Two Disputations of Original Sin, To the reader – Errata

Two Disputations of Original Sin · To the reader – Errata

TWO DISPUTATIONS OF Original Sin.

I. Of Original ſin, as from Adam.

II. Of Original Sin, as from our Neerer Parents.

Written long ago for a more private uſe; and now publiſhed (with a Preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. TVLLIE.

By RICHARD BAXTER.

Exod. 20. 5, 6. and 34. 7.

[Viſiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children, (and upon the childrens children) unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me.]

LONDON, Printed for Robert Gibbs, at the Golden-Ball in Chancery-Lane, 1675.

p. 1To the Impartial Friends of Sacred Truth, who are above the dominion of carnal Interest, Faction and falſe Prejudice, and are cured of the Malady of PREFIDENCE and HASTY JVDGING before they have heard and weighed evidence, which is the corrupter, confounder, and diſquieter of the Church and World.

Sect. 1. IT hath ſeemed good to a Doctor of the Vniverſity of Oxford, Dr. I. Tully, whoſe name is honoured for Learning and Moderation, (I believe deſervedly, though I know him not,) newly p. 2to exerciſe his zeal, and pen, to ſave men from the danger of ſome Doctrines which he taketh to be mine. Of the reſt I ſhall, God willing, give a diſtinct account elſewhere: That which I am here to conſider of, is found, pag. 128. Juſtif. Paulin. in theſe words, [Vnum vero praetereundum non cenſeo, licet ab argumento magis alienum videtur, eſt que novum quoddam inter noviſſima: Praefatorem ſcilicet (neſcio quo fortunante Mercurio) aliud inveniſſe peccatum originale, multo citerius quam quod ab Adamo traductum eſt: O caecos ante Theologos, quicun que unquam fuiſtis! Serio interim monendi ſunt juniores, ne temere illius Theologiae talia paradoxa parturienti fidem habeant. Deus novit me nullo in perſonam Viri Rever. aut aeſtu, aut praejudicio, nedum odio (cui ex animo ſane fauſta & foelicia precor omnia) hoc monitum injicere; ſed amore veritatis uno, ut que ſatis conſcientiae fiat, ita liberaſſe animam.] Whereupon he next advertiſeth me out of ſome words of my own, &c.

Sect. 2. I have great reaſon to love his love to truth, and the ſouls of men whom he would ſave from the danger of ſuch errors as he ſuppoſeth me to be guilty of. And I have no reaſon to diſlike his fidelity to his conſcience: but rather to wiſh that true conſcientious tenderneſs and fidelity were more common p. 3among the Teachers of the people, and the Teachers of thoſe Teachers.

Sect. 3. And far be it from me to judge him ſo uncharitable as to doubt whether we his ignorant brethren love not truth alſo, and the fouls of men, and ſearch not after it with ſome impartiality and induſtry; yea, and would buy it at as dear a rate as others, though through our ſin and weakneſs we may not have had ſo good ſucceſs. And it is a praiſe to our Creator rather than to us, that we love that which by natural inclination we muſt needs love: Being and Truth are neceſſarily good; and all evil is from good, and for good. Our good intentions juſtify not our errors, nor the reaſonings and conſidence by which we ſet them off as truth. And by our bold and haſty judging of thoſe things which our reaſonings ſhew we never well digeſted or underſtood, and our cenſures of thoſe that perhaps better underſtand them, we ſhould but call men to ſuſpect thoſe underſtandings, as not very like to know much more than others, which no better know themſelves. Inſtead therefore of calling out to the Academical youth to take heed of the Theology of thoſe worthy eximious perſons who are my Cenſurers, I humbly entreat them, with candid impartiality, to ſearch after truth, and to receive all that deſerveth p. 4that name from the Cenſurers, and to reject all that I or any other offereth them which is againſt it; and proving all things, to hold faſt that which is true and good: yea, and to help me to ſee my errors, that I may repent, and publiſh my retractation. Which I ſhall not judge (any more than Auguſtine did) to be in vain, though it ſhould pleaſe others, as well as this learned Dr. to cull out for his coufutation the firſt Book that ever I wrote, about four and twenty years after I had publickly (for the crudity and unfitneſs of many expreſſions in it) retracted it, and to paſs by about ſixty others, ſince written; and ſome, yea many, much more largely and diſtinctly than that which I retracted, on the ſame ſubject.

Sect. 4. But though I am more obliged than ſuch knowing men as he, to ſuſpect my own underſtanding, that ſuſpition will not warrant me to reſiſt the light, nor to reject that which ſeemeth to me to be evidence of truth, nor to forbear the rendering a reaſon of my judgment, that I may be better informed by a confutation if I erre, or if I do not, may not deſert that which deſerveth a juſt vindication.

And though I am one of thoſe who never was worthy of his honourable employment, to teach men to be Teachers of the Flocks p. 5of Chriſt, and theſe fourteen years have been judged unworthy or unmeet to teach the moſt ignorant Congregation in theſe Lands; yet I doubt not but I may have his leave and concurrence in bewailing the lamentable condition of the poor people, by reaſon of ſuch ignorant and unhappy Teachers, as I and others of my rank have long been! Alas, how great is their temptation! and what perplexities muſt they needs be caſt into! when we that have ſtudied night and day with our moſt earneſt deſire to know the truth whatever it coſt us, and with our moſt ſearching, ſerious thoughts, and with our daily prayers for divine illumination, do yet remain not only ignorant, but ſo dangerouſly erroneous, that if ſome did not ſilence us, and others call out to the people to take heed of us, it ſeems we were like to be their deceivers, and to do them more hurt than good! And if this were but I, and a few more ſuch, or only the many hundreds that now are ſilenced, the caſe were leſs lamentable: But, alas, it is the caſe of almoſt all the Chriſtian World, for the people to be caſt by their Teachers weakneſſes into ſuch diſtracting perplexities as theſe! The Greeks call to their people to take heed of the Romans; and the Romans to theirs to take heed of the Greeks: As alſo to take heed of p. 6the Proteſtants, and all (as Hereticks or Schiſmaticks) that are not the ſubjects of the King of Rome: And the Proteſtants requite them. The Lutherans ſay, take heed of the Calviniſts; and the Calviniſts ſay, take heed of the Lutherans and Arminians. The Conformiſt ſaith, take heed of the Non-Conformiſt; and ſome Non-Conformiſts ſay, take heed of the Conformiſts: till the poor people know not when they are ſafe, but are tempted to live as we did in the great Plague in 1665, when each one fled from the face of others, leſt every man that approached them ſhould infect them. Whom to fear they know, but whom to truſt they know not: unleſs they muſt be of the ſide and Religion which is uppermoſt, and think their Rulers always in the right; and ſo that there are as many right Religions in the World, as there are Rulers of different Religions. And what now ſhall the poor people do? Can they hope to be wiſer than all theſe Teachers, to diſcern which of them is in the right? What is their remedy?

Sect. 5. In this ſtreight I am ready (yea reſolved) ſo far to abate my reverence to learned Contenders, as to hope that we are more agreed than they ſeem willing that the people ſhould believe, (and therefore than they underſtand themſelves.) All true Chriſtians p. 7are agreed in that which made a Chriſtian when the name of Chriſtians was firſt known: and in that which was then thought neceſſary to their mutual love and communion. They are united in thoſe many neceſſary things, which I long ago mentioned in a popular diſcourſe called Catholick Vnity: And Proteſtants are agreed in much more than abſolutely neceſſary things. And as it is not the part of a good man to ſet the Churches together by the ears, and to make people believe that they differ where they do not, or further than they do; and thereby to tempt them to ſuſpect, cenſure, reproach, or hate each other: ſo it is not the part of a wiſe Teacher to think himſelf, that agreeing men are not agreed; and that different terms, or orders of expreſſion, make different or contrary Doctrines or Religions: and to be skilful in making one difference to ſeem many, and verbal ones to ſeem real, and ſmall ones to ſeem great, inſtead of being skilful, by diſcuſſing ambiguity of words, in helping men better to underſtand one another. And for my part, I have ſo much experience of the commonneſs of the miſtake, both of the matter, and of each others minds, by reaſon of the lamentable ambiguity of words, and the common weakneſs of mankind in the ordering, digeſting, and expreſſing their conceptions, p. 8and alſo in the reception of other mens expreſſions, that I am reſolved to be ſtill ſuſpitious of ambiguities, and not to be eaſily and negligently deceived by a word unexplained, though men of never ſo great name or ſelf-eſteem ſhould deride me for it, as a troubleſome diſtinguiſher: And I am reſolved to endeavour, to the utmoſt of my little skill and opportunity, to undeceive them that think a different name, or method, is a different or contrary Doctrine; and that all are Hereticks that ſpeak not in their language, and ſing not in their tune, or pray not in their form of words, though for ſo doing the over-orthodox zeal do accuſe me of tepidity, noxious Syncretiſm, Arminianiſm, yea, or of as much complyance with Popery, or Socinians, as this excellent Doctor doth.

