if the case should be so put, that we must either commit Sacrilege, or tell a spiteful lie, kill a man, or speak unclean words, then it might be of use to us to consider which is the greater, which is [Page 146]less, that, of evils we might choose the less: but this ease can never be, for no man is ever brought to that necessity that he must choose one sin; for he can choose to die before he shall do either, and that's the worst that he can be put to. And therefore though right reason and experience, and some gene­ral lines of Religion mark out some actions as crimi­nal, and leave others under a general and indefinite condemnation, yet it is in order to repentance and amends when such things are done, not to greater caution directly of avoiding them in the dayes of temptation; for of two infinites in the same kinde, one cannot be bigger then the other. We are tied with the biggest care to avoid every sin, and bigger then the biggest we finde not This onely: For the avoiding of the greatest sins, there are more argu­ments from without, and sometimes more instru­ments and ministeries of caution and prevention are to be used, then in lesser sins; but it is because fewer will serve in one then in another; but all that is needful must be used in all, but there is no diffe­rence in our choice that can be considerable, for we must never choose either, and therefore beforehand to compare them together, whereof neither is to be preferred before the other is to lay a snare for our selves, and make us apt to one by undervaluing it, and calling it less then others, that affright us more. Indeed when the sin is done, to measure it may be of use (as I shall shew) but to do it beforehand hath danger in it of being tempted, and more then a dan­ger of being deceived. For our hearts deceive us, our purposes are complicated, and we know not which end is principally intended, nor by what ar­gument amongst many, we were finally determin'd, or which is the prevailing ingredient; nor are we competent Judges of our own strengths, and we can do more then we think we can; and we remember [Page 147]not, that the temptation which prevails was sought for by our selves; nor can we separate necessity from choice, our consent from our being betrayed; nor tell whether our fort is given up, because we would do so, or because we could not help it. Who can tell whether he could not stand one assault more, and if he had, whether or no the temptation would not have left him? The wayes of consent are not alwayes direct, and if they be crooked, we see them not. And after all this, if we were able, yet we are not willing to judge right, with truth, and with severity: something for our selves, something for excuse, something for pride; a little for vanity, and a little in hypocrisie, but a great deal for peace and quiet, that the rest of the minde may not be distur­bed, that we may live and die in peace, and in a good opinion of our selves. These indeed are evil mea­sures, but such by which we usually make judge­ment of our actions, and are therefore likely to call great sins little, and little sins none at all. **

2. 47 That any sins are venial being onely because of the state of grace and Repentance, under which they are admitted; what condition a man is in, even for the smallest sins, he can no more know then he can tell that all his other sins are pardon'd, that his Repentance is accepted, that nothing of Gods anger is reserved, that he is pleased for all, that there is no Judgement behinde hanging over his head, to strike him for that wherein he was most negligent. Now although some men have great and just confidences that they are actually in Gods favour, yet all good men have not so. For there are coverings sometimes put over the spirits of the best men; and there are intermedial and doubtful states of men, (as I shall represent in the Chapter of Actuall sins) there are also ebbings and flowings of sin and pardon: and therefore none [Page 148]but God onely knows how long this state of ve­niality and pardon will last; and therefore as no man can pronounce concerning any kinde of sins, that they are in themselves venial, so neither can he know concerning his own, or any mans particu­lar state, that any such sins are pardon'd, or Ve­nial to him. He that lives a good life will finde it so in its own case, and in the event of things; and that's all which can be said as to his particular: and it is well it is so, ne studium proficiendi ad omnia peccata cavenda pigrescat (as S. Austin well observed.) If it were otherwise, and that sins in their own nature by venial and not venial are distinguished and separate in their natures from each other, and that some of them are of so easie remedy, and inconsiderable a guilt, they would ne­ver become earnest to avoid all.

3. 48 There are some sins which indeed seem ve­nial, and were they not sentenc'd in Scripture with severe words would pass for trifles; but in Scripturis demonstrantur opinione graviora (as S. Enchirid. 79. Austin notes) they are by the word of God declared to be greater then they are thought to be; and we have reason to judge so, concerning many instances in which men are too easy, and cruelly kinde unto themselves. S. Paul said, I had not known concupiscence to be a sin, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not lust: and we use to call them scrupulous and phantastick persons who make much adoe about a careless word, and call themselves to severe account for every thought, and are troubled for every morsel they eat, when it can be disputed whether it might not better have been spared. Who could have guessed that calling my enemy Fool should be so great a matter; but be­cause we are told that it is so; told by him that shall be our Judge, who shall call us to account for every idle word; we may well think that the mea­sures [Page 149]which men usually make by their customes and false principles, and their own necessities, lest they by themselves should be condemned, are weak and fallacious: and therefore whatsoever can be of truth in the difference of sins, may become a dan­ger to them who desire to distinguish them, but can bring no advantages to the interests of piety and a holy life.

4. 49 We onely account those sins great which are unusual, which rush violently against the consci­ence, because men have not been acquainted with them: Peccata sola inusitata exhorrescimus, August. ubi suprà.usitata verò diligimus. But those which they act every day, they suppose them to be small, quotidianae incursi­ones, the unavoidable acts of every day; and by degrees our spirit is reconciled to them, conversing with them as with a tame wolf, who by custom hath forgotten the circumstances of his barbarous nature, but is a wolf still. [...] (as Synesius cals them) the little customes of sin­ning, men think, ought to be dissembled. This was so of old; Hom. 16. Caesarius Bishop of Arles complain'd of it in his time. Verè dico Fratres &c. ‘I say truly to you Brethren, this thing according to the Law and Commandement of our Lord, never was lawful, neither is it, nor shall it ever be; but as if it were worse, it a peccata ista in consuetudinem missa sunt, & tanti sunt qui illa faciunt, ut jam quasi ex li­cito fieri credantur; these sins are so usual and common that men now begin to think them lawful.’ And indeed who can doe a sin every day, and think it great and highly damnable? If he thinks so, it will be very uneasy for him to keep it: but if he will keep it, he will also endevour to get some pro­tection or excuse for it; something to warrant, or something to undervalue it; and at last it shall be accounted venial, and by some means or other re­concileable [Page 150]with the hopes of heaven. He that is used to oppress the poor every day, thinks he is a charitable man if he lets them goe away with any thing he could have taken from them: But he is not troubled in conscience for detaining the wages of the hireling, with deferring to doe justice, with little arts of exaction and lessening their provisions. For since nothing is great or little but in compari­son with something else, he accounts his sin small, because he commits greater; and he that can suf­fer the greatest burden, shrinks not under a lighter weight; and upon this account it is impossible but such men must be deceiv'd and die.

7. 50 Let no man think that his venial or smaller sins shall be pardoned for the smalness of their matter, and in a distinct account; for a man is not quit of the smallest but by being also quit of the greatest: for God does not pardon any sin to him that remains his enemy; and therefore unless the man be a good man and in the state of grace, he cannot hope that his venial sins can be in any sense indulg'd; they increase the burden of the other, and are like little stones laid upon a shoulder al­ready crushed with an unequal load. Either God pardons the greatest, or the least stand un­cancell'd.

8. 51 Although God never pardons the smallest with­out the greatest, yet he somtimes retains the smallest, of them whose greatest he hath pardon'd. The reason is, because although a man be in the state of grace and of the Divine favour and God will not de­stroy his servants for every calamity of theirs, yet he will not suffer any thing that is amiss in them. A Father never pardons the small offences of his son who is in rebellion against him; those little offences can not pretend to pardon till he be recon­ciled to his Father; but if he be, yet his Father may [Page 151]chastise his little misdemeanors, or reserve some of his displeasure so far as may minister to discipline, not to destruction: and therefore if a son have esca­ped his Fathers anger and final displeasure, let him remember, that though his Father is not willing to dis-inherit him, yet he will be ready to chastise him. And we see it by the whole dispensation of God, that the righteous are punished, and afflictions begin at the House of God; and God is so impatient even of little evils in them, that to make them pure he will draw them through the fire; and there are some who are sav'd, yet so as by fire. And certainly, those sins ought not to be neglected, or esteemed little, which provoke God to anger even against his ser­vants. We finde this instanc'd in the case of the Corinthians, who used undecent circumstances and unhandsome usages of the blessed Sacrament; even for this, God severely reprov'd them; 1 Cor. 11.30. for this cause many are weak, and sick, and some are fallen asleep, which is an expression used in Scripture to signify them that die in the Lord, and is not used to sig­nify the death of them that perish from the pre­sence of the Lord. These persons died in the state of grace and repentance, but yet died in their sin; chastised for their lesser sins, but so that their souls were sav'd. This is that which Clemens Alexan­drinus affirms of sins committed after our illumi­nation, [...], Stromat. 4. These sins must be purged with a [...], with the chastisement of sons. The result of this consideration is that which S. Peter advises, that we pass the time of our sojour­ning here in fear: for no man ought to walk confi­dently, who knows that even the most laudable life hath in it evil enough to be smarted for with a se­vere calamity.

9. 52 The most trifling actions the daily incursi­ons of sins, though of the least malignity, yet if [Page 152]they be neglected combine and knit together, till by their multitude they grow insupportable; This caution I learn from Caesarius Arelatensis. Hom. 13.Et hoc considerate Fratres, quia etiamsi capitalia crimina non subreperent, ipsa minuta peccata quae (quod pejus est) aut non attendimus, aut certè pro nihilo com­putamus, si simul omnia congregentur, nescio quae bo­norum operum abundantia illis praeponderare sufficiat. Although capital sins invade you not, yet if your minutes, your small sins which either we doe not consider at all, or value not at all, be combin'd, or gathered into one heap, I know not what multitude of good works will suffice to weigh them down. For little sins are like the sand, and when they be­come a heap are heavy as lead; S. August. epist. 108. ad Seleu. lib. 50. ho­mil. 42. and a leaking ship may as certainly perish with the little inlets of water as with a mighty wave; for of many drops a river is made; and therefore, ipsa minuta vel levia non contemnantur. Illa enim quae humanae fragilitati quamvis parva tamen crebra subrepunt, quasi collecta contra nos fuerint, ita nos gravabunt sicut unum aliquod grande peccatum Idem tract. 1. in ep. Johan. Levia mul­ta saciunt unum grande.. Let not little sins be despised, for even those smallest things which creep upon us by our natural weakness, yet when they are gathered together against us, stand on an heap, and like an army of flies can destroy us, as well as any one deadly enemy. Quae quam­vis singula non lethali vulnere ferire sentiantur,Lib 50. hom. hom. 50. c. 8.si­cut homicidium, & adulterium, vel caetera hujus­modi, tamen omnia simul congregata velut scabies, quo plura sunt, necant, & nostrum decus ita ex­terminant ut à filio sponsi speciosi formâ prae filiis hominum castissimis amplexibus separent, nisi me­dicamento quotidianae poenitentiae dissecentur. ‘In­deed we doe not feel every one of them strike so home and deadly, as murder and adultery does, yet when they are united, they are like [Page 153]a scab, they kill with their multitude, and so destroy our internall beauty, that they separate us from the purest embraces of the Bridegroom, unless they be scattered with the medicine of a daily repentance.’ For he that does these little sins often, and repents not of them, nor strives against them, either loves them directly, or by in­terpretation.

10. 53 Let no man when he is tempted to a sin, goe then to take measures of it; because it being his own case he is an unequal and incom­petent Judge; His temptation is his prejudice and his bribe, and it is ten to one but he will suck in the poyson, by his making himself be­lieve that the potion is not deadly. Examine not the particular measures unless the sin be in­deed by its disreputation great, then examine as much as you please, provided you goe not about to lessen it. It is enough it is a sin, condemned by the laws of God, and that death and damnation are its wages.

11. 54 When the mischief is done, then you may in the first dayes of your shame and sorrow for it, with more safety take its measures. For imme­diately after acting, sin does to most men appear in all its ugliness and deformity: and if in the dayes of your temptation you did lessen the measure of your sin, yet in the days of your sor­row, doe not shorten the measures of repentance. Every sin is deadly enough; and no repentance or godly sorrow can be too great for that which hath deserved the eternal wrath of God.

12. 55 I end these advices with the meditation of S. Hierom. Si ira & sermonis injuria, atque inter­dum jocus judicio, concilióque, atque Gehenne igni­bus delegatur, quid merebitur turpium rerum appe­titio, & avaritia quae est radix omnium malorum? If [Page 154]anger, and injurious words, and sometimes a foo­lish jest is sentenc'd to capital and supreme punish­ments, what punishment shall the lustful and the covetous have? And what will be the event of all our souls, who reckon these injurious or angry words of calling Fool, or Sot amongst the smallest, and those which are indeed less we doe not observe at all? For who is there amongst us almost, who cals himself to an account for trifling words, loose laughter, the smallest beginnings of intemperance, careless spending too great portions of our time in trifling visits and courtships, balls, revellings, phan­tastick dressings, sleepiness, idleness and useless con­versation, neglecting our times of prayer frequently, or causlesly, slighting religion and religious persons, siding with factions indifferently, forgetting our for­mer obligations upon trifling regards, vain thoughts, wandrings and weariness at our devotion, love of praise, laying little plots and snares to be commen­ded; high opinion of our selves, resolutions to ex­cuse all, and never to confess an error; going to Church for vain purposes, itching ears, love of flat­tery, and thousands more? The very kinds of them put together are a heap; and therefore the so fre­quent and almost infinite repetition of the acts of all those are, as Davids expression is, without hyper­bole, more then the hairs upon our head; they are like the number of the sands upon the Sea shore for multitude.

§. 6. What repentance is necessary for the smaller or more Venial sins.

1. 56 UPon supposition of the premises; since these smaller sins are of the same nature, and the same guilt, and the same enmity against God, and consign'd to the same evil portion that other sins are, they are to be wash'd off with the same repentance also as others Christs bloud is the lavatory, and Faith and Repentance are the two hands that wash our souls white from the greatest and the least stains: and since they are by the impenitent to be paid for in the same fearful prisons of darkness, by the same remedies and instruments the intolerable sentence can only be prevented. The same ingredients, but a less quantity possibly may make the medicine. Caesa­rius Bishop of Arles, who spake many excellent things in this article, says that for these smaller sins a pri­vate repentance is proportionable. Hom. 1. Si levia fortasse sunt delicta, v.g. si homo vel in sermone, vel in aliquâ reprehensibili voluntate; si in oculo peccavit, aut corde; verborum & cogitationum maculae quotidianâ oratione curandae, & privatâ compunctione terendae sunt. The sins of the eye, and the sins of the heart, and the offences of the tongue are to be cured by secret con­trition and compunction and a daily prayer. But S. Cyprian commends many whose conscience being of a tender complexion, they would even for the thoughts of their heart, doe publick penance: His words are these; —multos timoratae conscientiae, De lapsis.quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti [...]ssent, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc [Page 156]ipsum apud Sacerdotes Dei dolentèr & simplicitèr confitentes exomologesin conscientiae fecisse, animi sui pondus exposuisse, salutarem medelam parvis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirentes. Because they had but thought of complying with idolaters, they sadly and ingenuously came to the Ministers of holy things, Gods Priests, confessing the secret turpitude of their conscience, laying aside the weight that pressed their spirit, and seeking remedy even for their smallest wounds. Vide S. Aug. lib. 83. q. 26. & Caesar. Arelat. hom. 1. And indeed we finde that among the Ancients there was no other difference in assi­gnation of repentance to the several degrees of sin, but onely by publike, and private: Capital sins they would have submitted to publick judgement; but the lesser evils to be mourn'd for in private: of this I shall give account in the Chapter of Ec­clesiastical repentance. In the mean time, their gene­ral rule was, That because the lesser sins came in by a daily incursion, therefore they were to be cut off by a daily repentance; which because it was daily, could not be so intense and signally punitive as the sharper repentances for the seldome return­ing sins, yet as the sins were daily, but of less ma­lice, so their repentance must be daily, but of less affliction. Lib. 50. hom. h. 50. c. 8. Medicamento quotidianae p [...]itertiae dis­secentur; That was S. Austins rule. Those evils that happen every day, must be cried out against every day.

2. 57 Every action of repentance, every good work done for the love of God and in the state of grace, and design'd, and particularly applied to the intercision of the smailest unavoidable sins, is through the efficacy of Christs death, and in the vertue of repentance operative towards the expi­ation or pardon of them. For a man cannot doe all the particulars of repentance for eve­ry sin; but out of the general hatred of sin [Page 157]picks out some special instances, and apportions them to his special sins; as to acts of uncleanness he op­poses acts of severity, to intemperance he oppo­ses fasting. But then as he rests not here, but goes on to the consummation of Repentance in his whole life: so it must be in the more venial sins. A less instance of express anger is graciously accepted, if it be done in the state of grace and in the vertue of Repentance; but then the pardon is to be com­pleated in the pursuance and integrity of that grace, in the Summes total. For no man can say that so much sorrow, or such a degree of Repentance is enough to any sin he hath done: and yet a man cannot apportion to every sin large portions of spe­cial sorrow, it must therefore be done all his life time; and the little portions must be made up by the whole grace and state of Repentance. One instance is enough particularly to express the anger, or to ap­ply the grace of Repentance to any single sin which is not among the Capitals; but no one instance is enough to extinguish it. For sin is not pardon'd in an instant (as I shall afterwards discourse) neither is the remedy of a natural and a just proportion to the sin. Ecclesia Romana alia excogitavit fa­cilè, quorum non nulla declinant aperte nimis ad superstitionem: Confiteor, tundo, conspergor, conte­ror, oro, Signor, edo, dono, per haec venialia pondo. Therefore when many of the ancient Doctors apply to venial sins special remedies by way of expiation, or deprecation, such as are, beating the breast, saying the Lords Prayer, Alms, communicating, con­fessing, and some others; the doctrine of such reme­dies is not true, if it be un­derstood that those particu­lars are just physically, or meritoriously proportion'd to the sin. No one of these alone is a cure or ex­piation of the past sin; but every one of these in the vertue of Repentance is effective to its part of [Page 158]the work, that is, he that repents and forsakes them as he can, shall be accepted, though the expression of his Repentance be applied to his fault but in one or more of these single instances; because all good works done in the Faith of Christ, have an efficacy towards the extinction of those sins which cannot be avoided by any moral diligence; there is no o­ther thing on our parts which can be done, and if that which is unavoidable were also irremediable, our condition would be intolerable and desperate. To the sense of this advice we have the words of S. Gregory: Si quis ergo peccata sua tecta esse desi­derat, Deo ea per vocem confessionis ostendat, &c. ‘If any man desires to have his sins covered, let him first open them to God in confession: but there are some sins, which so long as we live in this world, can hurdly, or indeed not at all be wholly avoided by per­fect men.’ For holy men have something in this life, which they ought to cover; for it is altogether im­possible that they should never sin in word or thought. Therefore the men of God do study to cover the faults of their eyes or tongue with good deeds, they study to over-power the number of their idle words with the weight of good works. But how can it be that the faults of good men should be covered, when all things are naked to the eyes of God? but onely because that which is covered is put under, something is brought over it: Our sins are covered when we bring over them the cover of good works. But Caesarius the Bishop is more punctual, and descends to particu­lars. For having given this general rule, Illa par­va vel quotidiana peccata bonis operibus redimere non desistant. Let them not cease to redeem or ex­piate their daily and small faults with good works; he addes, But I desire more fully to insinuate to you, with what works small sins are taken off. So often as we visit the sick, go (in Charity) to them [Page 159]that are in prison, reconcile variances, keep the fasts of the Church, wash the feet of strangers, repair to the vigils and watches of the Church, give alms to passing beggers, forgive our enemies when they ask pardon: istis enim operibus & his similibus mi­nuta peccata quotidiè redimuntur; with these and the like works the minute or smaller sins are daily redeemed or taken off.

3. 58 There is in Prayer a particular efficacy, and it is of proper use and application in the case of the more venial and unavoidable sins, rather this then any other alone, especially being helped by Cha­rity, that is, alms and forgiveness. Because the greatest number of venial sins comes in (as I shall Chap of sins of in­firmity. afterwards demonstrate) upon the stock of igno­rance, or which is all one, imperfect notices and acts of understanding; and therefore have not any thing in the natural parts and instances of Re­pentance, so fit to expiate or to cure them. But because they are beyond humane cure, they are to be cured by the Divine Grace, and this is to be ob­tained by Prayer, And this S. Clement advis'd in his Epistle. [...]. Lift up your eyes to God Almighty, praying him to be merciful to you, if you have un­willingly fallen into errour. And to the same pur­pose are the words of S. Austin: De Symb. ad Catech. lib 1. c. 6. & lib. 50. Homil. 28.Propter levia sine quibus esse non possumus, oratio inventae: for those lighter sins without which we cannot be, Prayer is invented as a remedy.

4. 59 Perpetually watch, and perpetually resolve against them, as against any, never indulging to thy self leave to proceed in one. Let this care be con­stant and indefatigable, and leave the success to God. For in this there is a great difference between Capitall or Deadly, and the more venial sins. For, [Page 160]he that repents of great sins, does so resolve against them, that he ought really to believe that he shall never return to them again. No drunkard is truly to be esteem'd a penitent, but he that in considera­tion of himself, his purpose, his reasons, and all his circumstances, is by the grace of God confident that he shall never be drunk again. The reason is plain: For if he thinks that for all his resolution and repen­tance the case may happen, or will return in which he shall be tempted above his strength, that is, above the efficacy of his resolution, then he hath not re­solved against the sin in all its forms or instances: but he hath left some roots of bitterness which may spring up and defile him; he hath left some weak places, some parts unfortified, and does secretly pur­pose to give up his fort, if he be assaulted by some sort of enemies. He is not resolved to resist the im­portunity of a friend, or a prevailing person, a Prince, his Landlord, or his Master; that for the pre­sent he thinks impossible, and therefore owes his spiritual life to chance, or to the mercies of his ene­my, who may have it for asking: But if he thinks it possible to resist any temptation, and resolves to do it if it be possible, the natural consequent of that is, that he thinks he shall never fall again into it. But if beforehand he thinks he shall relapse, he is then but an imperfect resolver, but a half-fac'd pe­nitent. * But this is not so in the case of smaller sins coming by ignorance or surprise, by inadvertency and imperfect notices, by the unavoidable weakness and imperfect condition of mankinde. For he who in these resolves the strongest, knows that he shall not be innocent, but that he shall feel his weakness in the same or in other instances; and that this shall be his condition as long as he lives, that he shall al­wayes need to pray, Forgive me my trespasses: and even his not knowing concerning all actions, and all [Page 161]words, and all thoughts, whether they be sins or no, is a certain betraying him into a necessity of doing something for the pardon of which Christ died, for the preventing of which a mighty care is necessary, in the suffering of which he ought to be humbled, and for the pardon of which he ought for ever to pray. And therefore S. Chrysostome upon those words of S. Paul; I am conscious in nothing, that is, I do not know of any failing in my Ministery; saith, [...]; what then? he is not hereby justified, [...], because some sins might adhere to him he not knowing that they were sins. Ab occult is meis munda me Domine, was an ex­cellent Prayer of David. Cleanse me, O Lord, from my secret faults. Hoc dicit, nequid fortè per ignoran­tiam deliquisset, saith S, Hierome; he prayed so, lest peradventure he should have sinned ignorantly. But of this I shall give a further account in descri­bing the measures of sins of infirmity. For the pre­sent, although this resolution against all, is ineffe­ctive as to a perfect immunity from small offences, yet it is accepted as really done, because it is done as it can possibly.

5. 60 Let no man relie upon the Catalogues which are sometimes given, and think that such things which the Doctors have call'd Venial sins, may with more facility be admitted, and with smaller portions of care be regarded, or with a slighter repentance washed off. For besides that some have called perjuries, an­ger, envy injurious words, by lighter names and ti­tles of a little reproof, and having lived in wicked times, were betray'd into easier sentences of those sins which they saw all mankind almost to practise, which was the case of some of the Doctors who lived in the time of those Wars which broke the Roman Empire; besides this, I say, venial sins can rather be [Page 162] See chap. 7. of sins of infirmity. described, then enumerated. For none are so in their nature, but all that are so, are so by accident; and according as sins tend to excuse, so they put on their degrees of veniality. No sin is absolutely venial, but in comparison with others: Neither is any sin at all times, and to all persons alike venial. And therefore let no man venture upon it upon any mistaken con­fidence: They that think sins are venial in their own nature, cannot agree which are venial, and which are not; and therefore nothing is in this case so certain, as that all that doctrine which does in any sense represent sins as harmless or tame Serpents, is infinite­ly dangerous, and there is no safety, but by striving against all beforehand, and repenting of all as there is need.

I summe up this question and these advices with the saying of Josephus, [...]. 61 [...]. It is as damnable to indulge leave to our selves to sin little sins as great ones: A man may be choaked with a raisin, as well as with great morsels of flesh; and a small leak in a ship, if it be neglected, will as certainly sink her as if she sprung a plank. Death is the wages of all; and damnation is the portion of the impenitent, what­ever was the instance of their sin. Though there are degrees of punishment, yet there is no difference of state, as to this particular: and therefore we are tied to repent of all, and to dash the little Babylonians against the stones, against the Rock that was smitten for us. For by the blood of Jesus, and the tears of Repentance, and the watchfulness of a diligent, careful person, many of them shall be prevented, and all shall be pardoned.

§. 1.

THE first part of Conversion or Repen­tance is a quitting of all sinful ha­bits, and abstaining from all crimi­nal actions whatsoever.

For unless the Spirit of God rule in our hearts, we are none of Christs; but he rules not where the works of the flesh are frequently, or maliciously, or voluntarily entertained. All the works of the flesh, and whatsoever leads to them, all that is contrary to the Spirit, and does either grieve or extinguish him, must be rescinded, and utterly taken away. Con­cerning which, it is necessary that I set down the Mat. 15.19. Mar. 7.21. Galat. 5.16, 19, 20, 21. Eph 4.31. &c. 5.3, 4, 5. 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5. Rom. 1.29, 30, 31, 32. 1 Cor. 6.9. Revel. 21.8. 1 Pet. 4.3, 15. Catalogues which by Christ and his Apostles are left us as lights and watch­towers to point out the rocks and quick­sands where our danger is: and this I shall the rather doe, not onely because they comprehend many evils which are not observed or feared; some which are commen­ded, [Page 170]and many that are excused; but also because although they are all mark'd with the same black character of death, yet there is some difference in the execution of the sentence, and in the degrees of their condemnation, and of the consequent Re­pentance.

2. Evil thoughts: or discoursings. [...], Evil reasonings. [...], says Hesychius, that is, prating; importune pratling and loosness of tongue, such as is usual with bold boyes and young men; prating much and to no purpose. But our Bibles reade it, Evil thoughts, or surmisings; for in Scripture it is [...]; so Suidas observes concerning [...], and [...], that is, [...], to think long and carefully, to dwell in meditation upon a thing: to which when our blessed Saviour addes [...], evil, he notes and reproves such kinde of morose thinkings and fancying of evil things: and it is not unlikely that he means thoughts of uncleanness, or lustful fancies. For [...], saith Suidas: [...], says Hesychius; it signifies such words as are prologues to wantonness: so [...] in Aristophanes.

So that here are forbidden all wanton words, and all morose delighting in venereous thoughts, all rol­lings and tossing such things in our minds. For even these defile the soul. Verborum obscoenitas si tur­pitudini rerum adhibeatur, ludus ne libero quidem homine dignus est, said Cicero. Obscene words are a mockery not worthy of an ingenuous person. This [Page 171]is that [...], or [...]. Eph. 5.4. [...], that foolish talk­ing and jesting which S. Paul joyns to [...], that filthiness of communication which men make a jest of, but is indeed the basest in the world; the sign of a vile dishonest minde: and it particularly no­ted the talk of Mimicks and Parasites, Buffoons and Players, whose trade was to make sport, [...], and they did use to doe it with nastiness and filthy talkings; as is to be seen in Aristophanes, and is rarely described and severely reproved in S. Chry­sostome in his 6. Homily upon S. Matthew. For per verba dediscitur rerum pudor, which S. Paul also affirms in the words of Menander, [...], Evil words corrupt good manners; and evil thoughts being the fountain of evil words, lie under the same prohibition. Under this head is the [...], a talkative rash per­son, ready to speak, slow to hear; against S. James his rule.

3. Inventers of evil things. Contrivers of all such artifices as minister to vice. Curious inventions for cruelty, for gluttony, for lust; witty methods of drinking, wanton pictures, and the like; which for the likeness of the matter I have subjoyn'd next to the [...] the evil thinkings or surmisings reproved by our blessed Sa­viour, as these are expresly by S. Paul.

4. [...], Covetousness: or, Inordinate, unreasonable desires. For the word does not onely signify the designing and contrivances of unjust ways of purchasing, which is not often sepa­rated from covetous desires: but the very studium habendi, the thirst, or greediness, secret and impati­ent [Page 172]desires of having abundance: [...], the hurt of immoderate lusting or desire; and is sometimes applied to the matter of uncleanness; but in this Catalogue I wholly separate it from this, because this is com­prised under other words. Neither will it be hard to discern and to reprove this sin of desires in them that are guilty of it, though they will not think or confess what is, and what is not abundance. For there is not easily to be found a greater testimony of covetousness then the error concerning the mea­sure of our possessions. He that is not easy to call that abundance which by good and severe men is thought so, desires more then he should. [...], when any thing is over and above the needs of our life, that is too much; and to desire that, is covetousness, saith S. Luke. [...], Take heed and keep your selves from covetousness; for our life consisteth not in abundance; intimating that to desire more then our life needs, is to desire abundance, and that is covetousness; and that is the root of all evil: that is, all sins and all mischiefs can come from hence.

There were no warres in those dayes when men did drink in a treen cup.

5. [...], Wickedness. This is the same that the Latines call Malitia; a scurvy, base disposition; aptness to doe shrewd turns, to delight in mischiess and tragedies; a lo­ving to trouble our neighbour, and to doe him ill offices; crosseness, perversness and peevishness of [Page 173]action in our entercourse. [...], saith Suidas. Faces­sere negotium alicui; to do a man an evil office, or to put him to trouble. And to this is reducible that which S. Paul calls [...], Malignity; a base­ness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle, and expounding things alwayes in the worst sense. Vitiositas is the Latine word for it, and it seems to be worse then the former, by being a more general principle of mischief. Tuscul. 4. Malitia certi cujus­dam vitii est: vitiositas omnium, said Cicero. This is in a mans nature an universal depravation of his spi­rit; that is in manners, and is sooner cured then this.

6. [...]. Craftiness. That is, a wiliness and aptness to deceive; a stu­dying by some underhand trick to over-reach our brother: like that of Corax his Scholar, he cou­sen'd his Master with a trick of his own art; [...], A crafty Crow laid a crafty egge. By which is not signified that natural or acquired sa­gacity by which men can contrive wittily, or be too hard for their brother if they should endevour it: but a studying how to circumvent him, and an habi­tual design of getting advantage upon his weakness; a watching him where he is most easie and apt for impression, and then striking him upon the unarm'd part. But this is brought to effect,

7. Deceit Cùm aliud simulatur, aliud agitur alterius decipi­endi causâ, said Ʋlpian and Aquilius; that is, all dissembling to the prejudice of thy Neighbour, [...]; any thing designed to thy Neighbours disad­vantage by simulation or dissimulation.

8. Uncleanness. [...]. Stinking: So the Syriack Interpreter renders it; and it means obscene actions. But it signifies all man­ner of excess or immoderation; and so may signifie [...] prodigal or lavish expences, and immo­derate use of permitted pleasures, even the excess of liberty in the use of the Marriage-bed. For the An­cients use the word not onely for unchaste, but for great and excessive. [...], They are exceeding fat: and a Goat with great horns is called [...]. It is luxuria or the excess of de­sire in the matter of pleasures. Every excess is [...], it is intemperance: [...] signifies a special kinde of crime under this. It means all vo­luntary pollutions of the body, or

9. Wantonness: That is, all tempting foolish gestures; such which Juvenal reproves, ‘Cheironomon Ledam molli saltante Bathyllo,’ which being presented in the Theatre would make the Vestal wanton. Every thing by which a man or woman is [...] abominable in their lusts; to which the [...], the lusts not to be na­med are reducible: amongst which S. Paul reckons the effeminate, and abusers of themselves with man­kinde; that is, they that do, and they that suffer such things. Philoctetes and Paris; Caesar and the King of Pontus. Mollities or softness is the name by which this vice is known, and the persons guilty of it, Joh. 21.8. are also called the [...], The abominable.

10. Hatred. [...]; Great, but transient angers. The cause, and the degree, and the abode makes the an­ger Criminal. By these two words are forbidden all violent passion, fury, revengefulness. [...], The enemy and the avenger, sayes David. But not this onely, but the misliking and hating of a man, though without actual designs of hurting him, is here noted; that is, when men retain the displeasure, and refuse to converse, or have any thing to do with the man, though there be from him no danger of damage, the former experiment being warning enough. The forbearing to salute him, to be kinde or civil to him, and every degree of anger that is kept, is an [...], a part of Enmity or Hatred. To this are reduc'd the Ʋnmerciful; that is, such as use their right in extreme severity to­wards Servants and Malefactors, Criminal or ob­noxious persons: and the Implacable, that is a de­gree beyond; such who being once offended will take no satisfaction, but the utmost and extre­mest forfeiture.

11. Debate, Contentions. That is, all striving in words or actions, scolding and quarrels, in which as commonly both parties are faulty when they enter, so it is certain they cannot go forth from them without having contracted the guilt of more then one sin: whither is reduced clamour, or loud expressions of anger: Clamour is the horse of anger, said S. Chrysostome, Eph. 4.31.anger rides upon it; throw the horse down, and the rider will fall to the ground. Blasphemy; backbiting we reade it, but the Greek signifies all words that are inju­rious to God or Man.

12. Whisperers. That is, such who are apt to do shrewd turns in private; a speaking evil of our Neighbour in a mans ear; Hic nigrae succus loliginis, haec est Aeru­go mera: this is an arrow that flieth in the dark, it wounds secretly, and no man can be warned of it. [...], backbiters; it is the same mischief, but it speaks out a little more then the other; and it denotes such who pretend friendship and society, but yet traduce their friend, or accuse him secretly; [...], as Polybius calls it, a new way of accu­sation, to undermine a man by praising him, that you seeming his friend, a lover of his vertue and his person, by praising him may be the more easily be­lieved in reporting his faults: like him in Horace, who was glad to hear any good of his old friend Capitolinus, whom he knew so well, who had so kindely obliged him,

but yet I wonder that he escaped the Judges Sen­tence in his Criminal cause. There is a louder kinde of this evil, [...], Railers; that's when the smoke is turned into a flame, and breaks out; it is the same iniquity with another circumstance; it is the vice of women and boyes, and rich imperious fools, and hard rude Masters to their Servants, and it does too often infect the spirit and language of a Go­vernour. Our Bibles reade this word, by Despite­full; that notes an aptness to speak spiteful words, cross and untoward, such which we know will do mischief or displease.

13. Foolishness. Which we understand by the words of S. Paul, Eph. 5.17.Be not foolish, but understanding what the will of the Lord is: It means a neglect of enquiring into holy things; a wilful or careless ignorance of the best things, a not studying our Religion, Prov. 2 [...].9. which indeed is the greatest folly and sottishness, it being a neg­lecting of our greatest interests, and of the most excellent notices, and it is the fountain of many impure emanations. A Christian must not be [...], he must not call fool, nor be a fool. Heady, is reduc'd to this, and signifies, rash and indiscreet in assenting and dissenting; people that speak and do foolishly, because they speak and do without de­liberation.

14. Pride. [...]; a despising of others, if compared with our selves: so Theophra­stus calls it. Concerning which we are to judge our selves by the voices of others, and by the consequent actions observable in our selves: any thing whereby we overvalue our selves, or despise others; pre­ferring our selves, or depressing them in unequal places or usages, is the signification of this vice; which no man does heartily think himself guilty of, but he that is not; that is, the humble man. A particular of this sin is that which is in particular noted by the Apostle, under the name of [...], arrogance, or bragging; which includes pride and hypocrisie together: for so Plato defines it to be, [...], a pretending to excellencies which we have not; a desiring to seem good, but a carelesness of being so; reputation and fame, not goodness being the design. To this may be re­ferred [Page 178] Emulations, [...], so the Apostle calls them, zeals, it signifies immoderate love to a lawful ob­ject: like that of the wife of Ajax in Sophocles.

She did him most strange, zealous services, as if her affection had no measure. It signifies also violent desires of equalling or excelling another for ho­nours sake, ambition and envy mixt together: it is a violent pursuit after a thing that deserves it not. A consequent of these is,

15. [...]. Seditions, or Schisms and Heresies. That is, Divisions in the Church upon diversity of Opinions, or upon Pride, Faction and Interest, as in choosing Bishops, in Praelations and Governments Ecclesiastical, from factious Rulers, or factious Sub­jects; which are properly Schisms, but use com­monly to belch forth into Heresie: according to that saying, Plerun (que) schisma in haeresin eructat.

16. An evil Eye. That is, a repining at the good of others; Envy, a not rejoycing in the prosperity of our Neighbours; a grieving because he grieves not. Aut illi nescio quid incommodi accidit, aut nescio cui aliquid boni: when good happens to another, it is as bad as if evil happened to himself.

[Page 179]This is one of the worst of Crimes, for a man to hate him that is prosperous; hate him whom God loves or blesses. It bears part of its punishment along with it: the sin hath in it no pleasure, but very much torment. ‘Nam sese excruciat qui beatis invidet.’ A part of this is Ʋnthankefulness; 2 Tim. [...].2. those who do not return kindnesses to others, from whom they have received any, neither are apt to acknowledge them: which is properly an envying to our friend the noblest of all graces, that of Charity; or it is Pride or Covetousness, for from any of these roots this equivocal issue can proceed.

17. Lovers of Pleasures. Such who study and spend their time and money to please their senses;

Rare Epicures and Gluttons, such which were fa­mous in the Roman Luxury, and fit to be Presi­dents of a Greek Symposiack, not for their skill in Philosophy, but their witty Arts of drinking.

Sensual men: Such who are dull, and unaffected with the things of God, and transported with the lusts of the lower belly; Alex. A­phrod. in lib. de anim. persons that are greedy of baser pleasures. [...], said the Scholiast upon Aristotle. The wicked [Page 180]man allows to himself too large a portion of sweet things. Licorishness, is the common word to ex­press this vice in the matter of eating and drinking.

18. Busie-bodies. That is, such who invade the offices, or impertinent­ly obtrude their advice and help when there is no need, and when it is not lik'd, not out of charity, but of curiosity, or of a trifling spirit: and this pro­duces talking of others, and makes their conversa­tion a scene of Censure and Satyre against others; never speaking of their own duty, but often to the reproach of their Neighbours, something that may lessen or disparage him.

19. The Fearful, and the Unbelievers. That is, they that fear man more then God, that will do any thing, but suffer nothing, that fall away in persecution; such who dare not trust the Promi­ses, but fear want, and fear death, and trust not God with cheerfulness, and joy, and confidence.

20. [...]. They that take pleasure in those that do these things. That is, they who in any sense incourage, or pro­mote, or love the sin of another, are guilty them­selves; not of the others sin, but of their own. He that commands a man to swear, is not guilty of that swearing, but of that commanding him. It is a sin to do so; but that sin to which the man is encouraged or tempted, or assisted, is his own sin, and for it he is to repent; every man for his own. For it is in­artificially said by the Masters of Moral Theology, that by many wayes we are guilty of the sins of [Page 181]others: by many ways indeed we can procure them to sin; and every such action of ours is a sin, against charity and the matter of that Commandement in which the temptation was instanc'd: But their sin is not ours; their sin does not properly load us, nei­ther does our being author of it, excuse them. It was the case of Adam and Eve, and the Serpent, who yet did every one bear their own burden. Ari­stotle, Zeno, and Chrysippus were notorious in this kinde. Non est enim immunis à scelere qui ut fieret imperavit, nec est alienus à crimine, Epist. 21.cujus consensu licèt à se non admissum crimen, tamen publicè legi­tur, said S. Cyprian. He that commands, and he that consents, and he that delights, and he that commends, and he that maintains, and he that counsels, and he that tempts, or conceals, or is silent in anothers dan­ger, when his speaking will prevent it, is guilty be­fore God. Corrumpere, & corrumpi saeculum vo­catur. This evil is of a great extent, but receives its degrees according to the influence or causality it hath in the sins of others.

21. These I have noted and explicated, because they are not so notorious as others, which have a pub­lick name, and filthy character, and easy definition: Such as, adulteries, fornication, drunkenness, idola­try, hating of God and good men, perjury, malicious lies, [...], as S. Paul addes, and such like; these and those and all that are like these, Gal. 5.21. exclude us from the kingdome of heaven. They are the works of the flesh; but these which are last reckoned are such which all the world condemnes, and they are easily discerned, as smoke, or a cloud upon the face of the Sun: but the other are sometimes esteemed innocent, often excused, commonly neglected, al­wayes undervalued. But concerning all these, the sentence is sad and decretory. 1 Cor. 6.10. They that are such [Page 182]shall not inherit the Kingdome of heaven: Rev. 21.8. But, they shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. Now if we list to observe it, many of these are such which occurre so frequently in our daily conversation, are so little noted and so confidently practised, that to try men concerning their hopes of heaven by such measures would seem strange, and hard: but it is our faults that it is so [...]; these are the measures of the Sanctuary, and not to be prejudg'd by later and looser customs.

§. 2. Whether every single act of these sins puts a man out of Gods favour?

IN this Question, 22 by a single act, I mean, a delibe­rate act, a wilful, observ'd, known act; for con­cerning acts by surprise, by incogitancy, by imper­fection, I shall give a special account in a Chapter on purpose. To this therefore I answer by several propositions.

1. 23 There are some acts of sin so vile, and mis­chievous that they cannot be acted but by a great malice or depravation of the will; and doe suppose a man to be gone a great way from God before he can presumptuously or wilfully commit any of them; such as are idolatry, wilful murder, adultery, witch­craft, perjury, sacrilege, and the like: such which by reason of their evil effect are called peccata cla­mantia ad Dominum, crying sins; as, oppressing wi­dows, entring into the fields of the fatherless, killing a man by false accusation, grinding the face of the poor, [Page 183]some sort of unnatural lusts: or such which by rea­son of their scandal, and severe prohibitions of them, and their proper baseness and unholiness, are pec­cata vastantia conscientiam, they lay a mans consci­ence waste; such are all these that I have now reck­oned. Now concerning every one of these there is amongst wise and good men no question, but eve­ry act of them is exclusive of a man from all his hopes of heaven, unless he repent timely and effe­ctually. For every act of these is such as a man cannot be surprised in the commission of it; he can have no ignorance, no necessity, no infirmity to lessen or excuse his fault; which because it is very mischievous in the event, expresly and severely, and by name forbidden, is also against holiness, and against charity, against God, and against the Com­mandement so apparently, that there is nothing to lessen them into the neighbourhood of an excuse, if he that commits them have a clear use of reason. Some acts of other sins are such which as they are innocent of doing mischief to our neighbour, so they are forbidden onely in general; but concerning the particular there is not any express certainty, as in drunkenness; which though every Christian knows to be forbidden, yet concerning every parti­cular act it is not always so certain that it is drun­kenness, because the acts partake of more and less; which is not true in murder, in adultery, apostasie, witchcraft, and the like: Besides which, in some of the forbidden instances there are some degrees of surprise, even when there are some degrees of pre­sumption & deliberation, which in others there can­not be. Upon which considerations it is apparent that the single acts of these greater sins are equal to a habit in others, and are for the present, destructive of the state of Gods favour, a man that does them is in the state of damnation, till he hath repented; [Page 184]that is, no good man can doe one of these acts, and be a good man still; he is a wicked person, and an enemy of God if he does.

2. 24 This is apparent in those acts which can be done but once; as in parricide, or murdering our Father or Mother, and in the wilful murder of our self. There can be no habit of these sins; all their malignity is spent in one act; and the event is best declared by one of them; the man dies in his sin, in that sin which excludes him from heaven. Every act of these sins is like the stinging of bees; ‘—animámque in vulnere ponunt;’ He cannot strike again, he can sin that sin over no more; and therefore it is a single act that damnes in that case. Now though it is by accident that these sins can be but once acted, yet it is not by ac­cident that these single acts destroy the soul, but by their malice and evil effect, their mischief or un­charitableness: it follows therefore that it is so in all the single acts of these great crimes; for since they that cannot be habitual, yet are highly dam­nable; the evil sentence is upon every act of these greater crimes.

3. 25 Concerning the single acts of other sins which are not so highly criminal, yet have a name in the Catalogues of condemn'd sins, the sentence in Scripture is the same; the penalty extreme, the fine is the whole interest: S. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians seems onely to condemne the habit, Theeves, 1 Cor. 6.10.drunkards, covetous, railers, &c. shall not inherit the kindome of heaven. Now one act does not make them properly such; a habit, not an act, denominates. But lest this be expounded to be a permission to commit single acts, Gal. 5.21. S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, affixes the same penalty [Page 185]to the actions, as to the habits; [...], Gal. 5.21. they that doe such things; that is, the actions of those sins are damnable and exclusive from heaven as ve­rily as the habits. And however in moral accounts, or in Aristotles Ethicks, a man is not called by the name of a single action, yet in all laws both of God and man he is. He that steals once is a thief, in the Courts of God and the King; and one act of adultery makes a man an adulterer; so that by this measure, [they that are such] and [they that doe such things] means the same; and the effect of both, is exclusion from the Kingdome of heaven.

4. 26 Single actions in Scripture are called, works of darkness, deeds of the body, works of the flesh; Ephes. 8. Rom. 8.13. and though they do not reign, yet if they enter, they di­sturb the rest and possession of the spirit of grace; and therefore are in their several measures against the holiness of the Gospel of Christ. All sins are single in their acting; and a sinful habit differs from a sinful act, but as many differ from one, or as a year from an hour: a vicious habit is but one sin conti­nued or repeated; for as a sin grows from little to great, so it passes from act to habit: a sin is greater because it is complicated externally or internally, no other way in the world; it is made up of more kinds, or more degrees of choice; and when two or three crimes are mixt in one action, then the sin is loud and clamorous; and if these still grow more numerous, and not interrupted and disjoyned by a speedy repentance, then it becomes a habit. As the continuation of an instant or its perpetual fluxe makes time and proper succession, so does the reacting or the continuing in any one or more sins make a habitual sinner. So that in this Question, the answer for one will serve for the other: where ever the habit is forbidden, there also the act is criminal and against God, damnable by the laws of [Page 186]God, and actually damning without repentance. Between sins great and little, actual and habitual, there is no difference of nature or formality, but onely of degrees.

