Book IX
Wisdom in the hidden part, or practical irisdom concerning original sin, founded on David s example and practice, Ps. li. 6. That this sin is matter of repentance as well as our actual sins, and how ice are to be humbled for it, and to repent of it.
Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts ; and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. PSALM LI. 6.
CHAPTER I.
The errors of the papists, denying original sin to be the object of repentance.
The opinions of Bonavcnture, Estius, Suarez, and Bcllarmine proposed and refuted.
EVERY truth in our religion hath an ?urgaj;/$, an usefulness in it. The doctrine of original sin in both parts of it (the guilt of Adam s fact, and the corruption inherent) is an eminent truth, which our Christianity cannot want, and therefore ought to have, and is fitted to have an sgyaffla, an operation upon the heart of every Christian, answerable to the weight and moment of the truth, and therefore is not to lie by us as if it were a mere speculation. And whatever dispositions of heart others may have handled, as required of Christians towards God about it, I shall single out this of humiliation, con trition, or brokenness of heart for it. For if it be sin, and our sin (proprium peccatum, though not propricc,operation is), though not of our own committing or operation, and whereof yet the guilt ariseth unto us, we may be sure that a serious humiliation and submission of soul is requisite for it ; for humilia tion and sin are relatives in their kind, even as faith and Christ are, and so far as it is $/;?, and our sin, it is meet we be humbled for it. To evince all which you have here David s practice and example set afore you in this treatise ; and ere I come to the clearing thereof, I do by way of preface give the reader a brief scheme of those practical errors (and not so much about the doctrine of original sin itself), which men, professing them selves divines, have uttered about the exercise of repentance for it, and if any, what it should be. Among many it hath been made a set and solemn question, Whether any repentance and humiliation at all is required of Chris tians for original sin (whether it be the guilt of Adam s first act of sin, or the corruption) ; and at best, the most allow so slight a displacency for it (for so they mince it), as truly it is scarce worth the owning by God. I shall spread their opinions before you ; for it is no small advantage towards the understanding the truth, to have a view of the errors about it, or fallings short of the truth, and that in their several sizes and proportions lesser and greater ; it makes us both value the truth the more, and better discern it, when we perceive where truth and errors part.
First, Not to insist on the Socinians doctrine and practice, who wholly
CliAP. I.j IN RESPECT OF SIN AND PUNISHMENT. 325 and utterly deny this sin in us in any part of it, and therefore no wonder if they put it not into their confessions, and teach men not to do so.
Secondly, As for the Arminians, they (the old ones, I am sure, did) acknow ledge the imputation of Adam s act to be our sin, hut the corruption inherent to be only a punishment of that sin, and so not a sin distinctly considered ; but withal they teach that all that accrues to us, as sin in it, is so taken away by Christ the second Adam, and so universally, even to the heathens, as well as those that are baptized among Christians, as that they are all quitted of that sin (when of no other without repentance) ; but this they say, whether men repent or not, it shall never be laid unto men s charge, so as we need not trouble ourselves more about it.
Thirdly, As for the papists, they grant the imputation of Adam s act as of a sin, and also original corruption inherent to have been a sin afore bap tism, and so to all unbaptized ; but affirm withal, that baptism is appointed to take away all the sinfulness or guilt that may redound from either act or corruption ; and what is left of inherent corruption, after baptism, is not a sin in them, or to them, but a weakness, a physical corruption ; as a disease or any other infirmity in nature, but not a moral evil. And then for actual; they have set up that invention of penance (as they call sins after baptism, it), or repentance, to be a sacrament for the forgiveness of actual sins ; the mystery whereof is to necessitate all men to a confession unto, and absolu tion by, a priest for such sins, as baptism is a sacrament for the taking away original sin. So that this of penance, &c., is God s ordinance (they say) for taking away the guilt of actual sins only of a man s own committing; and so by this doctrine they do quit those that are baptized, and their consciences wholly of original sin (as a sin). And thus they think themselves complete Christians, and to have a full provision made for both, as to the forgiveness both of original and actual sin ; what between the one remedy of baptism and the other of repentance. And they are so intent upon magnifying this, their sacramental repentance for men s own actual sins, that they load not men s consciences at all with repentance or humiliation for original sin, as having been sufficiently removed by baptism ; they put over this sin wholly unto that ; so as that conies not within the compass of any confession that is to be made either to a priest for absolution, nor of a repentance before God ; and this is a great mystery of their religion.