Sect. 6. Though I know that Hereſy may (as Arianiſm once did) creep in, and hide it ſelf in the addition of one letter; yet I know alſo, that the confuſion of tongues hath made it hard to expreſs our ſelves ſo as eaſily to be underſtood, unleſs by ſuch with whom we have had long leiſure to open our meaning, and hard to underſtand the mind of others: And that they who agree in all that Chriſt, his Apoſtles, and the ancient Symbols of Faith and Concord made neceſſary to the agreement of Believers, p. 9ſhould not too haſtily be condemned as heretical; and that Church-tyranny and Schiſm, while they cry out againſt each other, are neerer kin in principles and effects than their owners are well aware of: And that over-doing as for orthodox Concord, by introducing things arbitrary, difficult and numerous as the neceſſary terms, hath been Satan's great engine to tear the Churches: And had I been at Jerome's elbow when he complained ſo much of them that accuſed him of Hereſy, for rejecting the term [Hypoſtaſis,] and when he ſpake himſelf ſo much againſt it, I might perhaps have ventured to ſay to that learned angry Father, that it is poſſible that neither his adverſaries nor he were Hereticks, nor erroneous in the matter or ſenſe at all; but that they meant by [Hypoſtaſis,] the ſame that he did by [Perſona;] and that he miſtakingly accuſed an innocent word, and they miſtakingly accuſed his innocent ſenſe; and that the time might come, when thoſe that then contended were in the duſt, that the Churches ſhould indifferently, without mutual condemnation, uſe either of the terms.

Sect. 7. Melancholy is a ſuſpicious humour: Many a one have I known that could not be perſwaded, but that their beſt and neereſt friends did plot their death, or to p. 10poiſon them, or cut their throats; and every thing and perſon that is neer them, ſeemeth againſt them, and a cauſe of fear: As a good woman (yet living,) caetera ſana, dare let none come neer her till the ſpiders be bruſht▪ off them, which ſhe thinks ſhe ſeeth on them, having once been affrighted by a ſpider. And, ſome otherwiſe worthy men, do ſo cauſeleſly and frequently cry out, This is Popery, and That is Arminianiſm, as if they were perſwading the World that the contumelious ſaying is true, Spiritus Calvinianus eſt ſpiritus melancholicus, and that orthodox mens hearts muſt meditate terror, and fear where no fear is, and their charity muſt ſuſpect all things, and hardly believe or hope of any good in others. And we have not been (yea, yet are not) without ſome Sectaries, carried ſo ſwiftly in the the ſtream of prejudice, that before they can ſtay to weigh and underſtand it, they cry out, O Antichriſtian, Popiſh, Arminian, of many an unqueſtionable truth of God; as if they were perſwading men that the prophane reproach is true, that A Puritan is a Proteſtant frightened out of his wits.

Sect. 8. But to come to my preſent buſineſs; This worthy Dr. and Mr. Danvers, the fervent defender of the Anabaptiſts, having both newly publiſhed their ſuſpicions and accuſations of me, for my doctrine of p. 11Original ſin, and both called aloud to the World to take heed of me, I take my ſelf obliged to give them both ſome account of the reaſons of what I hold, and humbly to leave them to their leiſurely judicious cenſure. And becauſe God calleth me, by the meſſengers of death, to other kind of thoughts and works, than needleſs, tedious, ungrateful contending for my own vindication againſt the ſuſpicions and words of others, I muſt take it as a ſufficient diſcharge of this duty, to publiſh an old Country diſputation on that ſubject, uſed above twenty years ago in one of our (by ſome derided) meetings of thoſe humble, peaceable, laborious, godly Miniſters neer Kederminſter in Worceſterſhire, (who have moſt of them been ſilenced theſe fourteen years.) And though I am much to be blamed, if my maturer thoughts ſince then, have not helped me to clearer conceptions than I had ſo long ago: yet finding by a haſty peruſal, that I am ſtill of the ſame mind as then I was, I muſt crave the Readers acceptance of it as it is, from one that hath not time to amend it: And I thought it not amiſs to add to it another Diſputation (then uſed) of original Sin as derived from Adam; and only to aſſiſt the Reader's underſtanding of them by theſe following notes: (entreating his pardon if he p. 12meet with ſome things repeated in one which were in the other, ſeeing this twenty years ſilence may inform him that they were not intended to ſpeak out to the world, though this extortion now will juſtifie their publication).

Sect. 9. I. I do hold that the State of an Infant as a meer Child of Adam, is not the worſt that an Infant is capable of on earth: And that nature in ſuch is not in the utmoſt degree of its depravation. Cuſtom in actual Sin may make it worſe in the adult; (for they are not ſo bad as thoſe in hell): And Parents Sins may make it worſe in ſome Infants, than otherwiſe it would be.

Sect. 10. II. Therefore I hold with Wickliffe (Trialog. li. 4. c. 11, 12.) which I cited to Mr. Danvers, that Original Sin is not equal in all as he inferreth from his aſſertion, that the penalty is not equal.

Sect. 11. III. I do hold, that (beſides all ſaid in the following diſputation to prove the thing aſſerted) the true Nature and Tenor of the Law of Grace, and the terms of Life and Death determined by it, will fully prove it.

Sect. 12. IV. And I may well here ſuppoſe that it is a Law of Grace that is now Norma officii & Judicii to all the world: which obligeth them as Subjects, and by which they p. 13be judged. For, 1. Were it not a Digreſſion, I would prove that no man is under the meer Covenant or Law of Innocency (which commandeth Innocency as the condition of life); it being now naturally impoſſible to the guilty. 2. And that the World is not under the Jewiſh Law of Moſes as ſuch. 3. And that thoſe are not under the Goſpel or Law of Grace in the laſt Edition (by Chriſt incarnate) who never had it, nor could have. 4. And that the World is not outlawed, or out of the relation of ſubjects to God. 5. Nor yet are they as the damned, under a meer remedileſs ſentence; but are under an obligation to receive and improve mercies, and uſe ſome means which tend to their recovery, (as ſuch). 6. And therefore that all that never had or can have the Law of Grace in the laſt edition, are under the firſt edition of it, which was given to fallen mankind in Adam firſt, and afterward in Noah; (ſaving that ſince the Meſſiah is come, none are bound to believe in him as yet to be incarnate, as if he were not come.) But they are under the remaining part of the Law of Grace; the tenor of which is plainly enough expreſſed in God's proclaimed name, Exod. 34. 5, 6, 7. and in many other places of the Scripture. 7. For we were (and therefore are accordingly accounted) as truly p. 14in Adam when the Law of Grace (or Promiſe) was made to him, as when the Law of Innocency was given him. 8. And that Law is never ſince repealed, or nullified, (ſaving by a more perfect edition to them that have the Goſpel.) 9. And Chriſt that came not to deſtroy or condemn the World, but to ſave them, came not to bring moſt of the World (without their fault) into a worſe condition than he found them in; yea, ſo much worſe, as to nullifie the univerſal Law of Grace which was before in force, and to leave them remedileſs, as the devils and damned are.

Sect. 13. V. All things being delivered now into the hands of Chriſt, and all power given him in Heaven and Earth; and all men being his ſubjects as to obligation, though not as to conſent; and all being under the Law of Grace, (of the firſt or ſecond edition) (as made as truly with all mankind, as the Law or Covenant of Innocency was,) as that by which they muſt live, and be judged; and ſo Nature it ſelf now being redeemed Nature, (and neither innocent, lawleſs, nor utterly deſperate,) accordingly all the World of ſinners hath ſome ſort and degree of Grace (or mercy contrary to merit) from and by the Redeemer: which Grace or Mercy in the natural tendency and uſefulneſs p. 15of it, is apt to diminiſh and reſtrain their natural pravity; and doth make them better by preparing them for ſaving regeneration, uſually before they are ſo regenerated, (if adult:) And both adult and infants are capable of a commoner ſort of Grace, who have not ſpecial ſaving Grace. Beſides, that even infants may have true ſaving Grace it ſelf.

