THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER'S LETTER ΤΟ DR. TAYLOR: WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE PARTICULARS THERE GIVEN IN CHARGE. WORTHY SIR, LET me request you to weigh that of St. Paul, Ephes. ii. 5. which are urged by some ancients and to remember, how often he calls concupiscence sin; whereby it is urged, that although baptism take away the guilt, as concretively redounding to the person,-yet the simple abstracted guilt, as to the nature, remains: for sacraments are administered to persons, not to natures. confess, I find not the fathers so fully and plainly speaking of original sin, till Pelagius had puddled the stream: but, after this, you may find St. Jerome saying, "In Paradiso, omnes prævaricati sunt in Adamo."-And St. Ambrose," Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam, quasi in massa; ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex eo sumus omnes;" and St. Gregory f," Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest, qui in mundum cum culpâ venit."-But St. Austin is so frequent, so full and clear, in his assertions, that his words and reasons will require your most judicious examinations, and more strict weighing of them; he saith, "Scimus, secundùm Adam, nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere; nec liberamur à supplicio mortis æternæ, nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo "."" Peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertransiit, etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit, sed pertransiit; "and"Ubiste invenit? venundatum sub peccato, trahentem peccatum primi hominis, habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium."-" Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato, qui proprium habere non potuit, conficitur, ut illud traxerit alienum; de quo Apostolus,' Per unum d In Hos. e Rom. i. 5. h Id. de Verb. Apost. ser. 4. f 39 Hom. in Ezek. hominem peccatum intravit in mundum;' quod qui negat, negat profectò nos esse mortales; quoniam mors est pœna peccati, sequitur, necesse est, pœna peccatum."-Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis, quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat, ab origine ducta, communis contagio1.". "Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est, quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis. Quid potest, aut potuit nasci ex servo, nisi servus? ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est, ita et omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccatim.' "Falluntur ergo omnino, qui dicunt mortem solam, non et peccatum transiisse in genus humanum. Prosperus respondet ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum; omnes homines prævaricationis reos, et damnationi obnoxios nasci periturosque, nisi in Christo renascamur, asserimus"."-" Secundum fidem catholicam tenendum est, quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros, propter quod etiam pueri, mox nati, deferuntur ad baptismum, ab interiore culpâ abluendi. Contrarium est hæresis Pelag., unde peccatum, quod sic à primo parente derivatur, dicitur originale; sicut peccatum, quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis, dicitur actuale."-" Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis persona: ita peccatum originale tribuitur ratione naturæ; corpus infectum traducitur, quia persona Adæ infecit naturam, et natura infecit personam. Anima enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam, quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates P." "Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis, in anima fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse, quo vinum acescit.” : If you take into consideration the covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity, it may conduce to the satisfaction of those, who urge it for a proof of original sin. Now that the work may prosper under your hands, to the manifestation of God's glory, the edification of the church, and the satisfaction of all good Christians, is the hearty prayer of, Your Fellow-servant in our most k Id. de Prædestin. et Grat. c. 2. JO.ROFFENS. 1 Id. Enchir. c. 9. 29. m Id de Peccator. Mer. et Remiss. lib. 1. c. 3. p Bonavent. in 1.\sent. dist. 31. n Rom. v. o Tho. 12. q. 8. 4 Lombar. 2. sent. dist. 31. MY LORD, I PERCEIVE that you have a great charity to every one of the sons of the church, that your Lordship refuses not to solicit their objections, and to take care that every man be answered, that can make objections against my doctrine; but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love; so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandment, that can be relative to so excellent a principle. I am indeed sorry, your Lordship is thus haunted with objections about the question of original sin; but because you are pleased to hand them to me, I cannot think them so inconsiderable, as, in themselves, they seem; for what your Lordship thinks worthy the reporting from others, I must think are fit to be answered and returned by me. In your Lordship's of November 10, these things I am to reply to: "Let me request you to weigh that of St. Paul, Ephes. ii. 5.”