the best of all the ancient schoolmen, yet speaks leanly and flaccidly as to this point ; his determinations are, 1. That all men grown up are not bound to a detestation and repentance for this corruption ; because, says he, all men do not know they have such corruption in them, and so are not obliged to any act, no, not of detestation ; so he speaks about it. A good church it is in the meantime, that so crieth up the efficacy of baptism, to take it so generally away, as it judgeth that the priest needs not instruct their penitents grown up of the evil of this sin.
2. For them that are grown up and know it,f he says (1.) It is meet, in deed, and fit that this sin should displease them, that 4hey should have a displacency, not a contrition or brokenness of heart for it ; for afterwards it follows, that he is not bound to afflict himself for it ; and (2.) that displa cency neither is but only congruous, not necessary ; (3.) that it be done but in the general (as it is common with all others of mankind, or in the lump
Lib iv. Cent, distinct, xvi. p. 2. Specialiter quantum ad adultos, qui se habere nesciunt, et quantum ad hos non oportet quod aliquis actus detestationis adveniat. t Quantum ad talcs qui sciunt, congruum est quod displiceat non in special! sed in generali, sed non est necessarium. And, after that, Quod non tenetur se affligere. Bonavent. ibid.
326 AN UNREGENERATE MAN*S GUILTINESS BEFORE GOD, [BOOK IX. and gross with all other sins), but not in special, as his own particular con dition.
Only I confess Estius corrects him,* for it is so small allowance out of Aquinas, as being too short, and says, debet haberi, that a man ought to have it ; and yet how he corrects himself in this afterwards, I shall shew.
And for Aquinas himself,f he restrains repentance proprie et principaliter, properly and principally, unto mortal sin committed by a man s self, as the object of it ; but as to original sin his words are, Repentance is neither principally appointed for it, because the sacrament of penance is not ordained for it, but baptism rather ; nor properly, because it was not com mitted by our own wills, &c. And yet take repentance largely (says he) for any kind of detestation of a thing past, so it may be termed repentance for original sin. Thus he limits it unto an act of detestation only, and that but such as amounts to any kind of detestation of a thing past, which is amiss ; which is as little as may be, and at best but as much as nothing for it, and that for the present, unless humiliation [for] inherent corruption dwelling in us be performed also by us.
one of our acutest new schoolmen, says, 1, Non videtur esse apta materia virtutis pcenitenticc, that original sin seems not fit matter or object for the virtue of repentance. So that it is not for that grace so much as to be conversant or"exercised about it, but as for their sacrament of penance or repentance. This sin, nuUo modo pertinet ad materiam illius sacramenti, it doth no way belong to the matter of that sacrament ; and therefore contri tion for it is not required at all of these penitents afore their absolution. And the most I can get of him is, 2, that if we consider this virtue of repentance, as it is a mere simple affection, and a piece of justice which we owe to God, as original sin is a state of injustice to God; and so considered, we may have such a kind of repentance for it. And so far he bountifully grants ; hoc modo non est inconveniens objectitm ajus ampliari etiam ad origi nate. So taken, it is not inconvenient (forsooth) to extend it to original sin as its object
! And again, 3, Possumus dolere eo quod luimamim genus in primo parente Deum offenderit, we may be grieved that mankind did offend God in their first parent, which is all one with Bonaventure s in generali, that in general we may exercise a displacency about it, but not in special, that is, particu larly for our own persons, which yet we are to do, and lay it to heart, as if none else had been guilty of it with us.
And, 4, in his close he adds of that also, that this may be done by con sidering it speculatively, so as thereby to express an affection to God.