Sect. 14. VI. And as thus it is evident, that even infants are not all in one ſtate or degree of pravity, but may ſome be worſe, and ſome better; ſo it is evident that now under a Law of Grace, not to be better than Adam maketh them, much more to become worſe, (which may be, and oft is,) is not a meer penalty or fruit of the violated Law of Innocency, but a privation of that Grace which they were capable of by Chriſt, and ſo may be a penalty of the Law of Grace. Now the World hath a Phyſitian, not to be healed is a privation of Grace, and not a meer negation only: For an infant now not to be regenerate, juſtified, ſaved, is not only a negation of that which he never had any hopes or poſſibility of, as it is to the damned: but it is a privation of that which he was made capable of by Chriſt; yea, which was conditionally given by a ſealed Law of Grace to all mankind. And this privation is not p. 16cauſeleſs on his part: God doth not deprive infants of this mercy only as they are the ſeed of Adam; for then all the ſeed of Adam ſhould be ſo deprived of it. And to caſt all upon meer ſecret election and reprobation, as if infants were no ſubjects under Law, as the rule of their right, I have in a Treatiſe now in the Preſs, proved to be the inlet of Anabaptiſtry, and an opinion in which we ought not to ſymbolize with the Anabaptiſts.

Sect. 15. VII. It followeth therefore, that as God dealt with Adam and his ſeed under the Law or Covenant of Innocency, and we have our guilt of violating that Law from him, as being in his loins: ſo God joyneth children with their Parents (variatis variandis) under the Covenant of Grace, and we are in infancy de jure the better or worſe for what our Parents were, are, or did. And that not to be healed, not to be juſtified and ſaved, is not now to infants a penalty of Adam's ſin alone, but of thoſe Parents (or pro-Parents) in whom the Law of Grace doth judge the infant to have been, or done, or not done what was neceſſary.

Sect. 16. VIII. But no one was the univerſal Head and Father of all mankind but Adam, (as none is the univerſal Head of the regenerate, but Chriſt the ſecond, Adam.) He was the firſt ſinful man; in him all mankind p. 17ſinned: And ſo he was the original cauſe, and our participation of his guilt is our original ſin in a double ſenſe, 1. As he was the original of all mens ſin; 2. and as we are guilty of it from the original of our being. But of Parents ſin, not all the world is guilty, but their own poſterity; and that not as the firſt, but as a ſecondary or neerer cauſe.

Sect. 17. IX. That God hath made many promiſes to the ſeed of the faithful above all others, is notorious in Scripture; in the caſe of the bleſſed ſeed, and ſons of God before the flood, and in the caſe of Sem, Japhet, Abraham, Iſaac, Jacob, and ſo on to the end: But were there no more than the ſecond Commandment, and Exod. 34. 6, 7, 8. it would be juſtly paſt controverſy. And I have largely proved it to Mr. Tombs, in two Books; my Plain Scripture-proof, and my More proof of infants Church-memberſhip.

Sect. 18. X. The Apoſtle expreſly ſaying, elſe were your children unclean, but now are they holy; and this very ſuppoſition being the reaſon of our baptizing the children of ſome perſons, but not of all the World, doth yet more exclude all reaſonable do ubt, with thoſe that are for Infants Baptiſm.

Sect. 19. XI. As to be baptized, and taken p. 18into the Church, is not the right of any infant meerly as a child of Adam redeemed, (for then we could make no difference,) nor meerly as they are elect, (for that we know not;) but as they are children of Believers dedicating them to God, (which is the condition of their right:) ſo not to have right to Baptiſm and its benefits, is not the meer fruit of Adam's ſin, but of the Parents privative not-believing, and not-dedicating them to God; (the controverſies about pro-Parents is not pertinent to our buſineſs, and need not ſtop us.) Here therefore is notorious a grand penalty of Parents ſin on children; (for a penal privation it is.)

Sect. 20. XII. The true natural intereſt of Parents in their children now, is as certain as Adam's in his off-ſpring: We have our being as truly from them as from him, and were as truly naturally in them as in him.

Sect. 21. XIII. The promiſes to the children of Believers are more numerous, and plain in Scripture, than the promiſes to Adam's ſeed, if he had ſtood.

Sect. 22. XIV. The penal comminations againſt the ſeed of the wicked are ſo numerous and notorious in Scripture, that it is a thouſand pities that any Miniſter ſhould not acknowledge them, and the effects. Even p. 19from Cain to Cham, and the children of all the old World, and of Sodom, and ſo to the end: And if there were no Texts to prove it but the two before-mentioned, the ſecond Commandment, and Exod. 34. with Matth. 23. It's ſad that any Chriſtian ſhould deny it.

Sect. 23. XV. It is notorious in Scripture alſo, as to the execution, that God hath puniſhed the children not only for Adam's, but for the neerer Parents ſins: Which is true of all thoſe drowned in the deluge, (as the aſſigned cauſe ſheweth;) and of the ſeed of Cham, and the Sodomites, and the infants of the Amalekites, and all the Nations deſtroyed by the command of God; of Iſhmael, Eſau, the Egyptians, Achan, Gebezi, and abundance more named after in this Diſpute, and recorded throughout the Scripture; and the Jews were not ignorant of it, when they ſaid, His blood be on us and our children: nor the Diſciples, when they ſaid, Did this man ſin, or his Parents, that he was born blind? Job. 9. The matter of fact is paſt all doubt, and therefore the right.

Sect. 24. XVI. It is daily notorious among us, that the children of ſome wicked perſons, (Adulterers, Drunkards, Gluttons, idle perſons, &c.) have their bodily temper vitiated by propagation from their Parents, by reaſon p. 20that the Parents had firſt by ſin corrupted their own nature: ſome have the pox, ſome ideots, ſome decrepit, ſome otherwiſe diſeaſed, &c. And to ſay that this is no puniſhment to the children, or that it is only for Adam's ſin, is that which I will not do, whatever any other may.

Sect. 24. XVII. And it is certain that the minds of ſome ſuch perſons children are extraordinarily depraved: ſome have natures extraordinarily luſtful, ſome furious, ſome ſenſleſs and inconſiderate, ſome ſlothful, ſome falſe, verſatile and untruſty, ſome mutable and unconſtant; ſome have appetites hardly to be reſtrained, &c. Yea, and all the foreſaid diſeaſes of the body, much tend to the evil of the ſoul. And is all this no puniſhment? or of none but Adam's ſin?

Sect. 26. XVIII. It is notorious that outward calamities in their eſtates, and other accidents, befall children for the Parents ſins: The ſacrilegious, perjured, murderers, and deſpiſers of Parents ſeldom have a progeny that is not notably plagued for their ſin. And Divines ſhould not teach Atheiſts to deny ſuch judgments of God.

Sect. 27. XIX. He that ſaith that children have no guilt of the ſins of any Parents ſince Adam, doth by conſequence ſay that p. 21God neither ever did, or will do, or juſtly can puniſh any child in the leaſt degree, poſitively or privatively, for any ſuch Parents ſin: But he that dare ſo ſay, is bolder and blinder than I would have any wiſe and holy Teachers of Chriſt's Flocks to be.

Sect. 28. XX. Holy men in Scripture were uſed in their ſufferings to confeſs and lament the ſins of their fore-fathers as the cauſe; as I have after cited out of the Pſalms, Ezra, Nehem. Daniel, &c.

Sect. 29. By this, and what followeth, I have rendred to the Reader a true account and reaſon of my (ſuppoſed dangerous) opinion. But nothing maketh me more wonder at my learned and worthy accuſer, than his, O caecos ante Theologos, quicun que unquam fuiſtis! I had almoſt ſaid, It is more modeſt for me to ſay, that my unacquaintedneſs with Grammar maketh me (here) not underſtand him, than to ſuſpect that ſo Learned an Academical Doctor, among ſo many Learned men and Libraries, can poſſibly mean as his words ſeem to import. But modeſty muſt not blind us: And yet I am loth here to be tempted to waſte ſo much of my little time to the wearying of my ſelf and the Reader, as the recital of the words of ſo many Divines, as concurr with me in this opinion, would require: but a taſte may ſerve to cure his admiration, p. 22and, vindicate Divines from his reproach.

