Page images
PDF
EPUB

nerate, that is altogether false. For the legal covenant required exact obedience in all its parts; but it is Gospel grace which helps our imperfect obedience, and delivers us from the curse of the law, as the Apostle evidently concludes in Rom. iii, 19, 20, 21, &c. And Bernard writes beautifully to the same effect:* -It did not escape the notice of the Giver of the precept, that the weight of the precept exceeded man's strength; but he judged it expedient that man should be reminded of his insufficiency in this very way, and know to what extent of righteousness he should aim with all his might. In commanding impossibilities, therefore, he did not render men prevaricators, but humble, that every mouth might be stopped, &c. Hugo [de St. Victor] makes the same remark in his questions upon the Epistle to the Romans (quæst. 173.) It is asked, Why did God forbid what could not be avoided? That he might humble the proud, enlighten the blind, &c And at the close of this explanation he adds these words, What then remains, except that man, not presuming any more upon himself, should flee to grace, and say, Lord, answer for me; for I am weak? God enjoins, therefore, not cruelly, but with great mercy, what cannot be done except by the great Mediator alone. So far Hugo.

Lastly, when Gregory contends, that concupiscence is not repugnant to the Divine law formally, but operatively; if he means as to the ability itself, we concede that it is in itself good, and created by God, neither does it formally differ from the law; but if he is speaking of its irregular motion, or of the corruption inherent in the concupiscible faculty, we say that this corruption is formally repugnant to the law of creation first implanted in Adam; we say also, that it is prohibited in the Decalogue, if not positively, yet by virtue of that allowed rule,―That which of itself inclines to evil is prohibited by the same law as the evil itself. In fine, those involuntary motions also flowing from this corrupt concupiscence, we say are positively and expressly prohibited by that commandment, Thou shalt not covet. Inordinate concupiscence therefore is truly sin, and formally contrary to the Divine law.

4. [Again they affirm that] The nature of original sin

In Cant. Serm. 50.

essentially and formally consists in the privation of original righteousness, not indeed taken absolutely, seeing that it subjected the body to the soul, the appetites to reason, and the mind to God; but taken particularly as having this end in view for man, viz., the subjection or conversion of his mind to God. Not that it is to be supposed, that that perfection is absolutely perfect in its kind, but of such kind, that by it all mortal sins can be avoided † for that perfection of subjection whereby Adam was able to serve God even in avoiding venial sins, was only accidental. Since therefore concupiscence remaining in the regenerate does not hinder their mind from being subject to God, so far as is required for avoiding mortal sins and preserving the Divine favour, it follows that this concupiscence has not the formal nature of original sin.

I answer :-This prolix argument has nothing solid in it; but everything in it is accommodated to Papistic errors: and yet in no one point established by any authority or argument. For, in the first place, the Jesuit's assumption, on his own authority, That the nature of original sin consists formally only and particularly in the privation of the subjection of the human mind to God, but not in the privation of the subjection of the body to the soul, or of the sensitive appetite to reason, is what we never will concede. For like as the rectitude, not of the mind alone, or of the will, but of all the other faculties, appertained to the integrity of original righteousness; so also we must refer not only the disordering of the mind or will, but the dražíav -- the disarranging and discomposure of the inferior faculties also, to the defect of original righteousness and of original sin itself. Moreover, what he adds, that That perfection of subjection whereby Adam was able to avoid even venial sins, was accidental, and that therefore the defect of this perfect subjection has not in it the formal nature of sin, is quite contrary to reason. For so essential to original righteousness was this perfection, that the Schoolmen have concluded, That man, who could (as the event proved) have sinned mortally, yet could not have sinned venially in a state of innocence; because there was implanted in him such an infallible strength of rule, that the

• Valent. De Peccat. Origin. cap. 12.

+ Ib. cap. 14.

inferior part should be always subject to the superior. Hence, what our opponents freely admit, that the regenerate may sin venially, plainly shews that there is in them some remains of original sin. Lastly, and what overturns the whole argument, that this evil of inordinate concupiscence does not cleave to the inferior part only of the soul, but to very mind and will; the mind and will therefore of the regenerate themselves are not perfectly subjected to God, and therefore not perfectly free from original sin.

And thus at length we have abundantly and satisfactorily replied to all, or at least to the chief reasons by which the Papists endeavour to prove, that there remains nothing in the regenerate which hath the proper nature of sin.

CHAPTER XI.

ANSWERS THE TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS WHICH THE PAPISTS ARE ACCUSTOMED TO ALLEGE.

