infinitis miscuerit quæstionibus;" "God made man upright, and he hath made himself more deformed than he is, by mingling with innumerable questions."

23. I think I have said enough to vindicate my sentence from novelty, and though that also be sufficient to quit me from singularity, yet I have something more to add as to that particular, and that is, that it is very hard for a man to be singular in this article, if he would. For first, in the primitive church, when Valentinus and Marcion, Tatianus, Julius Cassianus, and the Encratites, condemned marriage upon this account, because 'it produces that only which is impure,' many good men and right believers, did, to justify marriages, undervalue the matter of original sin; this begat new questions in the manner of speaking, and at last, real differences were entertained, and the Pelagian heresy grew up upon this stock. But they changed their propositions so often, that it was hard to tell what was the heresy: but the first draught of it was so rude, so confused, and so unreasonable, that when any of the followers of it spake more warily, and more learnedly, yet by this time, the name Pelagian was of so ill a sound, that they would not be believed if they spake well, nor trusted in their very recantations, nor understood in their explications, but cried out against in all things, right or wrong and in the fierce prosecution of this, St. Austin and his followers, Fulgentius, Prosper, and others, did excedere in dogmate, et pati aliquid humanum.' St. Austin called them all Pelagians who were of the middle opinion concerning infants; and yet many catholics, both before and since his time, do profess it. The Augustan confession calls them Pelagians, who say, that concupiscence is only the effect of Adam's sin, and yet all the Roman churches say it confidently; and every man that is angry in this question, calls his enemy Pelagian, if he be not a Stoic, or a Manichee, a Valentinian, or an Encratite, But the Pelagians say so many things in their controversy, that like them that talk much, they must needs say some things well, though very many things amiss: but if every thing which was said against St. Austin in these controversies, be Pelagianism, then all antiquity were Pelagians and himself besides; for he, before his disputes in these questions, said much against what he said after, as every learned man knows. But yet it is certain, that even

after the Pelagian heresy was conquered, there were many good men, who, because they from every part take the good and leave the poison, were called Pelagians by them that were angry at them for being of another opinion in some of their questions. Cassian was a good and holy man, and became the great rule of Monastines, yet because he spake reason in his exhortations to piety; and justified God, and blamed man, he is called Pelagian: and the epistle ad Demetriadem,' and the Little Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles,' were read and commended highly by all men, so long as they were supposed to be St. Jerome's; but when some fancied that Faustus was the author, they suspect the writings for the man's sake; and however St. Austin was triumphant in the main article against those heretics, and there was great reason he should, yet that he took in too much, and confuted more than he should, appears in this, that though the world followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianism, yet the world left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianism. And therefore, when the archbishop Bradwardin wrote his books de Causa Dei,' against the liberty of will, and for the fiercer way of absolute decrees; he complains in his preface, that 'the whole world was against him, and gone after Pelagius in causa liberi arbitrii.' Not that they really were made so, but that it is a usual thing to affright men from their reasons by names and words, and to confute an argument by slandering him that uses it.

Now this is it that I and all men else ought to be troubled at, if my doctrine be accused of singularity, I cannot acquit myself of the charge, but by running into a greater. For if I say, that one proposition is taught by all the Roman schools, and therefore I am not singular in it; they reply, It is true, but then it is popery which you defend. If I tell, that the Lutherans defend another part of it, then the Calvinists hate it, therefore because their enemies avow it; either it is popery, or Pelagianism; you are an Arminian, or a Socinian. And either you must say that which nobody says, and then you are singular; or if you do say as others say, you shall feel the reproach of that party that you own, which is also disowned by all but itself.

That therefore which I shall choose to say, is this, that the doctrine of original sin, as I explicate it, is wholly against

the Pelagians, for they wholly deny original sin, affirming, that Adam did us no hurt by his sin, except only by his example. These men are also followed by the Anabaptists, who say, that death is so natural, that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual. The Albigenses were of the same opinion. The Socinians affirm, that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the world, but that it no way relates to us, not so much as by imputation. But I having shewed in what sense. Adam's sin is imputed to us, am so far, either from agreeing with any of these, or from being singular, that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary, even of Bellarmine himself", that it is the doctrine of the church; and he laboriously endeavours to prove, that original sin is merely ours by imputation. Add to this, that he also affirms, that when Zuinglius says that original sin is not properly a sin, but metonymically,' that is, the effect of one sin, and the cause of many,' that in so saying he agrees with the catholics. Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse, it is plain that I am not alone, but more are with me than against me. Now though he is pleased afterward to contradict himself, and say it is veri nominis peccatum,' yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction, or tell how the same thing should be really a sin, and yet be so but by a figure only,→how it should be properly a sin, and yet only metonymically, -and how it should be the effect of sin, and yet that sin whereof it is an effect, I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition, and leave Bellarmine and his catholics to themselves.

