"irasci Deo, desperare gratiam, habere fiduciam rerum "præsentium, &c. Hos morbos, qui maxime adver"santur legi Dei, non animadvertunt Scholastici. Imo "tribuunt interim humanæ naturæ integras vires ad di"ligendum Deum super omnia, ad facienda præcepta "Dei, quoad substantiam actuum. Nec vident se pug"nantia dicere. Nam propriis viribus posse diligere "Deum super omnia, facere præcepta Dei, quid aliud "est quam habere justitiam originis? Quod si has tantas "vires habet humana natura, ut per sese possit diligere "Deum super omnia, ut confidenter affirmant Scholas"tici, quid est peccatum originis? Quorsum autem 66 opus erit gratia Christi, si nos possumus fieri justi propria justitia? Quorsum opus erit Spiritu Sancto, "si vires humanæ per sese possunt Deum super omnia "diligere, et præcepta Dei facere? Leviores morbos in "natura hominis agnoscunt, graviores morbos non ag"noscunt, de quibus tamen ubique admonet nos Scrip"tura, et Prophetæ perpetuo conqueruntur, videlicet "de carnali securitate, de contemptu Dei, de odio Dei, "et similibus vitiis nobiscum natis. Sed postquam ad"miscuerunt Scholastici doctrinæ Christianæ philosophiam de perfectione naturæ, et plusquam satis erat li"bero arbitrio et actibus elicitis tribuerunt, et homines philosophica seu civili justitia (quam et nos fatemur ❝rationi subjectam esse, et aliquo modo in potestate "nostra esse) justificari coram Deo docuerunt, non po"tuerunt videre interiorem immunditiam naturæ hominum. Neque enim potest judicari, nisi ex verbo Dei, "quod Scholastici in suis disputationibus non sæpe

66

66

"tractant.

"Illæ fuerunt causæ, cur in descriptione peccati origi"nis et concupiscentiæ mentionem fecimus, et detraximus "naturalibus viribus hominis timorem et fiduciam erga "Deum." p. 2. apud Cœlest.

Page 67, note (11).

A sect of the Anabaptists held, with the ancient Pelagians, that Original Sin consists not in any inherent depravity, but solely in the imitation of Adam. In the minds however of the Lutherans the Scholastical palliation of this doctrine was little better than the Anabaptistical abnegation of it. Hence, principally against the Papists, is the attack made in every part of the definition adopted by our Reformers. In the Article indeed of 1552, after the words, "ut fabulantur Pelagiani," occurred the following, " et hodie Anabaptista repetunt:" but these seem to have been introduced merely for the purpose of less openly declaring the object of assault; and were consequently omitted in 1562, when disguise was less necessary, or less regarded. That the Restorers of our Church under Elizabeth were not so scrupulous in their censures of Romish error, as the Founders of it in the preceding reign, plainly appears from their insertion of a strong and highly offensive epithet in our 31st Article. For there the sacrifices of the Mass, which were denominated by their predecessors simply "figmenta," they characterized as "blasphema figmenta," not hesitating to call that, which was universally esteemed the most sacred, and which certainly was the most lucrative, doctrine of Popery, blasphemous.

66

Besides the obvious proof of the intention in this respect, which the terms of the definition throughout themselves furnish, the expressions at the commencement of it, "ex Adamo naturaliter propagati," demonstrate, that the opinions of the Papists, rather than of the Anabaptists, were kept in view; for these expressions were directly and solely levelled against what was usually phrased, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, admitting only such a conception in him, who was not naturally but supernaturally generated. "De"clarat tamen hæc ipsa sancta Synodus," said the

Council of Trent, in a decree upon Original Sin, anno 1546, "non esse suæ intentionis comprehendere in hoc "decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et im"maculatam Virginem Mariam."

Page 69, note (12).