5. 27 And therefore the words that represent the state of sin are used indifferently both for acts and habits. [...] signifies to doe single acts, and by ag­gravation onely can signify an habitual sinner: [...], he that commits sin is of the Devil; so S. 1 Joh. 3.8. John: by which although he means especially him that commits sin frequently or habitually; for where there is greater reason, there is the stronger affirmative: yet that he must also mean it of single sins is evident, not onely by the nature of the thing, some single acts in some instances being as mischie­vous and malicious as a habit in others; but by the words of our blessed Saviour, that the Devil is the Father of lies; and therefore every one that tels a lie is of the Devil; eátenus. To which adde also the words of S. John explicating his whole design in these and all his other words; These things I write unto you that ye might not sin, that is, that ye might not doe sinful actions; for it cannot be sup­posed, that he did not as verily intend to prevent every sin, as any sin, or that he would onely have men to beware of habitual sins, and not of actual, single sins, without which caution he could never have prevented the habitual. To doe sin is to do one, or to do many; and are both forbidden under the same danger.

The same manner of expression in a differing matter hath a different signification. 28 To doe sin is to doe any one act of it: but to doe righteousness is to doe it habitually. He that doeth sin, that is, one act of sin, is of the Devil; But he that doth righteous­ness, viz. habitually, he [onely] is righteous. The rea­son of the difference is this, because one sin can de­stroy [Page 187]a man, but one act of vertue cannot make him alive. As a phial is broken, though but a piece of its lip be cut away; but it is not whole unless it be in­tire and unbroken in every part. Dionys de Divin. Nomin. Bonum ex integrâ causâ, malum ex qualibet particulari. And therefore since he that does righteousness (in S. Johns phrase) is righteous; and yet no man is righteous for doing one act of righteousness; it follows, that by doing righteousness, he must mean doing it habitually. But because one blow can kill a man or wound him de­sperately; therefore when S. John speaks of doing sin, he means doing any sin, any way, or in any degree of act or habit. For this is that we are commanded by the Spirit of Christ; we must [...], walk exactly, not having spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5.15.27. or any thing of that nature, [...], holy and unblame­able; so must the Church be; that is, so must be all the faithful, or the men and women of the Christian Church; for the Church is nothing but a congregation or collective body of believing per­sons; Christ therefore intending to represent the Church to God without spot, or wrinkle, or fault; Caesar. Arelat. hom. 16. intends that all his servants should be so. For, let no man deceive himself. Omnis homo qui post baptismum mortalia crimina commiserit; hoc est, homicidium, adul­terium, furtum, falsum testimonium, vel reliqua crimina perpetravit, unde per legem mundanam mori poterat, si poenitentiam non egerit, eleemosynam justam non fece­rit, nunquam habebit vitam aeternam, sed cum Dia­bolo descendet ad inferna. ‘Every man who after his baptism hath committed mortal, or killing sins, that is to say, murder, adultery, theft, false wit­ness, or any other crimes which are capital by hu­mane laws, if he does not repent, if he does not give just measures of alms, he shall not have eternal life, but with the Devil he shall de­scend into hell.’ This is the sad sentence against [Page 188]all single acts of sin in the capital or greater in­stances.

But upon this account who can be justified? 28 who can hope for heaven, since even the most righ­teous man that is, sinneth; and by single acts of unworthiness interrupts his course of piety, and pollutes his spirit? If a single act of these great or mortal sins can stand with the state of grace, then not acts of these but habits are forbidden, and these onely shut a man from heaven. But if one single act destroys the state of grace, and puts a man out of Gods favour, then no man abides in it long, and what shall be at the end of these things?

To this I answer, 29 that single acts are continually forbidden, and in every period of their commission displease God, and provoke him to anger. To abide in any one sin, or to doe it often, or to love it, is against the Covenant of the Gospel, and the es­sence and nature of repentance, which is a conversion from sin to righteousness: but every single act is against the cautions and watchfulness of repentance. It is an act of death, but not a state; it is the way of death, but is not in the possession of it. It is true that every single act of fornication merits an eter­nal hell, yet when we name it to be a single act, we suppose it to be no more, that is, to be rescin­ded and immediately cut off by a vigorous and proportionable repentance: if it be not, it is more then a single act, for it is a habit, as I shall remon­strate in the Chapter of Habits. But then upon this account a single act of any sin may be incident to the state of a good man, and yet not destroy his interests or his hopes; but it is upon no other ground but this, It is a single act, and it does not abide there, but passes immediately into repentance: and then though it did interrupt or discompose the [Page 189]state of grace or the Divine favour, yet it did not destroy it quite. The man may pray Davids prayer: I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost: Psal. 119. ult.O seek thy servant, for I doe not forget thy Commandements.

So that if a man asks whether a good man falling into one act of these great sins, 30 still remains a good man; the answer is to be made upon this conside­ration, He is a good man that is so sorry for his sin, and so hates it, that he will not abide in it: and this is the best indication, that in the act there was some­thing very pityable, because the mans affections abide not there; the good man was smitten in a weak part, or in an ill hour, and then repents: for such is our goodness; to need repentance daily for smaller things, and too often for greater things. But be they great or little, they must be speedily repented of; and he that does so, is a good man still. Not but that the single act is highly damnable, and exclusive of Hea­ven, if it self were not excluded from his affecti­ons: but it does not the mischief, because he does not suffer it to proceed in finishing that death which it would have effected, if the poison had not been spee­dily expelled, before it had seis'd upon a vital part.

But 2^ly, 31 I answer, that being in the state of grace is a phrase of the Schools, and is of a large and al­most infinite comprehension. Every Christian is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to Repentance, and so long as he is capable of the Prayers of the Church. This we learn from those words of S. John, All unrighteousness is sin, 1 Joh: 5.17.and there is a sin not unto death; that is, some sorts of sins are so incident to the condition of men, and their state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is still within the methods of par­don, and hath not forfeited his title to the Promises and Covenant of Repentance: But there is a sin unto death; that is, some men proceed beyond the [Page 190]measures and Oeconomy of the Gospel, and the usuall methods and probabilities of Repentance, by obstinacy, and persevering in sin, by a wilful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; for such a man S. John does not encourage us to pray: If he be such a person as S. John described, our prayers will do him no good; but because no man can tell the last minute or pe­riod of pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit; and because the limit it self can be en­larged, and Gods mercies stay for some longer then for others, therefore S. John left us under this in­definite restraint and caution; which was decretory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractary and impenitent have immerged them­selves, and yet so indefinite and cautious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particu­lars, nor in prescribing measures to the Divine Mer­cy, nor passing final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge himself speak. Sin­ning a sin not unto death, is an expression fully signi­fying that there are some sins which though they be committed and displease God, and must be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the Covenant of mer­cy, he may be admitted to repentance, if he will return to his duty: So that being in the state of grace, is having a title to Gods loving kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved by him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.

1. 32 A wicked Christian that lives vilely, and yet is called to Repentance by the vigorous and fervent Sermons of the Gospel, is in a state of grace, of this grace. God would fain save him, willing he is and desirous he should live; but his mercy to him [Page 191]goes but thus farre, that he still continues the means of his salvation; he is angry with him, but not finally. The Jews were in some portions of this state until the final day came in which God would not be merciful any more: Even in this thy day, O Jerusalem, said our blessed Saviour; so long as their day lasted, their state of grace lasted, God had mercy for them, if they had had gracious hearts to receive it.

2. 33 But he that begins to leave his sins, and is in a continual contestation against them, and yet falls often, even most commonly, at the return of the temptation, and sin does in some measure prevail; he is in the state of a further grace, neerer to par­don, as he is nearer to holiness; his hopes are grea­ter and nearer to performance, He is not farre from the Kingdome of Heaven, so our blessed Lord expres­sed the like condition; he is [...], ordered, dispos'd towards life eternal: and this is a further approach towards the state of life.

3. 34 He that loves no sin, but hath overcome his affections to all, and hates all, but yet with so im­perfect a choice or aversation, that his faith is weak, and his repentance like an infant; this man is in a better state then both the former: God will not quench the smoaking flax, nor break the bruised reed; God hath in some measure prevail'd upon him: and as God is ready to receive the first unto the means, and the second unto the grace of Repentance; so this third he is ready to receive unto pardon, if he shall grow and persevere in grace. And these are the several stages and periods of being in the state of grace.

1. With the first of these not onely an act, but a habit of sin is consistent; but how long and how farre, God onely knows.

2. With the second period a frequency of fal­ling [Page 192]into single sins is consistent: But if he comes not out of this state, and proceed to the third pe­riod, he will relapse to the first, he must not stay here long.

3. But they that are in the third period, do sometimes fall into single sins, but it is but seldome, and it is without any remanent portion of affection, but not without much displeasure and a speedy re­pentance; and to this person, the proper remedy is to grow in grace, for if he does not, he cannot either be secure of the present, or confident of the fu­ture.

4. 35 But then if by being in the state of grace is meant a being actually pardon'd and beloved of God unto salvation, so that if the man dies so, he shall be saved, it is certain that every deliberate sin, every act of sin that is considered and chosen, puts a man out of the state of grace; that is, the act of sin is still upon his account, he is not actually pardon'd in that for any other worthiness of state, or rela­tion of person; he must come to new accounts for that; and if he dies without a moral retractation of it, he is in a sad condition, if God should deal with him summo jure, that is, be extreme to mark that which was done amiss. The single act is highly damnable; the wages of it are death, it defiles a man, it excludes from heaven, it grieves the holy Spirit of grace, it is against his undertaking, and in its own proportion against all his hopes: if it be not par­don'd, it will bear the man to Hell; but then how it comes to be pardon'd in good men, and by what measures of favour and proper dispensation, is next to be considered. Therefore,

5. 36 Though by the nature of the thing and the laws of the Covenant, every single deliberate act of sin provokes God to anger, who therefore may pu­nish it by the severest laws which he decreed against [Page 193]it; yet by the Oeconomy of God and the Divine Dispensation it is sometimes otherwise. For besides the eternal wrath of God, there are some that suffer his temporal; some suffer both, some but one. God uses to smite them whom he would make to be, or them who are his sons, if they do amiss. If a wic­ked man be smitten with a temporal judgement, and thence begins to fear God and to return, the anger will go no further; and therefore much rather shall such temporal judgements upon the good man that was overtaken in a fault be the whole exaction. God smites them that sin these single sins, and though he could take all, yet will demand but a fine.

6. 37 But even this also God does not do, but in the case of scandal or danger to others: as it was in the particular of David, Because thou hast made the enemies of God to blaspheme, the childe that is born un­to thee shall die: or else 2. When the good man is negligent of his danger, or dilatory in his repen­tance, and careless in his watch, then God awakens him with a judgement, sent with much mercy.

7. 38 But sometimes a temporal death happens to good men so overtaken; It happened so to Moses and Aaron for their fault at the waters of Massah and Meribah; to the Prophet of Judah that came to cry out against the Altar in Bethel; to Ʋzzah for touching the Ark with unhallowed fingers, though he did it in zeal; to the Corinthians who had not observed decent measures in receiving the holy Sacrament; and thus it happened (say some of the ancient Doctors) to Ananias and Sapphira; God took a fine of them also salvo contenemento, their main stake being secured, ‘—Culpam hanc miserorum morte piabant.’ There is in these instances this difference: Moses and Aaron were not smitten in their sin, but for it, [Page 194]and (as is not doubted) after they had repented: but Ʋzzah, and the Prophet, and Ananias and Sapphira, and the Corinthians died not onely for their sin, but in it too: and yet it is hoped Gods anger went no further then that death, because in every such per­son who lives well, and yet is overtaken in a fault, there is much of infirmity and imperfection of choice, even when there are some degrees of wil­fulness and a wicked heart. And though it be easie to suppose that such persons in the beginning of that judgement, and the approach of that death, did morally retract the sinful action by an act of repen­tance, and that upon that account they found the effect of the Divine mercies by the blood of the Lamb who was slain from the beginning of the world, yet if it should happen that any of them die so sudden­ly, as not to have power to exercise one act of repen­tance, though the case be harder, yet it is to be hoped that even the habitual repentance and hatred of sin by which they pleased God in the greater portions of their life, will have some influence upon this also. But this case is but seldome, and Gods mercies are very great and glorious; but because there is in this case no warrant, and this case may happen oftner then it does, even to any one that sins one wilful sin, it is enough to all considering persons to make them fear: but the fool sinneth and is confident.

8. 39 But if such overtaken persons do live, then Gods Dispensation is all mercy, even though he strikes the sinner, for he does it for good. For God is merciful and knows our weaknesses, our natural and circumstant follies: he therefore recals the sin­ning man, he strikes him sharply, or he corrects him gently, or he calls upon him hastily, as God please, or as the man needs. The man is fallen from the favour or grace of God, but (I say) fallen onely from one step of grace; and God is more ready to receive [Page 195]him, then the man is to return; and provided that he repent speedily, and neither adde a new crime, nor neglect this, his state of grace was but allayed and disordered, not broken in pieces or destroyed.

9. 40 I finde this thing rarely well discoursed of by some of the ancient Doctors of the Church. Ter­tullians words are excellent words to this purpose: Licet perisse dicatur, Lib. de Pudicit. c. 7.erit & de perditionis genere retra­ctare, quia & ovis non moriendo, sed errando; & drachma non intereundo, sed latitando perierunt. Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. That may be said to be lost which is missing, and the sheep that went astray was also lost; and so was the groat, which yet was but laid aside, it was so lost that it was found again. And thus that may be said to have perish'd, which yet is safe. Perit igitur & fidelis elapsus in specta­culum quadrigarii furoris & gladiatorii cruoris, & scenicae foeditatis, Xisticae vanitatis, in lusus, in con­vivia saecularis solennitatis, in officium, in Ministe­rium alienae idololatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curio­sitatis, in verbum ancipitis negotiationis impegit, ob tale quid extra gregem datus est: vel & ipse fortè irâ, tumore, aemulatione, quod deni (que) saepe fit, dedi­gnatione castigationis abrupit, debet requiri atque re­vocari. The Christian is (in some sort) perished, who sins by beholding bloody or unchaste spectacles, who ministers to the sins of others; who offends by anger, emulation, rage, and swelling, too severe animadversions; this man must be sought for and cal­led back, but this man is not quite lost. Quod po­test recuperari non perit, nisi foris perseveravit. Benè interpretaberis parabolam, viventem adhuc revocans peccatorem. That which may be recovered, is but as it were lost, unless it remains abroad, and returns not to the place from whence it wandred.

To the same purpose S. 41 Cyprian and S. Ambrose discourse of the Parable of him that fell among the [Page 196]thieves and was wounded and half dead. Such are they who in times of persecution fell away into dissimulation. De lapsis ad Anton. 52. Nec putemus mortuos esse, sed magis semianimes jacere eos quos persecutione funestâ sau­ciatos videmus, qui si in totum mortui essent, nun­quam de eisdem postmodùm & Confessores & Mar­tyres fierent. For if these were quite dead, you should not finde of them to return to life, and to become Martyrs and Confessors for that faith which through weakness they did seemingly abjure. These men therefore were but wounded and half dead: for they still keep the faith, they preserve their title to the Covenant, and the Promises of the Gospel, and the grace of Repentance. Quam fidem qui ha­bet,Lib. 1. de Poenit. c. 10.vitam habet (saith S. Ambrose) He that hath this faith hath life, that is, he is not excluded from pardon; whom therefore peradventure the good Sama­ritan does not pass by, because he findes there is life in him, some principle by which he may live again. Now as it was in the matter of Faith, so it is of Charity and the other graces. Every act of sin takes away something from the contrary grace; but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still alive, and may bring forth fruit again. But he onely is dead who hath thrown God off for ever, or intirely, with his very heart. Eph. 4.1. So S. Ambrose. To be dead in trespasses and sins, which is the phrase of S. Paul, is the same with that expression of S. John, of sinning a sin unto death, that is, habitual, refractary, pertinacious and incorrigible sinners, in whom there is scarce any hopes or sign of life. These are they upon whom (as S. 1 Thess. 2.16. Pauls expression is) the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost; [...], unto death; so was their sin, it was a sin unto death, so is their punishment.

The result of these considerations is this. He that commits one act of a wilful sin, hath provoked God [Page 197]to anger; which whether it will be final or no, we cannot know but by the event, by his forbearing us, and calling us, and accepting us to repentance. One act does not destroy the life of grace utterly, but wounds it more or less, according to the vileness and quantity, or abode in the sin.

§. 3. What repentance is necessary for single acts of sin.

1. 42 UPon consideration of the premisses it appears to be dangerous practically to inquire how far single acts of sin can stand with the state of grace, or the being of a good man. For they ought not to be at all, and if they be once, we must re­pent, and the sin must be pardoned, or we die: And when it can be ask'd how far any sin can be con­sistent with the state of Gods favour, it cannot be meant that God indulges it to a good man with im­punity, or that his grace and favour consists in this that he may safely sin once or twice in what instance or in any instance he shall choose: but in this it does; a single act of sin does not so destroy the hopes of a good man, but that if he returns speedi­ly he shall be pardoned speedily; for this, God will doe for him, not by permitting him to sin again, but by taking his sin away, and healing his soul; but how soon, or how much, or how long God will par­don or forbear, he hath no way told us. * For in the several states and periods of the soul in order to vertue or vice respectively, there is no specifical difference but of degrees onely, not of state. As [Page 198]the sins are more or longer, God is more angry, and the man further off; but the man is not wholly al­tered from his state of grace till he be arriv'd at the unpardonable condition. He is a good, or an evil man, more or less, according as he sins or repents. For neither of the appellatives are absolute and irre­spective; and though in philosophy we use to ac­count them such by the prevailing ingredient, yet the measures of the spirit are otherwise. The whole affair is arbitrary, and gradual, various by its own measures and the good pleasure of God, so that we cannot in these things which are in perpetual flux, come to any certain measures. But although in judging of events we are uncertain, yet in the mea­sures of repentance we can be better guided. There­fore first in general:

2. 43 S. Cyprians rule is a prudent measure, Quàm magna deliquimus, tam granditèr defleamus; ut poe­nitentia crimine minor non sit. According to the greatness of the sin, so must be the greatness of the sorrow: and therefore we are in our beginnings and progressions of repentance to consider all the ¹ circumstances of aggravation, ² the complication of the crime, ³ the scandal and ⁴ evil effect; and in pro­portion to every one of these, the sorrow is to be enlarged and continued. For if it be necessary to be afflicted because we have done evil; it is also necessary that our affliction and grief be answe­rable to all the parts of evil: because a sin grows greater by being more in matter or choice, in the instances, or in the adhesion; and as two sins must be deplored more then one, so must two degrees, that is, the greater portions of malice and wilful­ness be mourned for with a bigger sorrow then the less.

3. 44 Every single act of sin must be cut off by a moral revocation, or à contrary act; by which I [Page 199]mean, an express hatred and detestation of it. For an act of sin being in its proportion an aversion or turning from God, and repentance being in its whole nature a conversion to him, that act must be destroyed as it can be. Now because that which is done, cannot naturally be made undone, it must mo­rally; that is, it must be revok'd by an act of noliti­on, and hatred of it, and a wishing it had never been done, for that is properly a conversion from that act of sin.

4. 45 But because in some cases a moral revocation may be like an ineffective resolution, therefore be­sides the inward nolition or hating of the sin, in all signal and remarked instances of sin, it is highly requisite that the sinning man doe oppose an act of vertue to the act of sin in the same instance where it is capable; as to an act of gluttony, let him op­pose an act of abstinence; to an act of uncleanness, an act of purity and chastity; to anger and fierce contentions, let him oppose charity and silence: for to hate sin and not to love vertue is a contradi­ction, and to pretend it is hypocrisie. But besides this, as the nolition or hatred of it does (if it be real) destroy the moral being of that act, so does the contrary act destroy its naturall being (as far as it is capable.) And however it be, yet it is upon this account necessary. For since one act of sin delibe­rately chosen was an ill beginning and inlet of a ha­bit, it is necessary that there be as much done to obtain the habit of the contrary vertue, as was done towards the habit of vice; that to God as intire a restitution as can, may be made of his own right, and purchased inheritance.

5. 46 Every act of sin is a displeasure to God and a provocation of an infinite Majesty, and therefore the repentance for it must also have other measures then by the natural and moral proportions. One act [Page 200]of sorrow is a moral revocation of one act of sin, and as much a natural deletion of it as the thing is capable. * But there is something more in it then thus, for a single act of sin deserves an eternal hell; and upon what account soever that be, it is fit that we doe something of repentance in relation to the offence of an infinite God: and therefore let our repentance proceed towards infinite as much as it may: my meaning is, that we doe not finally rest in a moral revocation of an act by an act, but that we beg for pardon all our days even for that one sin. * For besides that every sin is against an infinite God, and so ought to be wash'd off with a sorrow as near to infinite as we can; we are not certain in what periods of sorrow God will speak to us in the accents of mercy and voice of pardon: He always takes of them that repent, less then he could in ju­stice exact if he so pleased, but how much less he will take, he hath no where told us, and therefore let us make our way as secure as we can; let us still goe on in repentance, and in the progression we are sure to meet with God. * But there is in it yet more. For however the act of sin be usually called and supposed to be a single act, yet if we con­sider how many fancies and temptations were pre­paratory to it, how many consentings to the sin, how many desires and acts of prosecution, what contrivances, and resistances of the holy motions of Gods Spirit and the checks of conscience how many refusings of God and his laws, what unfitting means and sinful progressions were made to arrive thither, what criminal and undecent circumstances, what degrees of consent, and approaches to a perfect choice, what vitious hopes, and vile fears, what ex­pence of time and mis-imployed passions were in one act of fornication or murder, oppression of the poore, or subornation of witnesses, we shall finde [Page 201]that the proportions will be too little to oppose but one act of vertue against all these evils; especially since an act of vertue (as we order our affairs) is much more single then in act of vice is.

6. 47 Every single act of vice may and must be re­pented of particularly, if it be a wilful, deliberate, and observed action. A general repentance will not serve the turn in these cases. When a man hath forgotten the particulars, he must make it up as well as he can. This is the evil of a delayed repentance, it is a thousand to one but it is imperfect and lame, general and unactive; it will need arts of supply and collateral remedies, and reflexe actions of sor­row, and what the effect will be is in many degrees uncertain: But if it be speedy, and particular, the remedy is the more easy, the more ready, and the more certain. But when a man is overtaken in a fault, he must be restored again as to that particu­lar; for by that he transgressed, there he is smit­ten and wounded, in that instance the habit begins, and at that door the Divine judgement may enter, for his anger is there already. For although God pardons all sins or none in respect of the final sen­tence and eternal pain, yet God strikes particular sins with proper and specifick punishments in this life, which if they be not diverted by proper ap­plications may break us all in pieces. And there­fore Davids repentance was particularly applied to his special case, of murder and adultery: and be­cause some sins are harder to be pardoned, and harder to be cured then others, it is certain they must be taken off by a special regard. A general repentance is never sufficient, but when there cannot be a particular.

7. 48 Whoever hath committed any one act of a great crime, let him take the advantage of his first shame and regret, and in the activity of that passion [Page 202]let him design some fasting days, as the solemni­ties of his repentance, which he must imploy in the bitterness of his soul, in detestation of his sin, in judging, condemning, and executing sentence upon himself; and in all the actions of repentance, which are the parts and fruits of this duty, accord­ing as he shall finde them described in their proper places.

These are the measures of repentance for single acts of deliberate sin, 49 when they have no other appendage, or proper Consideration. But there are some acts of sin, which by several ways and measures pass into habits, directly, or by equi­valency and moral value. 1 For 1. The repetition of acts and proceeding in the same crime is a perfect habit, which as it rises higher to obstinacy, to per­severance, to resolutions never to repent, to hard­ness of heart, to final impenitence, so it is still more killing and damnable. 2 2. If a man sins often in se­veral instances it is a habit, properly so called; for although the instances be single, yet the disobedi­ence and disaffection are united and habitual. 3. 3 When a single act of sin is done, and the guilt remains, not rescinded by repentance, that act which naturally is but single, yet morally is habitual. Of these I shall give account in the next Chapter where they are of proper consideration. But there are yet three ways more by which single acts doe become habits by equivalency and moral value, and are here to be considered accordingly.

8. 50 First, if a single act of sin have a permanent matter, so long as that matter remains, the sin is uncancell'd. Of this nature is theft, which cannot be cut off by a moral revocation, or an internal act: there must be something done without. For it is a contradiction to say that a man is sorry for his act of stealing, who yet rejoyces in the pur­chace [Page 203]and retains it: Every man that repents, is bound to make his sinful act as much as he can to be undone: and the moral revocation or nolition of it, is our entercourse with God onely, who takes and accepts that, which is the All which can be done to him. But God takes care of our brother also, and therefore will not accept his own share unless all interested persons be satisfied as much as they ought. There is a great matter in it, that our neighbour also do forgive us, that his interest be served, that he do not desire our punishment: of this I shall afterwards give accounts; in the mean time, if the matter of our sin be not taken away, so long as it remains, so long there is a remanency and a tarrying in it, and that is a degree of habit.

9. 51 Secondly, if the single act have a continual fluxe or emanation from it self, it is as a habit by moral account, and is a principle of action, and is potentially many. Of this nature is every action whose proper and immediate principle is a passion. Such as hatred of our neighbour, a fearfulness of persecution, a love of pleasures. For a man cannot properly be said to have an act of hatred, an actual expression of it he may; but if he hates him in one act, and repents not of it, it is a vicious affe­ction, and in the sense of moral Theology it is a habit; the law of God having given measures to our affections as well as to actions. In this case when we have committed one act of uncharitable­ness, or hatred, it is not enough to oppose against it one act of love; but the principle must be al­tered, and the love of our neighbour must be intro­duced into our spirit.

10. 52 There is yet another sort of sinful action which does in some sense equal a habit, and that is an act of the greatest and most crying sins, a com­plicated sin. Thus for a Prince or a Priest to com­mit [Page 204]adultery; for a childe to accuse his Father falsly; to oppress a widow in judgement, are sins of a mon­strous proportion; they are three or four sins apeece, and therefore are to be repented of by un­twining the knot, and cutting asunder every thred: He that repents of adultery, must repent of his un­cleanness, and of his injustice or wrong to his neigh­bour, and of his own breach of faith, and of his tempting a poor soul to sin and death; and he must make amends for the scandal besides, in case there was any in it. In these, and all the like cases let no man flatter himself when he hath wept and prayed against his sin; one solemnity is not sufficient; one act of contrition is but the beginning of a repentance; and where the crime is capital by the laws of wise Nations, the greatest, the longest, the sharpest repentance is little enough in the Court of conscience. Paraenes. ad poeni­tentiam. So Pacianus; Haec est novi Testamenti tota conclusio; despectus in multis Spiritus sanctus haec nobis capitalis periculi conditione legavit. Reliqua peccata meliorum operum compensatione curantur: Haec verò tria crimina, ut basilisci alicujus afflatus, ut veneni calix, ut lethalis arundo metuenda sunt: non enim vitiare animam, sed intercipere noverunt. Some sins doe pollute, and some doe kill the soul, that is, are very near approaches to death, next to the unpardonable state: See Chapt. 5. and they are to be repented of, just as habits are, even by a long and a laborious repentance, and by the piety and holi­ness of our whole ensuing life. De peccato remisso noli esse securus, said the son of Sirach. Be not secure though your sin be pardoned; when therefore you are working out and suing your pardon, be not too confident.

11. 53 Those acts of sin which can once be done and no more, as Parricide, and such which destroy the subject or person against whom the sin is com­mitted, [Page 205]are to be cured by Prayer and Sorrow, and entercourses with God immediately: the effect of which because it can never be told, and because the mischief can never be rescinded so much as by fiction of Law, nor any supply be made to the injur'd per­son, the guilty man must never think himself safe, but in the daily and nightly actions of a holy Re­pentance.

12. 54 He that will repent well and truly of his single actual sins, must be infinitely careful that he do not sin after his Repentance, and think he may venture upon another single sin, supposing that an act of contrition will take it off; and so interchange his dayes by sin and sorrow, doing to morrow what he was ashamed of yesterday. For he that sins up­on the confidence of Repentance, does not repent at all, because he repents that he may sin: and these single acts so periodically returning, do unite and be­come a habit. He that resolves against a sin, and yet falls when he is tempted, is under the power of sin in some proportion, and his estate is very suspi­cious; though he alwayes resolved against that sin which he alwayes commits. It is upon no other ac­count that a single sin does not destroy a man, but because it self is speedily destroyed; if therefore it goes on upon its own strength, and returns in its proper period, it is not destroyed, but lives and in­dangers the man.

13. 55 Be careful that you do not commit a single act of sin toward the latter end of your life; for it being uncertain what degrees of anger God will put on, and in what periods of time he will return to mercy, the nearer to our death such sins intervene, the more degrees of danger they have. For although the former discourse is agreeable to the analogy of the Gospel, and the Oeconomy of the Divine Mercy; yet there are sad words spoken against every [Page 206]single sin. Jam. 2.10. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offends in one instance, he shall be guilty of all, saith S. James; plainly affirming, that the admitting one sin, much more, the abiding in any one sin, destroys all our present possession of Gods favour. Con­cerning which, although it may seem strange that one prevarication in one instance should make an universal guilt, yet it will be certain and intelligible if we consider that it relates not to the formality, but to the event of things. He that commits an act of Murther is not therefore an Adulterer, but yet for being a Murtherer he shall die. He is as if he were guilty of all; that is, his innocence in the other shall not procure him impunity in this. One crime is inconsistent with Gods love and favour.

But there is something more in it then this. 56 For every one that breaks a Commandement, let the in­stance be what it will, is a transgressor of the same bond by which he was bound to all. Non quòd omnia legis praecepta violârit, sed quòd legis Autho­rem contempserit, eóque proemio meritò careat quod le­gis cultoribus propositum est, saith venerable Bede. He did not violate all the Commandements, but he of­fended him who is the giver of all the Commande­ments. It is like letting one Bead fall from a Ro­sary or Coronet of Bugles. This, or that, or a third makes no difference, the string is as much broken if he lets one to slide, as if he dropp'd twenty. It was not an ill conceit of Menedemus the Eretrian, that there was but one vertue which had divers names. Aristo Chius express'd the same conceit with a little difference; affirming all vertues to be the same in reality and nature, but to have a certain diversifi­cation or rational difference by relation to their objects. As if one should call the sight when it looks upon a Crow [...], if upon a Swan [...]; so is vertue. When it moderates the affe­ctions, [Page 207]it is Temperance; when it ballances contracts, it is Justice; when it considers what is, and what is not to be done, it is Prudence. That which they call Vertue, if we call it the Grace of God, or Obedi­ence, it is very true which they say. For the same spirit, the same grace of obedience, is Chastity, or Temperance, or Justice, according as is the subject matter. The love of God, if it be in us, is produ­ctive of all worthiness: and this is it which S. John said, This is love, that we keep his Commandements; The love of God constraineth us; It worketh all the works of God in us; It is the fulfilling of the Com­mandements. For this is a Catholicon, an Universal Grace. Charity gives being to all vertues, it is the life and spirit of all holy actions. Abstinence from feasts and inordination, mingled with Charity, is Temperance. And Justice is Charity, and Chastity is Charity, and Humility is still but an instance of Charity. This is that Transcendent that gives life and vertue to Alms, to Preaching, to Faith, to Miracles; it does all obedience to God, all good offices to our Neighbours: which in effect is nothing but the sen­tence of Menedemus and Aristo, that there is an Universal Vertue; that is, there is one soul and es­sence of all vertue: They call it Vertue, S. Paul calls it Charity; and this is that one thing which is necessary, that one thing which every man that sins, does violate: He that is guilty of all, is but guilty of that one, and therefore he that is guilty of that one, of the breach of Charity, is guilty of all. And upon this account it is, that no one sin can stand with the state of grace; because he that sins in one instance, sins against all goodness: not a­gainst all instances of duty, but against that which is the life of all, against Charity and Obedience.

§. 1. The state of the Question.

Boethus the Epicurean being ask'd, 1 up­on occasion of the fame of Strato's Comedy. Why, it being troublesome to us to see a man furious, angry, ti­morous or sad, we do yet with so great pleasure behold all these passions act­ed with the highest, nearest, and most natural signi­fications? In answer to the question discours'd wit­tily concerning the powers of Art and Reason, and how much our selves can adde to our own Natures by Art and Study. Children choose bread efform'd in the image of a bird or man, rather then a loaf pluck'd rudely from the Bakers lump; and a golden fish rather then an artless ingot: because Reason and Art being mingled with it, it entertains more fa­culties, and pleases on more sides.

Thus we are delighted when upon a Table we see Cleopatra dying with her Aspicks, 2 or Lucretia pier­cing her chaste breast. We give great prices for a Picture of S. Sebastian shot through with a shower [Page 212]of arrows, or S. Laurence rosting upon his Gridiron, when the things themselves would have pierc'd our eyes with horror, and rent our very hearts with pity and compassion: and the Countrey fellows were so taken with Parmeno's imitating the noise of Swine, that they preferr'd it before that of the Arcadian Boar, being so deceiv'd with fancy and prejudice, that they thought it more natural then that which indeed was so.

For first we are naturally pleas'd with imitation, 3 and have secret desires to transcribe the copy of the Creation, and then having weakly imitated the work of God in making some kinde of production from our own perfections, such as it is, and such as they are, we are delighted in the imagery, as God is in the contemplation of the world. For we see a nature brought in upon us by art and imitation. But what in natural things we can but weakly imitate, in moral things we can really effect. We can efform our nature over a new, and create our selves again, and make our selves bad when God had made us good: and what was innocent in nature, we make to be vicious by custome and evil habit; or on the contrary, what was crooked in nature, we can make straight by Philosophy, and wise notices, and severe customes; and there is nothing in nature so imper­fect or vicious but it can be made useful and regular by reason and custome, and the grace of God; and even our brute parts are obedient to these. Ho­mer observes it of the wise Ʋlysses, that though he was troubled to see his wife weep for him, yet

He held the corners of his eyes as firmly as the horn of his Bow, or the iron of his Spear, and by his wit [Page 213]he kept his eyes from running over. Reason can make every member of the body obey; but Ʋse can make it obey willingly: That can command nature, but this can change it: That can make it doe what it pleases, but this can make it be so.

For there being in man so much brutishness and inclination to forbidden actions and things, 4 to sensual and weak fruitions, nature in many instances cals upon us to die. [...]. let me perish, for it is for my advantage: I desire to die because it is pleasant.

Nature does seem to doe violence to us, and con­strain us by violent inclinations to things against reason: But then when Passion supervenes and like strong winds blow vehemently and raise a storm, we should certainly perish, if God did not give us other principles which might be as effective of his purpo­ses, as Nature and Passion are of death and folly. Passion can be commanded by reason, but nothing hath sufficient and final effort and strength against Nature, but Custome.

For our ship is kept fast and firm in its station by Cables, and when the windes blow, we have anchors and fastnesses to secure it. Which verses Plutarch expounding, [...], saith, that the Cables which are to secure our ship in tempests are the firm and permanent judgements against that which is filthy. They secure us when the winds of passion are violent and dangerous. But then because the storm is renewed every day, and [Page 314] [...], Nature will revert, and for ever be longing after its own pro­portions, we must introduce a nature against a na­ture: and as passion sets nature on work, and is it self overcome by reason, so if this reason become constant, firm, and habitual, it makes nature an art­less, joyntless enemy.

But then on the other side, 5 if we let our evil appetites prevail, and use them to satisfaction and empire, bringing in evil customes upon our vicious and ill disposed nature, we are fallen into an evil state of things: for custome and vicious habits are like the locks and bars to hell gates, a man cannot but doe evil, and then his case is intolerable.

Now because this is a great state of danger, 6 and consequently a great caution against continuing in sin, I shall put some strength to it, and rescue the whole doctrine concerning this article from the false glosses and imperfect notices of men, which hang upon the duty of repentance like shackles and fetters hindring it to begin betimes, and so to pro­ceed to its measures by the many and just limits and steps of its progression. For the case is this:

If you ask when every man is bound to repent? I answer, as soon as ever he hath sinn'd. But how if he does not? then he addes more sin both against God & against his own soul by delaying this duty, to that he did before in the single action of which he is tied to repent. For every man is bound to repent in­stantly of every known sin; he sins anew if he does not, though he adde no more of the same actions to his heap. But it is much worse if he sins on; not onely because he sins oftner, but because if he contracts a custome or habit of sin, he superaddes a state of evil to himself, distinct from the guilt of all those single actions which made the habit. This I shall endevour to prove against the do­ctrine [Page 215]of the Romane Schools, who teach;

1. 7 That no man is ordinarily bound to repent instantly of his sin; for the precept of repentance being affirmative, it does not oblige to its present or speedy performance: Navarr. Compend. Manual. ca. 1. n. 31. For it is as in the case of bap­tism, or prayers; to the time of the performance of which duties, the Commandement of God does not specifically binde us, now, or an hour hence, or when it is convenient, or when it becomes acci­dentally necessary, and determined by something else that intervenes: So it is in repentance; so it be done at all, it matters not when, as to the duty of it; when you come to die, or when you justly fear it; as in the days of the plague, or before a battel, or when the holy man comes to take his leave of his dying Parishioner, then let him look to it Vide In­fidelity un­mask'd, pag 604 "It is true, the best Divines teach that a sin­ner is not bound to repent him­self instantly of his sin, &c.. But else he is not obliged. For the sin that was committed ten years since, grows no worse for abiding; and of that we committed yesterday we are as deeply guilty, as of the early sins of our youth; but no single sin can increase its guilt by the putting off our repentance and amendment.

2. 8 The guilt of sin which we have committed, De poenit. disp. 7. sect. 5. n. 48. they call habitual sin; that is, a remaining obliga­tion to punishment for an action that is past, a guiltiness: or as Johannes de Lugo expresses it, pec­catum actuale moraliter perseverans; Sic etiam Suarez. tom. 4. in 3. part. disp. 9. sect. 4. n. 23. the actual sin morally remaining, by which a man is justly hated by God. But this habi­tual sin is not any real quality, or habit, but a kinde of Moral denomination or ground thereof,Granatens. in materiâ de pecca­tis tract. 8. disp. 1. sect. 1.which remains till it be re­tracted by Repentance. Insidelity unmask'd, pag 605. The person is still esteem­ed injurious and obliged to satisfaction. That is all.

3. 9 The frequent repetition of sinful acts will in [Page 216]time naturally produce a habit, a proper physical, inherent, permanent quality; but this is so natu­ral, that it is no way voluntary but in its cause, that is, Ibid. pag. 607. in the actions which produc'd it, and there­fore it can have in it no blame, no sinfulness, no obliquity distinct from those actions that caused it, and requires no particular or distinct repentance; for when the single acts of sin are repented of, the remaining habit is innocent, and the facility to sin which remains, is no sin at all.

4. 10 These habits of sin may be pardon'd without the contrary habit of vertue, even by a single act of contrition, or attrition with the Sacrament. * And the event of all is this, It is not necessary that your repentance should be so early, or so holy as to ob­tain by the grace of God the habits of vertue, or to root out the habit of sin; and 2. It is not neces­sary that it should be at all before the hour of death, unless by accident it be inferr'd and com­manded.

I doe suppose these propositions not onely to be false, but extremely dangerous and destructive of the duty of repentance, and all its consequent hopes, and therefore I shall oppose against them these Conclusions.

• 1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as ever he hath committed it.
• 2. That a sinful habit hath in it proper evils, and a proper guiltiness of its own, besides all that which came directly by the single actions.
• 3. That sinful habits doe require a distinct manner of repentance, and are not pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary.

* The consequent of these propositions will be this. Our repentance must not be deferred at all, much less to our deathbed. 2. Our repentance must be [Page 217]so early, and so effective of a change, that it must root out the habits of sin, and introduce the habits of vertue; and in that degree in which this is done, in the same degree the repentance is perfect, more or less. For there is a latitude in this duty, as there are degrees of perfection.

§. 2. 1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it.

THat this doctrine is of great usefulness and ad­vantage to the necessity and perswasions of holy life, 1 is a good probable inducement to beleeve it true; especially since God is so essential an ene­my to sin, since he hath used such rare arts of the Spirit for the extermination of it, since he sent his holy Son to destroy it; and he is perpetually destroying it, and will at last make that it shall be no more at all, but in the house of cursing, the hor­rible regions of damnation. But I will use this onely as an argument to all pious and prudent persons, to take off all prejudices against the severity of this do­ctrine. For it is nothing so much against it if we say it is severe, as it makes for it, that we under­stand it to be necessary. For this doctrine which I am now reproving, although it be the doctrine properly of the Romane Schools, yet it is their and our practice too. We sin with greediness, and re­pent at leisure.

No man puts on his mourning garment till he be dead. This day we seldome think it fit to repent, but the day appointed for repentance is always To mor­row. Against which dangerous folly I offer these considerations.

1. 2 If the duty of repentance be indispensably requir'd in the danger of death, and he that does not repent when he is arrested with the probability of so sad a change is felo de se, uncharitable to himself and a murderer of his own soul, then so is he in his proportion who puts it off one day: be­cause every day of delay is a day of danger; and the same law of charity obliges him to repent to day if he sinn'd yesterday, lest he be dead before to morrow. The necessity indeed is not so great, and the duty is not so urgent, and the refusal is not so great a sin in health, as in sickness, and dangers imminent and visible: But there are degrees of neces­sity as there are degrees of danger: And he that considers how many persons die suddenly, and how many more may, and no man knows that he shall not, cannot but confess that because there is dan­ger, there is also an obligation of duty and charity to repent speedily, and that positively, or carelesly to put it off, is a new fault and increases Gods en­mity against him. He that is well, may die to mor­row. He that is very sick, may recover and live many years. If therefore a periculum ne fiat, a danger lest repentance be never done, is a sufficient de­termination of the Divine Commandement to doe it then, it is certain that it is in every instant deter­minately necessary; because in every instant there is danger. In all great sicknesses there is not an [Page 219]equal danger; yet in all great sicknesses it is a parti­cular sin not to repent, even by the confession of all sides; it is so therefore in all the periods of an uncertain life; a sin, but in differing degrees. And therefore this is not an argument of caution onely, but of duty. For therefore it is of duty, because it is of caution. It could not be a caution, unless there were a danger; and if there be a danger, then it is a duty. For he that is very sick must do it. But how if he escapes, was he obliged for all that? He was, because he knew not that he should escape. By the same reason is every one obliged, because whether he shall or shall not escape the next minute, he knows not. And certainly, it was none of the least reasons of Gods concealing the day of our death, that we might ever stand ready. And this is plainly enough taught us by our blessed Saviour, laboriously perswading and commanding us not to defer our repentance, by his parable of the rich man who promised to himself the pleasures of many years: he reprov'd that folly with a Stulte hac nocte; and it may be any mans case; for

But he addes a Precept; Luke 12.35, &c. Let your loyns be girded about, and your lights shining, and ye your selves like men that wait for their Lord. And blessed are those servants whom their lord when he cometh shall finde watching. And much more to the same purpose. Nay, that it was the reason why God concealed the time of his coming to us, that we might always expect him, he intimated in the fol­lowing Parable; "This know, that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched. Be ye therefore ready [Page 220]also, for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Nothing could better have improved this argument, then these words of our blessed Sa­viour; we must stand in procinctu, ready girded, [...], ready for the ser­vice, alwayes watching, as uncertain of the time, but in perpetual expectation of the day of our Lord. I think nothing can be said fuller to this purpose. In Psal. 114. But I adde the words of S. Austin; Verum quidem dicis quòd Deus poenitentiae tuae in­dulgentiam promisit, sed huic dilationi tuae crasti­num non promisit. To him that repents, God hath promised pardon, but to him that defers repen­tance he hath not promised the respite of one day. It is certain therefore, he intended thou shoul­dest speedily repent; and since he hath by words and deeds declar'd this to be his purpose, he that obeys not, is in this very delay, properly and specisi­cally, a Transgressor.

2. 3 I consider, that although the precept of re­pentance be affirmative, yet it is also limited, and the time sufficiently declared, even the present and none else. As soon as ever you need it, so soon you are obliged. To day if ye will hear his voyce, harden not your hearts. That is, deferre not to hear him, this day; for every putting it off is a hardning your hearts. For he that speaks to day, is not pleased if you promise to hear him to morrow. It was Felix his case to S. Paul, Go away, I will hear thee some other time. He that cals every day, means every day that we should repent. For although to most men God gives time and leisure, and expects and perseveres to call, yet this is not because he gives them leave to defer it; but be­cause he still forbears to strike, though their sin grows greater. Now I demand, when God cals us to repentance, is it indifferent to him whether [Page 221]we repent to day or no? Why does he call so ear­nestly, if he desires it so coldly? Or if he be not indifferent, is he displeas'd if we repent speedily? This no man thinks. But is he not displeas'd if we do not? Does not every call, and every expectation, and every message, when it is rejected, provoke Gods anger and exasperate him? Does not he in the day of vengeance smite more sorely, by how much with the more patience he hath waited? This cannot be denied. But then it follows, that every delay did grieve him and displease him, and therefore it is of it self a provocation distinct from the first sin.