Sect. 30. 1. Tertullian ſaith, (adverſ. Marcion. li. 2. c. 15. p. 467. c. 1.) 1. Juſtitiam ergo primo judicis deſpice, cujus ſi ratio conſtiterit, tunc & ſeveritas, & per quae ſeveritas decurrit, rationi & juſtitiae reputabuntur. Ac ne pluribus immoremur, aſſerite cauſas, caeteras quo que ut ſententias condemnetis: excuſate delicta, ut judicia reprobetis. Nolite reprehendere judicem, ſed revincite malum judicem: nam etſi patrum delicta ex filiis exigebat, duritia populi talia remedia compulerat, ut vel poſteritatibus ſuis proſpicientes, legi divinae obedirent. Quis enim non magis filiorum ſalutem, quam ſuam curet? Sed & ſi benedictio patrum ſemini quo que eorum deſtinabatur, ſine ullo adhuc merito ejus, cur non & reatus patrum in filios quo que redundaret? Sicut gratia ita & offenſa; ut per totum genus & gratia decurreret, ſalvo eo quod poſtea decerni habebat, non dicturos acidam uvam patres manducaſſe, & filiorum dentes obſtupuiſſe, id eſt, non ſampturum patrem delictum filii, nec filium delictum patris, ſed unumquem que delicti ſui reum futurum; ut poſt duritiam populi, duritia legis edomita, juſtitia jam non genus, ſed perſnas judicaret. Quanquam ſi evangelium veritatis accipias, ad quos pertineat ſententia reddentis in filios patrum delicta, p. 23cognoſces: ad illos ſcilicet, qui hano ultro ſibi ſententiam fuerant irrogaturi, Sanguis illius ſuper capita noſtra & filiorum noſtrorum. Hoc ita que omnis providentia Dei cenſuit, quod jam audierat. Bona igitur & ſeveritas quia juſta, ſi bonus judex, id eſt, juſtus. Item caetera bona, per quae opus bonum currit bonae ſeveritatis, ſive ira, ſive aemulatio, ſive ſaevita. Debita enim omnia haec ſunt ſeveritati, ſicut ſeveritas debitum eſt juſtitiae. Vindicanda erit procacitas aetatis verecundiam debentis: at que ita non poterunt judici exprobrari quae judici accidunt, carentia & ipſa culpa, ſicut & judex.

Sect. 31. II. Cyprian de Lapſis, p. 279. Ac nequid deeſſet ad criminis cumulum, infantes quo que parentum manibus vel impoſiti vel attracti, amiſerunt parvuli quod in primo ſtatim nativitatis exordio fuerant conſecuti. Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit, dicent; Nos nihil fecimus, nec derelicto cibo & poculo Domini ad profana contagia ſponte properavimus; perdidit nos aliena perfidia; parentes ſenſimus patricidas: Illi nobis eccleſiam matrem, illi patrem Deum negaverunt, ut dum parvi & improvidi, & tanti facinoris ignari, per alios ad conſortium criminum jungimur, aliena fraude caperemur.

Sect. 32. III. Leonis magni Epiſt. Decret. 86. p. 156. Parentum quo que peccatis parvulos obligari, non ſolum primorum hominum, p. 24ſed etiam ſuorum de quibus ipſi nati ſunt, non improbabiliter dicitur. Illa quippe ſententia Reddam peccata patrum in filios, tenet eos uti que antequam per regenerationem ad teſtamentum novum incipiant pertinere: quod teſtamentum prophetabatur, cum diceretur per Ezechielem, non accepturos filios peccata patrum ſuorum, nec ulterius futuram in Iſrael parabolam illam, Patres manducaverunt uvam acerbam, & dentes filiorum obſtupeſcunt. Ideo enim quiſ que renaſcitur, ut ſolvatur in eo, quicquid peccati eſt, cum quo naſcitur. Nam peccata quae male agendo poſtea committuntur, poſſunt & ponitendo ſanari, ſicut etiam poſt baptiſmum fieri videmus. Ac per hoc non eſt inſtituta regeneratio, niſi quia vitioſa eſt generatio, uſ que adeo ut etiam de legitimo matrimonio procreatus dicat, In iniquitatibus conceptus ſum, & in peccatis mater mea in utero me aluit. Ne que hic dixit, in iniquitate, vel in peccato, cum hoc recte dici poſſet; ſed iniquitates & peccata dicere maluit: quia & in illo uno, quod in omnes homines pertranſivit, quod que tam magnum eſt, ut eo mutaretur & converteretur in neceſſitatem mortis humana natura (ſicut ſupra diſſerui,) reperiuntur plura peccata, & alia parentum, quae licet non poſſunt mutare naturam, reatu tamen obligant filios, niſi gratuita gratia & miſericordia divina ſubveniat. A parvulo enim recens nato, p. 25uſ que ad decrepitum ſenem quamlibet corporis aetatem gerant, ſicut nullus prohibendus eſt a baptiſmo, ita nullus eſt, qui non peccato moriatur in baptiſmo: ſed parvuli tantum originali, majores autem etiam his omnibus moriuntur peccatis, quaecun que male vivendo addiderunt ad illud quod naſcendo traxerunt.

Sect. 33. IV. Gregor. magni Expoſ. mor. li. 15. p. 90. Peccatum quippe originale a parentibus trahimus, & niſi per gratiam baptiſmatis ſolvamur, etiam parentum peccata portamus, quia unum adhuc videlicet cum illis ſumus. Reddit ergo peccata parentum in filios, dum pro culpa parentis, ex originali peccato anima polluitur prolis. Et rurſum non reddit parentum peccata in filios, quia cum ab originali culpa per baptiſmum liberamur, jam non parentum culpas, ſed quas ipſi committimus, habemus.

Sect. 34. V. Auguſt. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 46, 47. pag. (edit. Pariſ) 74. Ne que dixit in iniquitate, vel peccato, cum & hoc recte dici poſſet; ſed iniquitates & peccata dicere maluit: Quia & in illo uno quod in omnes homines pertranſiit reperiuntur plura peccata, & alia parentum, quae etsi non ita poſſunt mutare naturam, reatu tamen obligant filios niſi gratuita gratia, & miſericordia divina ſubveniet. Sed de peccatis aliorum parentum quibus ab ipſo Adam uſ que ad Patrem ſuum, progeneratoribus p. 26ſuis quiſ que ſuccedit, non immerito diſceptari poteſt, Vtrum omnium malis actibus & multiplicatis delictis originalibus, qui naſcitur implicetur, ut tanto pejus quanto poſterius quiſ que naſcatur? an propterea Deus in tertiam & quartam generationem de peccatis parentum eorum poſteris comminetur, quia iram ſuam quantum ad progeneratorum ſuorum culpas non extendit ulterius moderatione miſerationis ſuae, ne illi quibus regenerationis gratia non confertur, nimia ſarcina in ipſa aeterna damnatione premerentur, ſi cogerentur ab initio generis humani omnium precedentium parentum ſuorum originaliter peccata contrabere, & poenas pro eis debitas pendere? An aliud aliquid de re tanta in Scripturis ſanctis diligentius perſcrutatis at que tractatis valeat vel non valeat reperiri, temere non audeo affirmare.

Bellarmine ſpeaking againſt this opinion, li. 4. de Amiſſ. Grat. c. 18. ſaith thus of ſome Fathers, as ſpeaking againſt him; [Et quidem S. Auguſtinus in Enchiridio, ca. 46. ſic ait Parentum quo que peccatis parvulos obligari non ſolum primorum hominum, ſed etiam ſuorum, &c. non improbabiliter dicitur. Idem repetit in li. 6. adverſus Julianum, cap. 2. ejuſ que ſententiani iiſdem verbis tradit. S. Leo in Epiſt. 86. ad Nicetam: Sanctus etiam Gregorius, li. 15. moral. cap. 22. ad eandem ſententiam p. 27ut videtur acceſſit.] And Bellarmine's ſhift is a meer violence, [quod ſancti illi patres fortaſſe non de contagione culpae, ſed de communicatione poenae loquuti ſunt;] nor indeed can it be poena fine culpa.

I would trouble my ſelf and the Reader with more of the Ancients words, if I thought it worth the coſt.

