Temptations, Part 1 · Chapter 2
CHAP. 2. Of drawing aſide
QVeſtion is made, whether this firſt drawing of luſt be ſin, I ſay it is; for if luſt be ſin, then the effect of it muſt needs be ſin. Evill may come out of good by accident, but out of ſinne comes nothing but ſinne: Luſt is ſin and cauſe of ſin, and of nothing but ſin. Let it goe for a weake opinion of the Ieſuites,Summ. part 2. tract. 2. cap. 9. q. 3. & 8. who tell us of vicious things that are no ſin: for Becanus (no babe) doth confeſſe, that God doth hate this concupiſence with a true hatred, but (forſooth) not redounding on the perſon in whom this luſt is,Pſal. 45. … as though that were not ſin; and all that ſin, which God hateth, God can hate nothing but what is againſt his nature and will, and whatever is againſt his nature and will is ſin. Originall ſin is properly ſinne, and to make it a ſin it is enough that it is voluntary in the will of Adam ſoaVoluntate Adae. In ſent. Lib. 2. Diſt. 41. 4. 2. q. 1. in Reſoint, Bonaventure; Beſides, as ſoone as ever wee come to have the power to do it, we doe all give a full and a free conſent to that ſin and the motions of it, which after-conſent makes the ſin in the guilt of it the more ours: wee then have no excuſe left but to cry peccavi, and to fetch all from the ſin (as David did) in which we were conceived,Pſal. 51. 5. In originall ſin lies a tacite conſent (eminently) to all ſin.
2 Iames makes this drawing aſide to be a fruit of ſin, 2. to be a ſin, 3. to be a cauſe of ſin; therfore theſe drawings aſide are ſins.
3. They bee ſins whether wee like them or miſlike them,Aliquid dicitur voluntarium quia eſtab aliquo potente prohibere, non tamen prohibente, hic primus motus dicitur eſſe voluntarius. Bonav. l. 2. D. 41. Dub. 3. becauſe they are againſt the Law of God. For that which is urged that there is no conſent: I think there is ſome conſent: as the offers of the underſtanding are quicke, ſo the Acts of the will are quicke and ſudden. I rather ſay that there is ſome ſudden inchoate imperfect conſent given to all motions that ariſe:Semper in tentatione carnis eſt aliquis conſenſus. Durand. li. 2. Diſt. 21. q. 1. Num. 11. that an actuall ſin ſhould bee without all conſent I cannot conceive; Paul did ſin againſt his Iudgement I confeſſe; for ſo he meanes when hee ſaith, he did that hee would not: but to ſpeake in proper tearmes, he neither did, no, nor could ſinne, either without or againſt all motion, or any inclination of his will: Paul did ſin this ſinne with his will, for elſe hee would not do it, it was an act of his will, and it is impoſſible to coact and force the will of man; though the conſent makes it not properly a ſin, but rather our ſin to be imputed to us, yet I thinke ther is no motiō,Scot. l 3. Di… 34. Sect. Ad. arg. Abſolute nullus vitioſe agit, niſi ex deliberatione—Intelligere enim propter quod agit eſt deliberare, quaſi imperceptibiliter deliberat propter promtitudinem in Syllogizando practice. no firſt thought that riſeth out of our Luſt, but as the thought is, ſo the conſent is ſudden, ſhort, quicke, and almoſt inſenſible: a conſent ſuch as it is then, ever goes with our deſires, and motions; but ſay that they were unconſented to, yet being againſt the Law of God, ſins they are, and for ſins they muſt goe. For if concupiſcence it ſelfe, and Originall luſt be ſin, becauſe it is againſt the Law of God, then all the operations of it muſt alſo be of the ſame kind. By the way then they are deceived, who would faine ſay,Moulin. Anat. Armin. ca. 8. VVotton on Ioh. pag. 146. Can. relict. part. 4. that original ſin is not forbidden by the Law; Directly indeed and immediately it is not; but forbidden it is, becauſe it is condemned by Gods Lawes.That which Iames here cals Luſt, Paul Rom. 7. 8. names it ſin, ſin taking occaſion by that Commandement. Now the Law doth curſe none but ſuch as breake it: Originall ſinners the law doth curſe, and (if not in CHRIST,) God will damne; therefore they doe againſt the Law, and the Law then is given to them. Directly the Law forbids actions of ſinne,Praeelectio videtur eſſe maxime propria virtutis: & Iudicare mores magis, quam Actiones, Ariſt. Eth. l. 2. c. 2. by conſequence the Law forbids the habits of ſin: But to return, the Law of God is ſo pure and perfect, that it doth binde the moſt ſudden thoughts that ariſe, for thoughts being acts of a man, the whole man being bound, thoſe muſt needs ſtand bound; there ſin begins, and our thoughts are not free; thoughts of ſinne ariſing out of our Luſts are ſinfull thoughts: Conſent or not conſent, doth not make an act to bee ſimply a ſin or not a ſin: Sin is not defined to be a thing done with or againſt our aſſent, but againſt Gods Law, and Gods Law doth bind our very firſt and originall thoughts. A meere and ſingle apprehenſion or cogitation of a ſin ſuggeſted by another, is not ſtraight a ſin, for this was or I know might have beene in Chriſt; and Adam before his fall might dutifully have thought of the thing forbidden him without ſin, but the difference is, that in him they could not have riſen, as they doe in us on ſuch a ſudden, the ſudden moving of the thinking power, proves that they come from an evill fume and are not right: beſides in Adam there muſt have bin a perfect meditation of the naughtineſſe of them, and laſtly a true affection of perfect hatred of them, where as in the naturall man now, there is no hatred at all; in the moſt regenerate the hatred that is, is but in part; it commeth in nature ever, in time moſt an end after the motion: or if with it, yet that is not ſufficient, in Adam it would have beene antecedent to the thought of his minde.