But, 5, afterwards he professedly says, there is no commandment given us either to mourn for it, or be displeased thus at it (for of those two acts he had spoken afore). Nay, he adds, nee dari oportuit, nor ought any such command to have been given.
And, 6, he gives this professed reason, Because as that sin was commit ted but by the wil Fof that one man Adam, so it was satisfied for by the will (or willing obedience) of Christ alone ; and as by generation natural it is contracted by us, so also by regeneration in Christ (which with them is done once for all in baptism, unto all baptized) it is blotted out ; and so (as we * JEstius. lib. iv. Sent, distinct. 16, G. t Tho. Aquinas, ter. par. qusest. 84, art. 2, ad tertium.
In tertiam, par. iv., disp. ii., sect. 1, de objecto materiali, torn. xiv. Oper. Negat esse necessariuin, ac merito, quia nullum datum est de eo prajceptum, nee dari oportuit, qaia sicut unius Adse voltintate commissum est, ita unius Christi voluntate pro illo satisfactum est : et sicut generatione natural! contrahitur, ita etiam per regenerationem in Christo deletur. Suarez, ibid. Originate peccatum etiamsi (rem
CHAP. I.] IN RESPECT OF SIN AND PUNISHMENT. 327 use to say) it lightly comes, and it as lightly goes. And thus they pass itover and wrap it up. Nay, 7. He concludes, Nihilominus,* &c., that notwithstanding all those liberal grants he had made about it, of displacency, &c. (which you have now heard), yet it is not a necessary matter or ground of any such acts ; nor, to speak practically (says he), is it an useful matter (of repentance) to correct men s manners, which are the proper ends of repentance. Thus he. So as, in fine, they plainly lay aside all kind of repentance about it, as of no use at all, in the exercises thereof.
As for Estius, for all his debet haberi, he, notwithstanding, in his close about it, comes off thus,f in answer to an objection made out of Austin, that that damnable original sin is to be laid to heart, amended and corrected in a man, Not (says Estius) either because every man did it for himself, nor because he was born in it, or that he hath it (in him), nor unless the case happen to be that a man sinfully delays the grace of regeneration, and wil fully remains in corruption, and will not be freed from it by regeneration. And so to do, is the sin of a man s own will, which is severely to be re pented of. So that, indeed, Estius puts all upon this : in case a man delays repentance, and will not be freed by it from that state of corruption, so indeed he is to repent, and for so doing, for that is always a sin of his own will ; but still so as take original corruption simply, and as inherent in him, he flatly affirms he is not bound to repent or be afflicted for it, either because he was born in it, or because he hath it, that is, that it is in him. Oh how slightly, slenderly, leanly, and dilutely do these men speak of, and pass over, one of the greatest matters, and of the greatest concernment to mankind that ever was in the world ! Brethren, love and value your reli gion. Let us take part rather with Paul, who in the conclusion of his dis course about that corruption (which they after baptism deny to be a sin), we find to have been so infinitely pressed at the sense of it, that he cries out, * miserable man that I am ! who shall deliver me ? &c. And the misery he there intends and complains of, is the above-mentioned sinful sin, as that which all along from verse 14 in that chapter he had so bitterly complained of; and yet Paul had been baptized many years afore he writ this epistle. And if any say, he speaks in the person of an unregenerate man, we know that multitudes remain such after their being baptized. Fall down likewise let us here with David, who long after his circumcision (which our baptism succeeds) thus bewailed the corruption of his nature, and bitterly lament and humble ourselves for this sin, as we shall see that here he did, with an ecce, a behold, upon it : Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
And truly the greatest grounds I can find in Suarez or Bellarmine, or any of them, is, first, that the object of repentance properly is actus propriits, an act done by a man s self; and that in rigour repentance is only retractatio facti prateriti, the recalling with sorrow and grief a fact that is past, which must be supposed a man s own : pcenitet et facto torqueor ipse meo. Whereas (say they) neither of these two parts of original sin are committed or conspcculative" considerando) possit esse materia seu objectum alicujus odii pertinentis ad poenitentiam, &c. * Nihilominus non esse matcriam necessariam, neque practice loquendo moraliter utilem ad corrigendos et emendandos mores, qui sunt proprii fines virtutis PoenitentiaSuarcz ibidem. t Augustinus docet corripiendam esse in homine originem damnabilem ; non quia earn quisque sibi fecit, neque quia in ea natus est, aut earn habet, nisi forte culpabiliter gratiam regenerations distulerit, &c. ^Estius ibidlib. iv., Sent, distinct, vi. 16, 6, adfinem.
