CREED was at first made to be used as a confession of such as were to be baptized, declaring their faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in whose name baptism was administered; they propounded unto them the holy Church, into which by baptism they were to be admitted, and the forgiveness of sins, which by the same baptism was to be obtained; and therefore in some Creeds it was particularly expressed, I believe one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.*

Looking thus upon this Article, with this relation, we find the sense of it must be this, that we believe forgiveness of sins is to be obtained in the Church of Christ. For the explication whereof it will be necessary, first, to declare what is the nature of remission of sins, in what that action doth consist; secondly, to shew how so great a privilege is propounded in the Church, and how it may be procured by the members of the Church. That we may understand the notion of forgiveness of sins, three considerations are required; first, What is the nature of sin, which is to be forgiven; secondly, What is the guilt or obligation of sin, which wanteth forgiveness; thirdly, What is the remission itself, or the loosing of that obligation. As the power of sin is revealed only in the Scriptures, so the nature of it is best understood from thence. And though the writings of the apostles give us few definitions, yet we may find even in them a proper definition of sin. "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law," saith St. John, and then rendereth this reason of that universal assertion, "for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John iii. 4.) Which is an argument drawn from the definition of sin; for he saith not, 'every sin is the transgression of the law,' which had been necessary, if he had spoken by way of proposition only, to have proved the universality of his assertion, but produceth it indefinitely, "sin is the transgression of the law," which is sufficient, speaking it by way of definition.+ And it is elsewhere most evident that every sin is something prohibited by some law, and deviating from the same. For the apostle affirming, that "the law worketh wrath," that is, a punishment from God, giveth this as a reason or proof of his affirmation; corum se potissimum Christianos, et suam esse catholicam ecclesiam putant; sciendum est, illam esse veram, in qua est religio, confessio, et pœnitentia, quæ peccata et vulnera, quibus est subjecta imbecillitas carnis, salubriter curat.' Lactant. de ver. Sap. 1. iv. c. 30.

These are the words of the Constantinopolitan Creed: Ομολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Before which Epiphanius in his lesser Creed: Ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁpaprav §. 120. in the larger: I στεύομεν εἰς μίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολινὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς βάπτισμα με

Tavolaç. in Ancorato, §. 121. St. Cyril puts both these together: Eis v BáTтioμa peravoías eis apɛow dμapri@v. Catech. xviii. Credo unum baptismum in remissionem omnium peccatorum.' Pelegrinus Laureac. Episc. Credimus unum baptisma in remissionem omnium peccatorum in secula seculorum.' Symbolum Ethiopicum.

+ The manner of the apostle's speech is also to be observed, having an article prefixed both to the subject and the predicate; as if thereby be would make the proposition converti ble, as all definitions ought to be. Η ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.

"for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom. iv. 15.) The Law of God is the rule of the actions of men, and any aberration from that rule is sin :* the Law of God is pure, and whatsoever is contrary to that Law is impure. Whatsoever therefore is done by man, or is in man, having any contrariety or opposition to the Law of God, is sin. Every action, every word, every thought, against the Law, is a sin of commission, as it is terminated to an object dissonant from, and contrary to, the prohibition of the Law, or a negative precept. Every omission of a duty required of us is a sin, as being contrary to the commanding part of the Law, or an affirmative precept. Every evil habit contracted in the soul of man by the actions committed against the Law of God, is a sin constituting a man truly a sinner, even then when he actually sinneth not. Any corruption and inclination in the soul, to do that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that which God commandeth, howsoever such corruption and evil inclination came into the soul, whether by an act of his own will, or by an act of the will of another, is a sin, as being something dissonant and repugnant to the Law of God. And this I conceive sufficient to declare the nature of sin.

The second particular to be considered is the obligation of sin, which must be presupposed to the solution or remission of it. Now every sin doth cause a guilt, and every sinner, by being so, becomes a guilty person; which guilt consisteth in a debt or obligation to suffer a punishment proportionable to the iniquity of the sin. It is the nature of laws in general to be attended with these two, punishments and rewards; the one propounded for the observation of them, the other threatened upon the deviation from them. And although there were no threats or penal denunciations accompanying the laws of God, yet the transgression of them would nevertheless make the person transgressing worthy of, and liable unto, whatsoever punishment can in justice be inflicted for that sin committed. Sins of commission pass away in the acting or performing of them; so that he which acteth against a negative precept, after the act is passed, cannot properly be said to sin. Sins of omission, when the time is passed in which the affirmative precept did oblige unto performance, pass away, so that he which did then omit his duty when it was required, and in omitting sinned, after that time cannot be truly said to sin.