25. And indeed they that say original sin is any thing really, any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes, that is, effecting in us certain evils, which dispose to worse, they are, according to the nature of error, infinitely divided, and agree in nothing but in this, that none of them can prove what they say. Anselme Buonaventure, Gabriel, and others, say, that original sin is nothing but a want of original righteousness.' Others say, that they say something oftruth, but not enough; for a privation can never be a po

P Tom. 4. 1. 5. c. 17. de Amiss. Gratiæ et.

9 Ibid. c. 8. sect. unum hoc et ex his tribus.

sitive sin, and if it be not positive, it cannot be inherent:' and therefore that it is necessary that they add "indignitatem habendi:" "a certain unworthiness to have it" being in every man, that is the sin. But then if it be asked, What makes them unworthy, if it be not the want of original righteousness,—and that then they are not two things but one, seemingly, and none really;-they are not yet agreed upon an answer. Aquinas and his scholars say, original sin is a certain spot upon the soul.' Melancthon, considering that concupiscence, or the faculty of desiring, or the tendency to an object, could not be a sin, fancied original sin to be an actual depraved desire.'-Illyricus says, it is the substantial image of the devil.' Scotus and Durandus say, it is nothing but a mere guilt,' that is, an obligation passed upon us, to suffer the evil effects of it: which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the school, and differs not at all, or scarce discernibly, from that of Albertus Pighius, and Catharinus, who say that original sin is nothing, but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us.' But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of human nature without relation to the sin of Adam, but a vileness that is in us;' the church of Rome of late says, that, besides the want of original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God, it is a guiltiness and a spot; but it is nothing of concupiscence, that being the effect of it only.'-But the protestants of Mr. Calvin's persuasion affirm, that' concupiscence is the main of it, and is a sin before and after baptism;' but amongst all this infinite uncertainty, the church of England speaks moderate words, apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion.

26. Thus every one talks of original sin, and agree that there is such a thing, but what it is, they agree not: and therefore in such infinite variety, he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy; for my own part, now that I have shewn what the doctrine of the purest ages was, what uncertainty there is of late in the question, what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm, and that in the contrary particulars men cannot agree, I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the article; no

worse men than Zuinglius, Stapulensis, the great Erasmus, and the incomparable Hugo Grotius, who also says there ́are “multi in Gallia, qui eandem sententiam magnis sane argumentis tuentur," " many in France, which with great argument defend the same sentence;" that is, who explicate the article entirely as I do; and as St. Chrysostom and Theodoret did of old, in compliance with those holy fathers that went before them: with whom although I do not desire to err, yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises, and an amulet against the names of Arminian, Socinian, Pelagian, and I cannot tell what monsters of appellatives; but these are but boys' tricks, and arguments of women; I expect from all that are wiser, to examine whether this opinion does not, or whether the contrary does better, explicate the truth, with greater reason, and to better purposes of piety; let it be examined which best glorifies God, and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his goodness; which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living, and which is more apt to patronize carelessness and sin: these are the measures of wise and good men ; the other are the measures of fairs and markets; where fancy and noise do govern.

SECTION VI.

An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original Sin; according to Scripture and Reason. 27. AFTER all this, it is pretended and talked of, that my doctrine of original sin is against the ninth article of the church of England; and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective. Now although this be nothing to the truth or falsehood of my doctrine, yet it is much concerning the reputation of it. Concerning which, I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason, as I am highly content that they do so very much value her authority. But then to acquit myself and my doctrine from being contrary to the article, all that I can do is to expound the article, and make it appear, that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction, but also that it is rea

Lib. de Bapt. tract. 3. in cap. 5. hom.