POPISH writers are in the habit of bringing forward piles of testimonies from the Fathers, by means of which they endeavour to prove, that there is nothing remaining in the regenerate which has the nature of sin; we shall here, therefore, briefly meet these. We must, however, entirely pass by those which do not signify more than a plenary remission and free forgiveness of all our sins; for we willingly admit that all the regenerate and justified are absolved from all their sins. We shall discuss then those only which bear a shew of favouring the error of our opponents.

1. Clemens Alex. Pædag. Lib, 1, cap. 6 (p. 116 Pott.) says, And these chains how speedily are they loosened; by human faith, indeed, yet through Divine grace, that is to say, when sins are remitted by one sovereign balm, namely, bapWe therefore wash away all sins, and forthwith are no longer evil. This is the singular grace of the illumina

tism.

• Durand. Lib. 2. dist. 21. qu. 4.-Aquin. 1. 2. qu. 89. art. 3.

tion, that our manners are not the same as they were before we were washed. It appears then that sin is entirely taken away in our spiritual regeneration.

Clemens is shewing that the nations through ignorance and the darkness of the mind, had been as it were tied and bound in sin; and he says that these bonds are loosened when the minds of men are illuminated by Evangelic faith, and anointed by Divine grace. And because baptism was the seal, as it were, of the Christian faith, and the vehicle of Divine grace, he affirms that therefore by it, as it were by a sovereign balm, the eyes of the mind are illuminated and sins washed away. All this we freely grant to holy baptism. But Clemens adds, that not only are all sins washed away, which may be understood of remission; but that we forthwith cease to be evil, which seems to intimate that whatever hath the nature of sin is entirely done away. To this I answer, that Clemens meant nothing more, than that true Christians after baptism enter upon a new course of life, and put off their former wickedness: but this can and ought to be done by all into whom sanctifying grace is infused, though sin be not entirely extirpated. That this is the meaning of Clemens he himself shews, when he soon after adds, that the manners of the baptised are not the same as they were before. With Clemens therefore, the phrase they are no longer evil, means only that they have renounced their evil habits; which all the regenerate do. But if the Papists will adhere rigidly to the very words, they must oppose both Christ and his decrees: For Christ taught that evil was still inherent even in the Apostles themselves, though now washed and sanctified by the word of faith, through the condition of their common origin, saying, (Matt. vii. 11.) If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts, &c., as Augustine writes, contra Julianum, lib. 2. Besides, the Papists themselves confess, that after Baptism something, which may be truly and properly called evil, remains in the regenerate. Hence the phrase, we are no more evil, no otherwise contradicts our opinion than that of our opponents; unless it be explained, We are not, as we were before, wholly and designedly evil, but renewed and changed by the Holy Spirit.

2. Cyprian, Epist. lib. 2, ep. 2 [ad Donatum] writes, that the regenerate, in baptism, suddenly and speedily put

L

off, what either being original has grown hard upon them, in the soil of natural matter; or having been practised for a long period, has become (as it were) engrafted in them: He says also, that in baptism, they put off what they had before been, and are changed as to the inner man, both in mind and disposition, the structure of the body remaining the He seems therefore to have thought that nothing remained in the regenerate which has the nature either of original or actual sin.-I anwer :—

same.

It is one thing to put off the old man with his corrupt lusts and passions, to change the evil mind and disposition; another thing to be entirely freed from all sin. Cyprian affirms that the former takes place in baptism, and we by no means deny it. For they are rightly said to have put off the old man and his perverse disposition, who have put on Christ and have begun to be renewed by the Spirit of holiness. But that these regenerate persons were entirely void of sin, Cyprian has neither ever said nor thought; nay he has distinctly taught the contrary; namely, that there is no one altogether free from pollution and sin.*

3. Basil, Exhort. ad Baptism.-Baptism is the remission of captives and of debt, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the procurement of the celestial kingdom, the grace of adoption; and elsewhere (on Psal. xxix.) Basil likewise calls baptism the flood; because like the flood it purges and carries away the defilement of our souls. Therefore nothing of sin cleaves to the regenerate.

We do not grudge all these and many more encomiums, if you will, to holy baptism; but we deny that an inference can be deduced from them, that baptised persons are void of all sin. For the death of sin does not prove its eradication; so neither does regeneration, nor adoption, nor the drowning of sin, nor the destination to the kingdom of heaven, since all these things are most truly attributed to those, who yet have in them indwelling sin, though mortified and subdued to the dominion of the Spirit. Parisiensis† well observes, All sin is considered dead which has not extinguished the life of grace. Wherefore it is considered dead

when it does not rule.

• Ad Quirinum,-Testimonicorum lib. iii. p. 293. Edit. Paris, 1836. + Paris. de Legibus cap. 28. pag. 95.

« PreviousContinue »