Quid est peccatum nisi præva- non esse, sed esse aversionem a Dei ricatio legis divinæ, et coelestium in- præceptis?' Idem, de Fide contra Maobedientia præceptorum? S. Ambros. nich. c. 10. Neque negandum est de Paradiso, c. 8. Peccatum est hoc Deum jubere, ita nos in facienda factum vel dictum vel concupitum justitia esse debere perfectos, ut nulaliquid contra æternam legem.' S. lum habeamus omnino peccatum: August. contra Faustum, 1. xxii. c. nam neque peccatum erit, si quid erit,

27.

'Quid verum est, nisi et Domi- si non divinitus jubeatur ut non sit." num dare præcepta, et animas liberæ Idem, de Pec. Meritis, et Rem, lib. ii, esse voluntatis, et malum naturam c. 16.

But though the sin itself do pass away together with the time in which it was committed, yet the guilt thereof doth never pass which by committing was contracted. He which but once committeth adultery, at that one time sinneth, and at no time after can be said to commit that sin; but the guilt of that sin remaineth on him still, and he may be for ever said to be guilty of adultery, because he is for ever subject to the wrath of God, and obliged to suffer the punishment due unto adultery.*

This debt or obligation to punishment is not only necessarily resulting from the nature of sin, as it is a breach of the Law, nor only generally delivered in the Scriptures revealing the wrath of God unto all unrighteousness, but it is yet more particularly represented in the world, which teacheth us, if we do ill, how "sin lieth at the door." (Gen. iv. 7.): Our blessed Saviour thus taught his disciples, 'Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be liable (obnoxious, or bound over) to hell-fire.' (Matt. v. 22.)† So saith

* This obligation unto punishment, manent, si præterita sunt, nisi quia remaining after the act of sin, is that præterierunt actu, manent reatu?" S. peccati reatus of which the schools, August. de Nupt. et Concup. l. i. c. 26. and before them the fathers spake. Ego de concupiscentia dixi, quæ est The nature of this reatus is excellently in membris repugnans legi mentis, declared by St. Augustin, delivering quamvis reatus ejus in omnium pecthe distinction between actual and catorum remissione transierit ; sicut e original sin: In eis qui regeneran- contrario sacrificium idolis factum, tur in Christo, cum remissionem ac- si deinceps non fiat, præteriit actu, cipiunt prorsus omnium peccatorum, sed manet reatu, nisi per indulgenutique necesse est, ut reatus etiam hu- tiam remittatur. Quiddam enim tale jus licet adhuc manentis concupiscen- est sacrificare idolis, ut opus ipsum tiæ remittatur, ut in peccatum non cum fit prætereat, eodemque præterimputetur. Nam sicut peccatorum, ito reatus ejus maneat venia resolquæ manere non possunt, quoniam vendus.' Idem, cont. Julian. 1. vi. c. cum fiunt prætereunt, reatus tamen 19. §. 60. manet, et nisi remittatur, in æternum manebit; sic illius concupiscentiæ, quando remittitur, reatus aufertur. Hoc est enim non habere peccatum, reum non esse peccati. Nam si quisquam, verbi gratia, fecerit adulterium, etiamsi nunquam deinceps faciat, reus est adulterii, donec reatus ipsius indulgentia remittatur. Habet ergo peccatum, quamvis illud quod admisit jam non sit, quia cum tempore quo factum est praeteriit. Nam si a peccando desistere, hoc esset non habere peccatum, sufficeret ut hoc nos moneret Scriptura; Fili, peccasti? non adjicias iterum: Non autem sufficit, sed addidit, et de pristinis deprecare, ut tibi remittantur. Manent ergo, nisi remittantur. Sed quomodo

† Ενοχος ἔσται is the word used here, which is translated, shall be in danger, but is of a fuller and more pressing sense, as one which is a debtor, subject, and obliged to endure it. Hesych. "EvoXOS, XPEWσTNS, ὑπεύθυνος, ὑποκείμενος. Suid. Ενοχος, vairios. Where, by the way, is to be observed a great mistake in the Lexicon of Phavorinus, whose words are these; Ἔνοχος, ὑπεύθυνος, χρεών στης Ενοφος, ὑπαίτιος, Τίμαιος. The first taken out of Hesychius, the last out of Suidas, corruptly and absurdly; corruptly evopos for evoxos; absurdly Tipalog is added either as an interpretation of evoxos, or as an author which used it; whereas Tiparos in Suidas is only the first word of the

our Saviour again," All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies where with soever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of (liable, obnoxious, or bound over to) eternal damnation." (Mark iii. 28, 29.) Whence appeareth clearly the guilt of sin and obligation to eternal punishment, if there be no remission or forgiveness of it; and the taking off that liableness, obnoxiousness, or obligation unto death, if there be any such remission or forgiveness: all which is evident by the opposition, much to be observed in our Saviour's expression, he hath never forgiveness, but is liable to eternal death.'