AN UXREGENEKATE MAN S GUILTINESS BEFORE GOD, [BOOK IX. tracted by a man s own will, and so come not under the case of repentance. And, secondly, that there is not, nor can be, any morsus conscientia, sting or sense of conscience for this sin, such as for our own actual sins. One of these so expresseth himself, Nemo in se reperit morsum comcientia propter hoc peccatum : No man finds in himself any sting of conscience for this sin. Ego nunquarn sensi, I never felt any, says he, &c.
As for refutation of these opinions, I shall say" little. David s practice, and what follows in the treatise itself, will be sufficient for this ; yet I shall premise here some few things thereto.
First, I would bring both papists and those others unto Acts ii. 37, 88, Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto
Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here we find those Christian converts newly stricken with the sense of sin, and as yet unbaptized ; and to the end they might be baptized by the apostles, are exhorted to repent of their sins : Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. Now, I would demand whether or no they were not herein exhorted to repent of every sort of sin that was to be forgiven them, and the forgiveness whereof was to be sealed up by baptism ? And so, whether they were not here commanded to repent in common of their original sin as well as of their actual, in order to that sealing up of forgive ness of one as well as of the other ?
And from thence my argument lies thus : That all those sins, the forgiveness of which baptism upon repentance was the seal, of all those sins (that is, indefinitely, of any sort or particular of them) they were to repent in order to that forgiveness. But these original sins (if sins either of them) were sins, whereof baptism upon repentance was the seal of their forgiveness, as well as of their own actual. Ergo, The proof hereof lies upon this, that these things are made of like extent by the apostle: 1, sins to be repented of in order to forgiveness, &c. ; 2, for giveness of those sins upon repentance ; 3, baptism sealing up that forgive ness on repentance. There is no sort of sin that was to be forgiven but is alike indefinitely exhorted to be repented of, and baptism to be administered to seal up the forgiveness thereof; for this exhortation is general, or at least indefinite, and reacheth to all sorts of sins that are to be forgiven. And who shall make the exception or difference, that some sins need not be repented of in order to forgiveness, but others must, since the apostle makes none ? In like manner when Christ, preaching the gospel, exhorted to repent and believe, surely his intendment was, that our repentance for sins should be as extensive as our faith for the forgiveness of them. If, therefore, we are to exercise acts of faith for the forgiveness of all or any, then acts of repent ance also. Who shall distinguish where God and Christ do not ?
If any say, It is not requisite that every sin that is to be forgiven should particularly be repented of, the answer is, True, if it be understood upon this ground, or with this caution, that a penitent cannot de facto know or recall every particular sin of his through weakness ; yet so as yet the duty lies upon all, or any, indefinitely, one as well as another, especially any one sort of sin as well as another (about which the question is), and so as still every one sin is capable of a true repentance as well as another ; so as it must not be said of any that he needs not repent of such or such, that yet are acknow ledged sins, and for which forgiveness is necessary.
And this argument from Acts ii. comes the more home unto the papists ; for, according to their doctrine, baptism is principally intended and ordained
CHAP. I.J IN RESPECT OF SIN AND PUNISHMENT. 329 for the forgiveness of original sin, and the taking of it away as a sin. So say they. And therefore say I, the apostle, according to the rule of adequation, must be supposed to exhort these men, now grown up to riper years, to the repentance of this sin, in order to their being baptized, above any other.
Nor will the instance of infants, that they are not bound to repent of this sin in order to forgiveness at baptism, and yet have it forgiven, obstruct this; for these converts were adulti, men grown up and come to knowledge. And this rule in Acts ii. was given principally for what concerned them, and such as they, viz. men of riper years when baptized ; and so such were and are obliged to repent of it.