3. 4 But further let it be considered: If we re­pent to day, it is either a duty so to do, or onely a counsel of perfection, a work of supererogation. If it be a duty, then to omit it is a sin. If it be a work of supererogation, then he that repents to day, does not do it in obedience to a Commandement: for this is such a work (by the confession of the Ro­man Schools) which if a man omits he is neverthe­less in the state of grace and the Divine favour; as he that does not vow perpetual Chastity, or Pover­ty, is nevertheless the servant of God; but he that does not repent to day of his yesterdayes sin, is not Gods servant, and therefore this cannot be of the nature of Counsels, but of Precept and duty respe­ctively. But to put it past all question: It is expresly commanded us by our blessed Saviour, Agree with thine adversary [...] quickly. For as it is amongst men of merciful dispositions, he that yields quickly obtains mercy; but he that stands out as long as he can, must expect the rigour of the law: So it is be­tween God and us; a hasty Repentance reconciles graciously, whilest the delay and putting it off, pro­vokes his severe anger. And this the Spirit of God was pleas'd to signifie to the Angel or Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, Rev. 2.5.Remember whence thou art [Page 222]fallen, and repent, and do thy first works: If thou doest not, [...], I come unto thee quickly, and will remove the Candlestick out of its place, un­less thou do repent. Christ did not mean to wait long and be satisfied with their Repentance, be it when it would be; for he comes quickly, and yet our Re­pentance must prevent his coming. His coming here is not by death, or final judgement, but for scrutiny and inquiry: for the event of the delaying their Repentance, would have been the removing of their Candlestick. So that [...] is, I come spee­dily to exact of thee a speedy repentance, or to pu­nish thee for delaying; for so the antithesis is plain, [...] and [...], I come quickly, unless thou doest repent, viz. quickly; [...], (that I may use the words of Libanius) God will condemn our actions, unless we appear before him with a speedy Repentance.

4. 5 Adde to this, that though God gives time and respite to some, yet to all he does not. God takes away some in their early sins, and gives them no respite, not a moneth, not a week, not a day; and let any man say, whether this be not a sufficient indication not onely that no man can be secure, but he alone that repents instantly, but that God does intend that every man should presently repent; for he that hath made it damnation to some for not re­penting instantly, hath made it damnable to all, and therefore to repent speedily is certainly a duty. The earth does not open and swallow up all Rebels in the day of their Mutiny; but it did so once, and by that God did sufficiently consign to all ages his displea­sure against Rebelsion. So it is in the deferring Re­pentance. That some have smarted for it eternally, is for ever enough to tell us, that God is displeased with every one that does defer it; and therefore [Page 223]commands us not to defer it. But this considera­tion is sufficiently heightned upon this account: For there is no sinner dies, but he is taken away without one dayes respite. For though God did many times forbear him, yet now he does not, and to his last sin, or his last refusal to hear God, either he afforded no time, or no grace of Repentance.

S. 6 Pauls discourse and treaty of the Corinthians, is sufficient to guide us here: he fear'd that at his coming again God would humble him, that is, 1 Cor. 12.21. afflict him with grief and sorrow to see it, that himself should be forc'd to bewail many, that is, to excom­municate, or deliver to Satan them that have sinn'd already, and have not repented. If they had repen­ted before S. Pauls coming, they should escape that rod; but for deferring it, they were like to smart bitterly. Neither ought it to be supposed that the not repenting of sins is no otherwise then as the be­ing discovered of theft. The thief dies for his rob­bery, not for his being discovered; though if he were not discovered, he should have escaped for his theft. So for their uncleanness S. Paul would have delivered them over to Satan, not for their not re­penting speedily. For the case is wholly differing here. A thief is not bound at all to discover himself to the Criminal Judge; but every man is bound to re­pent. If therefore his repenting speedily would pre­vent so great a calamity as his being delivered over to Satan, besides the procuring his eternal pardon, it is clear that to repent speedily was great charity, and great necessity; which is that which was to be prov'd. Satan should have power over him to afflict him for his sin, if he did not speedily repent: but if he did repent speedily, he should wholly escape; therefore to repent speedily is a duty which God ex­pects of us, and will punish if it be omitted.

Think it not a hasty Commandement that we are called upon to repent to day. It was too much that yesterday past by you, it is late enough if you do it to day.

5. 7 Not to repent instantly, is a great loss of our time, and it may for ought we know become the loss of all our hopes.

And this, not onely by the danger of sudden death, but for want of the just measures of Repentance: Because it is a secret which God hath kept to himself onely, and he onely knows what degrees of Repen­tance himself will admit of; how much the sin pro­vok'd him, and by what measures of sorrow and carefulness himself will be appeased. For there is in this a very great difference. To Simon Magus it was almost a desperate case, If peradventure the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven: It was worse to Esau, There was no place left for his repentance. It was so with Judas, he was not admitted to par­don, neither can any one tell, whether it was not resolved he should never be pardon'd. However it be for the particulars, yet it is certain there is a great difference in the admitting penitents. On some have compassion, Jude 22, 23.others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. Now since for all our sins we are bound to ask pardon every day, if we do so, who dares say it is too much, that it is more then needs? But if to repent every day be not too much, who [Page 225]can be sure that if he puts it off one day it shall be sufficient? To some men, and at some times God is implacably angry; some men, and at some times God hath in his fury and sudden anger seis'd upon, with the apprehensions of death and saddest judge­ments, and broken them all in pieces: and as there is a reign and kingdome of Mercy, so there are sudden irruptions of a fierce Justice, of which God hath therefore given us examples, that we may not defer Repentance one day. But this mischief goes further. For,

6. 8 So long as we lie in the guilt of one sin un­repented of, though we do not adde heaps upon heaps, and multiply instances of the same or equal crimes yet we are in so unthriving a condition and so evil a state, that all that while we lose all the benefit of any good thing that we can do upon the interest of any principle whatsoever. For so long as we are out of Gods favour, under the seisure and arrest of eternal guilt, so long we are in a state of enmity with God, and all our actions are like the perfor­mances of Heathens, nothing to eternal life, but mis­spendings of our powers, and prodigalities of rea­son and wise discourses; they are not perfective of our being, neither do they set us forward to heaven, until our state be changing Either then we are not by a certain Law and Commandement bound every day to serve God and please him, or else we are posi­tively and strictly bound instantly to repent of all our sins: because so long as a known sin is unrepen­ted of, we cannot serve God, we cannot do any thing that shall be acceptable to him in Jesus Christ.

7. 9 Every delaying of Repentance is one step of progression towards final Impenitence; which is not onely then esteem'd a sin against the holy Ghost when a man resolves never to repent, but if by care­lesness [Page 226]he neglects, or out of tediousness and an ir­religious spirit quite puts off, or for ever pass by, it is unpardonable; it shall never be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come. Now since final im­penitence is the consummation and perfection of all sin, we are to remember, that it is nothing but a perseverance of neglecting, or refusing to repent. A man is alwayes dying, and that which we call death is but the finishing of death, the last act of it: So is final impenitence, nothing but the same sin told over so many dayes; it is a persevering carelesness, or re­solution, and therefore it cannot be the sin of one day, unless it be by accident; it is a state of sin, be­gun as soon as ever the sin is acted, and grows in every day of thy negligence or forgetfulness. But if it should happen that a sinner that sinn'd yester­day should die to day, his deferring his Repentance that one day would be esteem'd so, and indeed re­ally be a final impenitence. It follows therefore, that to put off our Repentance one day, differs onely accidentally and by chance from the worst of evils, from final impenitence; it is the beginning of it, it differs from it, as an infant from a man; it is materially the same sin, and may also have the same formality.

8. 10 The putting off our Repentance from day to day, must needs be a sin distinct from the guilt of the action whereof we are to repent, because the prin­ciple of it cannot be innocent, it must needs be di­stinctly Criminal. It is a rebellion against God, or hardness of heart, or the spirit of Apostasie, Pre­sumption or Despair, or at least such a carelesness as being in the question of our souls, and in relation to God, is infinitely farre from being excusable or innocent.

These Considerations seem to me of very great moment, 11 and to conclude the main proposition; and [Page 227]at least they ought to effect this perswasion upon us, that whoever hath committed a sin cannot honestly, nor prudently, nor safely defer his Repentance one hour. He that repents instantly, breaks his habit when it is in ovo in the shell, and prevents Gods an­ger, and his own debauchment and disimprovement:

And let us consider, that if we defer our Repen­tance one hour, we do to our souls worse then to our bodies,

If dirt fall into our eyes, we do not say to the Chi­rurgion, Stay Sir, and let the grit or little stone abide there till next week, but get it out presently. This similitude if it proves nothing, yet will serve to upbraid our folly, to instruct and exhort us in the duty of this Question. Remember this, that as in Gods account [...] & [...] to remit and to retain a sin are opposite, so it ought to be in ours. Our retaining and keeping of a sin though but for a day, is contrary to the designs of mercy and holiness, it is against God, and against the in­terest of our souls.

§ 3. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils, and a proper guiltiness of its own, besides all that which came directly by the single actions.

BY a sinful habit, 1 I mean the facility and easiness, the delight and custome of sinning contracted by the repetition of the acts of the same sin; as a habit of drunkenness, a habit of swearing, and the like; that is, a quality inherent in the soul, whereby we work with pleasure: E [...]hic. Nicom. l. 2. c. 2. for that Aristotle calls the infallible and proper indication of habits, [...]: And so long as any man sins willingly, readily, frequently, and upon every temptation, or most commonly; so long he is an habitual sinner: when he does his actions of Reli­gion with pain, and of his sin with pleasure, he is in the state of death, and enmity against God. And as by frequent playing upon an instrument a man gets a habit of playing; so he does in renewing the actions of the same sin, there is an evil quality pro­duced, which affects and corrupts his soul. * But concerning the nature of a vicious habit, this also is to be added.

That a vicious habit is not onely contracted by the repetition of acts in the same kinde, 2 but by fre­quency of sinning in any variety of instances what­soever. For there are many vicious persons who have an ambulatory impiety, and sin in all, or most of their opportunities; but their occasions are not uniform, and therefore their irregularities are irre­gular [Page 229]and by chance for the instance, but regular and certain in the prevarication. Vetuleius Pavo would be sure to be drunk at the feasts of Saturn, and take a surfet in the Calends of January; he would be wanton at the Floralia, and bloudy in the Thea­tres: he would be prodigal upon his birth day, and on the day of his marriage sacrifice Hecatombs to his Pertunda Dea, and he would be sure to observe all the solemnities and festivals of vice in their own particulars and instances, and thought him­self a good man enough, because he could not be called a drunkard or a glutton for one act, and by sinning singly escap'd the appellatives of scorn, which are usually fix'd upon vain persons that are married to one sin. * Naturally to contract the habit of any one sin is like the entertaining of a Concubine, and dwelling upon the folly of one miserable woman. But a wandring habit is like a Libido vaga, the vile adulteries of looser persons that drink at every cistern that runs over, and stands open for them. For such persons have a su­preme habit, a habit of disobedience, and may for want of opportunity or abilities, for want of plea­sure, or by the influence of an impertinent humour be kept from acting always in one scene. But so long as they choose all that pleases them, and ex­terminate no vice, but entertain the instances of many, their malice is habitual, their state is a per­fect aversation from God. For this is that which the Apostle cals, The body of sin, Rom. 7. a compagination of many parts and members; just as among the Lawyers, a flock, a people, a legion, are called bo­dies: and corpus civitatis, we finde in Livy, corpus collegiorum in Caius, corpus regni in Virgil; and so here, this union of several sins is the body of sin, and that is, the body of death. And not onely he that feeds perpetually upon raw fruit puts himself into [Page 230]an ill habit of body; but he also does the same thing, who to day drinks too much, and to morrow fils himself with cold fruits, and the next day with condited mushromes, and by evil orders and care­lesness of diet, and accidental miscarriages heaps up a multitude of causes, and unites them in the pro­duction and causality of his death. This general disorder is indeed longer doing, but it kils as fa­tally and infallibly as a violent surfeit. And if a man dwels in the kingdome of sin, it is all one whe­ther he be sick in one, or in twenty places; they are all but several rooms of the same Infirmatory, and ingredients of the same deadly poison. He that repeats his sin, whether it be in one, or in several instances, strikes himself often to the heart, with the same, or with several daggers.

Having thus premised what was necessary for the explication of the nature of vicious habits, 3 we must consider that of vicious habits there is a threefold capacity. 1. A natural. 2. A moral. 3. A relative, as it denominates a man in relation to God.

§. 4. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance, and have no promise to be pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary.

THis is the most material and practical difficulty of the Question: 31 for upon this depends the most mysterious article of Repentance, and the in­terest of dying penitents. For if a habit is not to be pardoned without the extirpation of that which is vicious, and the superinducing its contrary; this being a work of time, requires a particular grace of God, and much industry, caution, watchfulness, fre­quent prayers, many advices and consultations, con­stancy, severe application: and is of so great diffi­culty and such slow progression, that all men who have had experience of this imployment, and have heartily gone about to cure a vicious habit, know it is not a thing to be done upon our death-bed. That therefore which I intend to prove, I express in this Proposition.

The Church of Rome, 33 whose Chairs and Pulpits are dangerous guides in the article of Repentance, affirms, that any sin, or any habit of sin may be par­don'd [Page 257]by any single act of contrition; the continued sin of fourty years may be wash'd off in less then fourty minutes, nay by an act of attrition with the Priestly absolution: which proposition, if it be false, does destroy the interest of souls; and it cannot be true, because it destroys the interest of piety, and the necessities of a good life. The reproof of this de­pends upon many propositions, of which I shall give as plain accounts as the thing will bear.

1. 34 Every habit of vice may be expelled by a ha­bit of vertue naturally, as injustice by justice, glutto­ny by temperance, lust by chastity: but by these it is not meritoriously remitted and forgiven; because nothing in nature can remit sins, or be the immediate natural disposition to pardon. All this is the gift of God, a grace obtain'd by our holy Redeemer, the price of his bloud; but in this, the case is all one as it is in the greatest innocence of the best of men, which if it be not allowed by incorporation into Christ, and sanctified by faith, wants its proper title to hea­ven: and so it is with Repentance. For nature can­not teach us this lesson, much less make it acceptable. For it depending wholly upon Gods graciousness and free forgiveness, can be taught onely by him, by whom it is effectual, and this is conveyed to us by our blessed Lord, according to that saying, Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

2. 35 Although a habit cannot be the meritorious cause of pardoning the contrary habit, yet to him that hath contracted a vicious habit, it is necessary in order to his pardon that he root out that habit and obtain the contrary in some degrees of prevalency, so that the scales be turned on that side where is the interest of vertue: and this depends upon the evidence of the for­mer proposition. If to be an habitual sinner be more then to be guilty of those actual sins by w^ch the habit was contracted: then as it is necessary to rescind the act [Page 258]of sin by an act of contrition and repentance: so also it is as necessary that the habit be retracted by a habit, that every wound may have its balsam, and every broken bone be bound up and redintegrate.

3. 36 But in the case of habitual sins the argument is more pressing. For if the act which is past and re­mains not, yet must be reversed by its contrary, much rather must that be taken off which does remain, which actually tempts us, by which we are in a state exactly contrary to the state of grace. For some sel­dome acts of sin and in trifling instances may stand with the state of holiness, and be incident to a good man: but no vicious habit can, neither in a small matter, nor in a great; this is an [...], a destroyer, and therefore as it hath a particular obliquity, so it must have a special repentance, a repentance proper to it, that is, as an act rescinds an act, so must a ha­bit be oppos'd to a habit, a single act of contrition to a single sin, and therefore it must be more, no less then a lasting and an habitual contrition to ob­tain pardon for the habit. And although a habit can meritoriously remit a habit, no more then an act can do an act, they being both equal as to that parti­cular, yet they are also dispositions equally (at least on this hand) necessary for the obtaining pardon of their respective contraries.

4. 37 It is confessed on all sides, that every single sin which we remember, must be repented of by an act of repentance that must particularly touch that sin; if we distinctly remember it, it must distinctly be revok'd by a nolition, a sorrow, and moral revoca­tion of it. Since therefore every habit is contracted by many single actions, every one of which if they were sinful must some way or other be rescinded by its contrary, the rescission of those will also intro­duce a contrary habit, and so the question will be evinc'd upon that account. For if we shall think one [Page 259]act of sorrow can abolish many foul acts of sin, we but deceive our selves; we must have many for one (as I have already made to appear) a multitude of sighs and prayers against every foul action that we remem­ber: and then the consequent is plain, that upon this reckoning when a habit is contracted, the acti­ons which were its principle cannot be rescinded but by such Repentances which will extinguish not onely the formality, but the material and natural effect of that cursed production, at least in very many degrees.

5. 38 A habit oppos'd to a habit hath greater ef­fect then an act oppos'd to an act, and therefore is not onely equally requisite, but the more proper remedy and instance of repentance. For an act of it self cannot naturally extinguish the guilt, nor meri­toriously obtain its pardon: but neither can it destroy its natural being, which was not permanent, and therefore not to be wrought upon by an after act. But to oppose a habit to a habit, can equally in the merits of Christ be the disposition to a pardon, as an act can for an act; and is certainly much better then any one act can be, because it includes many sin­gle acts of the same nature, and it is all of them, and their permanent effect and change wrought by them besides. So that it is certainly the better and the surer way. But now the Question is not, whether it be the better way, but whether it be necessary, and will not the lesser way suffice? To this therefore I answer, that since no man can be acceptable to God as long as sin reigns in his mortal body, and since either sin must reign, or the Spirit of Christ must reign; for a man cannot be a Neuter in this war; it is necessary that sins kingdome be destroyed and broken, and that Christ rule in our hearts; that is, it is necessary that the first and the old habits be taken off and new ones introduc'd. For although the moral revocation [Page 260]of a single act may be a sufficient disposition to its pardon, because the act was transient, and unless there be a habit or something of it, nothing remains: yet the moral revocation of a sinful habit cannot be suf­ficient, because there is impressed upon the soul a viciousness and contrariety to God, which must be taken off, or there can be no reconciliation. For let it be but considered, that a vicious habit is a re­manent aversation from God, an evil heart, the evil treasure of the heart, a carnall mindedness, an union and principle of sins; and then let it be an­swered, whether a man who is in this state can be a friend of God, or reconcil'd to him in his Son, who lives in a state so contrary to his holy Spirit of Grace. The guilt cannot be taken off without de­stroying its nature, since the nature it self is a vici­ousness and corruption.

6. 39 Either it is necessary to extirpate and break the habit, or else a man may be pardon'd while he is in love with sin. For every vicious habit being radicated in the will, and being a strong love, inclination and adhesion to sin, unless the na­tural being of this habit be taken off, the enmity against God remains. For it being a quality perma­nent and inherent, and its nature being an aptness and easiness, a desire to sin and longing after it, to retract this by a moral retractation, and not by a na­tural also, is but hypocrisie: for no man can say tru­ly, I hate the sin I have committed, so long as the love to sin is inherent in his will; and then if God should pardon such a person, it would be to justifie a sinner remaining such, which God e­qually hates as to condemne the innocent: He will by no means acquit the guilty. It was part of his Name which he caused to be proclaimed in the Camp of Israel. And if this could be o­therwise, a man might be in the state of sin, [Page 261]and the state of grace at the same time; which hitherto all Theology hath believ'd to be im­possible.

7. 40 This whole Question is clear'd by a large discourse of S. Paul. For having under the person of an unregenerate man complain'd of the habitual state of prevailing sin, of one who is a slave to sin, Rom. 7.14, sold under sin, captive under a law of sin, that is, un­der vile inclinations, and high pronenesses and ne­cessities of sinning, so that when he is convinc'd that he ought not to doe it, yet he cannot help it; though he fain would have it help'd, 19, &c. yet he cannot obey his own will, but his accursed superinduc'd necessities; and his sin within him was the ruler, that, and not his own better choyce was the prin­ciple of his actions, which is the perfect character of an habitual sinner; he inquires after a remedy for all this, which remedy he cals a being delive­red [...], from the body of this death. The remedy is [...], the grace of God through Jesus Christ, for by Christ alone we can be delivered. But what is to be done? the exterminati­on of this dominion and Empire of concupiscence, the breaking of the kingdome of sin. That being the evil he complains of, and of which he seeks remedy, that is to be remov'd. But that we may well understand to what sense, and in what degree this is to be done; in the next periods he describes the contrary state of deliverance, by the parts and characters of an habit or state of holiness; which he cals, a walking after the Spirit, Rom. 8.1. &c. opposed to a walk­ing after the flesh. It was a law in his members, a law of sin and death. Now he is to be made free by a contrary law, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus: That is, as sin before gave him law, so now must the Spirit of God; whereas before he minded the things of the flesh, now he minds the things of [Page 262]the spirit; that is, the carnal-mindedness is gone, and a spiritual-mindedness is the principle and ruler of his actions. This is the deliverance from habitual sins, even no other then by habitual graces wrought in us by the spirit of life, by the grace of our Lord Jesus. And this whole affair is rarely well summ'd up by the same Apostle; Rom. 6.19. As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity, unto iniquity: even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. If ye were servants be­fore, so ye must be now; it is but justice and rea­son, that at least as much be done for God as for the Devil; It is not enough morally to revoke what is past, by a wishing it had not been done, but you must oppose a state to a state, a habit to a habit. And the Author of the Book of Baruch presses it further yet; Baruch 4.28. As it was your minde to go astray from God, so being returned seek him ten times more. It ought not to be less; it must be as S. Chrysostome expresses it, In Act. 4. hom. 10, A custome against a custome, a habit op­posed to a habit, that the evil may be driven out by the good, as one nail is by another. [...], Vandalic. [...]1. said Procopius. In those things where you have sinned, to profit, and to increase, and improve to their contraries, that is the more comely way to pardon.

8. 41 Either a habit of vertue is a necessary dispo­sition to the pardon of a habit of vice, or else the doctrine of mortification of the lusts of the flesh, of all the lusts, of all the members of the old man, is nothing but a counsel, and a caution of prudence, but it contains no essential and indispensable duty. For mortification is a long contention, and a course of difficulty; it is to be done by many arts, and much caution, and a long patience, and a diligent observation, by watchfulness and labour, the work [Page 263]of every day, & the employment of all the prudence, and all the advices of good men, and the whole grace of God. It is like the curing of a Hectick feaver, which one potion will not doe. Origen does excellently de­scribe it, [...]. When a word is strengthened and nourished by care and assiduity, and confirmed by opinions and wise sentences, or near to confirmation, it masters all oppositions, and breaks in pieces the concupiscence. This is the manner of mor­tification, there must be resolutions and discourses, assiduity and diligence, auxiliaries from reason, and wise sentences, and advices of the prudent; and all these must operate [...], unto a con­firmation, or near it, and by these the concupiscence can be master'd. But this must be a work of time.

said Menander. To dissolve a long custome in a short time is a work indeed, but very hard, if not impos­sible, to be done by any man. A man did not sudden­ly come to the state of evil, from whence he is to arise. Nemo repentè fuit turpissimus. S. Basil, homil 9. But as a man coming into a pestilential air, does not suck in death at every motion of his lungs, but by little and little the spirits are poysoned, and at last enter into their portion of death; so it is in a vicious custome. [...]. Stob. The evil is not felt instantly, it begins from little things, and is the production of time and frequent actions. And therefore much less can it be supposed, that we can overcome our filthy habits, and master our fortified corruptions by a sudden dash of piety and the ex [Page 264]tempore gleams of repentance. Concerning this, S. In regul. fusiùs dis­put. q. 6. & 55. Basil discourses excellently. Sicut enim morbi cor­poris inveterati, &c. For as the old diseases of the bo­dy are not healed without a long and painful atten­dance; so must old sins be cured by a long patience, a daily prayer, and the sharpest contention of the spirit. That which is died with many dippings, is in grain, and can very hardly be washed out: Sic anima sanie peccatorum suppurata & in habitu constituta mali­tiae, vix ac multo negotio [...]ui potest. So is the soul when it is corrupted with the poyson of sin, and hath contracted a malicious habit, it can scarce, but not with­out much labour be made clean.

Now since we say our nature is inclined to sin, 42 and we feel it to be so in many instances, and yet that it needs time and progression to get a habit of that whither we too naturally tend; we have rea­son to apprehend that we need time and fierce con­tentions, and the long suffering of violences to take the kingdome of heaven by force, by a state of contra­diction and hostility against the tempting enemy. It is much harder to get a habit against our nature, and a prepossessing habit, then to confirm nature, and to actuate our inclinations.

And this does not onely relate to habits in their Natural capacity, 43 but in their Moral, and conse­quently their Relative capacity, as appertaining to God, in the matter of his valuation of them. Be­cause in habits as it is in acts, although metaphysi­cally we can distinguish the action from the irregu­larity, yet because they are subjected in the same person, and the irregularity is inherent in the action, in the whole composition the action is sinful; so it is in habits. For the sin adheres to the natural fa­cility, and follows it in all its capacities. And as the natural facility of doing viciously, is cured by time, and a successive continued diligence; so is the sinful­ness, [Page 265]because that facility is vicious and sinful. And as heat is distinguished from fire, but you cannot lessen the heat, but by decreasing the natural being of fire: so does the sin of a vicious habit pass away as the habit naturally lessens; that is, the Moral ca­pacity changes as does the Natural, this being the subject of that, and it could not have been this ha­bit, if it had not in it this sinfulness. *

Now if the parts of this argument be put to­gether, 44 their intention is this. A habit of sin is not gotten but by time and progression; and yet it can­not be lost so soon as it was gotten; but it is a long time before its natural being is overcome by its con­trary. But the sinfulness of it does pass away with the natural being; and no otherwise; therefore the sinfulness of it cannot be removed suddenly. And therefore if mortification be a duty, and we be com­manded to doe it, we are commanded to doe a long work and a difficult, a thing that is more then the moral retractation of it by a single act of sorrow or contrition, a duty that contains in it so much work as is proportion'd to the necessity, even to the breaking the habit of sin, and setting up the habit of vertue over it. Now then, all the que­stion will be, whether Mortification be a Precept, or a Counsel. Concerning which, I onely appeal to the words of S. Paul, Colos. 3.5. [...], Mortifie therefore your earthly members; and, Rom. 8.13. If ye through the Spirit doe mortifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Mortification is the condition of life, it is expresly commanded by the Apostle, that we make the deeds of the body to be dead; that is, the evil habits and concupiscence of the body; for that which S. Paul here cals [...] or deeds, in the same precept written to the Galatians, Gal. 5.2.4. he cals [...], lusts and concupiscences. And of what great necessity & effect this mortification & crucifying [Page 266]of our sinful customes is, we may understand best by those other words of the same Apostle; Rom. 6.7. He that is dead is justified from sins, not till then, not till his habit was dead; not as soon as he morally retracts it by an act of displeasure and contrition, but when the sin is dead, when the habit is crucified, when the concupiscence does not reign, but is overcome in all its former prevalencies, then he is pardon'd, and not before.

9. 45 Unless it be necessary to oppose a habit against a habit, a state of vertue against a state of vice; that is, if a vicious habit may be pardon'd upon one act of contrition, then it may so happen that a man shall not be obliged to doe good, but onely to ab­stain from evil, to cease from sin, but not to proceed and grow in grace: which is against the perpetual design, and analogy of the Gospel, and the nature of Evangelical righteousness, which differs from the righteousness of the law, as doing good from not doing evil. The law forbad murder, but the Go­spel superaddes charity. The law forbad uncleanness, but the Gospel superaddes purity and mortificati­on. The law forbad us to doe wrong, but the Go­spel commands us to doe offices of kindness. Inju­stice was prohibited by the law, but revenge also of real injuries is forbidden by the Gospel, and we are commanded to doe good to them that injure us; and therefore the Writers of the New Testa­ment do frequently joyn Rom 6.18. Ephes. 4.22. Col. 1.13. & 3.5.10.12. Titus 2.12, 13, 14. Heb. 10.22 24. 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. & 3.11. 2 Pet. 1.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. these, to be dead unto sin, and to live unto righteousness. This is that which was opposed to the righ­teousness of the law Rom. 3.21. & 9.30, 31. Gal. 2.16. & 3.8. Phil. 3.6, 7., and is cal­led the righteousness of God: And a mistake in this affair was the ruine of the Jews. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, they thought to be justified by [Page 267]their own righteousness which is of the law. That is, they thought it enough to leave off to sin, without doing the contrary good, and so hop'd for the pro­mises. This was the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, to be no adulterers, no defrauders of the rights of the Temple, no Publicans or exacters of Tribute. But our blessed Saviour assur'd us that there is no hopes of heaven for us, unless our righteous­ness exceed this of theirs.

Now then, 46 to apply this to the present argument. Suppose a vicious person who hath liv'd an impi­ous life, plac'd upon his death-bed, exhorted to re­pentance, made sensible of his danger, invited by the Sermons of his Priest to dress his soul with duty and sorrow; if he obeys, and is sorry for his sin; supposing that this sorrow does really begin that part of his duty which consists in not sinning, nay, suppose he will never sin again (which is the righ­teousness of the law) yet how can he in that case doe that good which is required by the Gospel? Seek the kingdome of heaven, and the righteousness thereof. The Gospel hath a peculiar righteousness of its own, proper to it self, without which there is no entrance into heaven. But the righteousness of the law is called our own righteousness, that is, such a righteousness which men by nature know; for we all by the innate law of nature, know that we ought to abstain from doing injury to Man, from impiety to God: But we onely know by re­velation the righteousness of the kingdome which consists in holiness and purity, chastity, and pati­ence, humility, and self-denial. He that rests in the first, and thinks he may be sav'd by it (as S. Pauls expression is) he establisheth his own righ­teousness, that is, the righteousness of the law, and this he does, whosoever thinks that his evil habits are pardon'd without doing that good, and acqui­ring [Page 268]those graces which constitute the righteous­ness of the Gospel, that is, faith and holiness, which are the significations, and the vital parts of the new creature.

10. 47 But because this doctrine is highly neces­sary, and the very soul of Christianity, I consider further, that without the superinducing a contrary state of good to the former state of evil, we cannot return, or go off from that evil condition that God hates, I mean the middle state, or the state of luke­warmness. For though all the old philosophy con­sented that vertue and vice had no medium between them, but whatsoever was not evil, was good, and he that did not doe evil was a good man, said the old Jews, yet this they therefore did unreprovably teach, because they knew not this secret of the righteousness of God. For in the Evangelical justice, between the natural, or legal good or evil there is a medium or a third, which of it self, and by the accounts of the Law was not evil, but in the accounts of the Evangelical righteousness is a very great one; that is, lukewarm­ness, or a cold, tame, indifferent, unactive religion. Not that lukewarmness is by name forbidden by any of the laws of the Gospel, but that it is against the ana­logy and design of it. A lukewarm person does not do evil, but he is hated by God, because he does not vigorously proceed in godliness. No law condemnes him, but the Gospel approves him not, because he does not from the heart obey this form of doctrine, which commands a course, a habit, a state and life of holiness. It is not enough that we abstain from evil, we shall not be crowned unless we be partakers of a Divine nature. 2 Pet. 1.4. For to this S. Peter enjoyns us carefully. Now then we partake of a Divine nature, when the Spirit dwels in us, and rules all our faculties, when we are united unto God, when we imitate the Lord Jesus, when we are perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. [Page 269]Now whether this can be done by an act of contri­tion, needs no further inquiry, but to observe the nature of Evangelical Righteousness, the hatred God bears to lukewarmness, the perfection he re­quires of a Christian, the design and great example of our blessed Lord, the glories of that inheritance whither we are design'd, and of the obtaining of which, obedience to God in the faith of Jesus Christ is made the onely indispensable, necessary condition.

For let it be considered. 48 Suppose a man that is righteous according to the letter of the Law, of the Ten Commandements, all of which (two excepted) were Negative; this man hath liv'd innocently and harmlesly all his days, but yet uselesly, unprofitably, in rest and unactive circumstances; is not this person an unprofitable servant? The servant in the Parable was just such: he spent not his Masters talent with riotous living, like the Prodigal, but laid it up in a Napkin, he did neither good nor harm; but because he did no good, he receiv'd none, but was thrown into outer darkness.

An innocent servant amongst the Romans might scape the Furca, or the Mill, or the Wheel; but un­less he was useful, he was not much made of. So it is in Christianity. For that which according to Mo­ses was called righteousness, according to Christ is poverty and nakedness, misery and blindness, as ap­pears in the reproof which the Spirit of God sent to the Bishop and Church of Laodicea. Rev. 3.15. He thought himself rich when he was nothing; that is, he was harmless, but not profitable, innocent according to the measures of the law, but not rich in good works. [Page 270]So the Pharisees also thought themselves just by the justice of the law, that is, by their abstinence from condemned evils, and therefore they refus'd to buy of Christ the Lord, gold purified in the fire, whereby they might become rich; that is, they would not ac­cept of the righteousness of God, the justice Evan­gelical, and therefore they were rejected. And thus to this very day do we. Even many that have the fairest reputation for good persons and honest men, reckon their hopes upon their innocence and legal freedoms, and outward compliances: that they are no liars nor swearers, no drunkards nor gluttons, no extortioners or injurious, no thieves nor mur­therers; but in the mean time they are unprofitable servants, not instructed, not throughly prepared to every good work; not abounding in the work of the Lord, but blinde, and poor, and naked; just, but as the Pharisees; innocent, but as Heathens: In the mean time they are only in that state to which Christ never made the promises of eternal life and joys hereafter.

Now if this be true in one period, 49 it is true in all the periods of our life. If he that hath always liv'd thus innocently and no more, that is, a Heathen and a Pharisee, could not by their innocence and proper righteousness obtain Heaven, much less shall he who liv'd viciously and contracted filthy habits, be ac­cepted by all that amends he can make by such sin­gle acts of contrition, by which nothing can be ef­fected but that he hates sin and leaves it. For if the most innocent by the legal righteousness is still but unprofitable, much more is he such who hath pre­varicated that and liv'd vilely, and now in his a­mendment begins to enter that state, which if it goes no further is still unprofitable. They were se­vere words which our blessed Saviour said, Luke 17.10. When ye have done all things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; that is, when ye have [Page 271]done all things which are commanded [in the law] he sayes not [all things which I shall command you] for then we are not unprofitable servants in the Evangelical sense. For he that obeys this form of doctrine is a good servant. He is the friend of God. If ye do whatsoever I command you, ye are my friends; Joh. 15.14, 15. and that is more then profitable servants: For I will not call you servants, but friends, saith our blessed Lord; and for you, a crown of righteousness is laid up against the day of recompences. These therefore cannot be called unprofitable servants, but friends, sons and heirs; for he that is an unprofitable servant shall be cast into outer darkness. * To live therefore in innocence onely, and according to the righteousness of the law, is to be a servant, but yet unprofitable, and that in effect is to be no heir of the Promises; for to these, Piety, or Evangelicall Righteousness is the onely title. Godliness is profitable to all things, having the promise of this life, and of that which is to come. For upon this account, the works of the law cannot justifie us: for the works of the law at the best were but innocence and ceremonial perfor­mances: but we are justified by the works of the Gospel, that is, faith and obedience. For these are the righteousness of God, they are his works, re­vealed by his Spirit, effected by his Grace, promo­ted by his Gifts, encouraged by special Promises, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and accepted through Jesus Christ to all the great purposes of Glory and Immortality.

Since therefore a constant innocence could not justifie us, 50 unless we have the righteousness of God, that is, unless we superadde holiness and purity in the faith of Jesus Christ: much less can it be ima­gined that he who hath transgressed the righteous­ness of the law, and broken the Negative Precepts, and the natural humane rectitude, and hath super­induc'd [Page 272]vices contrary to be righteousness of God, can ever hope to be justified by those little arrests of his sin, and his beginnings to leave it upon his death-bed, and his sorrow for it, then when he cannot obtain the righteousness of God, or the ho­liness of the Gospel. It was good counsel that was given by a wise Heathen,

It is good for a man to begin. The Clown that stands by a river side expecting till all the water be run away, may stay long enough before he gets to the other side. He that will not begin to live well till he hath answered all objections, and hath no lusts to serve, no more appetites to please, shall ne­ver arrive at happiness in the other world. Be wise, and begin betimes.

§. 5. Consideration of the objections against the former Doctrine.

1. 51 BUt why may not all this be done in an in­stant by the grace of God? Cannot he in­fuse into us the habits of all the graces Evangelical? Faith cannot be obtained by natural means, and if it be procur'd by supernatural, the Spirit of God is not retarded by the measures of an enemy, and the [Page 273]dull methods of natural opposition. Nescit tarda molimina Spiritus sancti gratia. Without the Di­vine Grace we cannot work any thing of the righ­teousness of God; but if he gives us his grace, does not he make us chaste and patient, humble and devout, and all in an instant? For thus the main Question seems to be confessed and granted, that a habit is not remitted but by the introduction of the contrary: but when you consider what you handle, it is a cloud and nothing else; for this ad­mission of the necessity of a habit, enjoyns no more labour nor care, it requires no more time, it intro­duces no active fears, and infers no particular cau­tion, and implies the doing of no more then to the remission of a single act of one sin.

To this I answer, 52 that the grace of God is a su­pernatural principle, and gives new aptnesses and in­clinations, powers and possibilities, it invites and tea­ches, it supplies us with arguments, and answers ob­jections, it brings us into artificial necessities, and inclines us sweetly: and this is the semen Dei spo­ken of by S. John, the seed of God thrown into the furrows of our hearts, springing up (unless we choke it) to life eternal. By these assistances we being helped can do our duty, and we can expel the habits of vice, and get the habits of vertue: But as we cannot doe Gods work without Gods grace; so Gods grace does not do our work with­out us. For grace being but the beginnings of a new nature in us, gives nothing but powers and inclinations. The Spirit helpeth our infirmities; so S. Paul explicates this mystery. Rom. 8.26. And therefore when he had said, By the grace of God I am what I am; that is, all is owing to his grace: he al­so addes, I have baboured more then they all, yet not I; that is, not I alone; sed gratia Dei me­cum; the grace of God that is with me. For [Page 272]the grace of God stands at the door and knocks; but we must attend to his voice, and open the door, and then he will enter and sup with us, and we shall be with him. The grace of God is like a graff put into a stock of another nature; it makes use of the faculties and juice of the stock and natu­ral root, but converts all into its own nature. But,

2. 53 We may as well say there can be a habit born with us, as infus'd into us. For as a natural ha­bit supposes a frequency of action by him who hath naturall abilities; so an infus'd habit (if there were any such) is a result and consequent of a frequent doing the works of the Spirit. So that to say that God in an instant infuses into us a habit [of Chastity, &c.] is to say that he hath in an instant in­fus'd into us to have done the acts of that grace fre­quently. For it is certain by experience, that the fre­quent doing the actions of any grace, increases the grace, and yet the grace or aids of Gods Spirit are as necessary for the growth, as for the beginnings of grace. We cannot either will or do without his help; he worketh both in us, that is, we by his help alone are enabled to do things above our nature. But then we are the persons enabled; and therefore we do these works as we do others, not by the same powers, but in the same manner.

When God raises a Cripple from his couch, 55 and gives him strength to move, though the aid be su­pernatural, yet the motion is after the manner of nature. And it is evident in the matter of faith, which though it be the gift of God, yet it is seated in the Understanding, which operates by way of dis­course, & not by intuition: The believer understands as a Man, not as an Angel: And when Christ by miracle restor'd a blinde eye, still that eye did see by reception, or else by emission of species, just [Page 273]so as eyes that did see naturally. So it is in habits. For it is a contradiction to say that a perfect ha­bit is infus'd in an instant: For if a habit were infus'd, it must be infus'd as a habit is acquir'd; for else it is not a habit. Habitus infusi insun­duntur per modum acqui­sitorum. Regul. Scho­last. As if a motion should be infus'd, it must still be successive as well as if it were natural.

But this device of infus'd habits, 55 is a fancy without ground, and without sense, without au­thority, or any just grounds of confidence, and it hath in it very bad effects. For it destroys all necessity of our care and labour in the wayes of godliness, all cautions of a holy life; it is apt to minister pretences and excuses for a perpetually wicked life till the last of our dayes, making men to trust to a late Repentance; it puts men upon vain confidences, and makes them relie for salva­tion upon dreams and empty notions; it destroys all the duty of man, and cuts off all entercourse of obedience and reward. But it is sufficient, that there is no ground for it in Scripture, nor in An­tiquity, nor in right Reason: but it is infinitely de­structive of all that wise conduct of Souls, by which God would glorifie himself by the means of a free obedience; and it is infinitely confuted by all those Scriptures which require our cooperation with the assistance of Gods holy Spirit. For all the helps that the Spirit of Grace ministers to us, is farre from doing our work for us, that it onely enables us to do it for our selves, and makes it reasonable that God should therefore exact it of us, because we have no excuse, and cannot plead disability. To which purpose that discourse of S. Paul is highly convincing and demonstrative: Work out your own salvation with fear and trem­bling;Phil. 2.12, 13.for it is God which worketh in you both to [Page 276]will and to do of his good pleasure, [...], according to our desire: so it is better read; that is, fear not at all, but [...], throughly do your duty Magis operamini. Syrus. Augescite in opere. Arabs.; for according as you desire and pray, God will be present to you with his grace, to bear you through all your labours and temptations. And therefore our conversion, and the working our salvation, is sometimes ascribed to God, sometimes to men 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. 2 Tim. 2.21. Jam. 4.8. Ep [...] 4.22, 23, 24. Col. 3 9, 10.; to God as the prime and indeficient cause, to man [...], as to the fellow-worker with God; it is the expression of S. Paul. The Scripture mentions no other effect of Gods grace, but such as I have now described. But that Grace should do all our work alone, and in an instant, that which costs the Saints so much labour, and fierce contentions, so much sorrow and trouble, so many prayers and tears, so much watchfulness and caution, so much fear and trembling, so much patience and long-suffering, so much toleration and contradiction, and all this under the conduct of the Spirit, in the midst of all the greatest helps of grace, and the inhabitation of the holy Spi­rit of God; that all this labour and danger should be spar'd to a vile person, who hath griev'd and extinguish'd Gods holy Spirit, and a way con­triv'd for him that he should enjoy the pleasures of this world, and the glories of the next, is such a device, as if it had any ground or colourable pre­tence for it, would, without the miracles of another grace, destroy all piety from the face of the earth. And in earnest, it seems to me a strange thing, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome should be so loose and remiss in this Article, when they are so sierce in another that takes from such persons all manner of excuse. It is (I say) very strange that it should be so possible, and yet withall so unncessary to keep the Commandements.

Obj. 2. 56 But if a single act of contrition cannot procure pardon of sins that are habitual, then a wicked man that returns not till it be too late to root out vicious habits, must despair of salvation. I answer, That such a man should doe well to ask his Physician whether it be possible for him to escape that sickness? If his Physician say it is, then the man need not despair; for if he return to life and health, it will not be too late for him by the grace of God to recover in his soul. But if his Physician say he cannot recover; first let the Physician be reproved for making his pa­tient to despair. I am sure he hath less reason to say he cannot live, then there is to say, such a person hath no promise that he shall be saved without performing the condition. But the Phy­sician if he be a wise man will say, So farre as he understands by the rules of his art, this man cannot recover; but some secret causes of things there are, or may be, by which the event may be better then the most reasonable predictions of his art. The same answer I desire may be taken in the Question of his soul. Concerning which the Cu­rate is to preach the rules and measures of God, but not to give a resolution concerning the secret and final sentence. 2. The case of the five foolish Virgins, if we may construe it as it is expressed, gives a sad account to such persons: and unless that part of the Parable be insignificant, which ex­presses their sorrow, their diligence, their de­sire, their begging of oyle, their going out to buy oyle before the Bridegroom came, but after it was noised that he was coming, and the insuffi­ciency of all this, we may too certainly conclude, that much more then a single act of contrition, and a moral revocation, that is, a sorrow and a nolition of the past sins, may be done upon our [Page 276]death-bed without effect, without a being accepted to pardon and salvation. 3. When things are come to that sad state, let the man hope as much as he can; God forbid that I should be Author to him to despair. The purpose of this discourse is, that men in health should not put things to that despe­rate condition, or make their hopes so little and afflicted, that it may be disputed whether they be alive or no. 4. But this objection is nothing but a temptation and a snare; a device to make me confess that the former arguments (for fear men should despair) ought to be answered, and are not perfectly convincing. I intended them onely for institution and instruction, not to confute any person or any thing, but to condemne sin, and to resoue men from danger. But truly, I doe think they are rightly concluding (as moral propositions are capable;) and if the consequent of them be, that dying persons after a vicious life cannot hope (or­dinarily) for pardon, I am truly sorrowful that any man should fall into that sad state of things; as I am really afflicted and sorrowful that any man should live vilely, or perish miserably; but then it ought not to be imputed to this doctrine that it makes men despair, for the purpose and proper consequent of it, is, that men are warned to live so, that they may be secur'd in their hopes, that is, that men give diligence to make their calling and election sure, that they may take no desperate cour­ses, and fall into no desperate condition. And cer­tainly, if any man preach the necessity of a good life, and of actual obedience, he may as well be charged to drive men to despair; for the summe of the foregoing doctrine is nothing else, but that it is necessary we should walk before God in all holy conversation and godliness. But of this I shall give a large account in the fifth §.

Obj. 3. But if things be thus, it is not good or safe to be a criminal Judge, and all the Discipline of Warre will be unlawful and highly displeasing to God. For if any one be taken in an act of a great sin, and as it happens in War, be put to death sud­denly, without leisure and space of repentance, by the measures of this doctrine, the man shall pe­rish, and consequently the power by which he fals is uncharitable.

I answer; That in an act of sin the case is other­wise then in an habit, as I have already demonstra­ted in its proper place: It must be a habit that must extirpate a habit; but an act is rescinded by a less violence and abode of duty: and it is possible for an act of duty to be so heroical, or the repentance of an hour to be so pungent and dolorous, and the fruits of that repentance putting forth by the sud­den warmths and fervour of the spirit, be so good­ly and fair, as through the mercies of God in Jesus Christ, to obtain pardon of that single sin, if that be all.

2. But it is to be considered, whether the man be otherwise a vicious person, or was he a good man, but by misfortune and carelesness overtaken in a fault? If he was a good man, his spirit is so ac­customed to good, that he is soon brought to an excellent sorrow, and to his former state, especially being awakened by the sad arrest of a hasty death: and if he accepts that death willingly, making that which is necessarily inforc'd upon him, to become voluntary by his acceptation of it, changing the judgement into penance, I make no question but he shall finde mercy. But if the man thus taken in a fault was otherwise a vicious person, it is another consideration. It is not safe for him to goe to war; but the Officers may as charitably and justly put such a person to death for a fault, as send him upon [Page 280]a hard service. The doing of his duty may as well ruine him, as the doing of a fault; and if he be repriev'd a week, he will finde difficulty in the do­ing what he should, and danger enough be­sides.