Theſe drawings aſide, (moving the powers of our ſoules out of the right place,) diſlike wee them as much as we can, they are ſins forbidden in all the Commandements of God; for looke in what Commandement the finiſhed ſin is forbidden, in the ſame Commandement is the firſt motion of that ſin forbidden alſo. Neither in my minde doe they diſtinguiſh the Cōmandements aright, who reſerve theſe kind of ſins to the laſt Commandement. The Luſt St. Iames ſpeakes of, is forbidden, in all the ten Commandements; but theſe unconſented motions (as many cal them) are the drawings aſide of this luſt, and therefore forbidden in every Commandement as Luſt is. All deſires to a ſinne are forbidden, where the ſin it ſelfe is forbidden, the only argument for that opinion worth the while is out of Rom. 7. 7. I had not known Luſt (ſaith Paul,) except the Law had ſaid thou ſhalt not Luſt; that by Luſt Paul here meanes,The affirmative of the tenth Commandement is ſuch a contentation with our owne eſtate, as not to deſire ought of our neighbours; no not for our mony without his free conſent: to love our neighbour for degree fully as ones ſelfe, vid. Sum. of Divin. publiſhed by Mr. Downam. lib. 1. c. 14. a Luſt forbidden in one ſingle Commandement cannot be proved: but as the Law, that is the whole body and context of the Law, ſaith, thou ſhalt not Luſt, that is, thou ſhalt not ſin, ſin and Luſt being ſynonimaes: the word Luſt is as broad in extent as the word ſin. The reaſon by which many thinke to carry it, is in my opinion very weake; Paul (ſay they) did know when he was a Phariſie, that Luſts conſented unto were ſins; for the Philoſophers and heathens as blind as they were, ſaw ſo much, But here Paul ſpeakes of ſuch a Luſting which Paul had not known, had he not knowne the Law,Hic (id eſt precepto 20.) non prohibetur Ancilla pro uſu concubinae & uſu voluntatis, quia ſic prohibetur prohibitione qua prohibetur concupiſcentia carnis, ſed quantum ad ſervilem actum, & uſum utilitatis, Azmand De Bello viſu tract. 2. cap. 128. vid. Bonav. in 3. Sent. 14. Dub. 1. and therfore Paul takes the Law to forbid Luſt without conſent. Grant all this, and much is not made of it. That Paul did not know thoſe firſt motions (before his converſion) to be ſin is a truth, and that by the Law too, ſuch Luſts are forbidden is as true. Doth it follow then, that by the Law forbidding ſuch Luſts, muſt be meant the tenth or one diſtinct Commandement? Why may not the ſenſe run thus, that Paul did not know that in any of the Cōmandements ſuch Luſts were forbidden at all; but now being made a Convert, his eyes were ſo opened, that hee now ſaw ſuch luſts to be forbidden in every Commandement; as the firſt riſing to Idolatry in the firſt Commandement, & ſic in caeteris.
But now to anſwer all; I ſay that it is diſputable, whether the Philoſophers and Heathens did confeſſe Luſts conſented unto, to be ſin: if of all Luſts that Gods Law doth forbid, I flatly deny; many went with them for vertues, as to Luſt after the hurt of an enemy,Inimicos ulciſci potius quam illis reconciliari honeſtum cenſetur, Ariſt. is commended by the wiſeſt and pureſt of the heathens; and ſo in a world of Inſtances, as a man may ſee, in Ariſtotle, Plato, Seneca, and the reſt. If of any Luſts and deſires that goe no further than a meere inward conſent of the minde and will;Rhet-lib. 1. cap. 9. Philoſophers doe rather deny ſuch motions & affections to be vices, except they ſwel and rage, putting ſtill a difference betwixt paſſions and vices. But for Pauls caſe, it is not the like, hee was no morall Philoſopher but a Phariſie, and I affirme it, that Paul did hold that in ward motions conſented unto ever ſo much were no ſins at all. Tis too late to ſay that nature morallized and generally inlightened, is able to finde out ſuch conſented Luſts to bee ſins, for Paul was otherwiſe doctrinated,Homo ſaepe non poteſt apprehendere ver itatem quia illa ſequitur quibus eſt aſſuetus educa ti enim in ſcriptis quae inter ipſos magni fiunt. Sic ut prae a more illarum opinionum quibus quiſpiam innutritus eſt, ab illis dimoveri nequeat. Rabbi Maimon: More Nevochim. part. 1▪ ca. 31. his judgment was carried another way; it being the conſtant Tenet of the Schoole of the Phariſies to hold, that the Law of God did only forbid the outward action, without having to doe at all with any inward motion and affections whatſoever. This hee learn'd at the feet of Gamaliel: He was a Zelot among the Phariſies; and this was a Caſe among the Phariſes, received and beleeved by them all: that the inward deſires ſtood free and no way obligated by the Law of the Decalogue, give a man, what aſſent and conſent to them in the motions thereof he would.Act. 22. 3. This to have bin the generall and conſtant opinion of the Phariſes is made ſo plaine by Doctor Raynolds out of the fifth of Mathew, Phil. 3. 56.that there is no denying of it;Confer. c. 8. and therefore it was Pauls religion to hold,Dia 4. that deeds and acts onelyonly where ſins and not affections: And ſo wee conclude, that Paul had not knowne any inward Luſt whatſoever (albeit conſented unto with a free conſent, and liked of with a full delight) to have bin ſin, had not the Law ſaid, thou ſhalt not Luſt; and ſo for all this place of Paul, our aſſertion ſtands good, that in every commandement where the act of ſin is forbidden, there the motion of the ſame ſin is forbidden; aye the firſt motion, this drawing aſide ſpoken of by the Apoſtle S. Iames.