Sect. 35. VI. Among the later Writers that were Papiſts, I will now give you only the words of Guil. Pariſienſis, de Vit, & Peccat. c. 5. (ſee more alſo, c. 6, 7, 8.) who though he ſay that Peccatum originale non eſt culpa, nec meritum poenae; yet calling it malum morale & vitium, I hope meant but that it was not culpa in ſenſu famoſiore: But however, what he thought of its original, judge. Quia peccatum originale contrahitur & a carne, & a parentibus ingeneratur, his ſolis exceptis, qui privilegio gratiae a Deo protecti ſunt, contrahitur inquam originaliter; ſi enim a divitiis, quae tam longae ſunt ab animabus noſtris, pervenit ad eas corruptio avaritiae & ſuperbiae, ut ſupra tetigimus, quanto fortius ab ipſis corporibus paſſiones, quales inferre poſſunt corpora, eiſdem adhaerebunt? Amplius: Si a vino penetrat ad ipſos ebrietas, ut eas in majorem, quam ſit brutalis, inſaniam tranſvertat, quanto fortius corpus ipſum, quod eis adeo e vicino & immediate p. 28adhaeret, eas obtenebrare poterit a lumine ſuo, & pervertere a rectitudine ſua. Et quia toti animales efficiuntur in opere hujuſmodi, ſive toti caro (ut dicit Aug.) non eſt mirum, ſi ſemen viri vim imprimendi animalitatem recipit ex hujuſmodi diſpoſitione; habet autem & ex parte materiae propriae alias diſpoſitiones, per quas non permittitur, ut ex eo generetur aliud quam homo. Non enim totum habent ex imaginatione, vel ſenſu parentum generantium. Hoc autem quod praediximus de transfuſione corruptionis & ſimilitudinis, Aug. ſatis expreſſe dicere videtur, ubi dicit, quod originale peccatum in omnes illos tranſit, qui vitioſa lege naſcendi naſcuntur, & alibi dicit, in omnes concupiſcentialiter genitos. In quo videtur attribuere vitioſae legi naſcendi, ſive concupiſcentiali generationi contractionem, ſeu traductionem originalis peccati; verum nos dicimus, quia ſi omne vitium naſcendi, & tota concupiſcentia etiam tolleretur a parentibus, corrupta tamen caro non niſi corruptam ſibi ſimilem generaret.

Sect. 36. VII. Pet. Martyr Loc. Com. p. 142, 143. Quod Deus ait, Se velle perſequi peccata patrum in filios in tertiam & quartam generationem, quum alio loco dicat, Filium non portaturum iniquitatem patris: ſi filius, inquit, non portat iniquitatem patris, ſed ſuam, p. 29& tamen Deus perſequitur in eo peccatum patris, oportet ut filius ipſe peccatum illud in ſe habeat: alioqui haec loca inter ſe non convenirent. Peccatum ita que ſua natura ita factum eſt, ut non tantum animum hominis vaſtet, verum etiam corpus, carnem & membra depravet. Ita que Paulus ad Corinthios ait, corporae noſtra templa eſse Spiritus ſancti, & graviter comminatur, ſi quis templum Dei deſtruat. Si ergo Deus puniat peccata parentum in ſiliis, & filius alienam iniquitatem non portat ſed tantum ſuam: ſequitur parvulos impiorum hominum, cum affliguntur ut patres in illis puniantur, aliquid in ſe habere paternae pravitatis. Ne que hic cuiquam conquerendum eſt de juſtitia Dei; nam ſi Deus incorruptiſſima ſua juſtitia poteſt eos qui peccant in reprobum ſenſum tradere, & peccata peccatis punire: cur non etiam juſte velit, peccati corruptionem non tantum animum perdere, ſed etiam ejus impuritatem in corpus quo que redundare? Vnde qui generantur ex peccatoribus, talem naturam ex illis contrahunt, qualem in illis reperiunt. At que hac ſententia homines admonentur ut ſancte vivant, neve & animos ſuos & corpora polluant, eadem que opera filios quo que ſuos inficiant.

Si hoc ut jam diximus, conſtituatur, quaeret quiſpiam, quid diſcriminis ſit inter peccatum originis, & illud quod a proximis parentibus p. 30contrabitur? Reſpondemus propagationem originalis peccati, eſſe perpetuam, quemadmodum ſacrae literae docent: aliorum vero peccatorum continuationem non eſſe neceſſariam. Aliquando enim a proximis parentibus nihil vitii tranſmittitur ad liberos, excepto peccato originis. Videtur enim Deus modum praefixiſſe, ne malum graſſetur in immenſum, & hanc mali propagationem ſuſpendere.—Quare quod ad hanc rem attinet, libenter aſſentior Auguſtino, probabile eſſe & Scripturis conſentaneum, (iſtam que ſententiam Martinus Bucerus vir doctiſſimus juxta que ſanctiſſimus probavit,) vitia privata in filios propagari a parentibus: ſed notandum, hoc eſſe contingens, non neceſſarium. Nam Deus quando que parentum peccata ſuſpendit, & pro ſua bonitate non patitur naturam hominum prorſus perdi. Quando autem traducem iſtam peccatorum, aut reprimere velit, aut ſinere locum habere, ipſe ſolus novit. Nobis tamen ſatis eſt, haec duo conſiderare: primum peccatum a parentibus diffundi in liberos: alterum id Dei beneficio interdum prohiberi, quod tamen de peccato originis dici nullo modo poteſt. Omnes enim eo infecti naſcimur. At que bactenus ex Epiſtol. ad Roman. cap. 5. in haec verbi, Quemadmodum per inobedientiam, &c. Vide ſimilem locum in Gen. 8. ver. 21.

Sect. 37. VIII. I forbear citing Bucer's words, ſeeing here you have Pet. Martyr's p. 31teſtimony of his judgment, who was his intimate acquaintance.

Sect. 38. IX. Anton. Wallaeus Reſponſ. ad cenſuram Corvini de peccati primi poen. p. 257. Deinde quomodocun que tandem peccata parentum poſteris imputentur, imputationem peccati parentum in poſteros eſſe proprie ex ſeveritate foederis operum, non ex foreign foederis evangelici. Nam maledictio foederis primi manifeſta eſt, Deut. 28. 15. Maledictus erit fructus ventris tui, &c. Quod diſcrimen utriuſ que foederis perſpicue proponitur, Jer. 31. 29, &c. See further. And pag. 262, 263, 264. he reprehends Corvinus for making our guilt of original ſin to be meerly from God's will; and the imputation of Adam's ſin, to be different from that of our other Parents; and ſhews that it is the ſame thing that God threatned in the ſecond Commandment, Exod. 20. and proclaimed with his name, Exod. 24. and largely cites the ſayings of Tertullian and Auguſtin to the ſame purpoſe: all which is too large for me here to recite.

Sect. 39. X. Urſin. Catech. edit. Parei de Peccat. Orig. pag. 45. [Obj. 6. In quos peccata omnium majorum tranſeunt, miſeriores erunt illis, in quos tantum aliquorum peccata propagantur: At ſi peccatum in poſteros tranſit, in poſtremos homines, omnia majorum, in priores eorum tantum qui preceſſerunt, p. 32peccata derivantur; ergo poſteriores erunt miſeriores: Hoc vero abſurdum videtur, & eum juſtitia Dei pugnans. Reſpon. Non foret abſurdum, etiamſi Deus poſteriores magis deſereret ac puniret: nam quanto plura peccata a genere humano cumulantur, tanto magis ira Dei accenditur & exaſperatur poena, juxta illud, Nondum completae ſunt iniquitates Amorrhaeorum, &c. Vt veniat ſuper vos omnis ſanguis juſtus, &c. Sed & minor negatur: etſi enim Deus propter juſtitiam ſuam, peccatum originis, hoc eſt vitium naturae & reatum in omnes poſteros tranſire ſinit, tamen ſimul ex miſericordia metas figit peccato, ut non ſemper majorum peccata actualia imitentur & luant poſteri, nec ſemper malorum parentum mali aut deteriores ac miſeriores liberi exiſtant.]