3. The discipline of war, if it be onely admini­stred where it is necessary, not onely in the gene­ral rule, but also in the particular instance, cannot be reprov'd upon this account. Because by the laws of warre sufficiently published, every man is sufficiently warned of his danger; which if he ei­ther accept, or be bound to accept, he perishes by his own fault, if he perishes at all. For as by the hazard of his imployment he is sufficiently called upon to repent worthily of all his evil life past, so is he by the same hazardous imployment, and the known laws of war, caution'd to beware of commit­ting any great sin: and if his own danger will not become his security, then his confidence may be his ruine, and then nothing is to be blam'd but himself.

4. But yet it were highly to be wish'd, that when such cases do happen, and that it can be permitted in the particular without the dissolution of disci­pline, such persons should be pitied in order to their eternal interest. But when it cannot, the Minister of justice, is the Minister of God, and dispenses his power by the rules of his justice, at which we cannot quarrel, though he cuts off sinners in their acts of sin, of which he hath given them sufficient warning, and hath a long time expected their amend­ment: to whom that of Seneca may be applied, Ʋnum bonum tibi superest, repraesentabimus mor­tem. Nothing but death will make some men cease to sin; and therefore, quo uno modo possunt, desinant mali esse. God puts a period to the increase of their ruine and calamity, by making that wickedness [Page 281]shorter, which if it could would have been eternal. When men are incorrigible, they may be cut off in charity as well as justice; and therefore as it is always just, so it is sometimes pity, though a sad one, to take a sinner away with his sins upon his head. [...]. When it is impossible to have it otherwise, this is the onely good that he is capable of Ingeniis tal [...]bus vitae exitus remedium est: optimúmque est abire ei qui ad se nunquam redi­turus est. Senec. de Benef. 7.10., to be sent speedily to a lesser pu­nishment then he should inherit, if he should live longer. But when it can be otherwise, it were very well it were so very often. And therefore the cu­stomes of Spain are in this highly to be commen­ded, who to condemned criminals give so much re­spite till the Confessor gives them a benè discessit, and supposes them competently prepared. But if the Law-givers were truly convinced of this doctrine here taught, it is to be hoped, they would more rea­dily practise this charity.

Obj. 57 4. But hath not God promised pardon to him that is contrite? A contrite and broken heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. And, I said, Psa. 51.17.I will con­fess my sins unto the Lord:Psal. 32.6.and so thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin. And the prodigal was pardon'd immediately upon his confession, and return. Coe­perat dicere, & mox illum pater complectitur, Homil. de poenit. said S. Basil; His Father embraces him when he began to speak. And S. Chrysostome, In that moment (says he) he wipes away all the sins of his life. And S. Au­stin upon that of David before quoted; My con­fession came not so far as my mouth, and God heard the voyce of my heart.

To this I answer, 58 first concerning the words of David. Then concerning the examples. 1. Con­cerning contrition, that it is a good beginning of re­pentance, [Page 280]is certain, and in its measure acceptable to God, and effective of all its proper purposes. But contrition can have but the reward of contrition, but not of other graces which are not parts but effects of it. God will not despise the broken and contrite heart; no, for he will receive it graciously, and binde up the wounds of it, and lead it on in the paths of righteousness, and by the waters of comfort.

2. 59 But a man is not of a contrite heart as soon as he hath exercised one act of contrition. He that goes to break a rock, does something towards it by every blow, but every blow does not break it. A mans heart is not so easily broken; I mean bro­ken from the love of sin, and its adherence to it. Every act of temperance does not make a man tem­perate; and so I fear will it be judg'd concerning contrition.

3. 60 But suppose the heart be broken, and that the man is contrite, there is more to be done then so. God indeed does not despise this, but he requires more. God did not despise Ahabs repentance, but it did not doe all his work for him. He does not despise patience, nor meekness, nor re­signation, nor hope, nor confession, nor any thing that himself commands. But he that commands all, will not be content with one alone; every grace shall have its reward, but it shall not be crown'd alone. Faith alone shall not justify, and repentance alone, taken in its specifical, distinctive sense, shall not suffice; but faith, and repen­tance, and charity, and patience, and the whole circle and rosary of graces and duties must adorn our heads.

4. 61 Those graces and duties which are comman­ded us, and to which God hath promised glorious rewards, must not be single or transient acts, but [Page 281]continual and permanent graces. Joh. 4.14. He that drinks of the water which I shall give him, shall never thirst again. 6.58.He that eats of this bread shall live for ever. He that believes in me, rivers of living waters shall flow from his belly. 7.38.He that confesseth his sins and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Repent and beleeve, and wash away your sins. Now these words of [...], are of extended and produced signification (as Divines observe) and signify a state of duty, such as includes patience and perseverance. Such also are these. 1 Joh. 2.17. 1 Joh. 1.9. He that doth the will of my Father abideth for ever. If we confess our sins, he is just and faithful to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity; Gal. 5.21. and they that doe such things shall possess the kingdome of Heaven. And, I will deliver him because he hath put his trust in me. And, If we love him he also will love us. And, Forgive and ye shall be forgiven. These and many more, doe not intend that any one grace alone is sufficient, much less any one act of one grace, proceeding from the Spirit of God, can be sufficient to wipe off our le­prosies. But these signify states of duty, and inte­grity; not transient actions, or separate graces. And besides the infinite reasonableness of the thing, this truth is consign'd to us plainly in Scripture: Rom. 2.6, 7. [God] will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life. And if men had pleased, they might as well have fallen upon this proposition, that an act of humility would have procur'd our pardon, as well as that an act of contrition will doe it: because of the words of David, Psa. 34.17.The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart; and will save such as be of an humble spirit. Salvation is as much promised to humility alone, as to contrition alone; that is, to neither sepa­rately, but in the conjunction with other parts of duty.

5. 62 Contrition is either taken in its proper speci­fick signification, and so it is but a part of repen­tance; and then who can say that it shall be suffi­cient to a full and final pardon? Repentance alone is not sufficient; There must be faith, and hope, and charity; therefore much less shall a part be suffici­cient, when the whole is not. But if contrition be taken in a sense comprehending more then it self, then I demand how much shall it involve? That it does include in it an act of the Divine love, and a purpose to confess, and a resolution to amend is af­firmed. So far is well. But why thus far and no far­ther? Why shall not contrition when it is taken for a sufficient disposition to pardon and salvation, signify as much as repentance does; and repen­tance signify the whole duty of a converted sin­ner? Unless it does, repentance it self, that is, as it is one single grace, cannot suffice, as I proved but now: And therefore how shall contrition alone, much less, an act of contrition alone doe it? For my part, I should be very glad it were so, if God so pleased; for I have as much need of mercy as any man, and have as little reason to be consident of the perfection of my repentance, as any returning sinner in the world. But I would not willingly deceive my self, nor others, and there­fore I must take the surest course, and follow his measures who hath describ'd the lines and limits of his own mercy. * But it is remarkable that the manner of the Scripture is to include the conse­quents in the antecedents. Joh. 8.47. He that is of God, heareth Gods word. That is, not onely hears but keeps it. For, not the hearer, Apoc. 19.9.but the doer is blessed. So S. John in the Revelation; Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb. They which are called are blessed; that is, They which being called, come, and come worthily, having on the wedding garment. [Page 285]For without this the meaning of the Spirit is not full. For many are called, but few are chosen. And thus also it is in the present instance: God will not despise the contrite heart; that is, the heart which be­ing bruised with sorrow returns to duty, and lives in holiness; for in order to holiness, contrition was accepted.

But one thing I shall remark before I leave this. In the definition of Contrition, all the Schools of Theology in the world that I know of, put the love of God. Contrition is not onely sorrow, but a love of God too. Now this doctrine, if they themselves would give men leave rightly to understand it, is not onely an excellent doctrine, but will also do the whole business of this great Question. Without Contrition our sins cannot be pardon'd. It is not Con­trition, unless the love of God be in it. Adde then but these; Our love to God does not consist in an act of intuition or contemplation, nor yet directly and meerly of passion; but it consists in obedience. If ye love me, keep my Commandements: That's our love of God. So that Contrition is a detestation of our past sin, and a consequent obedience to the Divine Com­mandements: Onely as the aversion hath been, so must be the conversion; It was not one act of dis­obedience onely which the habitual sinner is to be contrite for, but many; and therefore so must his contrition be, a lasting hatred against sin, and an ha­bitual love, that is, an habitual obedience to the Di­vine Commandement.

6. 63 But now to the instances of David and the Prodigal, and the sudden pronunciation of their par­don, there is something particular to be said. The Parable of the Prodigal can prove nothing but Gods readiness to receive every returning sinner: but neither the measures nor the times of pardon are there described. As for David, his pardon was [Page 284]pronounced suddenly, but it was but a piece of par­don; the sentence of death which by Moses law he incurred, that onely was remitted: but after this pardon, David repented bitterly in sackcloth and ashes, he fasted and prayed, he liv'd holily and wisely, he made amends as he could; and yet the childe died that was born to him, his Son and Sub­jects rebelled, his Concubines were dishonoured in the face of the Sun, and the Sword never departed from his house. 2. But to both these and all other instances that are or can be of the like nature, I an­swer, That there is no doubt but Gods pardon is as early and speedy as the beginnings of our repentance; but then it is such a pardon as is proportionable to the Repentance, a beginning Pardon, to a beginning Repentance. It is one degree of pardon to be ad­mitted to Repentance; To have more grace given, to have hopes of final absolution, to be continued in the work of the Lord, to be help'd in the mortifi­cation of our sins, to be invited forwards, and com­forted, and defended, and blessed, still are further progressions of it, and answer to the several parts and perseverance of Repentance. And in this sense those sayings of the old Doctors are true, but in no other that I know of. To this purpose they are ex­cellent words which were spoken by S. Austin, Serm. 181. de tempo­re, c. 16.Nun­quam Deus spernit poenitentiam, si ei sinceré & sim­plicitèr offeratur; suscipit, libentèr accipit, amplecti­tur omnia quatenus eum ad priorem statum revocet. God never does despise repentance that is sincerely offered to him; he takes all, he embraces all, that he may bring the man to his former state.

Obj. 64 5. But against this doctrine are pretended some sentences of the Fathers, expresly affirming that a sinner returning to God in any instant may be pardoned; even in the last moment of his life, when it is certain nothing can be done, but single acts of [Page 285]contrition or something like it. Thus the Author of the book De coena Domini, attributed to S. Cy­prian, Sed & in eodem articulo temporis cum jam anima festinat ad exitum, & egrediens ad labia expirantis emerserit, poenitentiam clementissimi Dei benignitas non aspernatur: nec serum est quod verum, nec irre­missibile quod voluntarium, & quaecunque necessitas cogat ad poenitudinem, nec quantitas criminis, nec bre­vitas temporis, nec horae extremitas, nec vitae enormi­tas, si vera contritio, si pura fuerit voluptatum muta­tio, excludit à veniâ, sed in amplitudine sinus sui mater charitas prodigos suscipit revertentes, & ve­lit nolit Novatus haereticus omni tempore Dei gratia re­cipit poenitentes. Truly this is expresly against the severity of the former doctrine; and if S. Cyprian had been the Author of this book, I should have confess'd him to be an adversary in this question. For this Author affirms, that then when the soul is expiring, God rejects not the contrition of him who but then returns: Though the man be compelled to repen­tance, though the time be short, and the iniquity was long and great, yet in the last hour, if he be truly con­trite, God will not refuse him. To this I say, that he that said these words was Arnoldus Abbas. one that liv'd not very long since; then, when Discipline was broken, and Piety was lost, and Charity was waxen cold; and since the mans authority is nothing, I need say no more, but that I have been reproving this opinion all this while. But there are words in S. Cyprians book to De­metrianus, which are confessedly his, and yet seem to promise pardon to dying penitents. Nec quis­quam aut peccatis retardetur aut annis, quo minus ve­niat ad consequendam salutem. In isto adhuc mundo manenti poenitentia nulla seraest. Patet ad indulgen­tiam Dei aditus, & quaerentibus atque intelligentibus veritatem facilis accessus est. Tu sub ipso licet exitu & vitae temporalis occasu pro delictis roges: & Deum [Page 288]qui unus & verus est, confessione & fide agnitionis ejus implores. Venia confitenti datur, & credenti in­dulgentia salutaris de Divinâ pietate conceditur, & ad immortalitatem sub ipsâ morte transitur. These words are indeed very expresly affirmative of the ef­ficacy of a very late, even of a death-bed repentance, if it should so happen. But the consideration of the person wholly alters the case, and makes it unappli­cable to the case of dying Christians. For Deme­trianus was then a Pagan, and a cruel persecutor of Christians. Nec saltem contentus es dolorum nostro­rum compendio, & simplici ac veloci brevitate poena­rum: admoves laniandis corporibus longa tormenta. Innoxios, justos, Deo charos domo privas, patrimonio spolias, catenis premis, carcere includis, bestiis, gla­dio, ignibus punis. This man S. Cyprian, according to the Christian Charity which teaches to pray for our persecutors, and to love our enemies, exhorts passionately to believe in Christ, to become a Christian, and though he was very old, yet to repent even then would not be too late. Hujus Sacramento & signo censeamur; Hunc (si fieri potest) sequamur omnes. Let us all follow Christ; let us all be consign'd with his sign and his Sacrament. Now there is no peradventure but new converted persons, Heathens newly giving up their Names to Christ and being baptized, if they die in an hour, and were baptized half an hour after they believe in Christ, are heirs of salvation. And it was impossible to be otherwise; for when the Heathen world was to be converted, and the Gospel preached to all persons, old men, and dying men, it must either be effective to them also of all the promises, or by nothing could they be called to the Religion. They who were not Christians, were not to be judged by the Laws of Christ. But yet Christians are; and that's a full account of this particular, since the Laws of our Re­ligion [Page 289]require of us a holy life; but the Religion could demand of strangers nothing but to believe, and at first to promise to obey, and then to do it ac­cordingly if they shall live. Now to do this, was never too late; and this is all which is affirmed by S. Cyprian.

S. 65 Hierome Epist. ad Letam. & ad Paulum & Sabinianum. affirm'd, Nunquam se­ra est conversio, latro de cruce transiit ad Paradisum. And S. Serm. 11. de verb. Dom, & Serm. 58. de tempore. Austin, De nul­lo desperandum est, quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit: and again, De quocunque pessimo in hâc vitâ constituto utique non est desper an­dum. Nec pro illo imprudentèr oratur, de quo non desperatur. Concerning the words of S. Hierome, the same answer will serve which I gave to the words of S. Cyprian; because his instance is of the Thief upon the Cross, who then came first to Christ: and his case was as if a Heathen were new converted to Christianity. Baptizatus ad horam securus hinc exit, was the Rule of the Church. Vide Hist. of the life of the holy Jesus. Pa [...]s 2. Disc. 9. But God requires more holiness of Christians then he did of strangers; and therefore he also expects a longer and more la­borious Repentance. But of this I have given ac­count in the case of Demetrianus. S. Austins words press not at all: All that he sayes is this, We must despair of no man, so long as the mercy of God leadeth him to repentance. It is true, we must not absolutely despair; but neither must we presume without a warrant; nay, hope as long as God calls effectually. But when the severity of God cuts him off from repentance, by allowing him no time, or not time enough to finish what is required, the case is wholly differing.

But S. Chrysostome speaks words which are not easie to be reconciled to the former doctrine. The words of S. Chrysostome are these: ‘Take heed of saying, Ad Theo­dorum lupsum.that there is a place of pardon onely for them that [Page 290]have sinn'd but little. For if you please suppose any one abounding with all maliciousness, and that hath done all things which shut men from the Kingdome; let this man be (not a Heathen, but) a Christian and accepted of God, but afterwards an Whoremonger, an Adulterer, an effeminate person, unnaturally lust­full, a thief, a drunkard, a slanderer, and one that hath diligently committed such crimes, truly I will not be to him an author of despairing, although, he had persevered in these wickednesses to an extreme old age.’ Truly neither would I. But neither could he nor any man else be forward to warrant his particular. But if the remaining portion of his old age be well imployed, according as the time is, and the spending of that time, and the earnestness of the repentance, and the greatness of the grief, and the heartiness of the return, and the fulness of the re­stitution, and the zeal of amends, and the abun­dance of charity, and the largeness of the devotion, so we approach to very many degrees of hope. But there is difference between the case of an extreme old age, and a death-bed. That may have more time, and better faculties, and fitted opportunities, and a clearer choice, and a more perfect resistance between temptation and grace. But for the state of death­bed, although there is in that also some variety, yet the best is very bad, and the worst is stark naught; but concerning the event of both, God onely is the Judge. Onely it is of great use that Chrysostome says in the same Letters to Theodorus, Quódque est majo­ris facilitatis argumentum, etiamsi non omnem prae se fert poenitentiam, brevem illam & exiguo tempore factam non abnuit, sed magnâ mercede compensat. Even a dying person ought not to despair, and leave off to do those little things of which onely there is then left to him a possibility; because even that imper­fect Repentance, done in that little time, God rejects [Page 291]not, but will give to it a great reward. So he did to Ahab. And whatsoever is good, shall have a good, some way or other it shall finde a recompence: but every recompence is not eternal glory, and every good thing shall not be recompensed with heaven. To the same purpose is that of Coelestinus, Epist. 1. reproving them that denied repentance to persons, qui obitus sui tempore hoc animae suae cupiunt remedio subveniri, who at the time of their death desired to be admit­ted to it. Horremus fateor tantae impietatis aliquem reperiri, ut de Dei pietate desperet; quasi non posset ad se quovis tempore concurrenti succurrere, & pericli­tantem sub onere peccatorum hominem, pondere quo se expedire desiderat, liberare. I confess (saith he) we abhor that any one should be found to be of so great impiety as to despair of Gods mercy; as if he could not at any time relieve him that comes to him, and ease him that runs to be eased of the burthen of his sins. Quid hoc rogo aliud est, &c. What else is this but to adde death to the dying man, and to kill his soul with cruelty, by denying that he can be absolved, since God is most ready to help, and inviting to repen­tance, thus promises, saying, In what day soever the sinner shall be converted, his sins shall not be imputed to him; and again, I would not the death of a sinner; but that he should be converted and live? He there­fore takes salvation from a man, who denies him his hoped for repentance in the time of his death; and he despairs of the clemency of God, who does not believe it sufficient to help the dying man in a moment of time. The thief on the Cross hanging on Christs right hand had lost his reward, if the repentance of one hour had not helped him. When he was in pain he repented and ob­tain'd Paradise by one discourse. Therefore the true conversion to God of dying persons, is to be accounted of by the minde rather then by time. Thus far S. Coele­stine, The summe of which is this; That dying [Page 292]persons must not be thrust into despair: Because Gods mercy is infinite, and his power is infinite. He can do what he please, and he may do more then we know of, even more then he hath promised; and therefore they that are spiritual must not refuse to do all that they can to such miserable persons. And in all this there is nothing to be reproved, but that the good man by incompetent arguments goes about to prove what he had a minde to. If the hindring such persons to despair be all that he intends, it is well; if more be intended, his arguments will not do it.

Afterwards in the descending ages of the Church things grew worse, 66 and it began to be good doctrine even in the dayes of S. Lib. 2. c. 14. de sum­mo bono. Isidore; Nullus desperare debet veniam, etiamsi circa finem vitae ad poenitentiam convertatur. Ʋnumquem (que) enim Deus de suo fine, non de vitâ praeteritâ judicat. God judges a man by his end, not by his past life; and therefore no man must despair of pardon, though he be not converted till about the end of his life. but in these words there is a lenitive, Circa finem vitae] if he be con­verted about the end of his life; that is, in his last o [...] declining years: which may contain a fair portion of time, like those who were called in the eleventh hour, that is circa finem vitae, but not in fine; about, not in the end of their life. c. 80. But S. Austin, or Genna­dius, or whoever is Author of the book De Ecclesi­asticis dogmatibus, speaks home to the Question, but against the former doctrine. Poenitentiâ aboleri pec­cata indubitantèr credimus, etiamsi in ultimo vitae spi­ritu admissorum poeniteat, & publicâ lamentatione peccata prodantur, quia propositum Dei quo decrevit salvare quod perierat, stat immobile: & ideo quia voluntas ejus non mutatur, sive emendatione vitae si tempus conceditur, sive supplici confessione, si conti­nuò vitâ exceditur, venia peccatorum fidelitèr praesu­matur [Page 293]ab illo qui non vult mortem peccatoris, sed ut convertatur à perditione poenitendo, & salvatus mi­seratione Domini vivat. Si quis alitèr de justissimâ Dei pietate sentit, non Christianus sed Novatianus est. That sins are taken off by repentance, though it be but in the last breath of our life, we believe with­out doubting. He that thinks otherwise is not a Christian but a Novatian. If we have time, our sins are taken away by amendment of life; but if we die presently, they are taken off by humble con­fession. This is his Doctrine. And if he were infal­lible, there were nothing to be said against it. But to ballance this, we have a more sober discourse of S. Austin in these words. Lib. 50. Hom. 41. [If any man plac'd in the last extremity of sickness, would be admitted to re­pentance, and is presently reconciled, and so departs, I confess to you, we doe not deny to him what he asks, but we doe not presume that he goes hence well. I doe not presume, I deceive you not, I doe not presume. A faith­ful man living well, goes hence securely. He that is baptized but an hour before goes hence securely. He that repents and afterwards lives well, goes hence se­curely. He that repents at last and is reconciled, whe­ther he goes hence securely I am not secure. Where I am secure, I tell you, and give security; where I am not secure, I can admit to repentance, but I cannot give security... And a little after. Attend to what I say. I ought to explain clearly what I say, lest any one should misunderstand me. Do I say he shall be damned? I doe not say it. Doe I say he shall be pardon'd? I doe not say it. And what say you to me? I know not. I presume not, I promise not, I know not. Will you free your self from doubt? Will you avoid that which is uncertain? Repent while thou art in health. For if you doe penance while you are well, and sickness finde you so doing, run to be reconciled; and if you do so, you are secure. Why are you secure? Because you re­pented [Page 294]at that time when you could have sinned. But if you repent then when you cannot sin, thy sins have left thee, thou hast not left them. But how know you that God will not forgive him? You say true. How? I know not. I know that, I know not this. For therefore I give repentance to you, because I know not. For if I knew it would profit you nothing, I would not give it you. And if I did know that it would profit you, I would not affright you. There are but these two things. Ei­ther thou shalt be pardon'd, or thou shalt not. Which of these shall be in thy portion I know not. Therefore keep that which is certain, and let goe that which is uncer­tain. Some suppose these to have been the words of S. Ambrose, not S. Austin. But S. Austin hath in his Sermons de tempore something more decre­tory then the former discourse. Ser. 57. He that is polluted with the filth of sins, let him be cleansed exomolo­gesis satisfactione, with the satisfactions of repentance. Neither let him put it off, that he doe not require it till his death-bed, where he cannot perform it. For that persuasion is unprofitable. It is nothing for a sinner to repent, unless he finish his repentance. For the voyce of the penitent alone is not sufficient for the amend­ment of his faults: for in the satisfaction for great crimes, not words, but works are look'd after. Truly repentance is given in the last, because it cannot be denied; but we cannot affirm, that they who so ask, ought to be absolved. For how can the lapsed man doe penance? How shall the dying man doe it? How can he repent, who cannot doe works of satisfaction or amendment of life? And therefore that repentance which is required by sick men, is it self weak; that which is required by dying men, I fear lest that also die. And therefore whosoever will finde mer­cy of God, let him doe his repentance in this world, that he may be saved in the world to come. Higher yet are the words of Paulinus Bishop of Nola, [Page 295]to Faustus of Rhegium, Epist. 1. Bibl. SS. Pp. tom. 3. inquiring what is to be done to death-bed penitents? Inimicâ persua­sione mentitur, qui maculas longâ aetate contractas subitis & inutilibus abolendas gemitibus arbioratur: quo tempore confessio esse potest, satisfactio esse non po­test. He lies with the persuasion of an enemy, who thinks that those stains which have been long con­tracting, can be suddenly wash'd off with a few unprofitable sighings, at that time when he can con­fess, but never make amends. And a little after; Circa exequendam interioris hominis sanitatem, non solùm accipiendi voluntas, sed agendi expectatur uti­litas: And again, Hujusmodi medicina sicut ore po­scenda, ita opere consummanda est. Then a man re­pents truly, when what he affirms with his mouth, he can finish with his hand; that is, not onely de­claim against sin, but also mortify it. To which I adde the words of Asterius Bishop of Amasea. Homil. de Divit. & Lazaro.At cum debitum tempus adveniet, & indeprecabile decre­tum corporis & animae nexum dissolvet, reputatio fub­ibit eorum quae in vitâ patrata sunt, & poenitentia sera & nihil profitura. Tunc enim demum poenitentia prodest, cum poenitens emendandi facultatem habet; sublatâ verò copiâ rectè faciendi, inutilis est dolor, & irrita poenitentia. When the set time shall come, when the irrevocable decree shall dissolve the union of soul and body, then shall the memory of those things return which were done in our life time, and a late repentance that shall profit nothing. For then repentance is profitable, when the penitent can amend his fault: But when the power of doing well is taken away, grief is unprofitable, and the repentance vain. Now to the words of Gennadius before quoted, I answer, That they are a fierce reproof of the Novatian doctrine, and too great an earnestness of going so far from them, that he left also the severity which wise and good men did at that time teach, and ought al­ways [Page 296]to press. He went to cure one error by ano­ther, never thinking any contradictory sufficient, unless it were against every thing that the Novati­ans did say, though also it was said and believed by the Orthodox. But I shall resume this discourse in the following Chapters, where upon another occasion I shall give account of the severity of the Primitive Church in this article; which at first was at least as strict as the severest part of this discourse, till by degrees it lessen'd and shrunk into the licencious­ness and dissolution of the present age.

Obj. 6. 67 But if it be necessary to extirpate the ha­bits of sin, and to acquire (being help'd by Gods grace) the contrary habits of vertue; how can it fare with old and decayed men, or with men that have a lingring, tedious, protracted sickness (for I suppose their case is very near the same) who were intemperate, or unchast all their life time, and un­til they could be so no longer; but how can they obtain the habit of chastity, who cannot doe any acts of chastity; or of temperance, who have lost their stomack, and have not any inclination or tem­ptation to the contrary? and every vertue must be cum potentiâ ad oppositum; if it be not chosen it is not vertue, nor rewardable. And the case is al­most the same to all persons young or old, who have not opportunity of acting those graces, in the mat­ter of which they have formerly prevaricated.

To this I answer many things, 68 and they are of use in the explication of this material question. 1 1. Old men may exercise many acts of chastity both in­ternal and external. For if they may be unchast, they may also be chast: But S. Paul speaks of the [...], men that being past feeling, yet were given to lasciviousness; [...], half men, half boyes, pruri [...]ntes in sepulchro. For it is not the body but the soul that is wanton; And an evil man may [Page 297]sin with ineffective lusts; as he that lusts after a wo­man whom he cannot have, sins with his soul. Now where ever these unlawful desires can be, there also they can be mortified; and an old man can love to talk of his past vanities, or not rescind them by repentance, or desire that he were young and active in wickedness; and therefore if he chooses not to doe so, and therefore avoids these and the like, out of hatred of his old impurities, he does the proper works of that grace, which he also may doe the ea­sier, because then his temptations to the contrary are not so strong: but this advantage is not worth staying for so long. They that doe so, venture dam­nation a long time together, and may also have an evil proper to that state, greater then this little ad­vantage I instance.

2. 2 If there were no other act of chastity to be exercised by old persons, by reason of their disabi­lity; yet the very accepting from the hands of God that disability, and the delighting in that cir­cumstance of things, in which it is impossible to sin as formerly, must needs be pleasing to God, because it is a nolition of the former sins, and a desire of pleasing him.

3. 3 Every act of sorrow for unchastity is an act of chastity; and if this sorrow be great, and lasting, permanent and habitual, it will be productive of much good. And if to these the penitent addes pe­nal actions and detestations of his crimes, revenge and apt expressions of his holy anger against his sin, these doe produce a quality in the soul contrary to that which made him formerly consent to lust.

4. When a vicious habit is to be extirpated, 4 and the contrary introduc'd, it is not necessary that the contrary be acted by the body, but be radicated in the soul; It is necessary that the body doe not sin [Page 298]in that instance; but it is not always required, that contrary acts be done by the body. Suppose Origen had been a lustful person before his castra­tion, yet he might have been habitually chast after­wards, by doing spiritual acts of a corporal cha­stity. And there are many sins whose scene lies in the body, to which the body afterwards cannot op­pose a bodily act in the same instance; as he that by intemperate drinking once or oftner, fals into a loathing of wine; he that dismembers himself and many others; for which a repentance is possible and necessary, but yet a contrary specifick act can­not be opposed. In these cases it is sufficient that the habit be plac'd in the soul, and a perfect con­trary quality superinduc'd, which is to be done by a frequent repetition of the acts of repentance pro­per to the sin.

5. 5 There are some sins for which amends is to be made in the way of commutation, when it cannot be in the proper instance. Redime peccata tua eleemo­synis, Dan. 4.27. said Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor. Our English Bibles read this, Break off thy sins by alms; as if alms were directly contrary to pride, or lust, or gluttony, or tyranny; and the shewing mercy to the poor a direct intercision and interruption of the sin. He that gives alms that he may keep his lust, loses his soul and his money too. But he that leaves his lust, or is driven from it, and gives alms to obtain Gods favour for his pardon, by doing something that is gracious in his eyes, this man is a good penitent; if his alms be great and pro­portionable, given freely and without constraint, when he can keep them, and receive and retain the temporal advantage and be assisted by all those other acts and habits of which his present state is capable. It cannot be said, that to give alms can [Page 299]in all such cases be sufficient; as it will be hard to say that so many acts of the contrary grace will suffice to get a habit, or obtain a pardon; but it is true, that to give alms is a proper action of repen­tance in such cases, and is in order to pardon. For,

6. As there is a supreme habit of vice, 6 a tran­scendent vileness, that is, a custome and readiness to doe every sin as it is presented in its proper tem­ptation, and this is worse then the habit of any one sin: so there is a transcendent habit of grace, by which a man is so holy and just and good, that he is ready to obey God in every instance. That is malice, and this is charity. When a man hath this grace habitually, although it may be so that he cannot produce the proper specifick habit opposite to his sin for which he specially repents, yet his su­preme habit does contain in it the specifick habit virtually and transcendently. An act of this charity will not doe this, but the habit will. For he that does a single act of charity, may also doe a single act of malice; and he that denies this, knows not what he says, nor ever had experience of himself or any man else. For if he that does an act of charity, that is, he who by a good motion from Gods Spirit does any thing because God hath commanded, to say that this man will doe every thing which is so com­manded, is to say that a good man can never fall into a great sin, which is evidently untrue. But if he that does one act in obedience to God, or in love to him, (for obedience is love) will also doe more, then every man that does one act to please his senses, may as well be supposed that he will doe more; and then no mans life should have in it any variety, but be all of a piece, intirely good, or in­tirely evil. I see no difference in the instances, nei­ther can there be, so long as a man in both states [Page 300]hath a power to choose. But then it will follow, that a single act of contrition, or of charity can­not put a man into the state of the Divine favour, it must be the grace, or habit of charity; and that is a magazine of habits by equivalency, and is for­mally the state of grace. And upon these accounts, if old men will repent, and doe what they can do, and are enabled in that state, they have no cause to be afflicted with too great fears concerning the instances of their habits, or the sins of their youth. Concerning persons that are seis'd upon by a lin­gring sickness, I have nothing peculiar to say, save this onely. That their case is in something better then that of old men, in some things worse. It is better, because they have in many periods of their sickness more hopes of returning to health and long life, then old men have of returning to strength and youth, and a protracted age: and therefore their repentance if it be hearty, hath in it also more degrees of being voluntary, and relative to a good life. But in this their case is worse. An old man that is healthful is better seated in the station of penitents, and because he can choose contraries, is the more acceptable if he chooses well. But the sick man though living long in that disadvantage, can­not be indifferent in so many instances as the other may: and in this case, it is remarkable what S. Austin said, Si autem vis agere poenitentiam quando jam peccare non potes, peccata te dimiserunt, non tu illa. To abstain from sin when a man can­not sin, is to be forsaken by sin, not to forsake it. At the best it is bad enough: But I doubt not but if they doe what they can doe, there is mercy for them, which they shall finde in the day of re­compences.

Obj. 7. 69 But how shall any man know whether he have perform'd his repentance as he ought? For [Page 301]if it be necessary that he get the habits of vertue, and extirpate the habits of vice; that is, if by habits God do, and we are to make judgements of our re­pentance, who can be certain that his sins are par­don'd, and himself reconcil'd to God, and that he shall be sav'd? The reasons of his doubts and fears are these. 1. Because it is a long time before a ha­bit can be lost, and the contrary obtain'd. 2. Because while one habit lessens, another may undiscernibly increase, and it may be a degree of covetousness may expel a degree of prodigality. 3. Because a habit may be lurking secretly, and for want of opportunity of acting in that instance, not betray it self, or be discover'd, or attempted to be cur'd. For he that was not tempted in that kinde where he sinn'd for­merly, may for ought he knows, say that he hath not sinn'd onely because he was not tempted; but if that be all, the habit may be resident, and kill him se­cretly. These things must be accounted for.

1. 70 But to him that inquires whether it be light or darkness, in what regions his inheritance is de­sign'd, and whether his Repentance is sufficient, I must give rather a reproof then an answer; or at least such an answer as will tell there is no need of an answer. For indeed it is not good inqui­ring into measures and little portions of grace. * Love God with all thy heart, and all thy strength, do it heartily, and do it alwayes. If the thing be brought to pass clearly and discernibly, the pardon is certain, and not orious: But if it be in a middle state, between ebbe and floud, so is our pardon too, and if in that undiscerned state it be in the thing cer­tain that thou art on the winning and prevailing side, if really thou doest belong unto God, he will take care both of thy intermediall comfort, and final interest. * But when people are too in­quisitive after comfort, it is a signe their duty [Page 302]is imperfect. In the same proportion also it is not well when we enquire after a sign for our state of grace and holiness. If the habit be compleat and intire, it is as discernible as light, and we may as well enquire for a sign to know when we are hungry and thirsty, when you can walk, or play on the lute. The thing it self is its best indication.

2. 71 But if men will quarrel at any truth, because it supposes some men to be in such a case, that they do not know certainly what will become of them in the event of things, I know not how it can be help'd; I am sure they that complain here, that is, the Roman Doctors, are very fierce Preachers of the certainty of salvation, or of our knowledge of it. But be they who they will, since all this uncertainty proceeds not from the doctrine, but from the evil state of things into which habitual sinners have put themselves, there will be the less care taken for an an­swer. But certainly it seems strange that men who have liv'd basely and viciously all their dayes, who are respited from an eternal Hell by the miracles of mercy, concerning whom it is a wonderful thing that they had not really perished long before, that these men returning at the last, should complain of hard usage, because it cannot be told to them as con­fidently as to new baptized Innocents, that they are certain of their salvation as S. Peter and S. Paul. * But however, both they, and better men then they, must be content with those glorious measures of the Divine mercy which are described, and upon any terms be glad to be pardon'd, and to hope and fear, to mourn and to be afflicted, to be humbled and to tremble, and then to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

3. 72 But then (to advance one step further) there may be a certainty where is no evidence; that is, the thing may be certain in it self, though not known [Page 303]to the man; and there are degrees of hope concer­ning the final event of our souls: For suppose it cannot be told to the habitual sinner, that his ha­bits of sin are overcome, and that the Spirit rules in all the regions of his soul; yet is he sure that his vi­cious habits do prevail? is he sure that sin does reign in his mortal body? If he be, then let him not be angry with this doctrine; for it is as bad with him, as any doctrine can affirm. But if he be not sure that sin reigns, then can he not hope that the Spirit does rule? and if so, then also he may hope that his sins are pardon'd, and that he shall be sav'd. And if he look for greater certainty then that of a holy and a humble hope, he must stay till he have a re­velation, it cannot be had from the certainty of any proposition in Scripture applicable to his case and person.

4. 73 If a habit be long before it be master'd, if a part of it may consist with its contrary, if a habit may lurk secretly and undiscernibly, all these things are aggravations of the danger of an habitual sin­ner, and are very true, and great engagements of his watchfulness and fear, his caution and observance. But then nor these nor any thing else can evacuate the former truths; nor yet ought to make the re­turning sinner to despair: Onely this; If he fears that there may be a secret habit unmortified, let him go about his remedy. 2. If he still fears, let him put himself to the trial. 3. If either that does not satisfie him, or he wants opportunity, let him en­devour to encrease his supreme habit, the habit of Charity, or that universal grace of the love of God, which will secure his spirit against all secret undiscer­nible vicious affections.

5. 74 This onely is certain: No man needs to de­spair that is alive, and hath begun to leave his sins, and to whom God hath given time, and power, and [Page 304]holy desires. If all these be spent, and nothing re­main besides the desires, that is another considera­tion, and must receive its sentence by the measures of the former doctrine. But for the present, a man ought not to conclude against his hopes, because he findes propensities and inclinations to the former courses remaining in him, even after his conversion. For so it will be always, more or less, and this is not onely the remains of a vicious habit, but even of natural inclination in some instances.

6. 75 Then the habit hath lost its killing quality, and the man is freed from his state of ungracious­ness, when the habit of vertue prevails, when he obeys frequently, willingly, chearfully. But if he sins frequently, and obeys his temptations readily; if he delights in sin, and chooses that; that is, if his sins be more then sins of infirmity (as they are de­scribed under their proper title) then the habit re­mains, and the man is in the state of death. But when sentence is given for God, when vertue is the greater ingredient, when all sin is hated, and la­bour'd, and pray'd against, the remaining evils and struglings of the Serpent are signs of the Spirits vi­ctory, but also engagements of a persevering care and watchfulness, lest they return, and prevail anew. He that is converted, and is in his contentions for heaven, is in a good state of being; let him go for­ward. He that is justified, let him be justified still; but whether just now if he dies he shall be sav'd or not, we cannot answer, or give accounts of every period of his new life. In what minute or degree of Repentance his sins are perfectly pardon'd, no man can tell; and it is unreasonable to reprove a do­ctrine that infers a man to be uncertain, where God hath given no certain notices or measures. If a man will be certain, he must die as soon as he is worthily baptiz'd, or live according to his promises then made. [Page 305]If he breaks them, he is certain of nothing but that he may be sav'd if he returns speedily, and effective­ly does his duty. But concerning the particulars, there can no rules be given sufficient to answer every mans case beforehand. If he be uncertain how Gods judgement will be of him, let him be the more afraid, and the more humble, and the more cautious, and the more penitent. For in this case, all our se­curity is not to be deriv'd from signs, but from duty. Duty is the best signification, and Gods infinite boundless mercy is the best ground of our Con­fidence.

§. 6. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practise.

IT now remains that we account concerning the effect of this Doctrine; and first, concerning them that are well and vigorous. 2. Them that are old. 3. Them that are dying. All which are to have several usages and receptions, proper enter­tainments and exercises of Repentance.

1. 1 Let every man that thinks of his return, be infinitely careful to avoid every new sin; for it is like a blow to a broken leg, or a burthen to a crush­ed [Page 306]arm. Every little thing disorders the new health, and unfinish'd recovery. So that every new sin to such a person is a double damage, it pulls him back from all his hopes, and makes his labours vain, and he is as far to seek, and as much to begin again as ever, and more. For so may you see one climbing of a Rock, with a great contention and labour and danger, if when he hath got from the foot to the shoulder, he then lets his hold go, he falls lower then where he first set his foot, and sinks deeper by the weight of his own fall. So is the new converted man who is labouring to overcome the rocks and mountains of his habitual sins; every sin throws him down further, and bruises his very bones in the fall. To this purpose therefore is the wise ad­vice of the son of Sirach, Hast thou sinn'd? do so no more, but aske pardon for thy former fault: Adde not sin to sin, for in one a man shall not be un­punished.

Let not bloud touch bloud, nor sin touch sin; for we destroy our souls with impious hands, when a crime follows a habit, like funeral processions in the pomps and solennities of death.

2. 2 At the beginning of his recovery, let the pe­nitent be arm'd by special cautions against the labours and difficulties of the restitution: and consider, that if sin be so pleasant, it is the ha­bit that hath made it so; it is become easie and natural by the custome. And therefore so may vertue. And complain not that Nature helps and corroborates the habits of sin: For besides that Nature doth this mischief but in some instances, [Page 307]not in all; the Grace of God will as much as­sist the customes and labours of vertue, as Na­ture doth the habits of vice. And choose whe­ther you will. Take any institution or course of life, let it at first be never so violent, use will make it pleasant. And therefore we may make vertue as certain as vice is, as pleasing to the spi­rit, as hard to be removed, as perfective of our nature as the other is destructive; and make it by assuefaction as impossible to be vicious, as we now think it difficult and impossible to overcome flesh and bloud. * But let him remember this also, that it will be a strange shame, that he can be in a state of sin and death from which it will be very hard to remove, and to confess our na­tures so caitiff and base, that we cannot as easily be united unto vertue; that he can become a Devil, and cannot be like an Angel; that he can decline to the brutishness of beasts, and yet ne­ver arise up to a participation of the excellent beau­ties of the intellectual world.

3. 3 He that undertakes the repentance of his vicious habits, when he hath strength and time enough for the work, must do it in kinde; that is, he must oppose a habit to a habit, every con­trary to its contrary: as Chastity to his Wanron­ness, Temperance to his Gluttony or Drunken­ness: The reason is, because if he had con­tracted the habit of a sin, especially of youthful sins, unless the habit of vertue be oppos'd to the instance of his sin, he cannot be safe, nor peni­tent. For while the temptation and fierce in­clinations remain, it cannot be a cure to this to doe acts of Charity; he must doe acts of Chastity, or else he will fall or continue in his uncleanness; which in old persons will not be. Here the sin still tempts by natural inclination, [Page 308]and commands by the habit; and therefore as there can be no Repentance while the affections remain, so neither can there be safety as long as the habit hath a natural being. The first be­gins with a moral revocation of the sin; and the same hath also its progression, perfection, and security, by the extinction of the inherent qua­lity.

4. 4 Let the penitent seek to obstruct or divert the proper principles of evil habits; for by the same by which they begin, commonly by the same they are nursed up to their ugly bulke. There are many of them that attend upon the Prince of Darkness, and minister to the filthy pro­duction. Evil examples, Natural inclinations, false propositions, evil prejudices, indulgence to our own infirmities, and many more: but espe­cially, a cohabitation with the temptation, by which we fell and did enter into death, and by which we use to fall. * There are some men more in love with the temptation then with the sin; and because this rushes against the Consci­ence rudely, and they see death stand at the end of the progression, therefore they onely love to stand upon Mount Ebal and view it. They re­solve they will not commit the sin, they will not be overcome, but they would fain be tempted. If these men will but observe the contingencies of their own own state, they shall finde that when they have set the house on fire, they cannot pre­scribe its measures of burning. * But there is a secret iniquity in it. For he that loves to stand and stare upon the fire that burnt him formerly, is pleas'd with the warmth and splendour, and the temptation it self hath some little corresponden­cies to the appetite. The man dares not fornicate, but loves to look upon the beauties of a woman, [Page 309]or sit with her at the wine, till his heart is ready to drop asleep. He will not enter into the house, because it is infected with the plague, but he loves to stand at the door, and fain would enter if he durst; It is impossible that any man should love to abide by a temptation for a good end. There is some little sensuality in being tempted: And the very consideration concerning it, sometimes strikes the fancy too unluckily, and pleases some faculty or other, as much as the man dares admit. * I doe not say, that to be tempted is always crimi­nal, or in the neighbourhood of it; but it is the best indication of our love to God, for his sake to deny its importunity, and to overcome it: but that is onely, when it is unavoidable and from with­out, against our wils, or at least besides our pur­poses. * For in the declination of sin, and over­coming temptation, there can be but these two things by which we can signify our love to God. 1. To stand in a temptation when we could not avoid it. 2. And to run from it, when we can. This hath in it more of prudence, and the other of force and spiritual strength: and we can best signify the sense of our weakness, and our carefulness by avoiding the occasions; but then we declare the excellency of our purposes, and pertinacious love to God, when we serve him in hard battels, when we are tempted as before, but fall not now as we did then. Indeed this is the greatest trial; and when God suffers us so to be tried, we are accepted if we stand in that day, and in such circumstances. But he that will choose that state, and dwell near his danger, loves not to be safe; and either he is a vain person in the confidences of his own strength, or else he loves that which is like a sin, and comes as near it as he dare; and very often, the event of it is, that at last he dies like a flie about a candle. [Page 310]But he that hath fallen by such a neighbourhood, and still continues the cause, may as well hope to cure his feaver by full draughts of the new vintage, as return to life upon that account. * A vicious habit is maintain'd at an easie rate, but not cur'd with­out a mighty labour and expence: any thing can feed it, but nothing can destroy it, if there be any thing near it, whereby it can be kept alive. If therefore you will cure a vicious habit dwell far from danger, and tempt not death with which you have been so long in love.