If it be farther said, that however their original sin being upon baptism forgiven them, and that forgiveness sealed up thereby once for all, that there fore these men were not obliged any more to repent of that sin, being so sealed up and forgiven ; and therefore not we, seeing it was done away once for all when we were baptized infants ; The reply is, that their actual sins committed afore their repentance and baptism were then forgiven as well as their original, and the forgiveness of them sealed up as well as this of original ; and surely they will not affirm that these converts were not obliged nor needed any more at all to repent of their actual sins after that forgiveness at baptism ; especially if they look a verse or two back, and consider that crucifying of Christ was one of the sins they are there exhorted to repent of, and were pricked in their hearts in order unto forgiveness. And will they say they needed not to repent of that sin, because forgiven at baptism, whenas St Paul, that had that sin forgiven at his baptism, yet cries out bitterly, I was a persecutor and injurious, long after his baptism.
Secondly, A second answer is, that both others, and the papists, do in these assertions bring up the highest antinomianism, and proclaim themselves as much such as any are in the world ; for these assertions are founded upon this supposition, that if a sin be once forgiven by God, we need no more repent of it or lay it to heart. The papists doctrine holds all men in sus pense about the forgiveness of actual sins, but peremptorily teacheth that this original sin is forgiven for ever, and pretend to have the assurance thereof, when not of the forgiveness of the other, and from hence exact not a repent ance for this in persons baptized ; so that look wherein they judge an abso lute forgiveness to be, therein they are as perfect antinomians as any. And what reason of difference can be given why original sin, once forgiven, should never more be humbled for, but actual sins must ; and why the absolution of a priest in their penance should not absolve them from actual sins (pen ance being to them God s ordinance) as effectually as the other ordinance, baptism, doth from original ?
Besides, is not this unkind and disingenuous, whether in papists or whom soever, that this sin forgiven by God, and remembered by him no more, should therefore be forgotten by us ? Shall a man run away with the for giveness, and pass it over thus, so as not to concern himself about the sin forgiven any more ? Shall not this sin (if it be a sin, as they confess) abound in our sense and apprehensions, to the end that the grace of forgiveness may abound much more ? Rom. vi. Which grace (if this sin, according to the proportion of sin in it, be not laid to heart) is utterly lost, deeming it but, as we do, a common pardon of course, of which there would be forgiveness whether we repent or no. However, it should have a due regard from us when we repent of other sins, though pardoned, to humble ourselves for that also, it being proper unto us, that is, every one of us who are personally guilty of it, as if none other had been guilty of it with us. Assurnnce of
830 AN UNREGENERATE MAN*S GUILTINESS BEFORE GOD, [BOOK IX. forgiveness quits us not, nor dischargeth us of confessing and humbling our selves. We are to humble ourselves the more because pardoned: so Ezek. xvi. 63, That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God. And though here the pro phet mentions only what we have done, yet there is the same reason of what we are or have been, or of what may be counted sin, and for which God is pacified towards us too, as well as any other sin; there is every way the same reason for both. We are to put our mouths in the dust for ever for all sins for which God is pacified, especially when we feel the venom of a sin (as in this case it is), like a cup of poison drunk by us, still working in our bowels, and continuing so to do until death, which it brought into the world, fetcheth us out.?
These things I have cast rather into a preface, than to insert them into the body of the discourse itself (though there they might have had a fit place), because I aim at the benefit of the common sort of Christians, whom such a narrative of others opinions do often deter and divert from reading any farther.
I should likewise here answer those fore-mentioned grounds why they deny original sin to be a fit matter of repentance, which Bellarmme also mani festly aifirms, namely, 1, because repentance is properly only of an act done by a man s self; and, 2, because there is not, nor can be any morsus conscientia, sting or biting of conscience for this sin, especially for Adam s fact imputed (so say they). But because the answers to these are more proper ingredients into the very practice and exercise of our souls about it, I have remanded them to a due place in the discourse itself.