Sect. 40. XI. Mr. Gataker's words Mr. Poole thus tranſlateth in his Synopſ. Crit. in Exod. 20. p. 403. Punit Deus ſapenumero liberos propter peccata Parentum ut conſtat exemplis & ſanctionibus S. Scripturae; Vid. Exod. 4. 22, 23. & 12. 29. & 34. 7. Num. 14. 18. 2 Sam. 12. 14. 1 Reg. 13. 33. & 14. 1. 17. Rationes,—1. Quod liberi ſint res at que poſſeſſiones parentum,—2. Liberi praeterea ſunt partes ſive membra parentum & ſunt quaſi una perſona cum Parentibus; ut recte Althuſ. Dicaeolog. l. 1. Vid. Gen. 20. 7. 18. Mat. 15. 22. Quod ad loca in contraria prolata, p. 33Deut. 24. Jer. 31. Ezek. 18. 1. Debent … mortem Deo, &c. 2. Non ſunt haec apud homines ſemper injuſta, &c. where he inſtaneth in ſimilitudes.—See his Sermon it ſelf on 1 Kin. 14. 17.

Sect. 41. XII. If I thought it would be worth my own, and the Readers trouble, I would undertake to produce abundance more of Proteſtant Writers; and let but Expoſitors on the ſecond Commandment be examined by him that doubteth of it, and he will be ſatisfied if he have ſtore at hand. I only now ſay of many in general, that the ordinary ſaying of ſuch Expoſitors is, that temporal puniſhments, and ſome ſpiritual, are oft inflicted by God on children for their Fathers ſins: I will give you the ſenſe of many in Deodate's words on Exod. 20. 5. [Viſiting:] that is, I enquire after it, and puniſh it. [Of the Fathers▪] As concerning eternal judgment upon the ſoul, every one dieth for his own iniquity,**Original ſin is their own. Jer. 31. 30. but for the Fathers ſins the children are often puniſhed in body, in goods, and other things which they hold and derive from their Parents, Num. 14. 33. 2 Sam. 12. 11. and 21. 5. 15. And beſides, God oftentimes curſeth the generation of the wicked, withdrawing his grace p. 34ſpirit from it, whereby imitating their Parents wickedneſs, they are puniſhed in the ſame manner, 1 Sam. 15. 2. Matth. 23. 32. 25.

Sect. 42. Here note, 1. that there can be no puniſhment (temporal or eternal) where there is no imputed guilt. Therefore all thoſe Divines who ſay that not only Parents in their children, but children for their Parents ſins, have the leaſt puniſhment, do thereby aſſert a guilt.

2. That there is no guilt of ſin which deſerveth not great, yea perpetual puniſhment, if not remitted.

3. That privation of Grace, and the ſpirit here mentioned, is a moſt heavy puniſhment, tending to that which is perpetual.

4. That children are to derive from their Parents (or from God by them) greater mercies than goods, health, &c. even Churchmemberſhip, right to Baptiſm, and ſo to pardon, and the other ſaving benefits of the Covenant, (as being holy): Therefore by the ſame reaſon, as health, goods, &c. may be denied them, becauſe they are derived from Parents, (as Deodate ſpeaks,) Baptiſm and its benefits may be denied them.

5. And hath not the univerſal Church given us their judgment of the caſe, who have in all ages judged that Baptiſm is to be p. 35denied to the children of Heathens and Infidels? (unleſs other mens owning them, make them no longer theirs.) At leaſt I may ſay, if as many be of my judgment concerning our guilt of Parents ſins, as hold that Baptiſm and its fruits are to be denied to ſuch children of Infidels, the number will be ſo great and honourable, that I would wiſh this worthy Dr. no more to make them ſeem as none. And, as I have before ſhewed, not to be baptized is to them a penalty: and that not only in the judgment of Papiſts, who ſhut ſuch out of Heaven, but of the ancient Doctors, who took Baptiſm to be our ſolemn inveſtiture in a ſtate of life, and the ſeal of pardon and right to ſalvation; (as Gataker againſt Davenant de Bapt. hath proved by citing a multitude of their teſtimonies, as an uſeful Index to ſave Readers much labour on that point.) And I have elſewhere proved at large**Diſputat. of Right to Sacram. that the Scripture mentioneth no Baptiſme of Chriſt's Inſtitution, which was not for the remiſſion of ſin. If any ſay that this is no new penalty, but a leaving them under the old, and that it is not for the Parents unbelief, but the Parents only do omit their duty needful to the childs liberation; I again anſwer, that had there been no Saviour, p. 36Covenant, Means, or Hope, it had indeed been no penalty, becauſe no privation, but a negation. And had not the child's right and deliverance been laid on the Parents Faith and Conſent as a Condition, they had but negatively left them under the penalty of Adam's ſin, and their corruption, (with the guilt next to be mentioned.) But remember that poena damni, the loſs of Heaven is vere poena, and ſo is the loſs of Pardon and Grace, (not to an uncapable, but to a capable ſubject): And that ſins of omiſſion are truly ſins: And that as a Father murders his child, if he feed him not, ſo he doth by omiſſion do much to damn him, if he do not believingly dedicate him to Chriſt; (for I ſpeak not of unavoidable want of Baptiſm, which Auſtin himſelf thought not to be damning, however miſtaken herein by many.) A mans own not-believing is nothing; but it is ſuch a nothing as is puniſhed with a non-ſalvation, which is another nothing; yea, that and other omiſſions, with poſitive damnation, and the pain of ſenſe.

6. But further note, that this great inſtance ſheweth that it is not only the ſins of Parents before Generation, and in it, but alſo after the child's birth, while the child is void of the uſe of reaſon and will for p. 37himſelf, that the child may be puniſhed by and for, with this penal non-liberation. Much more evident then is it that this, with his additional pravity and bodily diſtempers, all together, are a penalty for the Parents former unbelief, and other ſins, with this omiſſion.

7. And again I ſay, that if the very guilt and corruption derived from Adam, had not been my next Parents firſt, it had never been mine, no more than my nature: For I had it not immediately from Adam, but from them. And if I had that as theirs firſt, I muſt by the ſame reaſon have more of theirs: And who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? And David's Mother is ſaid to conceive him in ſin, Pſal. 51.

8. Let it be noted for anſwer to the objections, from Ezek. 18. &c. 1. That there is by the Covenant of Grace, a pardon with right to Chriſt and Life, freely given to all the faithful and their infant-ſeed, as by them (having full power thereto) in Covenant given up to Chriſt: Now, no one is damned for pardoned ſins. The infant is at once guilty of Adam's and his Parents ſin; and at once his nature receiveth pravity from both, (but immediately only by the immediate Parents;) and at once both are pardoned to him, and this pardon ſolemnly p. 38ſealed and delivered in Baptiſm. Therefore well may God ſay to the pardoned, to the penitent, and to the innocent, that he ſhall not die for his Parents ſins, (no, not for Adam's.) 2. For the Text ſpeaketh to the adult, and to men that thought themſelves innocent, and that they ſuffered for their Parents ſins, and not their own: And God aſſureth them, 1. that if they are innocent, they ſhall not die; 2. yea, if they be repenting perſons, and pardoned, and obedient evangelically, hating all the ſins of their wicked Parents, they ſhall live. 3. yea, this is true of their children alſo for their ſakes. But this is not becauſe the Law never judged them guilty, and worthy of death; but becauſe the Grace of Chriſt forgiveth it: elſe the Text would exempt all infants from the guilty of death, for Adam's ſin.

But there is not a word in the Text to prove, 1. that children need no pardon for their guilty of Parents ſins: 2. or that thoſe that are not pardoned, being themſelves unſanctified, (or if adult, live wickedly as their Parents did) ſhall not die for them: 3. or that ſuch ſins of Parents are not the cauſe of ſuch guilt and pravity in the child, as that he is truly ſaid to die for his own ſin.

p. 39Sect. 43. XIII. Yet further methinks, to a conformable Doctor, the judgment of the Church of England in her Liturgy ſhould not be inſignificant; [Remember not Lord our offences, nor the offences of our fore-Fathers; neither take thou vengeance on our ſins:] In what ſenſe do men ſubſcribe this, and daily uſe it? 1. Do they think that the Church meaneth only Adam's ſin, by our [fore-Fathers]? 2. Or that by [not-remembring,] they mean [not-pardoning, and notpuniſhing]? 3. Or do they think that they pray for the dead, in Purgatory, Hell, or Heaven? Or rather do they not imitate David, and the Jewiſh Church, and Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, &c. who confeſſed that they were puniſhed for their Fathers ſins?