5. 5 A vicious habit never could have come to that state and period but by impunity. If God had smitten the sinner graciously in the beginning of his evil journey, it is likely that as Balaam did, he also would have offered to goe back. Now when God does not punish a sinner early, though it hath in it more of danger and less of safety, yet we may in some measure supply the want of Divine mercy smi­ting and hindring a sinner, by considering that im­punity is no mark of innocence, but very often it is an indication of Gods extremest and final anger. Therefore be sure, ever to suspect a prosperous sin. For of it self prosperity is a temptation, and it is granted but to few persons to be prosperous and pi­ous. The poor and the despised, the humble and necessitous; he that daily needs God with a sharp­ness of apprehension, that feeds upon necessity, and lives in hardships, that is never flatter'd, and is never cheated out of vertue for bread, those persons are likely to be wise and wary; and if they be not, no­thing can make them so; for he that is impatient in want is impotent in plenty; for impatience is pride, and he that is proud when he is poor, if he were rich he would be intolerable; and therefore it is ea­sier to bear poverty temperately then riches. [Page 311]

and Passienus said of Caligula, Nemo fuit servus me­lior, nemo Dominus deterior. He was the best Servant, and the worst Master that ever was. Poverty is like a girdle about our loyns, it binds hard, but it is mo­dest and useful. But a heap of riches is a heap of temptations, and few men will escape, if it be al­wayes in their hand what can be offered to their heart. And therefore to be prosperous hath in it self enough of danger. But when a sin is prospe­rous and unpunished, there are left but few possibi­lities and arguments of resistance, and therefore it will become or remain habitual respectively. S. Paul taught us this secret, that sins are properly made habitual upon the stock of impunity. Rom. 7.7. Sin taking occasion by the law wrought in me all concupiscence, [...], apprehending impunity [...], by occasion of the Commandement, viz. so ex­pressed and established as it was. Because in the Commandement forbidding to lust or covet, there was no penalty annexed, or threatned in the sanction or in the explication. Murder was death, and so was adultery, and rebellion. Theft was punished severely too; and so other things in their propor­tion; but the desires God left under a bare restraint, and affixed no penalty in the law. Now sin, that is, men that had a minde to sin, taking occasion hence, that is, taking this impunity for a sufficient warrant, prevail'd by frequent actions up to an evil custome and a habit, and so rul'd them who were not renewed and overruled by the holy Spirit of grace. [...] signifies a caution in law, or a secu­rity; so Suidas and Phavorinus. It is used also for impunity in Demosthenes, though the Grammarians [Page 312]note it not. But as to the thing. When ever you see a sin thrive, start back suddenly and with a trem­bling fear: for it does nurse the sin from a single action to a filthy habit, and that always dwels in the suburbs of the horrible regions. No man is so much to be pitied, as he that thrives and is let alone in his sin: there is evil towards that man. But then God is kinde to a sinner when he makes his sin to be uneasy and troublesome.

6. 6 But in prosecution of the former observation, it is of very great use that the vigorous and healthful penitent doe use corporal mortifications and auste­rities, by way of penance and affliction for every single act of that sin he commits, whose habit he intends to mortify. If he makes himself smart, and never spare his sin but still punish it, besides that it is a good act of indignation and revenge which S. Paul commends in all holy penitents, it is also a way to take off the pleasure of the sin by which it would fain make abode and seisure upon the will. A man will not so soon delight, or love to abide with that which brings him afflicti­on in present, and makes his life miserable. This advice I learn from Maimonides. Morch Nevo­cin 341.Ab inolitâ pec­candi consuetudine non posse hominem avelli nisi gravibus poenis. Nothing so good to cure an evil custome of sinning, as the inflicting great smart upon the offender. He that is going to cure his habitual drunkenness; if ever he be overtaken again, let him for the first offence fast two days with bread and water; and the next time double his smart; and let the man load himself till he groans under it, and he will be glad to take heed.

7. 7 He that hath sinn'd often, and is now retur­ning, let him watch if ever his sin be offer'd to him by a temptation, and that temptation dressed at formerly; that he be sure not to neglect that [Page 313]opportunity of beginning to break his evil habit; He that hath committed fornication, and repents, if ever he be tempted again (not to seek for it, but) to act it, and may enter upon the sin with ease and readiness, then let him refuse his sin so dressed, so ready, so fitted for action, and the event will be this, that besides it is a great indication and sign of an excellent repentance, it discountenances the habit, and breaks the combination of its parts, and disturbs its dwelling; but besides it is so signal an action of repentance, and so pleasing to the Spirit of God, and of a good man, that it is apt to make him doe so again, and proceed to crucify that ha­bit, upon which he hath had so lucky a day, and so great a victory and success. It is like giving to a per­son, and obliging him by some very great favour. He that does so, is for ever after ready and apt to doe that obliged person still more kindness, lest the first should perish. When a man hath gotten an estate together, he is apt (saith Plutarch) to save little things, and be provident even of the smallest summe, because that now if it be sav'd will come to something, it will be seen and preserv'd in his heap. But he that is poor cannot become rich with those little arts of providence; and therefore he [...]ets them goe for his pleasure, since he cannot keep them with hopes to improve his bank: so is such an earnest and entry into piety; it is such a stock of holiness that it is worth preserving; and to have resisted once so bravely, does adde confidence to the spirit that it can overcome, and makes it probable that he may get a crown. However it fals out, it is an excellent act and signification of a hearty repen­tance and conversion.

He is a just man, not whosoever does no wrong, but he that can and will not. Maimonides saith excel­lently to the same purpose▪ For to the Question, Quaenam tandem est poenitentia perfecta? He answers, This is true and perfect repentance, Can [...]n. poenit. cap. 2.1. Cum quis ad manum habet, quo priùs peccavit, & jam penes ipsum est, idem perpetrare, recedens tamen illuà non commit­tit poenitentiae causâ, neque timore cohibitus neque de­fectu virium. When the power and opportunity is present, and the temptation (it may be) ready and urging, when it is in a mans hand to doe the same thing, yet retiring he commits it not, onely for pi­ety or repentance sake, not being restrain'd by fear or want of powers.

8. 8 If such opportunities of his sin be not pre­sented, it is never the worse: The penitent need not be fond of them, for they are dangers, which prove death if they be not triumphed over; and if they be, yet the man hath escap'd a danger, and may both prove and act his repentance without it. But there­fore he that is not so tried and put to it, must doe all that which he is put to, and execute his fierce an­ger against the sin and by proper instances of mor­tification endevour the destruction of it; and al­though every man hath not so glorious a trial and indication of his Repentance as in the former in­stance, yet he that denies himself in any instance of his sin, and so in all that he can or is tempted in, does the same thing; all the same duty, and with less danger, and with less gloriousness. * But if it happen that his sin urge him not at all as formerly, or the occasion is gone, and the matter is subtracted, he is to follow the measures of old men, described in the next §.

9. 9 Let the penitent be infinitely careful that he does not mortify one vicious habit by a contrary vice, but by a contrary vertue. For to what pur­pose [Page 315]is it that you are cur'd of prodigality, and then die by covetousness?

It is not this or that alone that is contrary to God. Every vicious habit is equally his enemy; and he that exterminates one vice and entertains another, hath destroyed the vice, but not the viciousness; he hath quitted the instance, but not the irregularity; he hath serv'd the interest of his fortune or his plea­sure, his fame or his quiet, his passion or his hu­mour, but not his vertue and relations to God. By changing his vice for another he is convinced of his first danger, but enters not into safety; He is onely weary of his feaver, and changes it into the ease of a dead palsy; and it is in them as in all sharp sick­nesses, that is always worst that is actually upon him; and the man dies by his imaginary cure, but real sickness.

10. 10 When the mortification of a vicious habit is attempted; and is found difficult and pertinaci­ous, not flexible or malleable by the strokes of con­trition and its proper remedies, it is a safe way if the penitent will take some course to disable the sin and make it impossible to return in the former in­stance, provided it be done by a lawful instrument. Origen took an ill course to doe it, but resolved he would mortify his lust, and made himself an Eunuch. But a solemne vow were an excellent instrument to restrain the violences of a frequent temptation, if the person were to be trusted with it; that is, if he were a constant person, not giddy nor easy to re­volt, but of a pertinacious nature, or of so tender conscience, that he durst not for the world break his vow. But this remedy is dangerous where the tem­ptations return strongly. But there are some others which are safer. Cut off the occasion wholly. Defie [Page 316]the Concubine publickly, and disgrace her, make it impossible for her to consent to thee if thou shouldest ask her. If thy Lord or Master tempts thee to drunkenness, quit his service, or openly deny him. Make thy face unpleasant, and tear off the charms from thy beauty, that thou mayest not be courted any more. This is a fierceness and zeal of repentance, but very fit to be used when milder courses will not cure thee.

If thou repentest truly, pluck up sin by the roots, take away its principle, strangle its nurse, and destroy every thing that can foment it.

11. 11 It was not well with thee when thou didst first enter into the suburbs of hell by single actions of sin; but they were transient and passed off sooner then the habit: But when this did supervene, a mans acts of malice were enlarged and made conti­nual to each other; that is, joyn'd by a common term of affection and delight in sin, and perfect subjection to its accursed empire. But now in thy return consider proportionably concerning thy acti­ons of repentance and piety, whether they be transient or permanent. Good men often say their prayers, and choose good forms, and offices, the best they can, and they use them with an earnest and an actual devotion; but he that hath prayed long, and well, yet when he rises it may be he cannot tell all the particulars which he begg'd of God. I doubt not but those prayers which contain matter in them agreeable to his usual and constant desires, and are actually attended to in the time of their use, are re­corded [Page 317]in heaven, and there will abide to procure the blessing, and towards the accounts of Eternity. But then it is to be observ'd, that those transient acts of devotion, or other volatile and fugitive instances of Repentance, are not the proper and proportion'd remedy to the evil of vicious habits. There must be something more permanent. Therefore let the pe­nitent make no sudden resolutions, but first consider them well, and imprint them upon his spirit, and renew them often, and call them to minde constant­ly and at certain periods; let him use much medita­tion upon the matter of his repentance and remedy; and let his prayers be the same, passionate, mate­rial, alike expressed, and made the business of much of our time. For our spirit by use must be made ho­ly, and by assiduity of reading, of praying, of me­ditating, and acts of self-deniall, be accustomed to the yoke of Jesus: for let the habit be firm as a rock, united and hard as a stone, it will be broken and made soft by a continual dropping.

§. 1.

ORiginal sin is so called [...], 1 or figuratively, meaning the sin of Adam, which was committed in the Original of mankinde by our first Parent, and which hath influence upon all his po­sterity. Nascuntur non propriè, De civit. lib. 16. c. 18.sed originalitèr pec­catores. So S. Austin; and therefore S. Ignatius cals it [...], the old impiety, Epist. ad Trallian. that which was in the original or first Parent of mankinde.

This sin brought upon Adam all that God threat­ned, 2 but no more. A certainty of dying, together with the proper effects and affections of mortality, was inflicted on him, and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature, and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness, that is, in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men. For as God was not bound to give what he never pro­mised, viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life; so neither does it appear in that angry enter­course that God had with Adam, that he took from [Page 362]him or us any of our natural perfections, but his graces onely.

Man being left in this state of pure Naturals, 3 could not by his own strength arrive to a super­natural end (which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise, and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub.) For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion, cannot be acquir'd by any natural means. Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness ob­tain heaven by desert, or by any natural efficiency; for it is a gift still, and it is neque currentis, neque ope­rantis, neither of him that runneth, nor of him that worketh, but of God who freely gives it to such persons, whom he also by other gifts and gra­ces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it.

What gifts and graces, 4 or supernatural endow­ments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence, we know not, God hath no where told us; and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conje­ctures. But after his fall we finde no sign of any thing but of a common man. And therefore as it was with him, so it is with us; our nature cannot goe to heaven, without the helps of the Divine grace; so neither could his: and whether he had them or no, it is certain we have; receiving more by the second Adam then we did lose by the first: and the sons of God are now spiritual, which he never was that we can finde.

But concerning the sin of Adam, 5 tragical things are spoken; it destroyed his original righteousness, and lost it to us for ever; it corrupted his nature, and corrupted ours, and brought upon him, and not him onely, but on us also who thought of no such thing, an inevitable necessity of sinning, ma­king it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry, or to be sick and die; and the consequent of these things [Page 363]is saddest of all, we are born enemies of God, sons of wrath, and heirs of eternal damnation.

In the meditation of these sad stories I shall sepa­rate the certain from the uncertain, 6 that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd, that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexi­ons upon Gods honour, and the reputation of his justice and his goodness. I shall doe it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly di­spute in this Question right or wrong, according as it happens.

By one man sin came into the world] That sin en­tred into the world by Adam, 7 Rom. 5.12. is therefore certain, because he was the first man, and unless he had ne­ver sinn'd, it must needs enter by him, for it comes in first by the first; and Death by sin, that is, Death which at first was the condition of nature, became a punishment upon that account: just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly, and to the Wo­man to be subject to her Husband: These things were so before, and would have been so, for the A­postle pressing the duty of subjection, gives two reasons why the woman was to obey. One of them onely was derived from this sin, the other was the prerogative of creation; for Adam was first formed, 1 Tim. 2.13.then Eve; so that before her fall, she was to have been subject to her husband, because she was later in being; she was a minor, and therefore under subjection; she was also the weaker vessel. But it had not been a curse, and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour, by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature.

Death passed upon all men; 8 That is, upon all the old world, who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance; and who did sin after the simi­litude of Adam. And therefore S. Paul addes that [Page 364]for the reason. In as much as all men have sinned] If all men have sinned upon their own account (as it is certain they have) then these words can very well mean, that Adam first sinned, and all his sons and daughters sinned after him, and so died in their own sin, by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural, and a death which their own sins deserved, but yet, which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor. Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example; or rather from that beginning, not from that cause, but dum ita peccant, & simi­liter moriuntur, If they sin so, then so shall they die; so S. Hierome.

But this is not thought sufficient, 9 and men doe usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam, and in him we all by in­terpretation sinned, and therefore think these words [...], forasmuch as all men have sinned, ought to be expounded thus, [Death passed upon all men; In whom all men have sinned] mea­ning that in Adam we really sinn'd, and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us, to make us as guilty as he that did it, and as much punish'd, and liable to eternal damnation. And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of [...], to signify [in him.]

Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry; 10 if it be observed, that the words being read, [Forasmuch as all men have sinned] bear a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible; if it be rendred [In him] it is violent and hard, a distinct period by it self, without dependence or proper purpose, against the faith of all copies, who do not make this a distinct period, and against the usual manner of speaking. 2. This phrase of [...] is used in 2 Cor. 5.4. [...], Not [for [Page 365]that] we would be unclothed; and so it is used in Po­lybius, Suidas, and Var [...]nu [...]. [...], that is, eâ condi­tion, for that cause or condition; and [...], ad quid ades, are the words of the Gospel, as Suidas quotes them. 3. Although [...] may signifie the same with [...], in whom, or in him; yet it is so very seldome or infrequent, that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification. 4. If it did alwayes signifie the same with [...], or in him, which it does not; yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do, and which the Apostles discourse does infer; for even [...] does divers times signifie, forasmuch, or for that, as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3. and Heb. 2.18. But 5. supposing all that can be, and that it did signifie [in whom] yet the sense were fair enough, as to the whole article; for by him, or in him, we are made sinners, that is, brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners: we are us'd like sinners by him, or in him; just as when a sinner is justified, he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned, though he really did sin often­times; and this for his sake who is made righteous­ness to us: so in Adam we are made sinners, that is, treated ill and afflicted, though our selves be inno­cent of that sin, which was the occasion of our be­ing us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent. But how this came to pass is told in the following words.

For untill the law, 11 sin was in the world,V. 13, 14.but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses] even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams trans­gression] who is the figure of him that was to come.] By which discourse it appears, that S. Paul does not speak of all mankinde, as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account; [Page 366]but it had a limited effect, and reach'd onely to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses. This death was brought upon them by Adam; that is, death which was threatned to Adam onely, went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners, but not after the similitude of Adams transgression; that is, who sinn'd not so capitally as he did. For to sin like Adam, is used as a Tragical and a high expres­sion. Hos. 6.7. So it is in the Prophet [They like men have transgressed] so we reade it; but in the Hebrew it is [They like Adam have transgressed] and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the simili­tude of Adam; for Abel, and Seth, and Abraham, and all the Patriarchs died (Enoch onely excepted;) and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world, who generally sinn'd like Adam, since it passed on and reigned up­on less sinners. * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was, because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam; but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account, yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams. For God was so exasperated with Mankinde, that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners, which he onely had first threatned to Adam: and so Adam brought it upon them. They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it, but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam, they who sinn'd not so bad, and had not been so severely and expresly threatned, had not suf­fer'd so severely. * The case is this. Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children; it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged, all equally innocent, equally culpable. David took the five sons of Michal, for she had left him unhandsomely. Jonathan was his friend, and therefore he spar'd his [Page 367]son Mephibosheth. Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons, whether David should take the sons of Michal, or of Jonathan; but it is likely that as upon the kindeness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son, so upon the just provocation of Mi­chal he made that evil to fall upon them, of which they were otherwise capable, which it may be they should not have suffered, if their Mother had been kinde. Adam was to God, as Michal to Da­vid.

But there was in it a further design: 12 for by this dispensation of death, Adam was made a figure of Christ: So the Apostle expresly affirms; [who is the figure of him that was to come] that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam, though they sinn'd less then Adam; so life should be given to the fol­lowers of Christ, though they were imperfectly righteous, that is, not after the similitude of Christs perfection.

But for the further clearing the Article depend­ing upon the right understanding of these words, 13 these two things are observable. 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity, for his sake went no further then till Moses. For after the giving of Moses law, death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression, but by the san­ction of Moses law, where death was anew, distinct­ly, and expresly threatned as it was to Adam, and so went forward upon a new score, but introduc'd first by Adam; that is, he was the cause at first, and till Moses also, he was in some sense the author, and for ever after, the precedent; and therefore the Apo­stle said well, In Adam we all die: his sin brought in the sentence, in him it began, and from him it pas­sed upon all the world, though by several dispensa­tions. 2. In the discourse of the Apostle, those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from [Page 368]Adam, and therefore it did not come upon the ac­count of Natural or Original corruption, but they were consider'd as Sinners; just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as meerly children by title, or spiritual birth, and adoption, but as just and faithful. But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle; as God gives to these life by Christ, which is a greater thing then their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected: so here also; this part of Adams poste­rity was punish'd with death for their own sin: but this death was brought upon them by Adam; that is, the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression.

There is now remaining no difficulty but in the words of the 19 verse [By one mans disobedience ma­ny were made sinners.] 14 Concerning which I need not make use of the word [...], or many; whom sometimes S. Paul calls [...], sometimes [...], all, and many, that is, all from Adam to Moses, but they are but many, and not all in respect of mankinde; exactly answering to the All, that have life by Christ, which are onely the [...], or the [...], those many that believe, and are adopted into the Cove­nant of believers: by this indeed it is perceiveable that this was not a natural title or derivation of an inherent corruption from Adam, for that must have included All, absolutely and universally. But that which I here dwell and relie upon is this:

Sin is often in Scripture us'd for the punishment of sin; 15 and they that suffer, are called sinners, though they be innocent. So it is in this case. By Adams disobedience many were made sinners; that is, the sin of Adam pass'd upon them, and sate upon their heads with evil effect, like that of Bathsheba; I and my son shall be accounted sinners; 1 Kings 1.21. that is, evil will befall us, we shall be used like sinners, like Tray­tors [Page 369]and Usurpers. So, This shall be the sin of Egypt, Zech. 14.19. said the Prophet: This shall be the punishment; so we reade it. And Cain, complaining of the great­ness of his punishment, said, Mine iniquity is greater then I can bear. * And to put it past all doubt, not onely punishment is called sin in Scripture, but even he that bears it. Him that knew no sin, 2 Cor. 5.21.God hath made sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him: and the Prophet Isaiah speaking of Christ, saith, Posuit peccatum animam suam; Isa. 53.10.He hath made his soul a sin, that is, Heb. 9.28. obnoxious to the punishment of sin. Thus it is said, that Christ shall appear the second time without sin, that is, without the punish­ment of sin unto salvation: for of sin formally or materially, he was at first as innocent as at the se­cond time; that is, pure in both. And if Christ who bare our burthen, became sin for us in the midst of his purest innocence, that we also are by Adam made sinners, that is, suffer evil by occasion of his demerit, infers not that we have any formal guilt, or enmity against God upon that account. Facti peccatores in S. Paul, by Adam we are made sinners, answers both in the story and in the expres­sion to Christus factus peccatum pro nobis; Christ was made sin for us, that is, was expos'd to the evil that is consequent to sin, viz. to its punish­ment.

For the further explication of which, 16 it is obser­vable that the word [sinner] and [sin] in Scripture is us'd for any person that hath a fault or a legal im­purity, a debt, a vitiosity, defect, or imperfection. For the Hebrews use the word [...] for any obli­gation which is contracted by the Law without our fault. Thus a Nazarite who had touch'd a dead body, was tied to offer a sacrifice [...] for sin; and the reason is added, [...], that is, he had sinn'd concerning the dead body, and yet it [Page 370]was nothing but a legal impurity, nothing moral. And the offering that was made by the leprous, or the menstruous, or the diseased inprofluvio seminis, is called [...], an offering for sin, and yet it might be innocent all the way.

Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said, 17 that our blessed Lord (who is compared to the High-Priest among the Jews) did offer first for his own sins; Heb. 7.27. by which word it is certain that no sin pro­perly could be meant, for Christ was [...], he knew no sin; but it means, the state of his infir­mity, the condition of his mortal body, which he took for us and our sins, and is a state of misery and of distance from heaven; for flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdome of Heaven; whither Christ was not to go, till by offering himself he had unclothed himself of that imperfect vesture, as they that were legally impure might not go to the Temple before their offering: Rom. 6.10. and therefore when by death he quit himself of this condition, it is said [he died unto sin.] Parallel to this is that of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Hebrews, where the state of infirmi­ty is expresly called sin. Ver. 2.3. The High-Priest] is him­self also compassed with infirmity; and by reason here­of he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins. This is also more expresly by S. Rom. 8.3. Paul called [...], the likeness of the sin of the flesh; and thus Concupiscence or the first motions and inclinations to sin, is called sin, and said to have the nature of sin, that is, [...], the likeness, it may be, the material part of sin, or something by which sin is common­ly known. And thus Origen observes, that an obla­tion was to be offered, even for new born children, [...], as if they were not clean from sin. But this being an unusual expression among the Hebrews, bears its sense upon the palm [Page 371]of the hand, and signifies onely the legal impurity in which the [...], the new born babes and their Mothers were involv'd. Even Christ himself who had no Original sin was subject to this purifi­cation. So we reade in S. Luke; Luke 2.22. and when the days of [her] purification were accomplish'd: but in most books, and particular in the Kings MS. it is read, [...], the dayes of [their] purification. But the things of this nature being called offerings for sins, and the expression usual among the Jews, I doubt not but hath given occasion to the Christian Wri­ters to fancy other things then were intended.

Having now explicated those words of S. 18 Paul, which by being misunderstood have caused strange devices in this Article, we may now without preju­dice examine what really was the effect of Adams sin, and what evil descended upon his poste­rity.

Adams sin was punish'd by an expulsion out of Paradise, 19 in which was a Tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and a conservatory of life. There was no more told as done but this, and its proper conse­quents. He came into a land less blessed, a land which bore thistles and briars easily, and fruits with difficulty, so that he was forc'd to sweat hard for his bread; and this also (I cannot say did descend, but) must needs be the condition of his children who were left to live so, and in the same place; just as when young Anthony had seis'd upon Marcus Cice­ro's land, the Son also lost what he never had. And thus death came in, not by any new sentence or change of nature: for man was created mortal; and if Adam had not sinned, he should have been immortal by grace, that is, by the use of the Tree of life; and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew, was left in his own natural consti­tution, that is, to be sick and die without that re­medy. [Page 372] [...]. Cyril. adv. Anthrop. He was mortal of himself, and we are mortal from him. Dial. adv. Tryph. Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit, & universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit, said Justin Martyr. Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin, and subjected them to death. One explicates the other; Lib. 3. Ep. 8. and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin, Malum domesticum, contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum. His sin infected us with death, and this infection we derive in our birth, that is, we are born mortal. Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death; in him we are sinners, as in him we die. But this sin is not real and inherent, but imputed onely to such a degree. So S. Cypriam affirms most expresly .... infans re­cens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ na­tivitate contraxit. An infant hath not sinn'd, save onely that being carnally born of Adam, in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death.

This evil which is the condition of all our na­tures, 20 viz. to die, was to some a punishment, but to others not so. It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since; upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam (as I be­fore discours'd) upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law. But to those who sinned not at all, as Infants and Innocents, it was meerly a condition of their na­ture, and no more a punishment, then to be a childe is. It was a punishment of Adams sin; because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their pre­ternatural immortality, and therefore upon that ac­count they die; but as it related to the persons, it was not a punishment, not an evil afflicted for their sin, or any guiltiness of their own, properly so called.

We finde nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin; 21 and beyond this without authority we must not go. Other things are said, but I finde no warrant for them in that sense they are usually suppos'd, and some of them in no sense at all. The particulars commonly reckoned, are, that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance, a proneness to sin, a natural malice, a fomes, or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls, a loss of our wills liberty, and nothing is left but a liberty to sin, which liberty upon the summe of affairs is expoun­ded to be a necessity to sin: and the effect of all is, we are born heirs of damnation.

Concerning Original or Natural ignorance, 22 it is true, we derive it from our Parents, I mean we are born with it; but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin, Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut. Neither can we guess at what degree of know­ledge Adam had before his fall. Certainly, if he had had so great a knowledge, it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes, out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge. But concerning his posterity; indeed it is true a childe cannot speak at first, nor understand; and if (as Plato said) all our knowledge is nothing but memo­ry, it is no wonder a child is born without know­ledge. But so it is in the wisest men in the world; they also when they see or hear a thing first, think it strange, and could not know it till they saw or heard it. Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam, as we do our Nature, which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection; but whether it was not imperfect, and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall, we may best guess at by the event; for if he had not had a rebel­lious appetite, and an inclination to forbidden [Page 374]things, by what could he have been tempted, and how could it have come to pass that he should sin? Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin, and be­came devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary, and was left naked, and meer, and therefore it is not onely an Original imperfection which we inhe­rit, but in the sense now explicated, it is also an Original corruption. And this is all: As natural death by his sin became a curse, so our natural im­perfection became natural corruption, and that is Original sin. Death and imperfection we derive from Adam, but both were natural to us; but by him they became actual, and penal, and by him they became worse, as by every evil act, every principle of evil is improv'd. And in this sense, this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church. We are miserable really, sinners in account or effect, that pro­perly, this improperly; and are faln into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse, that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it. For in Original sin we are to consider the principle, and the effects. The principle is the actual sin of Adam. This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us, hath brought upon us a necessity of dying and all the affections of mortali­ty; which although they were natural, yet would by grace have been hindred. Another evil there is upon us, and that is Concupiscence; this also is natural, but it was actual before the fall, it was in Adam, and tempted him. This also from him is de­rived to us, and is by many causes made worse, by him and by our selves. And this is the whole state of Original sin, so far as is fairly warrantable. But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing.

The sin of Adam neither made us

• 1. Heirs of damnation: Nor
• 2. Naturally and necessarily vi­cious.

1. 22 It could not make us Heirs of damnation. This I shall the less need to insist upon, because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents, that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point, and have de­scended to this lesser proportion, that Original sin damns onely to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face. But to this, I say these things.

1. 23 That there are many Divine which beleeve this alone to be the worm that never dies, and the fire that never goeth out; that is, in effect, this, and the anguish for this is all the hell of the damned. And unless infants remain infants in the resurrecti­on too (which no man that I know affirms) or un­less they be sensless and inapprehensive, it is not to be imagined, but that all that know they are by way of punishment depriv'd of the glorious face of God, must needs have a horrible anguish of soul to eternal ages. And this argument, besides the rea­sonableness of the thing, Lib. 6. in Julian. c. 4. hath warrant from the words of S. Austin. Si hoc eis non erit malum, non ergo amabunt regnum Dei tot innocentes imagines Dei? Si autem amabunt, & tantum amabunt, quantum inno­centes amare debent, regnum ejus à quo ad ipsius ima­ginem creantur, nihílne mali de hâc ipsâ separatione patientur? Here the good man and eloquent, sup­poses the little babies to be innocent, to be images of God, to love the Kingdome of God, and yet to be sentenc'd to hell: which (it may be) he did, but I do not understand; save onely that in the Parable we finde Dives in hell to be very charitable to his living brethren. But that which I make use of for the present, is, that infants besides the loss of Gods presence, and the beholding his face, are apprehen­sive and afflicted with that evil state of things, whi­ther their infelicity, not their fault, hath carried him.

2. 24 But suppose this to be but a meer privative state, yet it cannot be inflicted upon infants as a pu­nishment of Adams sin, and upon the same account it cannot be inflicted upon any one else. Not upon infants, because they are not capable of a law for themselves, therefore much less of a law which was given to another, here being a double incapacity of obedience. They cannot receive any law, and if they could, yet of this they never were offer'd any no­tice till it was too late. Now if infants be not ca­pable of this, nor chargeable with it, then no man is; for all are infants first, and if it comes not by birth, and at first, it cannot come at all. So that although this privative hell be less then to say they are tormented in flames besides, yet it is as unequal and unjust. There is not indeed the same cruelty, but there is the same injustice. I deny not but all persons naturally are so that they cannot arrive at heaven, but unless some other principle be put into them, or some great grace done for them, must for ever stand separate from seeing the face of God. But this is but accidentally occasion'd by the sin of Adam. That left us in our natural state, and that state can never come to heaven in its own strength. But this condition of all men by nature is not the punishment of our sin; for this would suppose, that were it not for this sin superinduc'd, otherwise we should goe to heaven. Now this is not true; for if Adam had not sinned, yet without something supernatural, some grace and gift, we could never go to heaven. Now although the sin of Adam left him in his nakedness, and a meer natural man; yet presently this was supplied, and we were never in it, but were improv'd and better'd by the promise, and Christ hath died for mankinde, and in so doing is be­come our Redeemer and Representative; and there­fore this sin of Adam cannot call us back from that [Page 377]state of good things, into which we are put by the mercies of God in our Lord Jesus; and therefore now no infant or idiot, or man or woman shall for this alone be condemn'd to an eternal banishment from the sweetest presence of God. But this will be evinced more certainly in the following periods. For if they stand for ever banished from the presence of God, then they shall be for ever shut up in hell, with the devil and his angels; for the Scripture hath men­tioned no portions but of the right and left hand. Greg. Naz. and his Scholiast Nicetas did suppose that there should be a middle state between heaven and hell for infants & heathens; and concerning infants P. Innocen. 3. and some schoolmen Ambros. Catharinꝰ Albert. Pighius. have taken it up: but S. De verb. Apost. Serm. 14. Aust. hath sufficiently confuted it; & it is sufficient that there is no ground for it but their own dreams.

3. 25 But then against those that say, the flames of hell is the portion of Adams heirs, and that infants dying in Original sin are eternally tormented as Judas, or Dives, or Julian, I call to witness all the Oeconomy of the divine goodness, and justice and truth. The soul that sins it shall die; As I live, saith the Lord, Ezek. 18.the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; that is, he shall not be guilty of his crime, nor liable to his punishment.

4. 26 Is hell so easie a pain, or are the souls of chil­dren of so cheap, so contemptible a price, that God should so easily throw them into hell? Gods good­ness which pardons many sins which we could avoid, will not so easily throw them into hell for what they could not avoid. Gods goodness is against this.

5. 27 It is suppos'd that Adam did not finally pe­rish for that sin which himself committed; all An­tiquity thought so, Tatianus only excepted, who was a heretick accounted, and the father of the Encra­tites. But then what equity is it that any innocents or little children should? for either God pardon'd Adam or condemn'd him. If he pardon'd him that sinn'd, [Page 378]it is not so agreeable to his goodness to exact it of others that did not Ex tardi­tate si Dii sontes prae­tereant, & insontes plectant, justitiam suam non sic rectè re­sarciunt.. For if he pardon'd him, then either God took off all that to which he was liable, or onely remov'd it from him to place it some where else. If he remov'd it from him to his posterity, that is it which we complain of as contrary to his justice and his goodness. But if God took off all that was due, how could God exact it of others, it being wholly pardon'd? But if God did not pardon him the eternal guilt, but took the forfeiture and made him pay the full price of his sin, that is, all which he did threaten and intend, then it is not to be supposed that God should in justice demand more then eternal pains as the price to be paid by one man for one sin. So that in all senses this seems unjust.

6. 28 To be born, was a thing wholly involuntary and unchosen, and therefore it could in no sense be chosen, that we were born so, that is, born guilty of Adams sin, which we knew not of, which was done so many thousand years before we were born; which we had never heard of, if God had not been pleas'd by a supernatural way to reveal to us, which the greatest part of mankinde to this day have never heard of; at which we were displeas'd as soon as we knew of it; which hath caused much trouble to us, but never tempted us with any plea­sure.

7. 29 No man can perish for that of which he was not guilty; but we could not be involv'd in the guilt, unless some way or other our consent had been involv'd. For it is no matter who sins, or who is innocent, if he that is innocent may perish for what another does without his knowledge or leave, either ask'd, or given, or presum'd. * But if our consent was in it, then either it was included natu­rally, or by an express will of God that made it so. [Page 379]It can no way be imagined how our will can be na­turally included, for we had no natural being. We had no life, and therefore no action, and therefore no consent. For it is impossible there should be an act of will in any sense, when there is an act of un­derstanding in no sense. * But if by a Divine act or decree it became so, and not by our act, then we onely are said to consent, because God would have it so; which, if we speak intelligibly, is to charge God with making us guilty when we were not, to say, we consented when we did not.

8. 30 In pursuance of which argument, I consider, that whatsoever can be said to consent, must have a being either in or out of its causes. But our will was not in being or actual existence when Adam sin­ned; it was then in its causes. But the soul, and so the will of man hath no cause but God, it being with the soul immediately created. If therefore we sin­ned, we could not sin in our selves, for we were not born; nor could we sin in Adam, for he was not the cause of our will; it must therefore be that we sinn'd in God: for as was our being, so must our action be; but our being was then onely in God, our will and our soul was in him onely, tanquam in suâ causâ, therefore in him was our action, or con­sent, or what we please to call it. Which affirma­tive, what sense, or what piety, or what probability it can have in it, I suppose, needs not much in­quiry.

9. 31 To condemn Infants to hell for the fault of another, is to deal worse with them, then God did to the very Devils, who did not perish but for an act of their own most perfect choice.

10. 32 This, besides the formality of injustice and cruelty, does adde and suppose a circumstance of a strange ungentle contrivance. For because it can­not be supposed that God should damn Infants [Page 380]or Innocents without cause, it findes out this way, that God to bring his purposes to pass, should create a guilt for them, or bring them into an inevitable condition of being guilty by a way of his inventing. For if he did make any such agreement with Adam, he beforehand knew that Adam would forfeit all, and therefore that unavoidably all his posterity should be surpris'd. This is to make pretences, and to invent justifications and reasons of his proceed­ings, which indeed are all one as if they were not. For he that can make a reason for an action other­wise unjust, Qui vult aliquid in causâ vult effectum ex istá causâ profluen­tem. can do it without any reason; especially when the reason it self makes the misery as fatal as a decree without a reason: And if God cannot be supposed to damn infants without just cause, and therefore he so order'd it that a cause should not be wanting, but he infallibly and irresistibly made them guilty of Adms sin; is not this to resolve to make them miserable, and then with scorn to triumph in their sad condition? For if they could not deserve to perish without a fault of their own, how could they deserve to have such a fault put upon them? If it be unjust to damn them without cause, is it not also unjust to make a cause for them whether they will or no?

11. 33 It is suppos'd and generally taught, that be­fore the fall Adam had Original righteousness, that is, not onely that he was innocent as children new born are of actual sin (which seems to be that which Divines call Original righteousness, there being no other either taught, or reasonable) but a rare re­ctitude of the inner man, a just subordination of the inferior faculties to the superior, an excellent knowledge and clear light: and therefore that he would sin had so little excuse, that well it might de­serve such a punishment, so great as himself suf­fered. Indeed if he had no such rare perfections [Page 381]and rectitude, I can say nothing to the particular: but to the Question, this; that if Adam had it not, then he could not lose it, nor his posterity after him; as it is fiercely and mightily pretended that they did. But if he had this rectitude and rare en­dowments, what equity is it that his posterity who had no such helps to resist the sin, and were so farre from having any helps at all to resist it, that they had no notice of it, neither of the law, nor the danger, nor the temptation, nor the action, till it was past; I say, what equity is it that his po­sterity should in the midst of all these imperfe­ctions be equally punished with him, who sinned against so great a light, and so mighty helps?

12. 34 Infants cannot justly perish for Adams sin, unless it be just that their wills should be included in his will, and his will justly become theirs by interpretation. Now if so, I ask, Whe­ther before that sin of Adam were our wills free, or not free? For if we had any will at all, it must be free, or not free. If we had none at all, how could it be involv'd in his? Now if our wills were free, why are they without our act, and whether we will or no, involv'd in the will of another? If they were not free, how could we be guilty? * If they were free, then they could also dissent. If they were not free, then they could not consent; and so either they never had, or else before Adams fall they lost their liberty.

13. 35 But if it be inquired seriously, I cannot imagine what can be answered. Could we prevent the sin of Adam? could we hinder it? were we ever ask'd? Could we, if we had been ask'd after we were born a moneth, have given our negative? Or could we do more before we were born then after? were we, or could we be tied to prevent that sin? Did not God know that we could not in that case dissent? [Page 382]And why then shall our consent be taken in by in­terpretation, when our dissent could not be really acted; But if at that time we could not dissent re­ally, could we have dissented from Adams sin by interpretation? If not, then we could dissent no way, and then it was inevitably decreed that we should be ruin'd: for neither really, nor by inter­pretation could we have dissented. But if we could by interpretation have dissented, it were certainly more agreeable to Gods goodnesse, to have in­terpreted for us in the better sense, rather then in the worse; being we did neither, really and actually; and if God had so pleased, he rather might with his goodnesse have interpreted us to have dissented; then he could with justice have inter­preted us to have consented: and therefore cer­tainly he did so, or would have done, if there had been need.

14. 36 Lastly; the Consequent of these is this. That because God is true and just and wise, and good, and mercifull, it is not to be supposed that he will snatch Infants from their Mothers breasts, and throw them into the everlasting flames of Hell for the sin of Adam, that is, as to them, for their meer natural state of which himself was Author and Creator: that is, he will not damne them for being good. For God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good: and therefore so is that state of descent from Adam. God is the Au­thor of it, and therefore it cannot be ill. It can­not be contraray to God because it is his work.

Upon the account of these reasons I suppose it safe to affirme, 37 that God does not damne any one to Hell meerly for the sin of our first Father, which I summe up in the words of S. Ambrose, or whoever is the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul attributed to him; In cap. 5. Rom. Mors autem dissolutio [Page 383]corporis est, cum anima à corpore separatur. Est & alia mors, quae secunda dicitur, in Gehennâ, quam non peccato Adae patimur, sed ejus occasione propriis pecca­tis acquiritur. Death is the dividing Soul and Bo­dy. There is also another death which is in Hell, and is called the second Death, which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam; but by occasion of it, we fall into it by our own sins.

Next we are to inquire, whether or no it does not make us infallibly, naturally, and necessarily viti­ous, by taking from us Original righteousness, by discomposing the order of our faculties, and insla­ving the will to sin and folly, concerning which the inquiry must be made by parts.

For if the sin of Adam did debauch our Nature, 38 and corrupt our will and manners, it is either by a Physicall or Natural efficiency of the sin it self: or 2. Because we were all in the loyns of Adam, or 3. By the sentence and decree of God.

1. 39 Not by any Natural efficiency of the sin it self: Because then it must be that every sin of Adam must spoile such a portion of his Nature, that before he died, he must be a very beast. 2. We also by degeneration and multiplication of new sins must have been at so vast a distance from him at the very worst, that by this time we should not have been so wise as a flie, nor so free and unconstrain'd as fire. 3. If one sin would naturally and by physical causa­lity destroy Original righteousness, then every one sin in the regenerate can as well destroy Habitual righteousness, because that and this differ not but in their principle, not in their nature and constitution. And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace, and lose his habits, as Adam did? Naturally it is all one. 4. If that one sin of Adam did destroy all his righteousness and ours too, then our Original sin does more hurt, and [Page 384]is more punish'd, and is of greater malice then our actual sin. For one act of sin does but lessen and weaken the habit, but does not quite destroy it. If therefore this act of Adam (in which certainly, at least we did not offend maliciously) destroys all Original righteousness, and a malicious act now does not destroy a righteous habit, it is better for us in our own malice, then in our ignorance, and we suffer less for doing evil that we know of, then for doing that which we knew nothing of.

2. 40 If it be said, that this evil came upon us be­cause we all were in the loins of Adam: I consider, 1. 1 That then by the same reason we are guilty of all the sins which he ever committed while we were in his loins; there being no imaginable reason why the first sin should be propagated, and not the rest; and he might have sinned the second time, and have sinn'd worse. Adde to this, that the later sins are commonly the worse, as being committed not onely against the same law, but a greater reason, and a longer experience, and heightned by the mark of ingratitude, and deeply noted with folly, for ven­turing damnation so much longer: And then he that was born last should have most Original sin; and Seth should in his birth and nature be worse then Abel, 2 and Abel be worse then Cain. 2. Upon this account all the sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us, because we were in their loins when they sinn'd them; and every lustful father must have a lustful son, and so every man, or no man will be lustful. For if ever any man were lustful or intemperate when, or before he begot his childe, up­on this reckoning his childe will be so too, and then his grandchilde, 3 and so on for ever. 3. Sin is seated in the will, it is an action, and transient; and when it dwells or abides, it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love, to which is naturally [Page 385]consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly; and therefore sin does not infect our meer natural faculties, but the will onely, and not that in the natural capacity, but in its moral onely. 4. 4 And indeed to him that consi­ders it, it will seem strange and monstrous, that a moral obliquity, in a single instance, should make an universal change in a natural suscipient, and in a natural capacity. When it is in nature impossible that any impression should be made but between those things that communicate in matter or capacity; and therefore if this were done at all, it must be by a higher principle, by Gods own act or sanction, and then should be referred to another principle, not this against which I am now disputing. 5. 5 No man can transmit a good habit, a grace, or a vertue by natural generation; as a great Scholars son cannot be born with learning, and the childe of a Judge cannot upon his birth day give wise sentences; and Marcus the son of Cicero was not so good an Ora­tor as his father: and how can it be then that a naughty quality should be more apt to be dissemina­ted then a good one; when it is not the goodness or the badness of a quality that hinders its disseminati­on, but its being an acquir'd & superinduc'd quality that makes it cannot descend naturally? Adde to this, how can a bad quality, morally bad, be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good? and since neither God that is the Maker of all does amiss, and the father that begets sins not, and the childe that is begotten cannot sin, by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to the posterity? 6. It is generally, 6 now adayes espe­cially, believed, that the soul is immediately crea­ted, not generated, according to the doctrine of A­ristotle, affirming, [...]; that the soul is from without, and [Page 386]is a Divine substance; and therefore sin cannot de­scend by natural generation, or by our being in Adams loins. And how can it be, that the father who contributes nothing to her production, should contribute to her pollution? that he who did not transmit life, should transmit his sin? and yet if the soul were traduc'd from the parents, and begotten, yet sin could not descend, because it is not a natural, but a superinduc'd quality; and if it could, then it would follow, that we should from every vi­cious father derive a proper Original sin, besides the general. 7 7. If in him we sinned, then it were but just, that in him we should be punished: for as the sin is, so ought the punishment to be. But it were unjust, or at least it seems so, that he should sin for us, and we be punished for him, or that he should sin for us and for himself, and yet be punish'd for himself alone.

3. 41 But if it be said, that this happened because of the will and decree of God; then there is no more to be done, but to look into the record, and see what God threatned, and what he inflicted. He threatned death and inflicted it, with all its prepa­rations and solemnities in men and women: hard la­bour in them both; which S. Chrysostome thus ex­presses, In 5. Rom. [...]. Adam falling, even they that did not eat of the Tree, were of him all born mortal. He and all his posterity were left in the meer natural state; that is, in a state of imper­fection, in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a superna­tural end, whither God had secretly design'd man­kinde. In this state he could never arrive at hea­ven, but that was to be supplied by other means; for this made it necessary that all should come to Christ, and is the great [...] and necessity for the baptism [Page 387]of Infants, that they being admitted to superna­tural promises and assistances, may be lifted up to a state above their nature; Not onely to improve their present good, as the Pelagians affirm'd,

but to take off that evil state of things whither by occasion of the fall of Adam they were devolv'd, and to give them new birth, adoption into Christ, and the seeds of a new nature, so to become chil­dren of God and heirs of the promises, who in their meer naturals did inherit from Adam nothing but misery, and imperfection, and death.

So Xistus in the Verses written upon the Fount of Constantine. But 2. 2 It is not to be supposed that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity, because from that time ever unto this, he by new laws hath required innocence of life, or repentance and holiness. For besides that it is a great testimony of the Divine favour that God will still imploy us, and exact more services of us, and that there is no greater argument of joy to us in the world, then that we are Gods servants, and there can be no greater testimony, that God is our God; and that of this employing us in his service, there can be no greater evidence, then the giving to us new laws: Besides this, I say, if man could not [Page 388]obey, it is not consistent with the wisdome of God, to require of man, what he knows man cannot do; nor with his justice, to punish that in man, which he knows man cannot avoid.

But if it be objected, 42 that man had strengths enough in his first Creation, but when in Adam he sinned, in him also he forfeited all his strengths; and therefore his consequent disability being his own fault, cannot be his excuse; and to whatsoever laws God shall be pleased afterwards to impose, he cannot plead his infirmity, because himself having brought it on himself, must suffer for it: In being just in God to exact the law of him, even where he is unable to keep it, because God once made him able, and he disabled himself. I answer many things.