God, who hath the sovereign power and absolute dominion over all men, hath made a Law to be a perpetual and universal rule of human actions; which Law whosoever doth violate, or transgress, and thereby sin (for by sin we understand nothing else but the transgression of the Law), is thereby obliged in all equity to suffer the punishment due to that obliquity. And after the act of sin is committed and passed over, this guilt resulting from that act remaineth; that is, the person who committed it continueth still a debtor to the vindictive justice of God, and is obliged to endure the punishment due unto it; which was the second particular to be considered.

The third consideration now followeth, What is the forgiveness of sin, or in what remission doth consist; which at first appeareth to be an act of God towards a sinner, because the sin was committed against the Law of God; and therefore the punishment must be due from him, because the injury was done unto him. But what is the true notion or nature of this

sentence, provided by Suidas for the use of ἔνοχος in the signification of ὑπαίτιος. Agreeable unto Hesychius is that in the Lexicon of St. Cyril, evoxoç, obnoxius, reus, obligatus. And so in the place of St. Matthew, the · old translation, reus erit judicio. As in Virgil, Æn. v. 237. Constituam ante aras voti reus: Servius: voti reus, debitor. Unde vota solventes dicimus absolutos. Inde cst, (Ecl. v. 80.) Damnabis tu quoque votis, quasi reos facies.' So the Syriac, 5 from

obligatum, debitorem, reum esse. For indeed the word voxos among the Greeks, as to this matter, hath a double signification; one in respect of the sin, another in respect of the punishment due unto sin. In respect of a siu, was that in Antiphon, π. τοῦ Ἡρωδ. φον. p. 139, 36. ed. Steph. μὴ ὄντα φονέα, μηδὲ ἔνοχον τῷ ἔργῳ: and that in Aristotle, Econ. ii. de Dionys. Syrac. ἔνοχον ἔφησεν ἱεροσυλίας ἔσεσθαι: and that in Suidas taken out of Polybius:

Τίμαιος κατὰ τοῦ Ἐφόρου πεποίηται και ταδρομὴν αὐτὸς ὢν ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἁμαρτήμασιν ἔνοχος· τῷ μὲν, ὅτι πικρῶς κατηγόρει τῶν πέλας ἐπὶ τούτοις, οἷς αὐτὸς voxós kσtw. In respect of the punishment of a sin, he is evoxos apa, who is obnoxious to the curse, and ëvoxos èπɩripíois, obnoxious to the punishment. Εμποίνιμος, ἐμποίνιος, τούτεστιν, ἔνοχος ποινῇ, οἷον ἐφ ̓ οἷς ἥμαρτε δοὺς τιμωρίαν, saith Suidas. Thus evoxos Pavárov ori, Matt. xxvi. 66. Nis not in the intention of the Jews, he is in danger of death, but he deserveth death, and he ought to die; he is κarádukog, by their sentence, as far as in them lay, condemned to die. St. Chrysostom: Τί οὖν ἐκεῖνοι; ἔνοχός ἐστι θανάτου, ἵν ̓ ὡς κατάδικον λαβόντες, οὕτω τὸν Πιλάτον λοιπὸν ἀποφήνασθαι παρασκευάσωσιν· ὁ δὴ κακεῖνοι συνειδότες φασὶν, Ενοχος θανάτου ἐστὶν, αὐτοὶ κατηγοροῦντες, αὐτοὶ δικάζοντες, αὐτοὶ ψηφιζόμενοι, πάντα αὐτοὶ γινόμενοι τό Tε. Hom. 84.

act, or how God doth forgive a sinner, is not easy to determine; nor can it be concluded out of the words themselves which do express it, the niceties of whose origination will never be able to yield a just interpretation.*