Sect. 44. I conclude this ſubject with a ſecond requeſt to the Chriſtian Reader, to pity and pray for the poor diſtreſſed Church of Chriſt, which is diſtracted and diſtreſſed thus, even by ſuch as are moſt devoted to its ſervice, through the great weakneſs of our judgments, and the unhappy paſſions and ſtrivings that thence follow. Either I or this worthy perſon are miſtaken, or elſe we differ not: When I look to the Perſon only, and not to the Evidence, nor to the Conſenters, I have far greateſt reaſon to ſuſpect that I am liker to erre than he: And if it prove p. 40ſo, the evidence yet ſeemeth to me ſo full for what I hold, that I am almoſt hopeleſs of being otherwiſe perſwaded; And my judgment is not at my command: How then ſhall I avoid the injury of ſouls? But yet I think, that to hold our ſelves more guilty of our Parents ſins than we are, is no dangerous damning error: it may moleſt us, but not undo us; and I never ſaw many much moleſted by it.

But if either we differ not, when yet he giveth you ſo loud an Alarm, or if it be he that erreth indeed; alas! what muſt the Church expect from the too great number of ignorant and ungodly Teachers, when it muſt be thus uſed by the Learned and the Godly? My thoughts are, 1. that it deſerveth tears from faithful Miniſters to obſerve, that ſo conſiderable a part of the common guilt and miſery of all mankind, ſhould by godly men be no more confeſſed and lamented! 2. And that by thoſe that for any denial or extenuation of our original ſin as from Adam, are ſo heinouſly (and juſtly) offended with the erroneous: yea, ready to vilifie men as Arminians, if not Socinians, that they think come near it! 3. That ever the ſtream of a Party, Reputation, Intereſt, Example, or whatever elſe of that kind, ſhould with ſo many good men, have ſo p. 41great a power, in making truth or error, duty or ſin, good or evil, orthodox or heretical, in their conceits; and ſo much faction he found in their Religion! 4. That ever ſo many millions ſhould be taught impenitency in ſo plain a caſe, when repentance and confeſſion have ſo conſiderable a place among the requiſites to remiſſion! 5. That ever ſo many millions ſhould by Preachers be taught that they have no need of a Saviour, nor of Pardon, nor to pray for Pardon, for ſo much of their guilty and puniſhment! 6. That ever ſo much of the plain ſtream of Scripture-evidence can be denied and made light of, by good men that cry up the Scripture authority and ſufficiency, even when they can lay a great ſtreſs, in ſome unprofitable hurtful controverſie, upon ſome one Text whoſe ſenſe is not to be certainly underſtood! 7. That ever good and learned Teachers ſhould be ſo conceited of their own conceptions, as in their confidence in ſuch a cauſe to brand God's truth with the name of error, and their brethren as dangerous men for not erring as they do! 8. And finally, that the poor people muſt be under ſuch grievous perplexing temptations as I before mentioned; and that the Papiſts ſhould be thus hardened in their opinion that we ſhall never be at peace and concord, p. 42unleſs we unite in their uſurping, tyrannical Peace-maker: And that Poor Scholars and young Miniſters muſt be thus frightned from Truth, Duty, Charity and Peace, and men made believe that the Church is about to be ſet on fire, if we are told of that which is contrary to our former opinions! This muſt be lamented, if it be not I, but others that here erre.

Sect. 45. But yet before I end, he calls me ſo loud to conſider of another matter, that I muſt not deny his invitation.

In my Direct. for Cure of Church-Diviſions, Dir. 42. I ſaid, [Your belief of the neceſſary Articles of Faith muſt be made your own, and not taken meerly on the authority of any. And in all points of belief and practice, which are of neceſſity to ſalvation, you muſt ever keep company with the univerſal Church, (for it were not the Church, if it erred in theſe.) And in matters of peace and concord, the greater part muſt be your guide, (that is, caeteris paribus.) In matters of humane obedience, your Governors muſt be your guides. And in matters of high and difficult ſpeculation, the judgment of one man of extraordinary underſtanding and clearneſs, is to be preferred before both the Rulers and the major Vote.] And I inſtanced on the p. 43by, [Q. What is the object of Predeſtination, or the nature of the Wills liberty, of the concurſe of God, and determining way of Grace, of the definition of Juſtification, Faith, &c.] ſuppoſing the ſaving knowledge of the thing to differ from a logical skill of defining.

Upon this, the Learned Dr. here thus accoſteth me, [Vnum duntaxat a me peramice (Deus novit) rogandus eſt, ut ſerio apud Deum & conſcientiam ſuam ſe excuteret, quo iſta ſcripſerit conſilio quae occurrunt Reg. 42. Supponit (inter alia) quaeſtionem naſci de Definitione Juſtificationis, Fidei, &c. (nec dubito quin Imputatam quo que Chriſti Juſtitiam incluſerit;) Quos hic adſciſcendos vult duces? Adverte Lector: Hic inquit, Theologorum pauci qui bene docti & pollent judicio, authoritati & plurimum [forſ. plurimorum] ſuffragiis anteponendi, quemadmodum vel unus aliquis, cui viget oculorum aciet; melius, longinſ que videt, quam mille quibus hebeſcit magis; Rogo, inquam, probe ſe excutiat, ut ſecum ſciamus quem quibus in doctrina juſtificationis anteponat; quis unus ille oculatus, & foreign; qui mille myopes; & quem tandem ſtatus five minorennis ſive precarii finem habiturae ſint magnae veritates Dei, ut ab hominum ſuffragiis aliquando pendere deſinant, Deuſ que (ut p. 44cum Tertulliano loquar) Deus ſit? Eum ſpero a Papiſmi contagione tutum & immunem; utinam vero diligentius apud ſe perponderet, quam belle ſua operum juſtitia cum Papali conveniat: Certe, ut mihi ſaltem videtur, (dijudicent alii,) Si facies non ſit utriſ que , eadem,

Nec diverſa tamen quadem decet eſſe ſororum.

Anſw. Worthy Sir, I accept your admonition: When God is ſo ſolemnly appealed to, and I that am paſſing quickly to his judgment, am ſummoned ſo friendly to make my ſerious preparatory examination before him and my conſcience, neglect would be my aggravated ſin. But your call for [Diligence] tells me that you know me not, who have little ſpared for labour theſe 37 years: And I am now unfit for increaſed diligence.

1. As to the matter of Juſtification, (I will not ſummon you before God or Conſcience, but) What will the World think of your dealing, to bait (and that by groſs miſreport) a ſmall book above twenty years retracted, (after voluminous Animadverſions in MS. from many learned men) and purpoſely explained in a larger Book called The Confeſſion of my Faith about Juſtification, &c. and much fullier in my Diſputations about Juſtification, p. 45with Mr. Burges, Mr. Blake, Mr. Tombes, Mr. Warner, &c. and the Doctrine there vindicated, and in many other Books, (my Apology, Life of Faith, &c.) and to take no notice of any of theſe Books, and yet call me before God and Conſcience to a diligent ſearch? If my diligence produced never ſo much more, are you bound to take any more notice of them than you did of all theſe?

2. How come you to know the mind of a man, whom I ſuppoſe you never, ſaw, ſo well as to add your [Nec dubito quin Imputatam Chriſti Juſtitiam incluſerit?] Am I not fitteſt to tell you what I include?

3. Why turn you a Logical caſe of Defining, into a Theological de re? Juſtitia Chriſti Imputata is one thing, and the Definition of Juſtice, or Imputation, is another.

4. Are you in good ſadneſs deſirous to know whom I mean? I muſt think ſo: But why did you not as earneſtly ask of the reſt, What Rulers I mean, and what people I mean, &c. Is it not enough to deſcribe them, unleſs I name them? But I will tell you as much of my meaning as I know my ſelf.