1. 43 That Adam had any more strengths then we have, 1 and greater powers of Nature, and by his fall lost them to himself and us, being part of the que­stion, ought not to be pretended, till it be proved. Adam was a man, as his sons are, and no more; and God gave him strength enough to do his duty; and God is as just and loving to us as to him, and hath promis'd he will lay no more upon us, then he will make us able to bear. 2 But 2. He that disables him­self from doing his Lord service, if he does it on purpose that he may not serve him, may be punished for not doing all that which was imposed upon him, because that servant did choose his disability, that he might with some pretence refuse the service. He did disobey in all the following particulars; because out of a resolution not to obey in those particulars, he made himself unable in the general. It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance. He that refuses knowledge lest he should understand his duty, and he that disables himself that he may not do it, may be punished not onely for not doing it, [Page 389]but for making it impossible to be done. But that was not Adams case, so farre as we know; and it is certain it was not ours in the matter of his sin. 3. 3 But if he commits a fault which accidentally dis­ables him; as if he eats too much, and be sick the next day, and fall into a feaver, he may indeed, and is justly punished for his gluttony, but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weakness he can no ways perform. The reason is, because this disability was involuntary, and an evil accident; of it self a punishment of his sin, and therefore of it self not punishable; and this invo­luntariness is still the more notorious and certain, as the consequents are the more remote. 4. 4 No man can be answerable to God for the consequent of his sin, unless it be natural, foretold, or foreseen; but for the sin it self he is; and as for the consequents superinduc'd by God, he must suffer them, but not answer for them. For these being in the hands of God, are not the works of mens hands; God hath effected it upon the sinner, he is the Author of it, and by it he is directly glorified; and therefore though by it the sinner is punished, yet for it he cannot be punished again. 5. 5 But that I may come to the case of the present argument. This measure and line of justice is most evident in laws to be im­posed after the disability is contracted, and not fore­seen before; concerning which, there can be no pretence of justice that the breach of them should be punished. If a law be already imposed, and a man by his fault loses those assistances, without which he could not keep the law, he may nevertheless in the rigor of justice be punished for not keeping it, Because the law was given him when he had strength, and he ought to have preserv'd it. For though he cannot be obliged to a new law to which he is not enabled, yet for his sin he shall not be [Page 390]disoblig'd from an old law to which he was ena­bled. Although God will not exceed his measures, or doe wrong to a sinner, yet by his sin he shall receive no favour, or immunity. But in laws to be imposed afterwards, the case (I say) is otherwise. Because the persons are not capable of any such law; and God knowing they cannot perform them, cannot intend they should, and therefore cannot justly punish them, for not doing that, which him­self did never heartily intend they should doe, be­cause he knew they could not. The instances will make the matter to be confessed. * Suppose a man falling into drunkenness, should by the Divine judge­ment fall lame; can God afterwards exact it of him that he should leap and dance in publick festivities, when he can neither goe nor stand? If so, suppose yet further, that by the Divine judgement he should fall mad; Is the mad man capable of a new law? I suppose it will not be said he is: or if it be, suppose yet further, that he be taken speechless, and sense­less, or die: Can God still exact of him obedience to any new Commandement? If he be dead, his day is done, he can work no more, nor be oblig'd any more; and so it is, if he be mad, or any ways dis­abled; the case is all one. For whatsoever the dis­ability be, the incapacity, and impossibility, and the excuse is the same. 6 6. When God (as it is said) pu­nish'd the first sin with a consequent disability of do­ing any future services, if he also punishes the not doing what he afterwards imposes, I ask, whether this later punishment be precisely due to the later, or to the former sin? If to the later, then in vain is it laid upon the former account; and yet, if it be laid upon its own, it is high injustice; because of this law the man was not a subject capable when it was imposed, the man was dead before the law was alive: and a tree is as much capable of a law, as a man is [Page 391]of an impossible Commandement. But if the pu­nishment of this later, be inflicted upon the sinner for the first transgression by which he disabled him­self, then in vain was the later Commandement im­posed. For since the later sin was unavoidable, and the first sin deserv'd the whole damnation, what end could there be of imposing this new law, by which God could not serve any new purpose, no not for the manifestation of his justice in condemning him? For if the first sin deserv'd condemnation, there was no need to introduce a new pretence, and to seek an occasion to slay him. But if it did not, it is certain the new sin could not make it just to doe what was not just before, because by this new omission there can be no new guilt contracted. But of this I shall give yet a further account when I shall discourse in what sense God can be said to punish one sin with another.

The consequent of the parts of this discourse is this, 43 that since the sin of Adam did not debauch our nature by any naturall effici­ency of the sin it self, Idem sensit Jacobus Faber in 5. Rom. Nihil nos ex Adamo trahere nisi obliga­tionem ad mortem. Albertus Pighius controv. 1. de peccato Orig. & Ambr. Catharinus de lapsu hominis & pec­cato Orig. statuunt, Peccatum Origi­nis non habere veram peccati rationem, sed esse tantùm reatum quo posteri pri­morum parentum propter transgressionem illorum primaevam sine aliquo vitio proprio & inhaerente naturae pravitate devincti teneantur. nor by our being in the loyns of Adam, nor yet by any sen­tence or decree of God, we are not by Adams sin made necessarily and naturally vi­cious, and inclin'd to evil, but are left in our meer nature such as it was, and such as it is.

Nature makes us miserable and imperfect, Epist. ad Magnes. but not criminal. [...]. [Page 392]They are the words of S. Ig­natius the Martyr. If any man be a pious and a good man, he is of God; if he be impious, he is of the Devil. Not by Nature, but made so by his own proceedings. To all which I adde this;

That in Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by A­dams sin; 44 which I shall manifest by examination of all those places which are the pretence of the con­trary doctrine. For if God hath not declared in Scripture any such thing, we have the common no­tions of his justice, and wisdome, and goodness, and truth in prejudice of the contrary.

§. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former doctrine.

THE first is [Every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart are onely evil continually.] 45 Gen 6.5. I answer, it is true, they were so, but it was their own fault, not Adams; for so it is said expresly V. 12., [All flesh had corrupted his way upon earth, and the earth was filled with violence.] 2. If this corruption had been na­tural and unavoidable, why did God punish all the world for it, except eight persons? why did he pu­nish those that could not help it? and why did others escape that were equally guilty? Is not this [...] respect of persons, and partiality to some, and ini­quity [Page 393]towards all? which farre be it from the Judge of all the world. 3. God might as well have pu­nish'd all the world, for sleeping once in a day, or for being hungry, as for sinning, if so to doe be na­tural and unavoidable. 4. If God in these words complain'd of their Natural and Original corrupti­on, why did he but then, as if it were a new thing, complain of it, and repent that he had made man, since he prov'd so bad? 5. This malice and corru­ption was such, that God did send Noah the Prea­cher of righteousness to draw the world from it. But no man supposes that it was fit to send a Prea­cher to dehort them from being guilty of Original sin. Therefore it was good counsel,

Blame not nature, but thy own evil customes; for thy neglect of thy fields, will make fern, and thistles to grow. It is not onely because the ground is accursed, but because it is neglected, that it bears thorns. Errasti, si existimas nobi­scum vitia nasci: supervenerunt, ingesta sunt, said Seneca. Thou art deceived, Epist. 94. if thou think­est that vices are born with us. No, they are super­induc'd and come in upon us afterwards.

And by this we may the better understand the following words [I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; 46Gen. 8.21.for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth. Concerning which, note, that these words are not two senten­ces. For this is not the reason why God gave over smiting, because man was corrupt from his youth. For if this had been the reason, it would have [Page 394]come to pass, that the same cause which moved God to smite, would also move him to forbear, which were a strange Oeconomy. The words therefore are not a reason of his forbearing, but an aggravation of his kindness; as if he had said, Though man be con­tinually evil, yet I will not for all that, any more drown the world for mans being so evil: and so the Hebrews note that the particle [...] somtimes signi­fies [although.]

But the great outcry in this Question is upon confidence of the words of David [Behold, 47Psal. 51.5.I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother concei­ved me.] To which I answer, that the words are an Hebraism, and signify nothing but an aggrandation of his sinfulness, and are intended for an high ex­pression, meaning, that I am wholly and intirely wicked. For the verification of which exposition, there are divers parallel places in the holy Scriptures. [Thou wert my hope when I hanged yet upon my mo­thers breasts] and [The ungodly are froward even from their mothers womb; as soon as they be born, they goe astray, and speak lies] which because it cannot be true in the letter, must be an idiotism, or pro­priety of phrase, apt to explicate the other, and signi­fying onely a ready, a prompt, a great, and uni­versal wickedness. The like to this, is that saying of the Pharises, Joh. 5.34. [Thou wert altogether born in sin, and doest thou teach us?] which phrase, and manner of speaking being plainly a reproach of the poor blinde man, and a disparagement of him, did mean onely to call him a very wicked person, but not that he had derived his sin originally, and from his birth; for that had been their own case as much as his; and therefore S. Chrysostome explaining this phrase, says, [...], it is as if they should say, Thou hast been a sinner all thy life time. * To the same sense are those words of [Page 395] Job, Job 31.18.[I have guided her [the widow] from my mothers womb.] And in this expression and severity of hy­perbole it is, Isa. 48.8. that God aggravated the sins of his people, [Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb.] And this way of expressing a great state of misery we finde us'd among the Heathen Writers: for so Seneca brings in Oedipus complaining;

Something like S. Bernards, Damnatus antequam na­tus, ‘I was condemn'd before I was born; dead before I was alive; and death seised upon me in my mothers womb. Some body brought in a ha­sty and a too forward death, but did he sin also?’ An expression not unlike to this we have in Lucian, [...], Pardon me that I was not born wicked, or born to be wicked. 2. If David had meant it literally, it had not signi­fied that himself was born in original sin, but that his father and mother sinn'd when they begat him: which the eldest son that he begat of Bathsheba (for ought I know) might have said truer then he in this sense. Lib. 3. Strom. extrem. And this is the exposition of Clemens Alexandrinus, save onely that by [my mother] he un­derstands Eva: [...]. Though he was conceived in sin, yet he was not in the sin; peccatrix concepit, sed non peccatorem; she sinn'd in the conception, not Da­vid. And in the following words he speaks home to the main article. [...]. [Page 396] Let them tell us where an infant did fornicate, or how he who had done nothing, could fall under the curse of Adam? meaning so as to de­serve the same evil that he did. 3. If it did relate to his own person, he might mean that he was be­gotten with that sanguine disposition, and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery: and then, though David said this truly of himself, yet it is not true of all, not of those whose temper is phlegmatick and unactive. 4. If David had meant this of himself, and that in regard of origi­nal sin, this had been so far from being a penitential expression, or a confessing of his sin, that it had been a plain accusation of God, and an excusing of him­self. As if he had said, ‘O Lord, I confess I have sinn'd in this horrible murder and adultery, but thou, O God, knowest how it comes to pass, even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankinde above 3000. years before I was born, thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature, that unless thou didst irresistibly force me from it, I cannot abstain from any sin, being most naturally inclin'd to all. In this sinfulness hath my mother conceived me, and that hath produc'd in me this sad effect.’ Who would suppose David to make such a confession, or in his sorrow to hope for par­don for upbraiding not his own folly, but the de­crees of God? 5. But that David thought no­thing of this, or any thing like it, we may under­stand by the preceding words, which are as a preface to these in the objection. [Against thee onely have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified in thy saying, and clear when thou art judged.] He that thus acquits God, can­not easily be supposed in the very next breath so fiercely to accuse him. 6. To which also adde the [Page 397]following words; which are a sufficient reproof of all strange senses in the other [In sin hath my mother conceived me. But loe, thou requirest truth in the in­ward parts] as if he had said, Though I am so wic­ked, yet thy laws are good, and I therefore so much the worse, because I am contrary to thy laws: They require truth and sincerity in the soul, but I am false and perfidious. But if this had been natural for him so to be, and unavoidable, God who knew it perfectly well, would have expected nothing else of him. For he will not require of a stone to speak, nor of fire to be cold, unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so.

But S. Paul affirms, 48 Ephes. 2.2, 3. that by nature we were the children of wrath. True, we were so, when we were dead in sins, and before we were quickned by the Spirit of life and grace. We were so; now we are not. We were so by our own unworthiness and fil­thy conversation; now we being regenerated by the Spirit of holiness, we are alive unto God, and no longer heirs of wrath. This therefore as appears by the discourse of S. Paul, relates not to our Ori­ginal sin, but to the Actual; and of this sense of the word Nature, in the matter of sinning we have Justin Martyr, or whoever is the Anthor of the Questions and answers ad Orthodoxos to be witness: Quaest. 88. For answering those words of Scripture, There is not any one clean who is born of a woman, and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin; He sayes their meaning cannot extend to Christ, for he was not [...], born to sin; but he is natura ad peccandum natus, [...], by nature born to sin, who by the choice of his own will is author to him­self to do what he list, whether it be good or evil. The following words are eaten out by time; but [Page 398]upon this ground whatever he said of Infants, must needs have been to better purposes then is usually spoken of in this Article. 2. Heirs of wrath, sig­nifies persons liable to punishment, heirs of death. It is an usual expression among the Hebrews. So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that de­serve death, or are condemned to die. Thus Judas Iscariot is called, John 17.12. 2 Sam. 12.25. The son of perdition: and so is that saying of David to Nathan, [The man that hath done this shall surely die.] In the Hebrew it is [He is the son of death] And so were those Ephesians, children, or sons of wrath before their conversion; that is, they had deserv'd death. 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls [...], an acquisite nature, that is, [...], customes and evil habits. And so Suidas ex­pounds the word in this very place; not onely upon the account of Grammar, and the use of the word in the best Authors, but also upon an excellent rea­son. His words are these: [...]. When the Apostle sayes, we were by nature children of wrath, he means not that which is the usual signification of nature, for then it were not their fault, but the fault of him that made them such; but it means an abiding and vile habit, a wicked and a lasting custome. [...], saith Aristotle. Arist. R. het. l. 1. c. 11. Lib. 4. de esu anim. Cu­stome is like Nature. For often and alwayes are not far asunder. Nature is alwayes, Custome is almost alwayes. To the same sense are those words of Por­phiry, [...] — The ancients who lived likest to God, and were by nature the best, living the best life, were a [Page 399]golden generation. 4. By nature] means not by birth and natural extraction, or any original deriva­tion from Adam, in this place: for of this these E­phesians were no more guilty then every one else, and no more before their conversion then after; but [by nature] signifies [...], so the Greek Scho­liast renders it; [really, beyond opinion] plenè & omnino, intirely, or wholly, so the Syriack; and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it: and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase Gal. 4.8. Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods, that is, which really are none. And as these Ephesians were before their conver­sion, so were the Israelites in the dayes of their re­bellion, a wicked stubborn people, insomuch that they are by the Prophet called [children of trans­gression, a seed of falshood.] Isa. 27.4. But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sense and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them.

But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God, 49 that is, bastards and not sons, heirs of hell and damnation, full of sin and vile corruption, when the holy Scri­ptures propound children as imitable for their pret­ty innocence and sweetness, and declare them rather heirs of Heaven then Hell. In malice be children; 1 Cor. 14.20. Mat. 18.3.19.14. and, unless we become like to children, we shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven; and, their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven. Heaven is theirs, God is their Father, Angels are appropriated to them; they are free from malice, and imitable by men. These are better words then are usually given them; and signifie, that they are beloved of God, not hated, design'd for Heaven, and born to it, though brought thither by Christ, [Page 400]and by the Spirit of Christ, not born for Hell; that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels, not for innocent babes. This does not call them naturally wicked, but rather naturally innocent, and is a bet­ter account then is commonly given them by impu­tation of Adams sin.

But not concerning children, 50 but of himself S. Paul complains, that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted. There is a law in my members, Rom. 7.23.bringing me into captivity to the law of sin; and many other words to the same purpose; all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes, so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded, is nothing but a tempta­tion to evil life, and a patron of impiety. Con­cerning which I have already given account, and freed it from the common abuse. But if this were to be understood in the sense which I then reproved, yet it is to be observed in order to the present Que­stion, that S. Paul does not say [This law in our members comes by nature, or is derived from Adam.] A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious cu­stome, and that may be as prevalent as Nature, and more; because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their na­ture, then have cured their vicious habits. * Adde to this, that S. Paul puts this uneasiness, and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law, and of his not being under Christ, not upon the account of Adams prevari­cation, as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter.

As easie also it is to understand these words of S. 51 Paul without prejudice to this Question [The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.14.neither indeed can he know them] meaning (as is supposed) that there is in our natures an ignorance [Page 401]und aversness from spiritual things, that is, a contra­riety to God. But it is observable, that the word which the Apostle uses is [...], which is not pro­perly rendred [Natural] but [Animal] and it cer­tainly means a man that is guided onely by natural Reason, without the revelations of the Gospel. [...]. So Suidas. An animal man, that is, a Phi­losopher, or a rational man, such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers, upon the stock and ac­count of the learning of all their Schools, could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel myste­ries; as of God incarnate, Christ dying. Resurre­ction of the body, and the like. For this word [...], or Animal, and another word used often by the Apostle, [...], Carnal, are opposed to [...], Spiritual; and are states of evil, or of imper­fection, in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God. For animality, which is a rely­ing upon natural principles without revelation, is a state privatively oppos'd to the Spirit; and a man in that state cannot be sav'd, because he wants a vi­tal part, he wants the spirit, which is a part of the constitution of a Christian in that capacity, who consists of Body, and Soul, and Spirit, and therefore Anima without Spiritus, the Soul without the Spi­rit is not sufficient. * For as the Soul is a sufficient principle of all the actions of life, in order to our natural end and persection, but it can bear us no further: so there must be another principle in order to a supernatural end, and that is the Spirit; called by S. Paul, [...], the new creation, by S. Peter, a divine nature; and by this, we become renewed in the inner man: the infusion of this new nature into us is called, Regeneration; and it is the great prin­ciple of godliness, called, Grace or the Spirit, [...], [Page 402]The seed of God, and by it we are begotten by God, and brought forth by the Church to the hopes and beginnings of a new life, and a super­natural end. And although I cannot say, that this is a third substance distinct from Soul and Body, yet it is a distinct principle put into us by God, without which we cannot work, and by which we can; and therefore if it be not a substance, yet it is more then a Metaphor, it is a real being, permanent and in­herent; but yet such as can be lessen'd and extin­guish'd.

But Carnality, or the state of being in the flesh, is not onely privatively oppos'd, but contrarily al­so to the spiritual state, or the state of Grace. But as the first is not a sin deriv'd from Adam: so nei­ther is the second. The first is onely an imperfection, or want of supernatural aids; The other is indeed a direct state of sin, and hated by God, but super­induc'd by choice, and not descending naturally. * Now to the spiritual state, nothing is in Scripture oppos'd but these two, and neither of these when it is sinful can be pretended upon the stock or argu­ment of any Scriptures to descend from Adam; therefore all the state of opposition to Grace, is owing to our selves, and not to him. Adam indeed did leave us all in an Animal estate, but this state is not a state of enmity, or direct opposition to God, but a state insufficient and imperfect. No man can perish for being an Animal man, that is, for not having any supernatural revelations, but for not con­senting to them when he hath, that is, for being Carnal as well as Animal; and that he is Carnal is wholly his own choice. In the state of animality he cannot go to Heaven; but neither will that alone bear him to Hell: and therefore God does not let a man alone in that state; for either God suggests to him what is spiritual, or if he does not, [Page 403]it is because himself hath superinduc'd something that is Carnal.

Having now explicated those Scriptures which have made some difficulty in this Question, 52 to what Topick soever we shall return, all things are plain and clear in this Article. Noxa caput sequitur, The soul that sinneth it shall die. Ne (que) virtutes, ne (que)Epist. 3. de morte Nepotian.vi­tia parentum liberis imputantur, saith S. Hierome. Neither the vices nor the vertues of the parents are imputed to the children. And therefore when Dion Chrysostomus had reprov'd Solon's laws, which in some cases condemn the innocent posterity; he adds this in honour of Gods law, [...]; That it does not like the law of the Athenians punish the children and kin­dred of the Criminal; but every man is the cause of his own misfortune. But concerning this, it will not be amiss in order to many good purposes, to ob­serve the whole Oeconomy and dispensation of the Divine Justice in this affair.

§. 3. How God punishes the Fathers sin upon the Children.

1. 53 GOd may and does very often bless children to reward their fathers piety; as is noto­rious in the famous descent of Abrahams family. But the same is not the reason of favours and pu­nishments. For such is the nature of benefits, that he in whose power they are, may without in­justice [Page 404]give them why, and when, and to whom he please.

2. 54 God never imputes the fathers sin to the son or relative, formally making him guilty, or being angry with the innocent eternally. It were blas­phemy to affirm so fierce and violent a cruelty of the most merciful Saviour and Father of mankinde; and it was yet never imagined or affirm'd by any that I know of, that God did yet ever damn an innocent son, though the father were the vilest person, and committed the greatest evils of the world, actually, personally, choosingly, and maliciously: and why it should by so many, and so confidently be affirm'd in a lesser instance, in so unequal a case, and at so long a distance, I cannot suspect any reason. Plutarch in his book against Herodotus affirms, that it is not likely they would, meaning that it was unjust, to revenge an injury which the Samians did to the Co­rinthians three hundred years before. But to re­venge it for ever, upon all generations, and with an eternal anger upon some persons, even the most in­nocent, cannot without trembling be spoken or imagined of God, who is the great lover of Souls. Whatsoever the matter be in temporal inflictions, of which in the next propositions I shall give ac­count, yet if the Question be concerning eternal damnation, it was never said, never threatned by God to pass from father to the son. When God punishes one relative for the sin of another, he does it as fines are taken in our law, salvo contenemento; the principal stake being safe, it may be justice to seise upon all the smaller portions; at least it is not against justice for God in such cases to use the power and dominion of a Lord. But this cannot be rea­sonable to be used in the matter of eternal interest; because if God should as a Lord use his power over Innocents and condemn them to Hell, he should be [Page 405]Author to them of more evil then ever he convey­ed good to them; which but to imagine, would be a horrible impiety. And therefore when our blessed Saviour took upon him the wrath of God due to all mankinde yet Gods anger even in that case, extended no further then a temporal death. Because for the eternal, nothing can make recom­pence, and it can never turn to good.

3. 55 When God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for his fathers sin, he does it as a Judge to the father, but as a Lord onely of the son. He hath absolute power over the lives of all his creatures, and can take it away from any man without inju­stice, when he please, though neither he nor his Pa­rents have sinned; and he may use the same right and power when either of them alone hath sinn'd. But in striking the son, he does not doe to him as a Judge; that is, he is not angry with him, but with the Parent: But to the son he is a supreme Lord, and may doe what seemeth good in his own eyes.

4. 56 When God using the power and dominion of a Lord, and the severity of a Judge, did punish posterity, it was but so long as the fathers might live and see it, [...], said S. Chrysostom, Homil. 29. in 9. Gen. to the third and fourth generation, no longer. It was threatned to endure no longer, in the second Commandement; and so it hapned in the case of Zimri and Jehu; after the fourth generation they prevailed not upon their Masters houses. And if it happen that the Parents die before, yet it is a plague to them that they know, or ought to fear the evil shall happen upon their posterity; quò tristiores per­irent, as Alexander said of the Traitors whose sons were to die after them, They die with sorrow and fear.

5. 57 This power and dominion which God used, was not exercised in ordinary cases, but in the big­gest crimes onely. It was threatned in the case of idolatry; and was often inflicted in the case of per­jury, of which the oracle recited by Herodotus said,

And in sacrilege the anger of God uses also to be se­vere, of which it was observ'd even by the Heathens taught by the Delphick Priests.

Those sins which the Greeks called [...], and which the Christians called crying sins, are such, in the punishment of which God did not onely use his severe justice as to the offending person, but for the enlargement and extension of his justice, and the terror of the world, he used the rights of his power and dominion over their Relatives.

6. 58 Although God threatned this, and hath a right and power to doe this, yet he did not often use his right, but onely in such notable examples as were sufficient to all ages to consign and testify his great indignation against those crimes, for the punishment of which he was pleased to use his right, the rights of his dominion. For although he of­ten does miracles of mercy, yet seldome it is that he does any extraordinaries of judgement: He did it to Corah and Dathan, to Achan and Saul, to Je­roboam and Ahab; and by these and some more expressed his severity against the like crimes suffici­ently to all ages.

7. 59 But his goodness and graciousness grew quick­ly [Page 407]weary of this way of proceeding. They were the terrors of the law, and God did not delight in them. Therefore in the time of Ezekiel the Pro­phet, he declar'd against them, and promised to use it no more, that is, not so frequently, not so notoriously, not without great necessity and cha­rity, Ne ad parentum exempla succresceret improbi­tas filiorum. As I live, saith the Lord,Ezek. 18.3.ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, The Fathers have eaten sowre grapes, and the chil­drens teeth are set on edge. The soul that sinneth it shall die.

8. 60 The iniquity of the people, and the hard­ness of their heart did force God to use this harsh course, especially since that then there was no de­claration, or intermination, and threatning the pains of hell to great sinners. Duritia populi ad ta­lia remedia compulerat, ut vel posteritatibus suis pro­spicientes legi Divinae obedirent, said Tertullian. Something extraordinary was then needful to be done to so vile a people to restrain their sinfulness. But when the Gospel was published, and hell-fire threatned to persevering, and greater sinners, the former way of punishment was quite left off. And in all the Gospel there is not any one word of threatning passing beyond the person offending. De Mo­nog. De­sivit uva acerba (saith Tertullian) à patribus man­ducata dentes filiorum obstupefacere: unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur. Now (that is, in the time of the Gospel) the sowre grape of the Fathers shall no more set on edge the childrens teeth, but every one shall die in his own sin.

Upon this account alone, 61 it must needs be im­possible to be consented to, that God should still, under the Gospel, after so many generations of vengeance, and taking punishment for the sin, after the publication of so many mercies, and so infinite [Page 408]a graciousness as is revealed to mankinde in Jesus Christ, after the so great provisions against sin, even the horrible threatnings of damnation, still persevere to punish Adam in his posterity, and the posterity for what they never did.

For either the evil that fals upon us for Adams sin, 62 is inflicted upon us by way of proper punish­ment, or by right of dominion. If by a proper pu­nishment to us, then we understand not the justice of it, because we were not personally guilty; and all the world says it is unjust directly to punish a childe for his fathers fault. Nihil est iniquius quàm aliquem haeredem paterni odii fieri, said Se­neca; and Pausanias the General of the Grecian army would not punish the children of Attagines, who perswaded the Thebans to revolt to the Medes, [...], saying, the children were not guilty of that revolt: and when Avidius Cassius had conspired against Mark An­thony, he wrote to the Senate to pardon his wife and son in law; Et quid dico veniam, cùm illi nihil fecerint? but why (says he) should I say, pardon, when they had done nothing? But if God in­flicts the evil upon Adams posterity, which we suf­fer for his sake, not as a punishment, that is, not making us formally guilty, but using his own right and power of dominion which he hath over the lives and fortunes of his creatures; then it is a strange anger which God hath against Adam, that he still retains so fierce an indignation, as not to take off his hand from striking after five thousand six hundred years, and striking him for that of which he repented him, and which in all reason we believe he then pardon'd, or resolv'd to par­don, when he promised the Messias to him. * To this I adde this consideration; That it is not easily to be imagined how Christ reconciled the [Page 409]world unto his Father, if after the death of Christ, God is still so angry with mankinde, so unappeased, that even the most innocent part of mankinde may perish for Adams sin; and the other are perpetually punished by a corrupted nature, a proneness to sin, a servile will, a filthy concupiscence, and an im­possibility of being innocent; that no faith, no Sa­crament, no industry, no prayers can obtain freedom from this punishment.

Certain it is, 63 the Jews knew of no such thing, they understood nothing of this Oeconomy, that the Fathers sin should be punish'd in the children by a formal imputation of the guilt; and therefore Rabbi Simeon Barsema said well, that when God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children, jure domi­nii, non poenae utitur. He uses the right of Empire, not of justice, of dominion, not of punishment, of a Lord, not of a Judge. Libr. de pietate. And Philo blames it for the worst of institutions, when the good sons of bad Parents shall be dishonoured by their Fathers stain, and the bad sons of good Parents shall have their Fathers honour; [...]; for the law praises every one for their own, not for the vertue of their Aunce­stors, and punishes not the Fathers, but his own wickedness upon every mans head. And there­fore Josephus cals the contrary way of proceed­ing, which he had observ'd in Alexander, [...], a punishment above the measures of a man; and the Greeks and Romans did always call it injustice.

And hence it is, that all Laws forbear to kill a wo­man [Page 410]with childe, lest the Innocent should suffer for the Mothers fault: and therefore this just mercy is infinitely more to be expected from the great Father of spirits, the God of mercy and com­fort. And upon this account Abraham was confi­dent with God; Wilt thou slay the righteous with the wicked? shall not the Judge of all the world doe right? And if it be unrighteous to slay the righteous with the wicked, it is also unjust to slay the righteous for the wicked. Cicero lib. 4. de Nat. Deor. Ferrétne ulla civi­tas laborem istiusmodi legis, ut condemnetur Filius aut Nepos, si Pater aut Avus deliquissent. It were an intolerable Law, and no community would be govern'd by it, that the Father or Grandfather should sin, and the Son or Nephew should be pu­nish'd. I shall adde no more testimonies, but onely make use of the words of the Christian Em­perours in their Laws; L. Sanci­mus. C. de poenis. Peccata igitur suos teneant auctores: nec ulteriùs progrediatur metus, quàm reperiatur delictum. Let no man trouble himself with unnecessary and melancholy dreams of strange inevitable undeserved punishments, descending upon us for the faults of others. The sin that a man does shall be upon his own head onely. Sufficient to every man is his own evil, the evil that he does, and the evil that he suffers.

§. 4. Of the causes of the Universal wickedness of Mankinde.

BUt if there were not some common natural prin­ciple of evil introduced by the sin of our Pa­rent upon all his posterity, how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious, so hard and un­apt, so uneasy and so listless to the practices of ver­tue? How is it that all men in the world are sinners, and that in many things we offend all? For if men could choose and had freedome, it is not imagi­nable that all should choose the same thing. As all men will not be Physicians, nor all desire to be Mer­chants. But we see that all men are sinners, and yet it is impossible that in a liberty of indifferency there should be no variety. Therefore we must be content to say, that we have onely a liberty of adhesion or delight; that is, we so love sin that we all choose it, but cannot choose good.

To this I answer many things. 65 1. If we will sup­pose that there must now be a cause in our nature determining us to sin by an irresistible necessity, I desire to know why such principle should be more necessary to us then it was to Adam? what made him to sin when he fell? He had a perfect liberty, and no ignorance, no original sin, no inordination of his affections, no such rebellion of the inferiour faculties against the superiour as we complain of; or at least we say he had not, and yet he sinned. And if his passions did rebel against his reason be­fore the fall, then so they may in us, and yet not [Page 412]be long of that fall. It was before the fall in him, and so may be in us, and not the effect of it. But the truth of the thing is this, He had liberty of choice and chose ill, and so doe we: and all men say, that this liberty of choosing ill, is still left to us. But because it is left here, it appears that it was there before, and therefore is not the consequent of Originall sin. But it is said, that as Adam chose ill, so doe we; but he was free to good as well as to evil, but so are not we; we are free to evil, not to good; and that we are so, is the consequent of original sin. I reply, That we can choose good, and as naturally love good as evil, and in some instances more. A man cannot naturally hate God, if he knows any thing of him. A man na­turally loves his Parents. He naturally hates some sort of uncleanness. He naturally loves and pre­serves himself: and all those sins which are un­natural, are such which nature hates: and the law of nature commands all the great instances of vertue, and marks out all the great lines of justice. [...]. It is a law imprinted in the very substance of our natures, and incorporated in all generations of reasonable creatures, not to break or transgress the laws which are appointed by God. Here onely, our nature is defective; we doe not naturally know, nor yet naturally love those supernaturall excellencies which are appoin­ted and commanded by God as the means of bring­ing us to a supernatural condition. That is, without Gods grace, and the renovation of the Spirit of God, we cannot be saved. Neither was Adams case better then ours in this particular. For that his nature could not carry him to heaven, or indeed to please God in order to it, seems to [Page 413]be confessed by them who have therefore affir­med him to have had a supernaturall righteous­ness: which is affirmed by all the Roman party. But although in supernatural instances it must needs be that our Nature is defective; so it must needs have been in Adam: and therefore the Lutherans (who in this particular dream not so probably as the other) affirming that justice was natural in Adam, do yet but differ in the manner of speaking, and have not at all spoken against this; neither can they, unless they also affirm that to arrive at Heaven was the natural end of man. For if it be not, then neither we nor A­dam could by Nature doe things above Nature; and if God did concreate Grace with Adam, that Grace was nevertheless Grace, for being given him as soon as he was made: For even the ho­ly Spirit may be given to a Chrysome childe; and Christ, and S. John Baptist, and the Prophet Je­remy, are in their several measures and propor­tions, instances of it. The result of which is this; That the necessity of Grace does not suppose that our Nature is originally corrupted; for beyond Adams meer Nature, something else was necessary, and so it is to us.

2. 66 But to the main objection; I answer, That it is certain there is not onely one, but many com­mon principles from which sin derives it self into the manners of all men. 1. The first great cause of an universal impiety is, that at first, God had made no promises of Heaven, he had not propounded any glorious rewards, to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior, that is, to make the will choose the best and leave the worst, and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction. For if the inferior faculty be pleas'd with its object, and that chance to be forbidden, as it was in most [Page 414]instances, there had need be something to make re­compence for the suffering the displeasure of cros­sing that appetite. I use the common manner of speaking, and the distinction of superior and infe­rior faculties: though indeed in nature there is no such thing; and it is but the same faculty, divided between differing objects; of which I shall give an account in the Ninth Chapter §. 3. But here I take notice of it, that it may not with prejudice be taken to the disadvantage of this whole Article For if there be no such difference of faculties founded in Nature, then the rebellion of the inferior against the superior, is no effect of Adams sin. But the in­clination to sensual objects being chastis'd by laws and prohibitions, hath made that which we call the rebellion of the inferior, that is, the adherence to sensual objects; which was the more certain to re­main, because they were not at first enabled by great promises of good things to contest against sensual temptations. And because there was no such thing in that period of the world, therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves: excepting Abel, Seth, Enos, and Enoch, we finde not one good man from Adam to Noah; and therefore the Apostle calls that world, 2 Pet. 2.5. [...], the world of the ungodly. It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence, he should strive to make his condi­tion better by the Devils promises. If God had been pleased to have promis'd to him the glories he hath promised to us, it is not to be suppos'd he had fallen so easily. But he did not, and so he fell, and all the world followed his example, and most upon this account, till it pleas'd God after he had tried the world with temporal promises, and found them also insufficient, to finish the work of his gracious­ness, and to cause us to be born anew, by the [Page 415]revelations and promises of Jesus Christ.

2. 67 A second cause of the universal iniquity of the world, is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances; not because Nature is origi­nally corrupted, but because Gods laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent, and otherwise lawful inclinations of Nature. I in­stance in the matters of Temperance, Abstinence, Patience, Humility, Self-denial, and Mortification. But more particularly thus: A man is naturally in­clined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies. This is naturally no sin: for the natural desire was put into us by God, and therefore could not be evil. But then God as an instance and trial of our obedience, put fetters upon the indefinite desire, and determin'd us to one woman; which pro­vision was enough to satisfie our need, but not all our possibility. This therefore he left as a reserve, that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire, we might give him something of our own. * But then it is to be considered, that our unwillingness to obey in this instance, or in any of the other, cannot be attributed to Origi­nal sin, or natural disability deriv'd as a punishment from Adam, because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man; and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful. But our unwillingness and aversness came by occasion of the law coming cross upon our nature; not because our nature is contrary to God, but because God was pleas'd to superinduce some Commandements contrary to our nature. For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats, and drink the richest wines as long as they could please us, and were to be had, I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience. But because we are forbidden to do some things [Page 416]which naturally we desire to do and love, therefore our nature is hard put to it; and this is the true state of the difficulty. Sen. lib. 3. Quaest. Natur. c. 3. Citò nequitia subrepit: virtus difficilis inventa est. Wickedness came in speedily; but vertue was hard and difficult.

3. But then besides these, 68 there are many con­current causes of evil which have influence upon communities of men, such as are, Evil examples, the similitude of Adams transgression, vices of Prin­ces, wars, impunity, ignorance, error, false princi­ples, flattery, interest, fear, partiality, authority, evil laws, heresie, schisme, spite and ambition, na­tural inclination, and other principiant causes, which proceeding from the natural weakness of hu­mane constitution, are the fountain and proper cau­ses of many consequent evils. Quis dabit mundum ab immundo, Job 14.14. saith Job, How can a clean thing come from an unclean? We all naturally have great weak­nesses, and an imperfect constitution, apt to be wea­ry, loving variety, ignorantly making false measures of good and evil, made up with two appetites, that is, with inclination to several objects serving to con­trary interests, a thing between Angel and Beast, and the later in this life is the bigger ingredient. Hominem à Naturâ noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo, fragili atque infirmo animo, anxio ad molestias, humili ad timores, debili ad labores, proclivi ad libidi­nes, in quo Divinus ignis sit obrutus, & ingenium, & mores. Lib. 4. contra Ju­lianum. So Cicero as S. Austin quotes him. Nature hath like a stepmother sent man into the world with a naked body, a frail and infirm minde, vex'd with troubles, dejected with fears, weak for labours, prone to lusts, in whom the Divine fire, and his wit, and his manners are covered and overturn'd. In Sophi­sticâ. Ho­mines not u­râ sunt ma­li: & non possunt induci ut justitiam colant. lib. 2, de Rep. And when Plato had fiercely reprov'd the baseness of mens manners, by saying, that they are even natu­rally [Page 417]evil; he reckons two causes of it, which are the diseases of the Soul (but contracted he knew not how) Ignorance and Improbity; which he sup­poses to have been the remains of that baseness they had before they entred into bodies, whither they were sent as to a prison. This is our natural un­cleanness and imperfection, and from such a princi­ple we are to expect proper and proportion'd effects; and therefore we may well say with Job, What is man that he should be clean, Job. 15.14.and he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? That is, our im­perfections are many, and we are with unequal strengths call'd to labor for a supernatural purchase; and when our spirit is very willing, even then our flesh is very weak: And yet it is worse if we compare our selves, as Job does, to the purities and perfe­ctions of God; in respect of which, as he sayes of us men in our imperfect state, so he sayes also of the Angels, or the holy Ones of God, and of the Hea­ven it self, that it is also unclean and impure: for the cause and verification of which, we must look out something besides Original sin. * Adde to this, that vice is pregnant and teeming, and brings forth new instances, numerous as the spawn of fishes; such as are inadvertency, carelesness, tedi­ousness of spirit, and these also are causes of very much evil.

§. 5. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall.

UPon this account, besides that the causes of an universal impiety are apparent without any need of laying Adam in blame for all our follies and miseries, or rather without charging them upon God, who so order'd all things as we see and feel; the universal wickedness of man is no argument to prove our will servile, and the powers of election to be quite lost in us (excepting onely that we can choose evil.) For admitting this proposition, that there can be no liberty where there is no variety; yet that all men choose sin, is not any testimony that there is no variety in our choice. If there were but one sin in the world, and all men did choose that, it were a shrewd suspicion that they were na­turally determin'd or strongly precipitated. But every man does not choose the same sin, nor for the same cause; neither does he choose it alwayes, but frequently declines it, hates it, and repents of it: many men even among the Heathens did so. So that the objection hinders not, but that choice and ele­ction still remains to a man, and that he is not na­turally sinful, as he is naturally heavy, or upright, apt to laugh, or weep. For these he is alwayes, and unavoidably.

And indeed the contrary doctrine is a destruction of all laws, 70 it takes away reward and punishment, and we have nothing whereby we can serve God. And precepts of holiness might as well be preached to a Wolf as to a Man, if man were naturally and inevitably wicked. [Page 419] ‘Improbitas nullo flectitur obsequio.’ There would be no use of reason or of discourse, no deliberation or counsel: and it were impossible for the wit of man to make sense of thousands of pla­ces of Scripture, which speak to us as if we could hear and obey, or could refuse. Why are promi­ses made, and threatnings recorded? Why are Gods judgements registred? to what purpose is our reason above, and our affections below, if they were not to minister to, and attend upon the will? But upon this account, it is so farre from being true that man after his fall did forfeit his natural power of election, that it seems rather to be encreased. For as a mans knowledge grows, so his will becomes bet­ter attended and ministred unto. But after his fall his knowledge was more then before; he knew what nakedness was, and had experience of the dif­ference of things, he perceiv'd the evil and mischief of disobedience and the Divine anger; he knew fear and flight, new apprehensions, and the trouble of a guilty conscience: by all which and many other things, he grew better able, and instructed with ar­guments to obey God, and to refuse sin for the time to come. And it is every mans case; a repenting man is wiser, and hath oftentimes more perfect ha­tred of sin then the innocent, and is made more wary by his fall. But of this thing God himself is witness. Ecce homo tanquam singularis, ex se ipso habet scire bonum & malum: So the Chaldee Para­phrase reades Gen. 3.22. Our Bibles reade thus: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Now as a consequent of this knowledge, God was pleased by ejecting him out of Paradise, to prevent his eating of the Tree of Life: Ne fortè mittat manum suam in arborem [Page 420]vitae. Meaning, that now he was grown wise and apt to provide himself, and use all such remedies as were before him. He knew more after his fall then before; therefore ignorance was not the punish­ment of that sin: and he that knows more, is better enabled to choose, and lest he should choose that which might prevent the sentence of death put upon him, God cast him from thence where the remedy did grow. Upon the authority of this place Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon hath these words: Potest as li­bera unicui (que) data est. Si vult inclinare se ad bonum & esse justus, penes ipfum est: Sin vult se ad malum inclinare & esse impius, & hoc ipsum penes est. Hoc illud est quod in lege scribitur, Ecce homo tanquam singularis, ex seipso habet scire bonum & malum. To every man is given a power that he may choose and be inclined to good if he please; or else if he please to do evil. For this is written in the Law, Behold, the man is as a single one, of himself now he knows good and evil: as if he had said, Behold, mankinde is in the world without its like, and can of his own counsel and thought know good and evil, in either of these doing what himself shall choose. Si lapsus es, poteris surgere. In utramvis partem habes liberum arbitrium, In 50. Psa. Hom 2. saith S. Chrysostome. If thou hast fallen, thou mayest rise again. That which thou art commanded to doe, thou hast power to doe. Thou mayest choose either.

I might be infinite in this; 71 but I shall onely adde this one thing, That to deny to the will of man powers of choice and election, or the use of it in the actions of our life, destroys the immortality of the Soul. [...], said Hierocles. Humane Nature is in danger to be lost, if it diverts to that which is against Nature. For if it be immortal, it can never die in its noblest faculty. [Page 421]But if the will be destroyed, that is, disabled from choosing (which is all the work the will hath to do) then it is dead. For to live, and to be able to ope­rate, in Philosophy is all one. If the will therefore cannot operate, how is it immortal? And we may as well suppose an understanding that can never un­derstand, and passions that can never desire or re­fuse, and a memory that can never remember, as a will that cannot choose. Indeed all the faculties of the soul that operate by way of nature can be hin­dred in individuals; but in the whole species never. But the will is not impedible, it cannot be restrain'd at all; if there be any acts of life; and when all the other faculties are weakest, the will is strongest, and does not at all depend upon the body. Indeed it of­ten follows the inclination and affections of the bo­dy, but it can choose against them, and it can work without them. And indeed since sin is the action of a free faculty, it can no more take away the free­dome of that faculty, then vertue can; for that also is the action of the same free faculty. If sin be con­sidered in its formality, as it is an inordination or irregularity, so it is contrary to vertue; but if you consider it as an effect or action of the will, it is not at all contrary to the will, and therefore it is im­possible it should be destructive of that faculty from whence it comes.

Now to say that the will is not dead, 72 because it can choose sin, but not vertue, is an escape too slight. For besides that it is against an infinite experience, it is also contrary to the very being and manner of a man, and his whole Oeconomy in this world. For men indeed sometimes by evil habits, and by choo­sing vile things for a long time together, make it morally impossible to choose and to love that good in particular which is contrary to their evil cu­stomes. [...]. Stob. Cu­stome [Page 422]is the Devil that brings in new natures upon us; Senec. ep. 94. for nature is innocent in this particular. Nulli nos vitio natura conciliat: nos illa integros ac liberos genuit. Nature does not ingage us upon a vice. She made us intire, she left us free, but we make our selves prisoners and slaves by vicious habits; or as S. Cyril expresses it, Catech. 9. [...]. We came into the world with­out sin (meaning, without sin properly so called) but now we sin by choyce, and by election bring a kinde of necessity upon us. But this is not so in all men, and scarcely in any man in all instances; and as it is, it is but an approach to that state in which men shall work by will without choice, or by choice without contrariety of objects. In hea­ven and hell men will doe so. The Saints love God so fully, that they cannot hate him, nor desire to displease him. And in hell the accursed spirits so perfectly hate him that they can never love him. But in this life which is status viae, a middle condi­tion between both, and a passage to one of the other, it cannot be suppos'd to be so, unless here also a man be already sav'd or damn'd.

But then I consider this also, 73 that since it is almost by all men acknowledg'd to be unjust that infants should be eternally tormented in the flames of Hell for Original sin; yet we do not say that it is unjust that men of age and reason should so perish, if they be vicious and disobedient. Which difference can have no ground but this, That infants could not choose at all, much less, that which not they, but their Father did long before they were born: But men can choose, and doe what they are comman­ded, and abstain from what is forbidden. For if they could not, they ought no more to perish for this, then infants for that.

And this is so necessary a truth, 74 that it is one of [Page 423]the great grounds and necessities of obedience and holy living; and if after the fall of Adam it be not by God permitted to us to choose or refuse, there is nothing left whereby man can serve God, or of­fer him a sacrifice. It is no service, it is not rewar­dable, if it could not be avoided, nor the omission punishable if it could not be done. All things else are determin'd, and fix'd by the Divine providence, even all the actions of men. But the inward act of the will is left under the command of laws onely, and under the arrest of threatnings, and the invita­tion of promises. And that this is left for man can no ways impede any of the Divine decrees, because the outward act being overruled by the Divine providence, it is strange if the Schools will leave nothing to man, whereby he can glorify God.

I have now said something to all that I know ob­jected, 75 and more then is necessary to the Question, if the impertinencies of some Schools, and their tri­fling arrests had not so needlesly disturb'd this ar­ticle. There is nothing which from so slight grounds hath got so great, and till of late, so unquestion'd footing in the perswasions of men. Contra Celsum lib. 4. Origen said enough to be mistaken in the Question. [...]. Adams curse is common to all. And there is not a woman on earth to whom may not be said those things which were spoken to this woman [Eve.] Him S. Ambrose did mistake, and followed the error about explicating the nature of Original sin, and set it something forward. But S. Austin gave it complement and authority by his fierce di­sputing against the Pelagians, whom he would overthrow by all means. Indeed their capital error was a great one, and such against which all men while there was need ought to have contended ear­nestly, but this might and ought to have been done [Page 424]by truth. For error is no good confuter of error, as it is no good conversion that reforms one vice with another. But his zeal against a certain error, made him take in auxiliaries from an uncertain or less dis­cerned one, and caused him to say many things which all antiquity before him disavowed, and which the following ages took up upon his acount. * And if such a weak principle as his saying, could make an error spread over so many Churches, for so many ages, we may easily imagine that so many greater causes as I before reckon'd might infect whole Nations, and consequently mankinde, without crucifying our Patriarch or first Parent, and declai­ming against him (poor man) as the Author of all our evil. Truth is, we intend by laying load upon him to excuse our selves, and which is worse, to entertain our sins infallibly, and never to part with them, upon pretence that they are natural, and irresistible.