For although the word signifying remission, have one sense among many other which may seem proper for this particular concernment; yet because the same word has been often used to signify the same action of God in forgiving sins, where it could have no such particular notion, but several times hath another signification tending to the same effect,† and as pro* The word used in the Creed is yet we have nothing to our present äpεois àμаpriv, and that generally purpose. But, fifthly, it is often taken likewise in use in the New Testament. for remittere, and that particularly in But from thence we cannot be assured relation to a debt, as Matt. xviii. 27. of the nature of this act of God, be- rò dávelov áóñкev avтÿ' and ver. 32. cause ἀφιέναι and ἄφεσις are capable πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἐκείνην ἀφῆκά σοι. of several interpretations. For some- Which acceptation is most remarktimes apiéval is emittere, and apɛois able in the year of release, Deut. xv. emissio. As Gen. xxxv. 18. Εγένετο 1, 2. Δι' ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν ποιήσεις ἄφεσιν. Καὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἀφιέναι αὐτὴν τὴν ψυχὴν, not οὕτω τὸ πρόσταγμα τῆς ἀφέσεως· ἀφήσεις cum demitteret eam anima, as it is πᾶν χρέος ἴδιον, ὃ ὀφείλει σοι ὁ πλησίον, translated, but cum emitteret ca ani- καὶ τὸν ἀδελφόν σου οὐκ ἀπαιτήσεις· mam, i. e. eflaret; as ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα, ἐπικέκληται γὰρ ἄφεσις Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ emisit spiritum, Matt. xxvii. 50. So σov. Now this remission or release Gen. xlv. 2. Kaì ápñкɛ pwvýv μɛrà of debts hath a great affinity with re*λavμoỡ, not dimisit, but emisit vocem mission of sins; for Christ himself hath cum fletu; as, ȧpeis pwvìjv pɛyáλny, conjoined these two together; and emissa voce magna, Mark xv. 37. In called our sins by the name of debts, the like manner åpέouis Jaλáoons are and promised remissions of sins to us emissiones maris, 2 Sam. xxii. 16. as, by God, upon our remission of debts ápéoɛiç vdáṛwv, Joel i. 20. to which to man. And therefore he hath taught sense may be referred that of Hesy- us thus to pray : "Apɛç ǹμìv rà ỏḍeiλýchius: ̓́Αφεσιν, ὕσπληγγα. And this in- ματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς terpretation of ἄφεσις can have no rela- ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν. Matt. vi. 12. Betion to the remission of sins. Second- sides, he hath not only made use of ly, ápúévai is often taken for permittere, the notion of debt, but any injury as Gen. xx. 6. ovк áóñká oε ü↓aola done unto a man, he calls a sin against avrns. Matt. iii. 15. äpeç ãprɩ and rórɛ man, and exhorteth to forgive those apínov avròy, which the Vulgar trans- sins committed against us, that God lated well, sine modo, and then ill, may forgive the sins committed by us, tunc dimisit eum. Matt, vii. 4. äpɛc which are injuries done to him, Luke ἐκβάλω, sine ejiciam; So Hesychius: xvii. 3. Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμάρτῃ εἴς σε ὁ ἀδελφός ἄφεσις, συγχώρησις. And this hath as σου, ἐπιτίμησον αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐὰν μετανοήσῃ, little relation to the present subject. äpɛç avτų. Thirdly, apeva is sometimes relinquere and deserere, as Gen. xlii. 33. ådeλpòv ëva äpete wde pet' éμov. Matt. v. 24. ãpeg ikeĩ rò dŵpóv σov. viii. 15. kai άoñкev avтηv ò rugeróc, xix, 27. idoũ, ýμet̃s ápýkaμev távra, xxvi. 56. τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν quyov. And in this acceptation it

+ We must not only look upon the propriety of the words used in the New Testament, but we must also reflect upon their use in the Old, especially in such subjects as did belong unto the Old Testament as well as the New. Now ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας is there used for the verb, as Isa, xxii. 14.

אם יכפר העון הזה לכם עד תמתון cannot explicate unto us what is

the true notion of ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας. Fourthly, It is taken for omittere, as Matt. xxii, 23. kaì ágýkate tà ßapúτερα τοῦ νόμου, and Luke xi. 42. ταῦτα ἔδει ποιῆσαι, κᾀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι, and

Οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται ὑμῖν αὕτη ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἕως av åπodávεTE' sometimes for the verb NW), as Gen. 1. 17, TX YUD NI NU ΟΛΝΤ άφες αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀδικίαν καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν· Psal. xxv. 18.