—The words are these, Even when we were dead in sins, (God) hath quickened us together with Christ;' which words I do not at all suppose relate to the matter of original sin, but to the state of heathen sins, habitual idolatries and impurities; in which the world was dead before the great reformation by Christ. And I do not know any expositor of note, that suspects any other sense of it; and the second verse of that chapter makes it so certain and plain, that it is too visible to insist upon it longer. But your Lordship adds further; And to remember how often he calls concupiscence sin."-I know St. Paul reckons concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh, and consequently such as excludes from heaven; evil concupiscence';' concupiscence with something superadded, but certainly that is nothing that is natural; for God made nothing that is evil, and whatsoever is natural and necessary, cannot be mortified; but this may and must, and the Apostle calls upon us to do it; but that this is a superinducing, and an actual or habitual lusting, appears by the following words, in which ye also walked r Col. iii. 5. sometimes when ye lived in them,' such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins, of which the Apostle speaks: "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence," that is, so great a state of evil, such strong inclinations and desires to sin, that I grew as captive under it; it introduced a necessity, like those in St. Peter, who had eyes μɛotoùs μolXaλídos, full of an adulteress :' the women had possessed their eyes, and therefore they were ἀκατάπαυστοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 'they could not cease from sin:' because having wãoav έTI0vuíav, all concupiscence,' that is, the very spirit of sinful desires, they could relish nothing but the productions of sin,they could fancy nothing but coloquintida and toadstools of the earth. Once more I find St. Paul speaking of concupiscence: "Let every man know to possess his vessel in holiness and honour; not in the lust of concupiscence, as do the Gentiles which know not God "." In the lust of concupiscence,' that is plainly, in lustfulness and impurity; for it is a Hebraism, where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon: as lutum cœni;' 'pluvia imbris;' so the gall of bitterness,' and the iniquity of sins;' robur virium;' the blackness of darkness,' that is, oкóтoç Erepov, the outer darkness,' or the greatest darkness: so here the lust of concupiscence,' that is, the vilest and basest of it. I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sense. But the like is to be said of the word lust,' which the Apostle often uses, for the habits produced' or 'the pregnant desires,' but never for the natural principle and affection, when he speaks of sin : But your Lordship is pleased to add a subtilty in pursuance of your former advices and notices, which, I confess, I shall never understand. "Although baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person, yet the simple abstracted guilt, as to the nature, remains; for sacraments are administered to persons, not to natures:"-This I suppose, those persons, from whom your Lordship reports it, intended as an answer to a secret objection. For if concupiscence be a sin, and yet remains after baptism, then what good does baptism effect? But if it be no sin after, then it is no sin before. To this it • Col. iii. 7. tRom. vii. 8. 1 Thess. iv. 5. is answered as you see person, and of nature. there is a double guilt; a guilt of That is taken away, this is not for sacraments are given to persons, not to natures. But, first, where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture, or in the prime antiquity, or in any moral philosopher? There is no human nature but what is in the persons of men; and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these, or rather consider a person in a double capacity, in his personal and in his natural, that is, if I am to speak sense, a person may be considered in that, which is proper to him, and in that, which is common to him and others; yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events. I will put it to the trial. This guilt, that is in nature, what is it? Is it the same thing, that was in the person? that is, is it an obligation to punishment? If it be not, I know not the meaning of the word; and therefore I have nothing to do with it. If it be, then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature, after it is taken from the person, then, if this concupiscence deserve damnation, this nature shall be damned,. though the person be saved. Let the objectors, my Lord, choose which they will. If it does not deserve damnation, why do they say it does? If it does, then the guilty may suffer what they deserve, but the innocent or the absolved must not; the person then being acquitted, and the nature not acquitted, the nature shall be damned and the person be saved. But if it be said, That the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes, but not to all; then I reply, So it does in the person; for it is in the person after baptism, so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin, and a principle of trouble; and if it be no otherwise in the nature, then this distinction is to no purpose; if it be otherwise in the nature, then it brings damnation to it, when it brings none to the man, and then the former argument must return. But whether it prevail or no, yet I cannot but note, that what is here affirmed is expressly against the words commonly attributed to St. Cyprian,' de Ablutione Pedum;' "Sic abluit, quos parentalis labes infecerat, ut nec actualis nec originalis macula, post ablutionem illam, ulla sui vestigia derelinquat." How |