§. 6. The practical Question.

ANd now if it be inquired, 1 whether we be tied to any particular repentance relative to this sin, the answer will not be difficult. I remem­ber a pretty device of Hierome of Florence a fa­mous Preacher not long since, who used this ar­gument to prove the blessed Virgin Mary to be free from Original sin. Because it is more likely, if the blessed Virgin had been put to her choice, she would rather have desired of God to have kept [Page 425]her free from venial actual sin then from Origi­nal. Since therefore God hath granted her the greater, and that she never sinn'd actually, it is to be presum'd God did not deny to her the smaller favour, and therefore she was free from Original. Upon this many a pretty story hath been made, and rare arguments fram'd, and sierce contestati­ons, whether it be more agreeable to the piety and prudence of the Virgin Mother to desire im­munity from Original sin that is deadly, or from a venial actual sin that is not deadly. This indeed is voluntary, and the other is not; but the other de­prives us of grace, and this does not. God was more offended by that, but we offend him more by this. The dispute can never be ended upon their accounts; but this Gordian knot I have now untied as Alexander did, by destroying it, and cutting it all in pieces. But to return to the Question.

S. Austin was indeed a fierce Patron of this de­vice, 2 and one of the chief inventers and finishers of it; and his sense of it is declared in his Book De peccatorum medicinâ, Cap. 3. homil. 50. where he endevours largely to prove that all our life time we are bound to mourn for the inconveniences, and evil con­sequents deriv'd from Original sin. I dare say, every man is sufficiently displeased that he is li­able to sickness, weariness, displeasure, melan­choly, sorrow, folly, imperfection, and death, dy­ing with groans, and horrid spasms and convul­sions. In what sense these are the effects of A­dams sin, and though of themselves natural, yet also upon his account made penal; I have already declar'd, and need no more to dispute; my pur­pose being onely to establish such truths as are in order to practice and a holy life, to the duties of repentance and amendment. But our share of Adams sin, either being in us no sin at all, or [Page 426]else not to be avoided or amended, it cannot be the matter of repentance. Neminem autem rectè it a lo­qui poenitere sese quòd natus sit, aut poenitere quòd mortalis sit, aut quòd ex offenso fortè, vulnerató que corpore dolorem sentiat, Li. 17. c. 1. said A. Gellius. A man is not properly said to repent that he was born, or that he shall die, or that he feels pain when his leg is hurt; he gives this reason, Quando istiusmodi re­rum nec consilium sit nostrum, nec arbitrium. As these are besides our choyce, so they cannot fall into our deliberation; and therefore as they cannot be chosen, so neither refused, and therefore not re­pented of; for that supposes both; that they were chosen once, and now refused. * As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity, so neither are we tied to repent of his sins. Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or forms of pray­er, publick or private, any prayer of humiliation prescrib'd for original sin. They might deprecate the evil consequents, but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin.

Adde to this. 3 Original sin is remitted in Baptism by the consent of those Schools of learning, who teach this article; and therefore is not reserv'd for any other repentance: and that which came with­out our own consent, is also to be taken off with­out it. That which came by the imputation of a sin, may also be taken off by the imputation of righte­ousness, that is, as it came without sin, so it must also goe away without trouble.

But yet because the Question may not render the practice insecure, I adde these Rules by way of advice and caution.

§. 7. Advices relating to the matter of Ori­ginal sin.

1. 4 IT is very requisite that we should understand the state of our own infirmity, the weakness of the flesh, the temptations and diversions of the spi­rit, that by understanding our present state we may prevent the evils of carelesness and security. * Our evils are the imperfections and sorrows inherent in, or appendant to our bodies, our souls, our spirits.

* In our bodies we finde weakness, 5 and imperfecti­on, sometimes crookedness, sometimes monstrosity; filthiness, and weariness, infinite numbers of disea­ses, and an uncertain cure, great pain, and restless night, hunger and thirst, daily necessities, ridiculous gestures, madness from passions, distempers and dis­orders, great labour to provide meat and drink, and oftentimes a loathing when we have them; if we use them they breed sicknesses, if we use them not, we die; and there is such a certain healthlesness in many things to all, and in all things to some men and at some times, that to supply a need, is to bring a danger: and if we eat like beasts onely of one thing, our souls are quickly weary; if we eat vari­ety, we are sick, and intemperate; and our bodies are inlets to sin, and a stage of temptation. If we cherish them, they undoe us; if we doe not cherish them, they die: we suffer illusion in our dreams, and absurd fancies when we are waking; our life is soon done, and yet very tedious; it is too long, and too short; darkness and light are both troublesome; and those things which are pleasant, are often un­wholsome. [Page 428]wholesome. Sweet smels make the head ake, and those smels which are medicinal in some diseases, are intolerable to the sense. The pleasures of our body are bigger in expectation, then in the possession; and yet while they are expected, they torment us with the delay, and when they are enjoyed, they are as if they were not, they abuse us with their vanity, and vex us with their volatile and fugitive nature. Our pains are very frequent alone, and very often min­gled with pleasures to spoil them; and he that feels one sharp pain, feels not all the pleasures of the world, if they were in his power to have them. We live a precarious life, begging help of every thing, and needing the repairs of every day, and being beholding to beasts and birds, to plants and trees, to dirt and stones, to the very excrements of beasts, and that which dogs and horses throw forth. Our motion is slow and dull, heavy and uneasy; we cannot move but we are quickly tired, and for eve­ry days labour, we need a whole night to recruit our lost strengths; we live like a lamp, unless new materials be perpetually poured in, we live no lon­ger then a fly; and our motion is not otherwise then a clock; we must be pull'd up once or twice in twenty four hours; and unless we be in the sha­dow of death for six or eight hours every night, we shall be scarce in the shadows of life the other sixteen. Heat and cold are both our enemies; and yet the one always dwels within, and the other dwels round about us. The chances and contin­gencies that trouble us, are no more to be numbred then the minutes of eternity. The Devil often hurts us, and men hurt each other oftner, and we are perpetually doing mischief to our selves. The stars doe in their courses fight against some men, and all the elements against every man; the hea­vens send evil influences, the very beasts are [Page 429]dangerous, and the air we suck in does corrupt our lungs: many are deformed, and blinde, and ill coloured; and yet upon the most beauteous face is plac'd one of the worst sinks of the body; and we are forc'd to pass that through our mouthes of­tentimes, which our eye and our stomack hates. Pliny did wittily and elegantly represent this state of evil things. Lib. 6. Prooem. Itaque foelicitèr homo natus jacet mani­bus pedibúsque devinctis, flens, animal caeteris impe­raturum, & à suppliciis vitam auspicatur, unam tan­tum ob culpam quia natum est. A man is born happi­ly, but at first he lies bound hand and foot by impo­tency and cannot stir; the creature weeps that is born to rule over all other creatures, and begins his life with punishments, for no fault, but that he was born. In short. The body is a region of dis­eases, of sorrow and nastiness, and weakness and temptation. Here is cause enough of being hum­bled.

Neither is it better in the soul of man, 6 where ig­norance dwells and passion rules. [...]. After death came in, there entred also a swarm of passions. And the will obeys every thing but God. Fertur equis Auriga, neque audit currus habenas. Our judgement is often abused in matters of sense, and one faculty guesses at truth by confuting another; and the error of the eye is corrected by something of reason or a former experience. Our fancy is often abus'd, and yet creates things of it self, by tying disparate things to­gether, that can cohere no more then Musick and a Cable, then Meat and Syllogisms: and yet this alone does many times make credibilities in the un­derstandings. Our Memories are so frail, that they need instruments of recollection, and laborious ar­tifices to help them; and in the use of these artifices sometimes we forget the meaning of those instru­ments: [Page 430]and of those millions of sins which we have committed, we scarce remember so many as to make us sorrowful, or asham'd. Our judgements are baffled with every Sophism, and we change our opi­nion with a wind, and are confident against truth, but in love with error. We use to reprove one er­ror by another, and lose truth while we contend too earnestly for it. Infinite opinions there are in matters of Religion, and most men are confident, and most are deceived in many things, and all in some; and those few that are not confident, have onely reason enough to suspect their own reason. We do not know our own bodies, not what is with­in us, nor what ails us when we are sick, nor where­of we are made; nay we oftentimes cannot tell what we think, or believe, or love. We desire and hate the same thing, speak against and run after it. We resolve, and then consider; we binde our selves, and then finde causes why we ought noo to be bound, and want not some pretences to make our selves believe we were not bound. Prejudice and Interest are our two great motives of believing; we weigh deeper what is extrinsical to a question, then what is in its nature; and oftener regard who speaks, then what is said. The diseases of our soul are infi­nite; Eccles. Hier. c. 3. Part. 3. [...], said Dionysius of A­thens. Mankinde of old fell from those good things which God gave him, and now is fallen into a life of passion, and a state of death. In sum, it fol­lows the temper or distemper of the body, and sail­ing by such a Compass, and being carried in so rotten a vessell, especially being empty, or fill'd with lightness, and ignorance, and mistakes, it must needs be exposed to the danger and miseries of every storm; which I choose to represent in the [Page 431]words of Cicero. In Hor­tens.Ex humanae vitae erroribus & aerumnis fit, ut verum sit illum quod est apud Ari­stotelem, sic nostros animos cum corporibus copulatos, ut vivos cum mortuis esse conjunctos. The soul joyned with the body, is like the conjunction of the living and the dead; the dead are not quickened by it, but the living are afflicted and die.

But then if we consider what our spirit is, we have reason to lie down flat upon our faces, and confess Gods glory and our own shame. When it is at the best, it is but willing, but can do nothing without the miracle of Grace. Our spirit is hindred by the body, and cannot rise up whither it properly tends, with those great weights upon it. It is foolish and improvident; large in desires, and narrow in abilities; naturally curious in trifles, and inquisitive after va­nities; but neither understands deeply, nor affectio­nately relishes the things of God; pleas'd with forms, cousen'd with pretences, satisfi'd with sha­dows, incurious of substances and realities. It is quick enough to finde doubts, and when the doubts are satisfied, it raises scruples, that is, it is restless af­ter it is put to sleep, and will be troubled in despight of all arguments of peace. It is incredibly negligent of matters of Religion, and most solicitous and trou­bled in the things of the world. We love our selves, and despise others; judging most unjust sen­tences, and by peevish and cross measures; Cove­tousness and Ambition, Gain and Empire are the proportions by which we take account of things. We hate to be govern'd by others, even when we cannot dress our selves; and to be forbidden to do or have a thing is the best art in the world to make us greedy of it. The flesh and the spirit perpetually are at [...]. Macar. hom 21. strife; [Page 432]the spirit pretending that his ought to be the domi­nion, and the flesh alleaging that this is her state, and her day. We hate our present condition, and know not how to better our selves, our chan­ges being but like the tumblings and tossings in a Feaver, from trouble to trouble, that's all the va­riety. We are extremely inconstant, and alwayes hate our own choice: we despair sometimes of Gods mercies, and are confident in our own follies; as we order things, we cannot avoid little sins, and doe not avoid great ones. We love the present world, though it be good for nothing, and under­value infinite treasures, if they be not to be had till the day of recompences. We are peevish, if a servant does but break a glass, and patient when we have thrown an ill cast for eternity; throwing away the hopes of a glorious Crown for wine, and dirty silver. We know that our prayers, if well done, are great advantages to our state, and yet we are hardly brought to them, and love not to stay at them, and wander while we are saying them, and say them without minding, and are glad when they are done, or when we have a reasonable excuse to omit them. A passion does quite overturn all our purposes, and all our principles, and there are certain times of weakness in which any temptation may prevail, if it comes in that unlucky minute.

This is a little representment of the state of man; 8 whereof a great part is a natural impotency, and the other is brought in by our own folly. Concerning the first when we discourse, it is as if one describes the condition of a Mole, or a Bat, an Oyster, or a Mushrome, concerning whose imperfections, no other cause is to be inquired of, but the will of God, who gives his gifts as he please, and is unjust to no man, by giving or not giving any certain propor­tion of good things: And supposing this loss was [Page 433]brought first upon Adam, and so descended upon us, yet we have no cause to complain, for we lost nothing that was ours. Praeposterum est (said Paulus the Lawyer) antè nos locupletes dici quàm acquisieri­mus. We cannot be said to lose what we never had; and our fathers goods were not to descend upon us, unless they were his at his death. If therefore they be confiscated before his death, ours indeed is the inconvenience too, but his alone is the punishment, and to neither of us is the wrong.

But concerning the second, I mean that which is superinduc'd, it is not his fault alone, nor ours alone, and neither of us is innocent; we all put in our accursed Symbol for the debauching of our spirits, for the besotting our souls, for the spoiling our bo­dies. Ille initium induxit debiti, S. Chrys. in cap. 6. Ephes.nos foenus auximus posterioribus peccatis, &c. He began the principal, and we have increas'd the interest. This we also finde well expressed by Justin Martyr; for the Fathers of the first ages spake prudently and tem­perately in this Article, as in other things. ‘Christ was not born or crucified because himself had need of these things, but for the sake of mankinde.’ [...]: Dial. cum Tryph. which from Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent, besides the evil which every one addes upon his own account. And it appears in the greatest instance of all, even in that of natural death; which though it was natural, yet from Adam it began to be a curse, just as the motion of a Ser­pent upon his belly, which was concreated with him, yet upon this story was changed into a malediction and an evil adjunct. But though Adam was the gate, and brought in the head of death, yet our sins brought him in further, we brought in the body of death. Our life was left by Adam a thousand [Page 434]years long almost; but the iniquity of man brought it quickly to 500 years, from thence to 250, from thence to 120, and at last to seventy; and then God would no more strike all mankinde in the same manner, but individuals and single sinners smart for it, and are cut off in their youth, and do not live out half their dayes. And so it is in the matters of the soul and the spirit. Every sin leaves an evil upon the soul; and every age grows worse, and addes some iniquity of its own to the former examples. And therefore Tertullian calls Adam mali traducem; he transmitted the original and ex­emplar, and we write after his copy. Infirmitatis ingenitae vitium; so Arnobius calls our natural base­ness, we are naturally weak, and this weakness is a vice or defect of Nature, and our evil usages make our natures worse; like Butchers being us'd to kill beasts, their natures grow more savage and unmer­ciful; so it is with us all. If our parents be good, yet we often prove bad, as the wilde olive comes from the branch of a natural olive, or as corn with the chaff come from clean grain, and the uncircum­cised from the circumcised. But if our parents be bad, it is the less wonder if their children are so; a Blackamore begets a Blackamore, as an Epileptick son does often come from an Epileptick father, and hereditary diseases are transmitted by generation; so it is in that viciousness that is radicated in the body, for a lustful father oftentimes begets a lust­ful son; and so it is in all those instances where the soul follows the temperature of the body. And thus not onely Adam, but every father may transmit an Original sin, or rather an Original viciousness of his own. For a vicious nature, or a natural improbity when it is not consented to, is not a sin, but an ill disposition: Philosophy and the Grace of God must cure it; but it often causes us to sin, before our rea­son [Page 435]& our higher principles are well attended to. But when we consent to, and actuate our evil inclina­tions, we spoil our natures and make them worse, making evil still more natural. For it is as much in our nature to be pleased with our artificial delights as with our natural. And this is the doctrine of S. Austin, speaking of Concupiscence. Lib. 1. de nupt. & con [...]p. c. 23. Modo quo­dam loquendi vocatur peccatum quòd peccato facta est, & peccati si vicerit facit reum. Concupiscence or the viciousness of our Nature is after a certain manner of speaking called sin; because it is made worse by sin, and makes us guilty of sin when it is consented to. It hath the nature of sin; so the Arti­cle of the Church of England expresses it; that is, it is in eâdem materiâ, it comes from a weak princi­ple, à naturae vitio, from the imperfect and defective nature of man, and inclines to sin. But (that I may again use S. Austins words) Quantum ad nos attinet, Lib 2. ad Julian.sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc ma­lum, si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum. Al­though we all have concupiscence, yet none of us all should have any sin, if we did not consent to this concupiscence unto evil. Concupiscence is Naturae vitium, but not peccatum, a defect or fault of na­ture, but not formally a sin: which distinction we learn from S. Austin; Ibid.Non enim talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt. Concupiscence is an evil as a weak eye is, but not a sin, if we speak properly, till it be consented to; and then indeed it is the pa­rent of sin. [...]: so S. James, it brings forth sin.

This is the vile state of our natural viciousness and improbity, 9 and misery, in which Adam had some, but truly not the biggest share; and let this consideration sink as deep as it will in us to make us humble and careful, but let us not use it as an ex­cuse to lessen our diligence, by greatning our evil [Page 436]necessity. For death and sin were both born from Adam, but we have nurs'd them up to an ugly bulk and deformity. But I must now proceed to other practical rules.

2. 10 It is necessary that we understand that our natural state is not a state in which we can hope for heaven. Natural agents can effect but natural ends, by natural instruments: and now supposing the for­mer doctrine, that we lost not the Divine favour by our guilt of what we never did consent to, yet we were born in pure naturals, and they some of them worsted by our forefathers, yet we were, at the best, born but in pure naturals, and we must be born again; that as by our first birth we are heirs of death, so by our new birth we may be adopted into the inheritance of life and salvation.

3. 11 It is our duty to be humbled in the conside­ration of our selves, and of our natural condition. That by distrusting our own strengths we may take sanctuary in God through Jesus Christ, praying for his grace, entertaining and caressing of his holy Spirit, with purities and devotions, with charity and humility, infinitely fearing to grieve him, lest he leaving us, we be left as Adam left us, in pure na­turals, but in some degrees worsted by the nature of sin in some instances, and the anger of God in all, that is, in the state of flesh and blood, which shall ne­ver inherit the Kingdome of heaven.

4. 12 Whatsoever good work we do, let us not im­pute it to our selves, or our own choice. For God is the best estimator of that: he knows best what por­tion of the work we did, and what influence our will had into the action, and leave it to him to judge and recompense. But let us attribute all the glory to God, and to Gods grace, for without him we can do nothing. But by him that strengthens us, that works in us to will and to do of his good plea­sure, [Page 437]by him alone we are saved. Giving all glory to God, will take nothing of the reward from us.

5. 13 Let no man so undervalue his sin, or over­value himself, as to lessen that, and to put the fault any where, but where it ought to be. If a man accuses himself with too great a rigour, it is no more then if he holds his horse too hard when he is running down a hill. It may be, a less force would stop his running; but the greater does so too, and manifests his fear: which in this case of his sin and danger is of it self rewardable.

6. 14 Let no man when he is tempted, say that he is tempted of God. Not onely because (as S. James af­firms most wisely) every man is tempted, Jam. 1 [...] 14.when he is led away by his own concupiscence; but because he is a ve­ry evil speaker that speaks evil things of God. Think it not therefore in thy thought, that God hath made many necessities of sinning. He that hath for­bidden sin so earnestly, threatned it so deeply, hates it so essentially, prevents it so cautiously, disswades us from it so passionately, punishes it so severely, arms us against it so strongly, and sent his Son so piously and charitably to root out sin (so far as may be) from the face of the earth; certainly it cannot be thought that he hath made necessities of sinning. For whatsoever he hath made necessary, is as inno­cent as what he hath commanded; it is his own work, and he hateth nothing that he hath made, and therefore he hath not made sin. And no man shall dare to say at Doomsday unto God, that he made him to sin, or made it unavoidable. There are no two cases of Conscience, no two duties in any case so seemingly contradictory, that which soever a man chooses he must sin: and therefore much less is any one state a state of necessary unavoidable enmity against God.

7. 15 Use thy self to holy company, and pious im­ployment in thy early dayes: follow no evil exam­ple, live by rule, and despise the world; relieve the usual necessities of thy life, but be not sensual in thy appetite; accustome thy self to Religion and spiritual things, and then much of that evil nature thou complainest of, will pass into vertuous habits. It was the saying of Xenocrates in Aristotle, Arist. 2. Topic. c. 3. [...]. Happy is he that hath a diligent studious soul: for that is every mans good Angel, and the principle of his felicity.

8. 16 Educate thy children and charges strictly and severely. Let them not be suffered to swear before they can pray, nor taught little revenges in the Cradle, nor pride at School, nor fightings in com­pany, nor drinkings in all their entertainments, nor lusts in private. Let them be drawn from evil com­pany, and do thou give them holy example, and pro­vide for them severe and wise Tutors; and what Alexander of Ales said of Bonaventure, Adam non peccavit in Bonaventurâ, will be as truly said of yong men and maidens. Impiety will not peep out so soon. Lib. 1. c. 2. It was wisely observed by Quintilian, who was an excellent Tutor for yong Gentlemen, that our selves with ill breeding our children are the Au­thors of their evil nature. Antè palatum eorum quàm os instituimus. Gaudemus si quid licentiùs dixerint. Verba ne Alexandrinis quidem permittenda deliciis, risu & osculo excipimus. We teach their palate be­fore we instruct the tongue. And when the tongue begins first to prattle, they can efform wantonness before words; and we kiss them for speaking filthy things. Fit ex his consuetudo, deinde natura. Discunt haec miseri antequam sciunt vitia esse. The poor wretches sin before they know what it is; and by these actions a custome is made up, and this custome be­comes a nature.

§. 8. Rules and measures of deportment when a curse doth descend upon Children for their Parents fault, or when it is feared.

1. 17 IF we fear a curse upon our selves or family for our fathers sin, let us do all actions of piety or religion, justice or charity, which are contrary to that crime which is suspected to be the enemy; in all things being careful that we do not inherit the sin. Si quis paterni vitii nascitur haeres; na­scitur & poenae. The heir of the Crime, must pos­sess the revenue of punishment.

2. 18 Let the children be careful not to commend, not to justifie, not to glory in their fathers sin, but be diligent to represent themselves the more pious, by how much their fathers were impious; for by such a contrariety and visible distance, they will avoid their fathers shame. Isocrat. ep. ad Tim. [...]. For most men love not to honour and praise the sons of good men so much as the sons of wicked men, when they study to represent themselves better, and unlike their wicked parents. Therefore,

3. 19 Let no childe of a wicked father be dejected and confounded in his spirit, because his fathers were impious. For although it is piety to be troubled for their fathers regard, and because he died an ene­my to God; yet in reference to themselves they must know, that God puts upon every head his own [Page 440]punishment. [...], said Plato. For every one is submitted to his own fortune by his own act. The fathers crime and the fathers punishment make no real permanent blot upon the son. No man is forc'd to succeed in his fathers crime; said Callistratus the Lawyer.

4. 20 Every evil that happens to a son for his fa­thers fault, hath an errand of its own to him. For as God is a just Judge to his father; so he is an essen­tial enemy to sin, and a gracious Lord to the suffer­ing person. When God sent blindeness upon the man in the Gospel, neither for his parents sins, nor his own, yet he did it for his own glory. Let the afflicted person study by all wayes to advance Gods glory in the sufferance, and the sharpness of the evil will be taken off.

5. 21 Let not a son retain the price of his fathers sin, the purchase of his iniquity. If his father en­tred into the fields of the fatherless, let not the son dwell there. If his ancestors were sacrilegious, let not the son declaim against the crime and keep the lands, but cast off that which brings the burthen along with it. And this is to be observed in all those sins, the evil consequent and effect of which re­mains upon the posterity or successors of the in­jur'd person; for in those sins very often the curse descends with the wrong. So long as the effect re­mains, and the injury is complained of, and the title is stil kept on foot, so long the son is tied to restituti­on. But even after the possession is setled, yet the curse and evil may descend longer then the sin; as the smart and the aking remains after the blow is past. And therefore even after the successors come to be lawful possessors, it may yet be very fit for them to quit the purchase of their fathers sin, or else they must resolve to pay the sad and severe rent-charge of a curse.

6. 22 In such cases in which there cannot be a real, let there be a verbal and publick disavowing their fathers sin which was publick, scandalous, and noto­rious. Gregoras lib. 5. c. 81. We finde this thing done by Andronicus Pa­laeologus, the Greek Emperour, who was the son of a bad Father; and it is to be done, when the effect was transient, or irremediable.

7. 23 Sometimes no piety of the children shall quite take off the anger of God from a family or nation: as it hapned to Josiah, who above all the Princes that were before or after him turned to the Lord. 2 Kings 23.26. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withall. In such a case as this we are to submit to Gods will, and let him exercise his power, his dominion, and his king­dome as he pleases, and expect the returns of our piety in the day of recompences: and it may be, our posterity shall reap a blessing for our sakes, who feel a sorrow and an evil for our fathers sake.

8. 24 Let all that have children endevour to be the beginners, and the stock of a new blessing to their family; by blessing their children, by praying much for them, by holy education and a severe piety, by rare example, and an excellent religion. And if there be in the family a great curse, and an extraordinary anger gone out against it, there must be something extraordinary done in the matter of religion, or of charity, that the remedy be no less then the evil.

9. 25 Let not the consideration of the universal sin­fulness and corruption of mankinde, adde confidence to thy person, and hardness to thy conscience, and authority to thy sin; but let it awaken thy spirit, and stir up thy diligence, and endear all the watchful­ness in the world for the service of God; for there is in it some difficulty, and an infinite necessity. [Page 442]

said Electra in the Tragedy. Our nature is very bad in it self; but very good to them that use it well.

§. 1.

1. ALL Mankinde hath for ever complain'd of their irremediable calamity, their propensity to sin. For though by the dictates of Nature all people were in­structed in the general notices of ver­tue and vice, right reason being our rule: insomuch that the old Philosophers (as Plutarch reports) said that vertue was nothing else but [...], [...] a dis­position and force of reason. And this reason ha­ving guided the wisest, was form'd into laws for others; yet this reason serv'd to little other purpo­ses, but to upbraid our follies and infelicities, and to make our actions punishable, by representing them to be unreasonable: for they did certainly sin, and they could no more help it, then they could prevent their being sick, or hungry, or angry, or thirsty. Nature had made organs for some, and senses for others, and conversation and example brought in all. So that if you reprov'd a Crimi­nal, he heard and understood you, but could not help it: as Laius in the Tragedy; [Page 450]

Reason taught him well, but Nature constrain'd him to the contrary; his affections were stronger then his reason.

And it is no wonder that while flesh and bloud is the prevailing ingredient, 2 while men are in the state of conjunction, and the soul serves the body, and the necessities of this are more felt then the dis­courses of that, that men should be angry and lust­ful, proud and revengeful, and that they should follow what they lust after, not what they are bid­den to do. For passions and affections are our first governours, and they being clearly possessed of all mankinde in their first years, have almost secured to themselves the soul of man, before reason is heard to speak: And when she does speak, she speaks at first so little and so low, that the common noises of fancy and company drown her voice. This I say is the state of Nature. And therefore Lactantius brings in a Pagan complaining, Lib. 4. Insti. c. 24. Volo equidem non peccare, sed vincor. Indutus enim sum carne fragili, et imbecillâ. Haec est quae concupiscit, quae irascitur, quae dolet, quae mori timet. Itáque ducor incertus, & pecco non quia volo, sed quia cogor. Sentio me & ipse peccare; sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit, cui repugnare non possum. ‘I would fain avoid sin, but I am compelled. I am invested with a frail and weak flesh: This is it which lusteth, which is angry, which grieves, which fears to die. Therefore I am led uncertainly, and I sin, not be­cause I will, but because I am constrained. I perceive that I doe ill, but the necessity of my weakness drives me on, and I cannot re­sist it.’ [Page 451]

I know well and perceive the evils that I go upon, and they are horridones, but my anger is greater then my reason. So Medea in the Tragedy. This is the state of a natural man in his meer naturals, especially as they are made worse by evil customs, and vile usages of the world.

Now this is a state of infirmity; 3 and all sins against which there is any reluctancy and contrary desires of actual reason, are sins of infirmity. But this in­firmity excuses no man: for this state of infirmity is also a state of death; for by this S. Paul expressed that state from which Christ came to redeem us: [...], when we were yet in infirmity, or without strength, in due time Christ died for us; Rom. 5.6. that is, when we were [...], impious, or sinners, such as the world was before it was redeemed, before Christ came. These are the sick and weak whom Christ the great Physician of our souls came to save. This infirmity is the shadow of death; and it signifies that state of mankinde which is the state of nature, not of original and birth, but in its whole constitution, as it signifies not onely the natural imperfection, but the superinduc'd evil from any principle; all that which is oppos'd to Grace.

To this state of Nature being so pitiable, 4 God began to finde a remedy, and renewed the measures of vertue, and by a law made them more distinct and legible, and impos'd punishments on the trans­gressors. For by little and little the notices of na­tural reason were made obscure, some were lost, some not attended to, all neglected some way or other; till God by a law made express prohibition of what was unreasonable, forbidding us to desire what be­fore [Page 452]was unfit and unnatural, and threatning them that did things unlawful. But this way, by reason of the peevishness of men, succeeded not well, but men became worse by it. For what the law did for­bid without the threatning of any penalty, they took for an advice onely, and no severe injunction: And those Commandements which were established with a threatning to the transgressors, they expoun­ded onely by the letter, and in the particular instance, and in the outward act.

Before the Law, 5 men allowed to themselves many impieties, which reason indeed mark'd out to be such, but no law had forbidden them in express let­ter. They thought it lawful to seduce and tempt another mans wife, and invite her to his house and conjugation, so he did not steal, or force her away: but if they found a coldness between her and her husband, they would blow the coals, and enkindle an evil flame. It is supposed that Herod did so to He­rodias his brother Philips wife, even after the law. They would not by violence snatch the estate from a young prodigal heir, but if he were apt, they would lend him money, and nurse his vice, and in­tangle his estate, and at last devour it. They would not directly deny to pay the price of a purchase; but they would detain it or divert it, or pay it in trifling sums, or in undesir'd commodities. This was Concu­piscere rem alienam. They did not steal, but coveted it, and so entred indirectly: and this God seeing, forbad it by a law: Rom. 7.7. For I had not known lust or de­sires to be a sin (saith S. Paul) but that the law said, Thou shalt not covet.

But because the law onely forbad lustings, 6 but im­posed no penalty, they despis'd it; and those things which were forbidden with an appendent penalty, they would act them privately. For if they avoided the notice of the Criminal Judge, they fear'd not [Page 453]the face of an angry God: and this Lactantius ob­serv'd of them. Metus legum non scelera compri­mebat, sed licentiam submovebat. Poterant enim leges delicta punire, conscientiam munire non poterant. Itaque quae antè palàm fiebant, clam fieri coeperunt: circumscribi etiam jura. ‘For all the threatnings of the Law they were wicked still, though not scan­dalous; vile in private, and wary in publick; they did circumscribe their laws, and thought them­selves bound onely to the letter, and obliged by nothing but the penalty,’ which if they escaped they reckoned themselves innocent. Thus far the law in­structed them, and made them afraid. But for the first, they grew the more greedy to doe what now they were forbidden to desire. The prohibition of the law being like a damme to the waters, the de­sire swels the higher for being check'd; and the wisdome of Romulus in not casting up a bank against parricide had this effect, that until the end of the second Punick war which was almost DC. years, there was no example of one that kill'd his Father. Lucius Ostius was the first. And it is certain that the Easterlings neither were nor had they reason to be fond of Circumcision; it was part of that load which was complain'd of by the Apostles in behalf of the Jewish Nation, which neither they nor their Fathers could bear; and yet as soon as Christ took off the yoke, and that it was forbidden to his Disci­ples, the Jews were as fond of it, as of their plea­sures; and fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem in immedi­ate succession, were all circumcised, and no argu­ments, no authority could hinder them. And for their fear, it onely produc'd caution, and sneaking from the face of men, and both together set them on work to corrupt the spirit of the law by expo­sitions too much according to the letter: so that by this means, their natural desires, their lust­ings [Page 454]and concupiscence were not cured.

For as Lactantius brought in the Heathen com­plaining, 6 so does S. Paul bring in the Jew: That which I doe I allow not, Rom. 7.25, 19.for what I would, that I doe not, but what I hate that I doe. I say, this is the state of a man under the law; a man who is not regenerate and made free by the Spirit of Christ; that is, a man who abides in the infirmi­ties of nature: of which the law of nature warn'd him first, and the superinduc'd law of God warn'd him more; but there was not in these Covenants or Laws sufficient either to endure or to secure obe­dience; they did not minister strength enough to conquer sin, to overthrow its power, to destroy the kingdome and reign of sin: this was reserv'd for the great day of triumph; it was the glory of the Gospel the power of Christ, the strength of the Spirit which alone was able to doe it; and by this with its appendages, that is the pardon of sin and a victory over it, a conquest by the prevailing and rule of the Spirit, by this alone the Gospel is the most excellent above all the covenants, and states, and institutions of the world.

But then the Christian must not complain thus; 7 if he be advanced into the secrets of the kingdome, if he be a Christian in any thing beyond the name; he cannot say that sin gives him laws, that it reigns in his mortal body, that he is led captive by Sa­tan at his will, that he sins against his will frequent­ly, and habitually, and cannot help it. But so it is, men doe thus complain; and which is worse, they make this to be their excuse, and their incourage­ment. If they have sinn'd foully, they say, It is true; V. 15. but it is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me. For that which I doe, I allow not; for what I would, that doe I not, and what I hate, that doe I. And if they be tempted to a sin, they cannot be disswaded from it, [Page 455]or incouraged to a noble and pertinacious resistance, because they have this in excuse ready; V. 18. To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I finde not. For the good which I would, I doe not, but the evil which I would not, that I doe. That is, it is my infirmity, give me leave to doe it, I am the childe of God for all my sin; for I doe it with an unwil­ling willingness. I shall doe this always, and shall never be quit of this tyranny of sin: It was thus with S. Paul himself, and I ought not to hope to be otherwise then he, and a person more free from sin. We finde in the life of Andronicus, written by Nicetas Choniates, the same pretence made in ex­cuse for sin; they could not help it; and we finde it so in our daily experience; and the thing it self warranted by many Interpreters of Scripture, who suppose that S. Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romanes, from the fourteenth verse to the end, describes his own state of infirmity and dis­ability, or which is all one, the state of a regene­rate man, that it is no other but an ineffective striving and strugling against sin, a contention in which he is most commonly worsted, and that this striving is all that he can shew of holiness to be a testimony of his regeneration.

§. 2.

HOw necessary it is to free the words of S. 8 Paul from so dangerous a sense, we may easily be­lieve, if we consider that to suppose a man who is regenerate by the Spirit of Christ to be still a slave under sin, and within its power, and that he fain would but cannot help it, is very injurious to the [Page 456]power of Christ and the mightiness of the spirit of grace: when all its effect is onely said to be, that it strives, but can doe nothing; that is, sin abounds more then grace, and the man that is redeemed by Christ, is still unredeem'd, and a captive under sin and Satan; this is not onely an incouragement of evil life, 1 Joh. 4.4. but a reproach and scorn cast upon the holy Spirit; It is verbum dictum contra Spiritum sanctum, a word spoken against the holy Ghost. Serm. 43. & 45. de tempore. And as S. Au­stin cals it, it is tuba hostis, non nostra, unde ille incite­tur, non unde vincatur, the Devils trumpet to en­courage him in his war against poor mankinde; but by this means he shall never be overcome. And therefore he gives us caution of it; for speaking of these words, The good which I would, that do I not, but the evil that I would not, that I doe, advises thus, Le­ctio Divina quae de Apostoli Pauli epistolâ recitata est, quotiescunque legitur, timendum est ne malè intellecta det hominibus quaerentibus occasionem. When ever these words of S. Paul are read, we must fear lest the misunderstanding of them should minister an occasion of sin to them that seek it. For men are prone to sin, and scarce restrain themselves. When therefore they hear the Apostle saying, I doe not the good which I would, but I doe the evil which I hate, they do evil, and as it were displeasing themselves because they doe it, think themselves like the Apostle. In pursuance of this caution, I shall examine the expositions which are pretended.

1. 9 These words [I do not the good which I would, but I doe the evil which I hate] are not the words or character of a regenerate person in respect of actual good or bad. Rom. 7.15.A regenerate man cannot say that he does frequently or habitually commit the sin that he hates, and is against his conscience. 1. Because no man can serve two Masters; if he be a servant of sin, he is not a servant of the Spirit. No man can serve Christ [Page 457]and Belial. If therefore he be brought into captivity to the law of sin, he is the servant of sin; and such was he whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter. Ver. 23. There­fore this person is not a servant of Christ; He that is a servant of righteousness is freed from sin; and he who is a servant of sin is not a servant of, Rom. 6.20.but freed from righteousness. A regenerate person therefore is a servant of the Spirit, and so cannot at the same time be a servant, or a slave and a captive un­der sin.

2. 10 When the complaint is made, I doe the evil which I hate, the meaning is, I doe it seldome, or I doe it commonly and frequently; If it means, I doe it seldome, then a man cannot use these words so well as the contrary; he can say, The good which I would I doe regularly and ordinarily, and, the evil which I hate, I doe avoid; sometimes indeed I am surpris'd, and when I doe neglect to use the aids and strengths of the spirit of grace, I fall; but this is because I will not, and not because I cannot help it; and in this case the man is not a servant or captive of sin, but a servant of Christ, though weak and imperfect. But if it means, I doe it com­monly, or constantly or frequently, which is certainly the complaint here made, then to be a regenerate person is to be a vile person, sold under sin, and not Gods servant. For if any man shall suppose these words to mean onely thus; I doe not doe so much good as I would, and doe sometimes fall into evil, though I would fain be intirely innocent, indeed this man tea­ches no false doctrine as to the state or duty of the regenerate, which in this life will for ever be imper­fect; but he speaks not according to the sense and design of the Apostle here. For his purpose is to describe that state of evil in which we are by na­ture, and from which we could not be recovered by the law, and from which we can onely be re­deemed [Page 458]by the grace of Jesus Christ; and this is a state of death, of being killed by sin, of being captivated and sold under sin, after the manner of slaves; as will further appear in the sequel.

3. 11 Every regenerate man, and servant of Christ hath the Spirit of Christ. Rom 8.9. 2 Cor. 3.17. But where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty; therefore no slavery; therefore sin reigns no [...] there. Both the propositions are the words of the Apostle; The conclusion there­fore infers that the man whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter, is not the regenerate man, for he hath not liberty, Ro. 7.23. but is in captivity to the law of sin, from which every one that is Christs, every one that hath the Spirit of Christ, is freed.

4. 12 And this is that which S. Paul cals being un­der the law, that is, a being carnal, and in the state of the flesh; not but that the law it self is spi­ritual; but that we being carnal of our selves, are not cured by the law, but by reason of the infirmity of the flesh made much worse; Rom. 7.13, 14. & 8.3. curbed, but not sweetly won; admonished, but assisted by no spirit but the spirit of bondage and fear. This state is opposed to the spiritual state. The giving of the law is called the ministery of death; 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. the Go­spel is called the ministery of the Spirit, and that is the ministration of life; and therefore if we be led by the Spirit, Gal. 5.18. Rom. 7.9.we are not under the law: but if we be under the law, we are dead, and sin is revived; and sin by the law brings forth fruit unto death. From hence the argument of the Apostle is clear. The man whom he here describes, is such a one who is under the law; but such a man is dead by rea­son of sin, and therefore hath not in him the Spi­rit of God, for that is the ministration of life. A regenerate person is alive unto God; he lives the life of righteousness: but he that is under the [Page 459]law is killed by sin; and such is the man that is here described, as appears verse 9. and I shall in the sequel further prove; therefore this man is not the regenerate.

5. 13 To which for the likeness of the argument I adde this; That the man who can say, I doe that which I hate, is a man in whom sin is not mor­tified, and therefore he lives after the flesh: but then he is not regenerate; for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die (saith S. Rom. 8.13. Paul) but if ye through the Spirit doe mortifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

6. 14 The man whom S. Paul here describes, who complains, [That he does not the good which he would, but the evil that he would not] is such a one in whom sin does inhabit: It is no more I, Vers. 20.but sin that dwelleth in me. But in the regenerate sin does not inhabit: My Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him. So Christ promised to his servants; John 14.23. Ro. 8.11. 2 Cor. 6.16. Eph. 3.17. & 2.22. 2 Tim. 1.14. to them who should be regenerate; and the Spirit of God dwelleth in them; the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead; and therefore the Regenerate are called the habi­tation of God through the Spirit. Now if God the Father, if Christ, if the Spirit of Christ dwels in a man, there sin does not dwell. The strong man that is armed keeps possession; but if a [Page 460]stronger then he comes, he dispossesses him. If the Spirit of God does not drive the Devil forth, himself will leave the place. They cannot both dwell together. Sin may be in the regenerate, and grieve Gods Spirit, but it shall not abide or dwell there, for that extinguishes him. One or the other must depart. And this also is no­ted by Saint Paul in this very place; sin dwel­leth in me, Ver. 17, 18. and, no good thing dwelleth in me: If one does, the other does not; but yet as in the unregenerate there might be some good, such as are, good desires, knowledge of good and evil, single actions of vertue, beginnings and dis­positions to grace, acknowledging of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, some lightnings and flashes of the holy Ghost, a knowing of the way of righ­teousness; but sanctifying, saving good does not dwell, that is, doth not abide with them, and rule; so in the regenerate there is sin, but because it does not dwell there, they are under the Empire of the Spirit and in Christs Kingdome; Gal. 2.20. or, as Saint Paul expresses it, Christ liveth in them: and that cannot be unless sin be crucified and dead in them. The summe of which is thus in S. Pauls words: Rom. 6.11, 12, 14. Reckon your selves indeed to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. For sin shall not have dominion over you, because we are not under the law, but un­der grace.

7. 15 Lastly, the man whom S. Paul describes is carnal, but the regenerate is never called carnal in the Scripture, Ro 7.14. but is spiritual oppos'd to carnal. A man not onely in pure naturals, but ever plac'd un­der the law is called Carnal; that is, until he be re­deemed by the Spirit of Christ, he cannot be called [Page 461] spiritual, but is yet in the flesh. Now that the re­generate cannot be the carnal man, is plain in the words of S. Paul: Rom. 8.7.The carnal minde is enmity against God; and, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. To which he addes, But ye are not in the flesh, V. 8.but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But the Spirit of God does dwell in all the servants of God, in all the regenerate. V. 9. For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Now as these are in Scripture distinguished in their appel­latives and in their character, so also in their opera­tions. They that are carnal, [...], V. 5. according to the flesh, do minde, or relish the things of the flesh: They that are after the Spirit, do minde the things of the Spirit. And, they that are Christs, Gal. 5.24.have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Now they that have crucified the flesh, cannot in any sense of Scri­pture or Religion be called Carnal. That there is something of carnality in the regenerate is too true, because our regeneration and spirituality in this life is imperfect. But when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in Scripture; and the Question is, Whe­ther of these two is to be attributed to the servants and sons of God, to the Regenerate? it is certain by the analogy of the thing, and the perpetual man­ner of speaking in Scripture, that by this word Car­nal, the Spirit of God never means the sons of God, or the spiritual; that is, the Regenerate: Rom. 8.The sons of God are led by the Spirit of God; therefore not by the flesh, which they have crucified. Whatso­ever is essential to regeneration, to new birth, to the being the sons of God, all that is in the regenerate; for they cannot be that thing, of which they want an essential part: as a thing cannot be a body un­less it be divisible, nor a living creature if it have not life. Therefore regeneration is perfect in re­spect of its essentials or necessary parts of constitu­tion. [Page 462]But in the degrees there is imperfection, and therefore the abatement is made by the intermix­ture of carnality. For it is in our new and spiritual birth, as in our natural. The childe is a man in all essential parts, but he is as a beast in some of his ope­rations; he hath all the faculties of a man, but not the strengths of a man, but grows to it by the pro­gression and encrease of every day. So is the spi­ritual man regenerate in his minde, his will, his affe­ctions; and therefore when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in their whole nature and definitions, the spiritual man is not the carnal, though he still re­tain some of the weaknesses of the flesh, against which he contends every day. To this purpose are those words of S. Leo. De resu [...]. Dom.Quamvis spe salvi facti su­mus, & corruptionem adhuc carnémque mortalem ge­stamus; rectè tamen dicimur in carne non esse, si car­nales nobis non dominentur affectus; & meritò ejus de­ponimus nuncupationem, cujus non sequimur volunta­tem. We are not to be called Carnal, though we bear about us flesh and its infirmities; yet if carnal affections doe not rule over us, well are we to quit the name, when we doe not obey the thing. Now if any man shall contend that a man may be called Carnal, if the flesh strives against the Spirit, though sin does not rule; I shall not draw the Saw of Conten­tion with him, but onely say that it is not usually so in Scripture; and in this place of which we now dis­pute the sense and use, it is not so: for by Carnal S. Paul means such a person, upon whom sin reigns. I am carnal, V. 14.sold under sin; therefore this person is not the spiritual, not the regenerate, or the son of God. 1 Cor. 3.1, 2 [...]3. S. Paul uses the word Carnal in a comparative locution; for babes and infants, or unskilful per­sons in the Religion; but then this carnality he proves to be in them, wholly by their inordinate walking, by their strifes and contentions, by their [Page 463]being Schismaticks; and therefore he reproves them, which he had no reason to doe, if himself also had been carnal in that sense which he re­proves.

The Conclusion from all these premises is, 16 I sup­pose, sufficiently demonstrated; that S. Paul does not in the seventh Chapter to the Romans describe the state of himself really, or of a regenerate per­son, neither is this state [of doing sin frequently, though against our will] a state of unavoidable in­firmity, but a state of death and unregeneration.

§. 3.