Notwithstanding the nominal concessions of the Church of Rome upon this point, we find the Council of Trent thus dealing out its indiscriminate anathemas. "Si quis per Jesu Christi Domini nostri gratiam, quæ "in baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati re"mitti negat, aut etiam asserit non tolli totum id, quod "veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud "dicit tantum radi aut non imputari, anathema sit. "Manere autem in baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomi"tem hæc sancta Synodus fatetur et sentit. . . . . Hanc "concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum

66

appellat, sancta Synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholi"cam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod "vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat. Si quis autem ❝contrarium senserit, anathema sit." Sessio quinta, 1546. In the Article under review, the expressions, "Manet tamen in renatis hæc naturæ depravatio," and likewise, "Peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concu"piscentiam fatetur Apostolus," seem manifestly opposed to the preceding passages, in which, as the Protestants at the time observed, the Council had not only directly contradicted, but absolutely anathematized the Apostle himself. Why our Reformers substituted the word "depravatio," for that of "concupiscentia," or "fomes," previously used by the Council, will appear, if we turn to the Saxon Confession, (written in 1551.) art. de Peccato Originis, where the subsequent remark occurs: "Vitandæ sunt in Ecclesia ambiguitates. Ideo expresse nominamus hæc mala depravationem, quæ sæpe "ab antiquis scriptoribus nominatur mala concupiscentia.

66

"Discernimus autem appetitiones in natura conditas à "confusione ordinis, quæ post lapsum accessit, sicut "Jerem. xvii. dicitur, Pravum est cor hominis; et Pau"lus inquit, Sensus carnis inimicitia est adversus Deum. "Hanc malam concupiscentiam dicimus esse peccatum." I have already observed, that the fomes of the Schools was defined to be a quality void of sin.

When likewise they stated concupiscence to have in itself the nature of sin," peccati tamen in sese rationem "habere concupiscentiam," by leaving out the strong epithets," veram et propriam," alluded to by the Council of Trent, as generally adopted by the Lutherans, is it not evident, that they intended, on this occasion, by no means to go to the full extent of the Lutheran definition, and yet to distinguish their own position from that of the Papists? Certain it is, that the propriety or impropriety of introducing those terms must have been in their contemplation, and that they did not accidentally overlook, but designedly omitted them. Wherefore, when the Assembly of Divines, (see note 1. Serm. I.) not for Lutheran but Calvinistical purposes, amended this Article, by changing the words," hath of itself the nature of sin," into "is truly and properly sin," they indisputably attempted that, which had been previously considered and rejected by our Reformers.

In addition to these remarks, it may be proper also briefly to illustrate what I have advanced as the doctrine of our Article upon the responsibility of Original Sin, by comparing it with what had been before established by the Lutherans. The Augsburg Confession upon the point is thus expressed: "Hic morbus seu ❝ vitium originis vere sic peccatum, damnans et afferens 66 nunc quoque æternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum :" the Loci Theologici of Melancthon thus: "Propter quam cor

66

"ruptionem nati sunt rei et filii iræ, id est, damnati a "Deo, nisi fuerit facta remissio:" and the Saxon Confession, almost in the same terms: "Nascentes reos "iræ Dei, et dignos æterna damnatione, nisi fiat remissio "propter Mediatorem." With these definitions in their eye, certainly with the two former, and most probably with the latter, our own Reformers chose a different and more moderate turn of expression, simply observing, that in every person born into this world Original Sin deserves God's wrath and damnation: "in "unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem "meretur. Here nothing more is stated, than the offensiveness of the quality itself to a just and holy God, which is said to be deserving of divine condemnation in every man born into this world, but not, as seems to be the sense of the Lutheran form, to expose him to it personally.

But, besides the manifest deviations alluded to, we perceive likewise the omission of the adjective "æter"na," connected in one Confession with the substantive "mors," in the other with "damnatio;" an omission, we may be assured, neither lightly nor inadvertently made. The meaning of damnatio in the Latin language, when unassociated with æterna, it is unnecessary to point out; and that the correspondent expression, damnation, in the English, under a similar circumstance, admitted a similar construction, at the period of the Reformation, will appear from the following use of it by Bishop Hooper, in his Sermons upon Jonah: "Of these words should those, that be damned "by the Magistrates, acknowledge, that it is not the "magistrate that putteth them to execution, but God, "whose ministers they be." Serm. 4.

Page 70, note (13).

"Hæc itaque duo distincte observanda, nempe quod "sic omnibus naturæ nostræ partibus vitiati, perversique,