My meaning is, that if the queſtion be, What is the ſignification of this or that Hebrew, Arabick, Syriack, Perſian, Greek word, in the Text and Verſions of the Scripture, p. 46or what ſuch a proverbial ſpeech doth ſignifie? and ſo of Topography, Genealogy, Chronology, &c. one excellent Hebrician, &c. well ſeen in thoſe ſtudies, ſhould be believed before the majority of all the Boys, Students, Preachers, that never underſtood thoſe things: Muſt I name them? is there no remedy? Why I mean ſuch a one as Pagnine, Montanus, Buxtorf, &c. for the Hebrew: ſuch a one as Erpenius, Dr. Pocock, &c. for the Arabick: ſuch a one as Scaliger, Blondell, Vſher, Broughton, &c. for Chronology, &c. If it be a controverſy in Geometry, I would believe Dr. Wallis, &c. if in Anatomy, Dr. Willis, Dr. Lower, Dr. Needham, before a thouſand that are therein unſtudied: yea, if it were a Magiſtrate, or Biſhop, that were of another mind. In Metaphyſicks, I will believe or regard one Suarez, Hurtado, Meuriſſe, Schiebler, Dr. Barlow, before a thouſand that are therein ignorant: in Phyſicks, I more regard one Ariſtotle, Scotus, Honoratus Faber, Campanella, Mr. Boyle, &c. before all them that never ſtudied them: And in Logick, I regard one Ariſtotle, Ramus, Dietericus, Burgerſdicius, Hurtado, &c. before all that never ſtudied Logick, of what Coat or Calling ſoever. Accordingly in Method and Defining, I prefer one ſuch Divine as Sohnius, Cluto, Wendeline, Ameſius, p. 47Dud Fenner, Dr. Stoughton, Mr. G. Lawſon, &c. before all thoſe that are ignorant of Method and Definition: while I prefer the happineſs of many a poor woman that hath a ſtrong Faith, and cannot define it, before ſome Doctors that can define that which they have not. Thus your loud Call hath drawn out an expoſition, which I once thought would have been vain.

Sect. 46. But it may be you would know what their names are whom I take to be better [Definers of Juſtification, Faith and Imputation,] than all the unskilful Students, or others, that want their Logical and Theological ſufficiency? You that are an Academical Doctor, ſhould be better acquainted with the beſt Logicians and School-Divines than I. I once thought you had been one of them: If there be no remedy, I will tell you who I think have delivered us far more judicious and digeſted thoughts of theſe things, (both definitions, diſtinctions, and the matter it ſelf,) than I find in this your Treatiſe: namely, Vinc. le Blanc, Mr. Will. Bradſhaw, and Mr. Anth. Wotton, (two old Non-Conformiſts,) Placeus, Amyraldus, Dallaeus, Teſtardus, Conrad, & Johannes Bergii, Lud. Crocius, Maſtrickt, Matth. Martinius, Camero, Grotius, Mr. Lawſon, Dr. Hammond, p. 48Mr. John Ball, Mr. Gibbons, (late of Black-fryers,) Mr. Truman, (in his great Propitiat. &c.) (three Non-Conformiſts,) Mr. Gataker, &c. I name them but as I remember them.

And now Sir, was this a task worthy ſo ſolemn an invitation before God, and Conſcience, and the World? If I ſhould name Mr. Hotchkis of Pardon, Mr. Benj. Woodbridge, and many more ſuch Writers, I pray you ſay not that I ſend you to School to them: I do but anſwer your earneſt requeſt.

Sect. 47. But, 4. I alſo intreat you to tell me, whether you differ from me in the rule of counſel which I there gave the ignorant people, or not? If you did not, you would never have given me ſuch a ſummons. If you do; deal openly with your Scholars and the World, and tell them, whether your meaning be, that the major vote of thoſe that never read Logick, Phyſicks, Metaphyſicks, Law, Medicine, &c. is to be believed before one Ariſtotle, Downame, Gaſſendus, Zabarell, Grotius, Cook, Littleton, Cujacius, Fernelius, &c. Tell your Scholars that you are but one, and they are many, and muſt believe themſelves before you, in defining Juſtification, Faith, &c. Tell all the p. 49Univerſity, that thus they muſt uſe their Tutors. Should Mr. Ainſworth's Church of Separatiſts have judged of all his critical expoſitions by the major vote? Tell the World that all the Criticks, and Dr. Walton's Labours and all ſuch mens, muſt ſtand or fall at the judgment of the majority of people or Miniſters that never ſtudied thoſe tongues. (If you think I take my ſelf for one of theſe Judges, you are quite miſtaken.)

And I may ask you, Are you not herein a man ſingular even to admiration? And yet will you plead thus, as if it were againſt ſingularity? Are not all Proteſtants, Papiſts, Chriſtians, learned Heathens, agreed of the Rule that I gave? All your Univerſity, ſave your ſelf, (I hope in charity) do think that your Profeſſors, and Readers, and Tutors, are to be believed in their ſeveral Profeſſions and Readings, before all their unlearned Pupils, or any others that are ignorant. What ſort of men in the World are more faulty in tying up mens Faith too much to men, than the Papiſts are? And yet I preſume you know that they commonly acknowledge, that in Dogmatical difficulties, eſpecially ſuch as depend on Arts and Sciences, (ſuch as Defining for the moſt part is,) the majority even in a Council that are therein unlearned, p. 50learned, are not ſo much to be heard as one eminently learned in thoſe things. One Gabriel, Ockam, Greg. Arim: One Scotus, Rada, Lychetus: One Pennous, Vaſqu…, Ruiz: Or if you had rather, one Bradwa… dine, Bannes, Alvarez, Twiſſe, is more to be heard in telling us, what Concurſe, Predetermination, Natural Free-will are, than many that never ſtudied the point; (though yet perhaps the beſt of them may deſerve little regard about unſearchable things.)

If you pleaſe but to read Mr. Femble his Vind. Grat. you will find ſomewhere almoſt the very words of the rule or ſaying of mine, which you exceptingly recite.

Sect. 48. 5. But what mean you to bring in the intimation, that thus [the great truths of God will depend on humane ſuffrages, even whether God ſhall be God?] I beſeech you conſider, 1. Whether you do well to number Artificial, Logical Definitions controverted by the greateſt Divines, with [the great truths of God?] How various are the Definitions of Juſtification, (conſidered alſo variouſly, as Conſtitutive, Sentential, Executive, in this life, at the laſt Judgment, in fore Dei, i… foro Conſcientiae, in foro Humano, Civili, Eccleſiaſtico, &c) which are given by great Divines? And how various the definitions p. 51of Faith (between that of Camero, and ſuch others as place it in the intellect Ameſius, and ſuch others as place it in the will; Davenant, and ſuch others as place it in both; Pemble, and ſuch others as make them one faculty?) The differences about the act, the formal object, the material object, (as whether with Chamier we muſt hold, that the ſpirits inward teſtimony that you are juſtified, be verbum Dei & Fidei objectum, with abundance ſuch) are too too many, when yet perhaps moſt mean the ſame thing, and differ but in Logical notions. And do you well to frighten men into ſuſpicions and contentions, out of their charity and peace, by telling them that theſe are the great truths of God, and likening them to the Queſtion, whether God ſhall be God? As if you knew not that by ſuch melancholies and phantaſms, the Church hath been brought into the unhappy, military, diſtracted ſtate that it is in. It is work fit for a Divine and Healer, to make the World believe that the great truths of God, and the Godhead it ſelf are at the ſtake, in ſuch Logical quarrels, and that men differ further than they do?

6. But did you not ſee that I before expreſly excepted all matters neceſſary to Salvation p. 52from humane truſt? (Some will ſay, I doubt, too far, that ſee not other explications.)

7. And I beſeech you, is it all one for truth to depend on humane ſuffrages (yea, God himſelf,) and for an ignorant man or Scholar to depend on his Teacher, ſo far as fide humana to believe him before ten unlearned men? Is this fit doctrine for a Doctor and Maſter of a Literate Society? Say then in your Lectures, [Hearers and Scholars, this and that is the true definition of Faith and Juſtification, (even of the various ſorts of Faith and Juſtification;) but while I tell you ſo, regard and believe what I and many ſuch others ſay to you, no more than you would do many unlearned men, or any diſſenters that tell you that I erre, or ſpeak heretically herein; leſt God and his Truth depend on humane ſuffrages.] And becauſe I (fain would, but) cannot find any other meaning in your words, without taking you to be guilty of what I would not ſuſpect, and conſequently, that you expect no more regard or belief of this your Treatiſe, as ſuch, I ceaſe from any further animadverſions on it, as the leſs neceſſary.

Only adding, that your concluſion that p. 53ſoundeth loud with the name of Popery, needeth no other anſwer than what I have formerly given Mr. Crandon, Mr. Eyres, Mr. Bagſhaw, Mr. Danvers, and ſuch others, who oft cry out [Antichriſtian] (a frightful word,) when they needed but awakening to convince them that they were but frightned in a dream.

ERRATA.

PAg. 1. lin. antep. r. T. Tully. p. 191. l. 12. r. God. p. 215. l. 16. r. integris. We