St. 17 Austin did for ever reject that interpretation, and indeed so did the whole Primitive Church; but yet he having once expounded this Chapter of the unregenerate, or a man under the law, not re­deemed by the Spirit of Christ from his vain con­versation, he retracted this Exposition, Ver. 15. & 19. and constru'd those words in question thus; Non ergo quod vult agit Apostolus, quia vult non concupiscere, Serm. 43. & 45. de temp.& tamen concupiscit, ideo non quod vult agit. The Apostle does not doe what he would, because he would fain not de­sire; but yet because he desires, he does what he would not. Did that desire lead him captive to fornication? God forbid: He did strive, but was not mastered; but because he would not have had that concupiscence left, against which he should contend, therefore he said, What I would not, that I doe; meaning, I would not lust, but I doe lust. The same also I finde in Epi­phanius; Nam quod dictum est,Haeres. 64. contra Origen.Quod operor non cog­nosco, & facio quod odio habeo, non de eo quod operati sumus ac perfecimus malum accipiendum est, sed de [Page 464]eo quod solum cogitavimus. Now this interpretation hath in it no impiety as the other hath; for these Doctors allow nothing to be unavoidable, or a sin of infirmity, and consistent with the state of grace and regeneration, but the meer ineffective, unpro­cured, desitings or lustings after evil things, to which no consent is given and in which no delight is taken; extraneae cogitationes quas cogitavimus aliquando, & non volentes & non scientes ex quâ causâ, Ibid. as Epiphanius expresses this article. But S. Aust. may be thought to have had some design in choosing this sense, as suppo­sing it would serve for an argument against the Pela­gians and their sense of Free will. For by represen­ting the inevitability of sin, he destroyed their do­ctrine of the sufficiency of our natural powers in or­der to heaven, and therefore by granting that S. Paul complains thus of his own infirmity, he believed himself to have concluded firmly for the absolute necessity of Gods grace to help us. But by limit­ing this inevitability of sinning to the matter of de­sires or concupiscence; he gave no allowance or pre­tence to any man to speak any evil words, or to de­light or consent to any evil thoughts, or to commit any sinful actions, upon the pretence of their being sins of an unavoidable infirmity. So that though he was desirous to serve the ends of his present questi­on, yet he was careful that he did not disserve the in­terests of Religion and a holy life. But besides that the holy Scriptures abound in nothing more then in affirming our needs, and the excellency of the Divine grace, and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business bet­ter. For if these words of S. Paul be (as indeed they are) to be expounded of an unregenerate man, one under the law, but not under grace; nothing could more have magnified Gods grace, then that [Page 465]an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature, nor the aids of the law, nor the spirit of fear, nor temporal hopes, be redeem'd from the flavery and tyranny of sin; and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God, and the grace of the Lord Jesus; which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul, if you admit this sense of the words. And therefore Irenaeus who did so, cites these words to the same effect, viz. for the magnifying the grace of God: Lib. 3. c. 22. Ipse Dominus erat qui salvabat eos, quia per semetipses non habe­bant salvari. Et propter hoc Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuntians, ait, Scio enim quoniam non ha­bitat in carne m [...]â bonum: significans quoniam non à nobis, s [...]d à Dec est bonum salutis. Et iterum: Mi­ser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Deinde infert liberatorem: Gratia Jesu Christi D [...] ­mini nestri. S. Pauls complaint shews our own infir­mity, and that of our selves we cannot be saved; but that our salvation is of God, and the grace of our Re­deemer Jesus Christ. But whatever S. Austins de­sign might be in making the worse choice, it matters not much: onely to the interpretation it self I have these considerations to oppose.

1. 18 Because the phrase is insolent, and the expo­sition violent to render [...] by concupis [...]ere;Rom. 7.15. [...]to doe is more then to desire: factum, dictum, concupi­tum, are the several kindes and degrees of sinning assigned by S. Austin himself, and therefore they cannot be confounded, and one made to expound the other. [...] is also used here by the Apostle, which in Scripture signifies sometimes to sin habitu­ally, never less then actually; and the other word is [...], which signifies perficere, patrare, to fi­nish the act at least, or to doe a sin throughly, and can in no sense be reasonably expounded by natural, ineffective, and unavoidable desires. And it is ob­servable [Page 466]that when S. Austin in prosecution of this device, Ver. 18. is to expound those words, to will is present with me, [...], but to perform what is good, I finde not, he makes the word to signifie to doe it perfectly; which is as much beyond, as the other sense of the same word is short, What I doe [...], I approve not: Therefore the man does not doe his sin perfectly; he does the thing imper­fectly, for he does it against his conscience, and with an imperfect choice; but he does the thing however. So [...], must signifie to doe the good imperfectly, the action it self onely; for such was this mans impotency, that he could not obtain power to doe even imperfectly the good he desir'd. The evil he did, though against his minde; but the good he could not, because it was against the law of sin which reigned in him. But then the same word must not, to serve ends, be brought to signifie a perfect work, and yet not to signifie so much as a perfect desire.

2. 19 The sin which S. Paul under another per­son complains of, is such a sin as did first deceive him, Ver. 11.and then slew him; but concupiscence does not kill till it proceeds further, as S. James expresly af­firms, Jam. 1.15. that concupiscence when it hath conceived brings forth sin, and sin when it is finished brings forth death: which is the just parallel to what S. Ver. 5. Paul says in this very Chapter: The [...]passions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit un­to death: peccatum perpetratum, when the desires are acted, then sin is deadly; the [...], the passions or first motions of sin which come upon us, nobis non volentibus nec scientibus, whether we will or no, these are not imputed to us unto death, but are the matter of vertue when they are resisted and contradicted; but when they are con­sented to and delighted in, then it is [...], [Page 467]sin in conception with death, and will proceed to action, unless it be hindred from without; and therefore it is then the same sin by interpretation: Adulterium cordis; so our blessed Saviour called it in that instance, the adultery of the heart: but till it be an actual sin some way or other, it does not bring forth death.

3. 20 It is an improper and ungrammatical man­ner of speaking, to say, Nolo concupiscere, or Volo non concupiscere, I will lust, or I will not lust, i. e. I will, or I will not desire or will. For this lust or first motions of desire are before an act of will; the first act of which is, when these [...], these mo­tions and passions are consented to or rejected. These motions are natural and involuntary, and are no way in our power, but when they are occasion'd by an act of the will collaterally and indirectly, or by applying the proper incentives to the faculty. Vel­lem non concupiscere; every good man must say, I would fain be free from concupiscence; but because he cannot, it is not subject to his will, and he can­not say, vol [...], I will be free: and therefore S. Pauls Volo and Nolo are not intended of Concupiscence or desires.

4. 21 The good which S. Austin sayes the Apostle fain would, but could not perfect, or doe it perfect­ly, is, Non concupiscere, not to have concupiscence. Volo, non perficio; but Concupiscere is but velle: Ver. 18. it is not so much, and therefore cannot be more. So that when he sayes, to will is present with me, he must mean, to desire well is present with me, but to doe this I finde not; that is, if S. Austins interpretation be true, though I doe desire well, yet I doe lust, and doe not desire well, for still concupisco; I lust, and I lust not, I have concupiscence, and I have it not: which is a contradiction.

Many more things might be observed from the 22 [Page 468]words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition; but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently re­prove what is not true: and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and de­sign of the Apostle in those so much mistaken pe­riods.

§. 4.

COncerning which, 22 these things are to be cleared, upon which the whole issue will depend. 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person, as an Apostle, or a Christian, a man who is regenerate; but in the person of a Jew, one under the law, one that is not regenerate. 2. That this state which he describes, is the state of a carnal man, under the cor­ruption of his nature, upon whom the law had done some change but had not cured him. 3. That from this state of evil we are redeemed by the Spirit of Christ, by the Grace of the Gospel; and now, a Childe of God cannot complaine this com­plaint.

1. 23 That he puts on the person of another, by a [...], or translation (as was usual with S. Paul in 1 Cor. 10.29, 30. & 4.6. & 6.12. & 13.2. Gal. 2.18. very many places of his Epistles) is evi­dent by his affirming that of the man whom he here describes, which of himself were not true. Ver 9. I was alive without the law once. Of S. Pauls own per­son this was not true; for he was bred and born un­der the law, circumcised the eighth day, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law a Pharisee: he never was alive without the law. But the Israelites were, whom he therefore represents indefinitely un­der a single person; the whole Nation, before and [Page 469]under the law: I was alive once without the law; but when the Commandement came, that is, when the law was given, sin revived, and I died; that is, by oc­casion of the law, sin grew stronger and prevailed. 2. But concerning the Christian and his present condition, he expresly makes it separate from that of being under the law, and consequently under sin. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in new­ness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. We are delivered: it is plain that some sort of men are freed from that sad condition of things of which he there complains; and if any be, it must be the regenerate. And so it is. For the scope of the A­postle in this Chapter is to represent, and prove that salvation is not to be had by the law, but by Jesus Christ; and that by that discipline men cannot be contain'd in their duty, and therefore that it was necessary to forsake the law, and to come to Christ. To this purpose he brings in a person complaining that under the discipline of the law, he was still un­der the power of sin. Now if this had been also true of a regenerate person, of a Christian renewed by the spirit of grace, then it had been no advan­tage to have gone from the Law to Christ, as to this argument; for still the Christian would be un­der the same slavery, which to be the condition of one under the law, S. Paul was to urge as an argu­ment to call them from Moses to Christ.

2. 24 That this state which he now describes, is the state of a carnal man, Ver. 8. under the corruption of his nature, appears, by his saying that sin had wrought in him all manner of concupiscence; that sin revived, 9 and he died; Ver. 5. that the motions of sin which were by the law, did work in the members to bring forth fruit unto death; and that this was when we were in the flesh; that he is carnal, sold under sin; 14 that he is carried [Page 470]into captivity to the law of sin; 20 that sin dwels in him; and is like another person, doing or constraining him to doe things against his minde; that it is a State, and a Government, a Law, and a Tyranny; For that which I doe I allow not: 23 plainly saying, that this doing what we would not, that is, doing against our conscience upon the strength of passion, and in obedience to the law of sin, was the state of them who indeed were under the law, but the effect of carnality, and the viciousness of their natural and ungracious condition. Here then is the description of a natural and carnal man. He sins frequently, he sins against his conscience, he is carnal and sold under sin, sin dwels in him, and gives him laws, he is a slave to sin, and led into captivity. Now if this could be the complaint of a regenerate man, from what did Christ come to redeem us? how did he take away our sins? did he onely take off the punish­ment, and still leave us to wallow in the impuri­ties, and baser pleasures, perpetually to rail upon our sins, and yet perpetually to doe them? How did he come to bless us in turning every one of us from our iniquity? Acts 3 26, How and in what sense could it be true which the Apostle affirms; 1 Pet. 2.24. He did bear our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead unto sin should live unto righteousness? But this proposi­tion I suppose my self to have sufficiently proved in the reproof of the first exposition of these words in question: onely I shall in present adde the concur­rent testimony of some Doctors of the Primitive Church.

Tertullian hath these words: Lib. de pu­ [...]icit. c. 17. Nam etsi habitare bonum in carne suâ negavit, sed secundum legem li­terae in quâ fuit, secundum autem legem Spiritus cui nos annectit, liberat ab infirmitate carnis. Lex enim (inquit) Spiritus vitae manumisit te à lege delinquen­tiae & mortis. Licet enim ex parte, ex Judaismo di­sputare [Page 471]videatur, sed in nos dirigit integritatem & plenitudinem disciplinarum, propter quos laborantes in lege per carnem miserit Deus filium suum in similitu­dinem carnis delinquentiae, & propter delinquentiam damnaverit delinquentiam in carne. Plainly he ex­pounds ‘this Chapter to be meant of a man under the law, according to the law of the letter, under which himself had been, he denied any good to dwel in his flesh; but according to the law of the Spirit under which we are plac'd, he frees us from the infirmity of the flesh: for he saith, the law of the Spirit of life, hath freed us from the law of sin and death.’

Origen affirms, that when S. Paul says, In Cap. 7. ad Rom. I am car­nal, sold under sin, tanquam Doctor Ecclesiae perso­nam in semetipsum suscipit infirmorum; he takes up­on him the person of the infirm, that is, of the carnal, and says those words which themselves by way of excuse or apology use to speak. But yet (says he) this person which S. Paul puts on, although Christ does not dwell in him, neither is his body the Temple of the holy Ghost, yet he is not wholly a stranger from good, but by his will, and by his purpose he begins to look after good things. But he cannot yet obtain to doe them. For there is such an infirmity in those who begin to be con­verted (that is, whose minde is convinc'd, but their affe­ctions are not master'd) that when they would present­ly doe all good, yet an effect did not follow their desires.

S. Chrysostome hath a large Commentary upon this Chapter, and his sense is perfectly the same: Propterea & subnexuit dicens, Ego verò carnalis sum, hominem describens sub lege, & ante legem degentem. S. Paul describes not himself, but a man living under and before the law, and of such a one he says, but I am carnal. Who please to see more authori­ties to the same purpose may finde them in S. Ba­sil [Page 472]Lib. 1. de Baptism. & in moral. sum. 23. c. 2. & quaest. 16. quaest. expl. compend., Theodoret In hunc locum, & in cap. 8 ad Rom., S. Cyril Contra Ju­lian. lib. 3. & de rectâ fide ad Re­gin. lib. 1. & in epist. prior. ad Successum., Ma­carius Homil. 1., S. Ambrose In hunc locum., S. Hierom In cap 9. Dan., and Theophylact In hunc locum.; The words of the Apostle, the very purpose and design, the whole Oecono­my and analogy of the 6. 7. and 8^th Chapters doe so plainly ma­nifest it, that the heaping up more testimonies, cannot be useful in so clear a case. The results are these.

1. The state of men under the law, was but a state of carnality and of nature better instructed, and foundly threatned and set forward in some instances by the spirit of fear only, but not cured, but in many men made much worse accidentally.

2. That to be pleased in the inner man, that is, in the Conscience to be convinc'd, and to consent to the excellency of vertue, and yet by the flesh, that is, by the passions of the lower man, or the mem­bers of the body to serve sin, is the state of Unrege­ration.

3. To doe the evil that I would not, and to omit the good that I fain would do, when it is in my hand to doe, what is in my heart to think, is the property of a carnal, unregenerate man. And this is the state of men in nature, and was the state of men under the law. For to be under the law, and not to be led by the Spirit, Gal. 5.18. are all one in S. Pauls account; for if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law, saith he: And therefore to be under the law, being a state of not being under the Spirit, must be under the government of the flesh; that is, they were not then sanctified by the Spirit of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, they were not yet redeemed from their vain conversation. Not that this was the state of all the sons of Israel, of them that liv'd before the law, or after; but that the law [Page 473]could doe no more for them, or upon them; Gods Spirit did in many of them work his own works, but this was by the grace of Jesus Christ, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world: this was not by the works of the law, but by the same instruments and grace, by which A­braham, and all they who are his children by promise were justified. But this is the conse­quent of the third proposition which I was to con­sider.

3. 25 From this state of evil we are redeemed by Christ, and by the Spirit of his grace. Wretched man that I am, quis liberabit? who shall deliver me from the body of this death? He answers, I thank God through Jesus Christ; so S Chrysostome, Theodo­ret, Theophylact, S. Hierom, the Greek Scholiast, and the ordinary Greek copies doe commonly reade the words; in which words there is an [...], and they are thus to be supplied, I thank God through Jesus Christ we are delivered, or there is a remedy found out for us. But Irenaeus, Origen, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and S. Hierom himself at another time, and the vul­gar Latin Bibles, in stead of [...], reade [...], Gratia Domini Jesu Christi, the grace of God through Jesus Christ. That is our remedy, he is our deliverer, from him comes our redemption. For he not onely gave us a better law, but also the Spirit of grace, he hath pardon'd all our old sins, and by his Spirit enables us for the future that we may obey him in all sincerity, in heartiness of en­devour, and real events. From hence I draw this argument. That state from which we are redeemed by Jesus Christ, and freed by the Spirit of his grace, is a state of carnality, of unregeneration, that is, of sin and death: But by Jesus Christ we are re­deemed from that state in which we were in subjection to sin, commanded by the law of sin, [Page 474]and obeyed it against our reason, and against our conscience; therefore this state, which is indeed the state S. Paul here describes, is the state of carnali­ty and unregeneration, and therefore not competent to the servants of Christ, to the elect people of God, to them who are redeemed and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. The parts of this argument are the words of S. Paul, and proved in the foregoing pe­riods. From hence I shall descend to something that is more immediately practical, and cloth'd with cir­cumstances.

§. 5. How far an Unregenerate man may goe in the ways of piety and Religion.

TO this inquiry it is necessary that this be pre­mised. 26 That between the regenerate and a wicked person there is a middle state: so that it is not presently true, that if the man be not wicked, he is presently Regenerate. Between the two states of so vast a distance, it is impossible but there should be many intermedial degrees; between the Carnal and Spiritual man there is a Moral man; not that this man shall have a different event of things if he does abide there, but that he must pass from ex­treme to extreme by this middle state of participa­tion. The first is a slave of sin; the second is a ser­vant of righteousness; the third is such a one as liveth according to Natural reason, so much of it as is left him, and is not abused; that is, lives a pro­bable life, but is not renewed by the Spirit of grace: [Page 475]one that does something, but not all; not enough for the obtaining salvation. For a man may have gone many steps from his former baseness and de­generous practices, and yet not arrive at godliness, or the state of pardon; like the children of Israel, who were not presently in Canaan, as soon as they were out of Egypt, but abode long in the wilder­ness: [...], they begin to be instructed, that is their state. Thou art not far from the king­dome of heaven, said our blessed Saviour to a well disposed person; but he was not arrived thither: he was not a subject of the Kingdome. These are such whom our blessed Lord cals, The weary and the heavy laden, that is such, who groan under the heavy pressure of their sins, whom therefore he invites to come to him to be eased. Such are those whom Saint Paul here describes to be under the law; convinced of sin, pressed, vexed, trou­bled with it, complaining of it, desirous to be eased. Acts 1. These the holy Scripture cals [...], ordained, disposed to life eternal, but these were not yet the fideles or believers, but from that fair disposition became believers upon the preaching of the Apostles.

In this third state of men, 27 I account those that sin and repent, and yet repent and sin again; for ever troubled when they have sinn'd, and yet for ever or most frequently sinning, when the tempta­tion does return: [...], They sin, and accuse, and hate themselves for sin­ning. Now because these men mean well, and fain would be quit of their sin at their own rate, and are not scandalous, and impious, they flatter themselves, and think all is well with them, that they are regenerate, and in the state of the Divine favour, and if they die so, their accounts are bal­lanc'd, and they doubt not but they shall reign as [Page 476]kings for ever. To reprove this state of folly and danger, we are to observe, that there are a great many steps of this progression, which are to be passed through, and the end is not yet; the man is not yet arrived at the state of rege­neration.

1. 28 An unregenerate man may be convinc'd and clearly instructed in his duty, and approve the law, and confess the obligation, and consent that it ought to be done: which S. Paul cals a consen­ting to the law that it is good, and a being deligh­ted in it according to the inward man; even the Gentiles which have not the law, yet shew the work of the law written in their hearts: Rom. 2.14.their thoughts in the mean time accusing or excusing one another. The Jews did more, they did rest in the law, 17 and glory in God, knowing his will, and ap­proving the things that are more excellent. And there are too many who being called Christians know their Masters will, and doe it not: and this consenting to the law and approving it, is so farre from being a sign of regeneration, that the vilest and the basest of men are those who sin most against their knowledge, and against their con­sciences. In this world a man may have faith great enough to remove mountains, and yet be without charity: and in the world to come some shall be rejected from the presence of God, though they shall ailege for themselves, that they have prophecied in the name of Christ. * This de­light in the law which is in the unregenerate, is onely in the understanding. The man considers what an excellent thing it is to be vertuous, the just proportions of duty, the fitness of being sub­ordinate to God, the rectitude of the soul, the acquiescence and appendent peace: and this delight is just like that which is in finding out [Page 477]proportions in Arithmetick and Geometry, or the rest in discovering the secrets of a mysterious proposition: a man hath great pleasure in satisfa­ctory notices, and the end of his disquisition. So also it is in moral things: a good man is belov'd by every one; and there is a secret excellency and mea­sure, a musick and proportion between a mans minde and wise counsels, which impious and profane per­sons cannot perceive, because they are so full of false measures and weak discourses, and vile appetites, and a rude inconsideration of the reasonableness and wisdome of sobriety and severe courses. But ‘—virtus laudatur & alget,’ this is all that some men doe, and there is in them nothing but a preparation of the understanding to the things of God, a faith seated in the rational part, a conviction of the minde; which as it was in­tended to lead on the will to action, and the other faculties to obedience, so now that the effect is not acquired, it serves onely to upbraid the man for a knowing and discerning Criminal, he hath not now the excuse of ignorance. He that complies with an Usurper out of fear and interest, in actions prejudi­cial to the lawful Prince, and tells the honest party, that he is right in his heart, though he be forc'd to comply, helps the other with an argument to con­vince him that he is a false man. He that does it hear­tily, and according to a present conscience, hath some excuse; but he that confesses that he is right in his perswasion, and wrong in his practise, is [...], condemn'd by himself, and professes himself a guilty person, a man whom interest and not conscience governs. Better it is not to know at all, then not to pursue the good we know. They that [Page 478]know not God, are infinitely far from him; but they who know him, and yet doe not obey him, are some­times the nearer for their knowledge, sometimes the further off, but as yet they are not arrived whither it is intended they should go.

2. 29 An unregenerate man may with his will de­light in goodness, and desire it earnestly. For in an unregenerate man there is a double appetite, and there may be the apprehension of two amabilities. The things of the Spirit please his minde, and his will may consequently desire that this good were done because it seems beauteous to the rational part, to his Minde: but because he hath also relishes and gusts in the flesh, and they also seem sapid and de­lightful, he desires them also. So that this man fain would and he would not; and he does sin wil­lingly and unwillingly at the same time. We see by a sad experience, some men all their life time stand at gaze, and dare not enter upon that course of life which themselves by a constant sentence judge to be the best, and of the most considerable advantage. But as the boy in the Apologue listned to the disputes of Labour and Idleness, the one per­swading him to rise, the other to lie in bed; but while he considered what to doe, he still lay in bed and considered: so these men dispute and argue for vertue and the service of God, and stand beholding and admiring it, but they stand on the other side while they behold it. There is a strife between the law of the minde, and the law of the members. But this prevails over that. For the case is thus: There are in men three laws; 1. The law of the members. 2. The law of the minde. 3. The law of the spirit. 1. The law of the members, that is the habit and proneness to sin, the dominion of sin, giving a law to the lower man, & reigning there as in its proper seat. Col. 2.18. Rom. 8.7. This law is also called by S. Paul, [...] and [...], the minde [Page 479]of the flesh Ab Hebr. [...] anima sensitiva., the wisdome, the relish, the gust and sa­vour of the flesh, that is, that deliciousness and com­port, that inticing and correspondencies to the ap­petite by which it tempts and prevails; all its own principles and propositions which minister to sin and folly. This subjects the man to the law of sin, or is that principle of evil by which sin does give us laws. 2. To this law of the flesh, the law of the minde [...] Graec. Hebraeis [...] is oppos'd, and is in the regenerate and un­regenerate indifferently: and it is nothing else but the conscience of good and evil, subject to the law of God, which the other cannot be. This accuses and convinces the unregenerate, it calls upon him to doe his duty, it makes him unquiet when he does not; but this alone is so invalidated by the infirmity of the flesh, by the Oeconomy of the law, by the dis­advantages of the world, that it cannot prevail, or free him from the captivity of sin. But 3. The law of the Spirit, is the grace of Jesus Christ, and this frees the man from the law of the members, Rom. 8.2. from the captivity of sin, from the tenure of death. Here then are three Combatants; the Flesh, the Consci­ence, the Spirit. The flesh endevours to subject the man to the law of sin; the other two endevour to sub­ject him to the law of God. The flesh and the con­science or minde contend; but this contention is no signe of being regenerate, because the Flesh prevails most commonly against the Minde, where there is nothing else to help it: the man is still a captive to the law of sin. But the Minde being worsted, God sends in the auxiliaries of the Spirit; and when that enters and possesses, that overcomes the flesh, it rules and gives laws. But as in the unregenerate the Minde did strive though it was overpower'd, yet still it contended, but ineffectively for the most part: so now when the Spirit rules, the flesh strives, but it prevails but seldome, it is overpowered by the Spi­rit. [Page 480]Now this contention is a signe of regenera­tion, when the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; not when the flesh lusteth against the minde or conscience. For the difference is very great, and highly to be re­mark'd. And it is represented in two places of S. Rom. 7.22, 23. Pauls Epistles: The one is that which I have al­ready explicated in this Chapter; I consent to the law of God according to the inner man: But I see an­other law in my members, fighting against the law of my minde, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that is in my members: where there is a redun­dancy in the words; but the Apostle plainly signifies that the law of sin which is in his members prevails; that is, sin rules the man in despite of all the conten­tion and reluctancy of his conscience or the law of his minde. So that this strife of flesh and conscience is no signe of the regenerate, because the minde of a man is in subordination to the flesh of the man, sometimes willingly and perfectly, some­times unwillingly and imperfectly.

I deny not but the minde is sometimes called Spi­rit, 30 and by consequence, improperly it may be said, that even in these men their spirit lusteth against the flesh: That is, the more rational faculties contend against the brute parts, reason against passion, law against sin. Thus the word Spirit is taken for the [...], the inner man, the whole minde toge­ther with its affections, Mat. 26.4. and Acts 19.21. But in this Question, the word Rom. 7.22, 23 & 8.5, 7, 9. Spirit is distin­guished from Minde; and is taken for the minde renewed by the Spirit of God: and as these words are distinguished, so must their several contentions be remark'd. For when the minde or conscience, and the flesh fight, the flesh prevails; but when the Spi­rit and the flesh fight, the Spirit prevails. And by that we shall best know who are the litigants that like the two sons of Rebecca strive within us. If the [Page 481]flesh prevails, then there was in us nothing but the law of the minde; nothing but the conscience of an unregenerate person: I mean, if the flesh prevails frequently or habitually. But if the Spirit of God did rule us, if that principle had possession of us, then the flesh is crucified, it is mortified, it is killed, and prevails not at all but when we will not use the force and arms of the Spirit, but it does not prevail habitually, not frequently or regularly, or by obser­vation. This is clearly taught by those excellent words of S. Paul, which, as many other periods of his Epistles, have had the ill luck to be very much misunderstood. ‘This I say then, Gal. 5.16, 17, 18.walk in the Spi­rit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that ye cannot [that ye doe not, or may not doe, [...]] the things that ye would. But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.’ The word in the Greek may ei­ther signifie duty or event. Walk in the Spirit, and fulfil not, or, ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. If we understand it in the Imperative sense, then it is exegetical of the former words: He that walks in the Spirit, hoc ipso, does not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. To doe one, is not to doe the other; who­ever fulfils the lusts of the flesh, and is rul'd by that law, he is not ruled by the grace of Christ, he is not regenerate by the Spirit. But the other sense is the best reddition of the word; [...], as if he had said, Walk in the Spirit, and then the event will be, that the flesh shall not prevail over you, or give you laws; you shall not then fulfil the lusts thereof. And this is best agreeable to the purpose of the Apostle. For having exhorted the Galatians that they should not make their Christian liberty a pretence to the flesh: Ver. 23. as the best remedy against their enemy the flesh, he prescribes this walking in the Spirit, which is a cer­tain [Page 482]deletery and prevalency over the flesh. And the reason follows: for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; so that ye cannot doe the things that ye would; that is, though ye be in­clined to, and desirous of satisfying your carnal de­sires, yet being under the empire and conduct of the Spirit, ye cannot doe those desires; the Spirit over­rules you, and you must, you will contradict your carnal appetites. For else this could not be (as the Apostle designs it) a reason of his exhortation. For if he had meant that in this contention of flesh and Spirit, we could not doe the good things that we would, then the reason had contradicted the pro­position. For suppose it thus; Walk in the Spirit, and fulfil not the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh and the Spirit lust against each other, so that ye cannot doe the good ye would. This, I say, is not sense, for the latter part contradicts the former. For, this thing [that the flesh hinders us from doing the things of the Spirit] is so far from being a reason why we should walk in the Spirit, that it perfectly discourages that design; and it is to little purpose to walk in the Spi­rit, if this will not secure us against the domineering and tyranny of the flesh. But the contrary is most clear and consequent: If ye walk in the Spirit, ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; for though the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and would fain prevail, yet it cannot; for the Spirit also lusteth against the flesh, and is stronger, so that ye may not, or that ye doe not, or that ye cannot (for any of these readings as it may properly render the words of [...], so are not against the design of the Apostle) do what ye otherwise would fain do; and therefore if ye will walk in the Spirit, ye are secured against the flesh.

The result is this. 31 1. An impious, profane person sins without any contention; that is, with a clear, ready, [Page 483]and a prepared will, he dies and disputes not. 2. An animal man, or a meer moral man, that is, one under the law, one instructed and convinced by the letter, but not sanctified by the Spirit, he sins willingly, be­cause he considers and chooses it; but he also sins unwillingly, that is, his inclinations to vice, and his first choices are abated, and the pleasures al­layed, and his peace disturbed, and his sleeps bro­ken; but for all that, he sins on when the next vio­lent temptation comes. The contention in him is between Reason and Passion, the law of the minde and the law of the members, between conscience and sin, that weak, this prevailing. 3. But the Regene­rate hath the same contention within him, and the temptation is sometimes strong within him, yet he overcomes it, and seldome fails in any material and considerable instances. Because the Spirit is the pre­vailing ingredient in the new Creature, in the con­stitution of the regenerate, and will prevail. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world, 1 Joh. 9.4, 5.and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even your faith; that is, by the faith of Jesus Christ, by him you shall have victory and redemption; and again, Resist the devil, and he will flee from you; Jam. 4.7. 1 Joh. 4.for he that is within you is stronger then he that is in the world; and, Put on the whole armour of God, Eph. 6.11, 13.that ye may stand against the snares of the devil, that ye may resist in the evil day, and having done all, to stand; for, Mark 9.23. All things are possible to him that believes; and, Through Christ that strengthens me I can doe all things; Phil. 4.13. and therefore in all these things we are more then conque­rours: for, Eph. 3.20. Rom. 8.13. [...] 37. God is able to doe above all that we can ask or think; he can keep us from all sin, and present us unblameable in the sight of his glory. So that to de­ny the power of the Spirit, in breaking the tyranny, and subduing the lusts of the flesh, besides that it contradicts all these and divers other Scriptures, it [Page 484]denies the Omnipotency of God, Jude 24. and of the Spirit of his grace, making sin to be stronger then it, and if grace abound, to make sin superabound: but to deny the willingness of the Spirit to redeem us from the captivity of sin, is to lessen the reputation of his good­ness, and to destroy the possibility, and consequently the necessity of living holily.

But how happens it then that even the regenerate sins often, 32 and the flesh prevails upon the ruine, or the declensions of the Spirit? I answer, It is not be­cause that holy principle which is in the regenerate cannot or will not secure him, but because the man is either prepossess'd with the temptation, and over­come before he begins to oppose the arms of the Spirit, that is, because he is surpris'd, or incogitant, or it may be, careless; the good man is asleep, and then the enemy takes his advantage and sows tares; for if he were awake, and considering, and would make use of the strengths of the Spirit, he would not be overcome by sin. For there are powers enough, that is, arguments and endearments, helps and suffi­cient motives to enable us to resist the strongest tem­ptation in the world; and this one alone, of resur­rection to eternal life, which is revealed to us by Jesus Christ, and ministred in the Gospel, is an argument greater then all the promises and inticements of sin, if we will attend to its efficacy and consequence. But if we throw away our arms, and begin a fight in the Spirit, and end it in the flesh, the ill success of the day is to be imputed to us, not to the Spirit of God, to whom if we had attended we should cer­tainly have prevailed. * The reliques and remains of sin are in the regenerate; but that is a sign that sin is overcome, and the kingdome of it broken; and that is a demonstration, that when ever sin does prevail in any single instances, it is not for want of power, but of using that power; for since the Spirit [Page 485]hath prevailed upon the flesh in its strengths, and hath crucified it, there is no question but it can also prevail upon all its weaknesses.

For we must be curious to avoid a mistake here: 33 The dominion of the Spirit, and the remains of the flesh may consist together in the regenerate; as some remains of cold with the prevailing heat; but the dominion of one and the other, are in every degree inconsistent; as both cold and heat cannot in any sense be both said to be the prevailing ingredient. A man cannot be said to be both free from sin, and a slave to sin; If he hath prevailed in any degree upon sin, then he is not at all a servant of that portion from whence he is set free; but if he be a captive of any one sin, or regular degree of it, he is not Gods freed man; for the Spirit prevails upon all as well as upon one; and that is not an infinite power that cannot redeem us from all our slavery: But to be a slave of sin, and at the same time to be a servant of righteousness, is not onely against the analogy of Scripture, and the express signification of so many excellent periods, but against common sense; it is as if one should say, that a man hath more heat then cold in his hand, and yet that the cold should pre­vail upon, and be stronger then the heat; that is, that the weaker should overcome the stronger, and the less should be greater, then that which is bigger then it.

But as the choice of vertue is abated, 34 and (as the temptation grows more violent, and urges more ve­hemently) is made less pleasant in the regenerate person; so is the choice of vice in the Moral, or A­nimal man. The contention abates the pleasure in both their choices; but in the one it ends in sin, in the other it ends in victory. So that there is an un­willingness to sin in all but in the impious and pro­fane person, in the far distant stranger. But the [Page 486]unwillingness to sin, that is in the Animal, or Moral man, is nothing else but a serving sin like a grum­bling servant, or like the younger son of the Farmer in the Gospel; he said he would not, but did it for all his angry words. And therefore that the unrege­rate man acts the sin against his minde, and after a long contention against it, does not in all cases lessen it, Caus. 24. q. 1. C. Schisma. but sometimes increases it. Nec leviat crimen corum, magis verò auget, quòd eos diùrestitisse dixistis, said Pope Pelagius. To resist long, and then to con­sent, hath in it some aggravations of the crime, as being a conviction of the mans baseness, a violence to reason, a breach of former resolutions, a recession from fair beginnings, and wholly without excuse. * But if ever it comes to pass, that in the contention of flesh and spirit, the regenerate man does sin, he does it unwillingly, that is, by ignorance or inadvertency: The unregenerate sins unwillingly too, but it is by reason of the dominion and rule that sin bears over him: but still this difference distinguishes them in the event of things, that when it comes to the que­stion whether sin shall be done or no, the one wills, and the other wills not, though it may happen that the consent or dissent respectively may be with the same unwillingness by reason of the contention and strife from the adverse, though weaker party. The unregenerate man may be unwilling to obey sin, but he obeys it for all that; and the unwillingness is a sign of the greater slavery; but there can be no sign of his regeneration, but by not obeying the sin in the day of its own power and temptation. A servant is still a servant whether he obeys with, or against his will. His servants we are to whom we obey, saith S. Paul; all therefore that is to be consi­dered in the Question of regeneration, is, whether the man obeys, or not obeys? for whether he be willing or unwilling, is not here considerable. Let [Page 487]no man therefore flatter himself that he is a regene­rate person, because though he is a servant to sin, and acts at the command of his lust, and cannot re­sist in the evil day, or stand the shock of a tempta­tion, yet he finds an unwillingness within him, and a strife against sin. Hugo de S. Victore, or else S. Au­stin in the Book de continentiâ, gave beginning or countenance to this error. Hanc pugnam non experi­untur in semetipsis nisi bellatores virtutum, debellato­résque vitiorum. This fight none finde in themselves, but they that fight on vertues side, and destroy vice. Which words, though something crudely set down, and so not true, yet are explicable by the following period; Non expugnat concupiscentiae malum, nisi continentiae bonum: onely holy and continent per­sons doe overcome their concupiscence; and in that sense it is true: Onely the regenerate feel this fight which ends in victory. But he whose contention ends in sin, and after a brave onset, yeelds basely, frequently I mean, or habitually, every such person is a servant of sin, and therefore not a servant of the spirit, but free from, that is, not rul'd by the law of righteousness. And this is so certain, that this un­willingness to sin, which ends in obeying it, is so far from being a note of a regenerate person, that it is evidently true, that no man can come from the ser­vitude or slavery of sin, but the first step of his go­ing from it, is the sense and hatred of his fetters, and then his desire of being freed: but therefore he is not free, because he complains of his bands, and finds them heavy and intolerable, and therefore seeks for remedy. For if an unregenerate person did always sin willingly, that is, without this reluctancy and strife within; and the regenerate did sin as in­fallibly, but yet sore against his will; then the re­generate person were the verier slave of the two: for he that obeys willingly, is less a slave, then [Page 488]he that obeys in spight of his heart.

He that delights in his fetters, hath at least the sha­dow, and some of the pleasure of liberty; but he hath nothing of it who is kept fast, and groans be­cause his feet are hurt in the stocks, and the iron entreth into his soul. It was the sad state and complaint of the Romans, when by the iniquity of war, and the evil success of their armies, they were forc'd to entertain their bondage.

It was a conquest that gave them laws, and their in­effective strugling, and daily murmurs, were but ill arguments of their liberty, which were so great demonstrations of their servitude.

3. 35 An unregenerate man may not onely will and desire to doe Natural or Moral good things, but even Spiritual and Evangelical; that is, not only that good which he is taught by natural reason, or by civil sanctions, or by use and experience of things, but even that also which is onely taught us by the Spirit of grace. For if he can desire the first, much more may he desire the latter when he once comes to know it: because there is in spiritual good things much more amability; they are more perfective of our minde, and a greater advancer of our hopes, and a security to our greatest interest. Neither can this be prejudic'd by those words of S. Paul: 1 Cor. 2.24.The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. For the [Page 489]naturall man S. Paul speaks of, is one unconverted to Christianity, the Gentile Philosophers, who re­lied upon such principles of nature as they under­stood; but studied not the Prophets, knew not of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, nor of those excellent verifications of the things of the Spi­rit; and therefore these men could not arrive at spiritual notices, because they did not go that way which was the onely competent and proper instru­ment of finding them.

They that are impious, and they that go upon di­stinct principles, neither obeying the proposition, nor loving the Commandement, they indeed, viz. remaining in that indisposition, cannot receive, that is, entertain him. And this is also the sense of the words of our blessed Saviour, Joh. 14, 17. The world cannot re­ceive him; that is, the unbeleevers, such who will not be perswaded by arguments Evangelical. But a man may be a spiritual man in his notices, and yet be carnal in his affections; and still under the bon­dage of sin. 2 Pet. 2, 21. Such are they of whom S. Peter af­firms, it is better they had never known the way of righteousness, then having known it to fall away: Such are they of whom S. Paul says, Rom. 1.18. They detain the truth in unrighteousness. Now con­cerning this man, it is that I affirm, that upon the same account as any vicious man can commend ver­tue, this man also may commend holiness, and de­sire to be a holy man, and wishes it with all his heart, there being the same proportion between his minde, and the things of the Spirit, as between a Jew and the Moral Law, or a Gentile and Moral ver­tue; [Page 490]that is, he may desire it with passion and great wishings. But here is the difference: A regenerate man does, what the unregenerate man does but desire.

4. 36 An unregenerate man may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake. For it is not ordinarily possible, that so perfect a conviction as such men may have of the excellency of religion should be in all instances and periods totally inef­fective. Something they will give to reputation, something to fancy, something to fame, something to peace, something to their own deception, that by quitting one or two lusts, they may have some kinde of peace in all the rest, and think all is well. These men sometimes would fain obey the law, but they will not crucify the flesh; any thing that does not smart. Their temper and constitution will allow them easily to quit such superinduc'd follies which out of a gay or an impertinent spirit they have con­tracted, or which came to them by company or by chance, or confidence, or violence; but if they must mortify the flesh to quit a lust, that's too hard and beyond their powers, which are in captivity to the law of sin. * Some men will commute a duty; and if you will allow them covetousness, they will quit their lust, or their intemperance, according as it happens. Herod did many things at the preach­ing of John the Baptist, and heard him gladly. Ba­laum did some things handsomely; though he was covetous and ambitious, yet he had a limit; he would obey the voyce of the Angel, and could not be tempted to speak a curse, when God spake a blessing. Ahab was an imperfect penitent; he did some things, but not enough. And if there be any root of bitterness, there is no regeneration; Collo­quintida, and Death is in the pot.

5. 37 An unregenerate man may leave some sins [Page 491]not onely for temporal interest, but out of reve­rence of the Divine law, out of fear and reverence. Under the law there were many such: and there is no peradventure but that many men who like Felix have trembled at a Sermon, have with such a sha­king fit left off something that was fit to be laid aside. To leave a sin out of fear of the Divine judgement is not sinful, or totally unacceptable. All that lest sin in obedience and reverence to the law, did it in fear of punishment, because fear was the sanction of the law: and even under the Go­spel, to obey out of fear of punishment, though it be less perfect, yet it is not criminal, nay, rather on the other side; The worse that men are, so much the less they are afraid of the Divine anger & judge­ments. To abstain out of fear, is to abstain out of a very proper motive: and God when he sends a judgement with a design of emendation, or threa­tens a criminal, or denounces woes and cursings, intends that fear should be the beginning of wis­dome. Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord, 2 Cor. 5.11.we perswade men, saith S. Paul. And the whole design of delivering criminals over to Satan, was but a pursuance of this argument of fear; that by feeling something, they might fear a worse, and for the present be affrighted from their sin. And this was no other then the argument which our blessed Sa­viour used to the poor Paralytick: Goe and sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to thee. But besides that this good fear may work much in an unrege­nerate person, or a man under the law, such a per­son may doe some things in obedience to God, or thankfulness, and perfect, meer choice. So Jehu obeyed God a great way: but there was a turning, and a high stile, beyond which he would not goe, and his principles could not carry him through. Few women can accuse themselves of adultery; in the [Page 492]great lines of chastity they choose to obey God, and the voyce of honour; but can they say that their eye is not wanton, that they do not spend great portions of their time in vanity, that they are not idle, and useless, or busy-bodies, that they doe not make it much of their imployment to talk of fashi­ons and trifles, or that they do make it their business to practise religion, to hear and attend to severe and sober counsels? If they be under the conduct of the Spirit, he hath certainly carried them into all the regions of duty. But to goe a great way, and not to nnish the journey is the imperfection of the un­regenerate For in some persons, fear or love of God is not of it self strong enough to weigh down the scales; but there must be thrown in something from without some generosity of spirit, or revenge, or gloriousness and bravery, or natural pity, or inte­rest; and so far as these, or any of them go along with the better principle, this will prevail; but when it must goe alone it is not strong enough. But this is a great way off from the state of sanctification or a new birth.

6. 38 An unregenerate man, besides the abstinence from much evil, may also do many good things for heaven, and yet never come thither. He may be sensible of his danger and sad condition, and pray to be delivered from it; and his prayers shall not be heard, because he does not reduce his prayers to acti­on and endevour to be what he desires to be. Almost every man desires to be sav'd: but this desire is not with every one of that perswasion and effect as to make them willing to want the pleasures of the world for it, or to perform the labours of charity & repen­tance. A man may strive and contend in or towards the ways of godliness, and yet fall short. Many men pray often, & fast much, and pay tithes, & do justice, and keep the Commandements of the second Table [Page 493]with great integrity; and so are good moral men, as the word is used in opposition to, or rather in destruti­on of religion. Some are religious and not just: some want sincerity in both: and of this, the Pharisees were a great example. But the words of our blessed Saviour are the greatest testimony in this article; Many shall strive to enter, and shall not be able. Luke 13.14. Either they shall contend too late like the five foolish Vir­gins, and as they whom S. Paul by way of caution likens to Esau; or else they contend with incompe­tent and insufficient strengths: they strive, but put not force enough to the work. An unregenerate man hath not strengths enough; that is, he wants the spirit and activity, and perfectness of resolution. Not that he wants such aids as are necessary and sufficient, but that himself hath not purposes perti­nacious, and resolutions strong enough. All that is necessary to his assistance from without, all that he hath or may have; but that which is necessary on his own part he hath not; but that's his own fault; that he might also have; and it is in his duty, and therefore certainly in his power to have it. For a man is not capable of a law which he hath not pow­ers sufficient to obey: he must be free and quit from all its contraries, from the power and domi­nion of them; or at least must be so free, that he may be quit of them if he please. For there can be no liberty, but where all the impediments are re­mov'd, or may be if the man will.

7. 39 An unregenerate man may have received the Spirit of God, and yet be in a state of distance from God. For to have received the holy Ghost, is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate. The Spirit of God is an internal agent; that is, the effects and graces of the Spirit by which we are assisted, are within us before they operate. For although all as­sistances from without are graces of God, the ef­fects [Page 494]of Christs passion, purchased for us by his bloud and by his intercesson; and all good com­pany, wise counsels, apt notices, prevailing argu­ments, moving objects, and opportunities and en­dearments of vertue are from above, from the Fa­ther of lights: yet the Spirit of God does also work more inwardly, and creates in us aptnesses and incli­nations, consentings, and the acts of conviction and adherence, working in us to will and to doe according to our desire, or according to Gods good pleasure: yet this holy Spirit is oftentimes grieved, sometimes provoked, and at last extinguish'd, which because it is done onely by them who are enemies of the Spi­rit, and not the servants of God, it follows that the Spirit of God by his aids and assistances, is in them that are not so, with a design to make them so: and if the holy Spirit were not in any degree or sense in the unregenerate, how could a man be born again by the Spirit? for since no man can be regenerate by his own strengths, his new birth must be wrought by the Spirit of God; and especially in the beginnings of our conversion is his assistance necessary: which assistance, because it works within as well, and rather then without, must needs be in a man before he operates within. And therefore to have received the holy Spirit, is not the propriety of the regenerate; but to be led by him, to be conducted by the Spirit in all our wayes and counsels, to obey his motions, to en­tertain his doctrine, to do his pleasure: This is that which gives the distinction and the denomi­nation. Rom. 8.9. And this is called by S. Paul, the inhabita­tion of the Spirit of God in us; in opposition to the inhabitans peccatum, the sin that dwelleth in the un­regenerate. The Spirit may be in us, calling and urging us to holiness; but unless the Spirit of God dwell in us, and abide in us, and love to doe so, and [Page 495]rule, and give us laws, and be not griev'd and cast out, but entertain'd, and cherish'd, and obey'd, un­less (I say) the Spirit of God be thus in us, Christ is not in us; and if Christ be not in us, we are none of his.